One of the most disappointing aspects of ArcGlobe (aside from performance) is the default view.
ArcGlobe
This was probably fine back in the late 90’s when GIS professionals just didn’t know any better, but now with Google Earth becoming the standard of digital globes, implementing ArcGlobe becomes difficult given that you don’t get much good data out of the box (we expect all this satellite imagery as free don’t you know). A client of ours asked how they could get ArcGlobe to look and work like Google Earth, specifically the 3D airspace we created for them. Since the airspace was a 3D shapefile, it didn’t take more than a second to load it in to ArcGlobe for them to see. The response was less than enthusiastic given what they were expecting. Google Earth by default has all the imagery they want…
Google Earth
Of course I was able to quickly export the shapefile to Google Earth using Arc2Earth, but we were running it on the clients personal laptop because they can’t run Google Earth at their place of work. I fired up ArcGIS Explorer to show him what was coming on line from ESRI, but he then asked if that data will be available in ArcGlobe. I didn’t think that was the plan, but wouldn’t ArcGlobe be so more useful if it had access to the same datasets as ArcGIS Explorer below?
ArcGIS Explorer 9.2 Build 306
updated grammer
17 responses so far ↓
1
Ray Carnes
// Oct 23, 2006 at 5:05 pm
James,
Users can access ArcGIS Services through any one of the ArcGIS Desktop 9.2 products (ArcInfo, ArcEditor, ArcView, or ArcReader) in addition to ArcGIS Explorer 9.2.
Full details at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/about/arcgisservices.html
Ray.
2
James Fee
// Oct 23, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Yea I know that, but what about the default view?
The starting point of ArcGlobe is so far behind the times.
3
JME
// Oct 23, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Interesting thread from a year ago that brings up a lot of these same issues.
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/31399/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1
4
Randy H.
// Oct 24, 2006 at 5:32 am
Google Earth has certainly raised the bar of what the public, and more importantly, our clients expect GIS to look like. The days of showing polylines over flat images and expecting people to be impressed are over.
5
Al
// Oct 24, 2006 at 6:14 am
ESRI should roll 3D Analyst into the core ArcView product. It seems ridiculous to have to spend $4,0000 to get a crappy looking globe with ArcView. At least give us the same 3D capabilities that will be found in the free ArcGIS Explorer.
6
Mark
// Oct 24, 2006 at 10:05 am
Effect, not affect…
7
James Fee
// Oct 24, 2006 at 10:12 am
Mark you are wrong.Affect means “to influence” and Google Earth is influencing the use of ArcGlobe.You would be correct if I said the Google Earth effect, but Google Earth affects ArcGlobe.Actually Mark is correct. I did write it differently before I simplified the title, but affect is used as a noun here and in that case it is effect.
8
David Davis
// Oct 24, 2006 at 10:14 am
People always get affect vs effect wrong. I belive James used it correctly.
“To affect something is to change or influence it, To effect something is a rather formal way of saying `to make it happen’. Confusingly, either may produce an ‘effect’ or result.”
via: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/affect
9
Chris Medlin
// Oct 24, 2006 at 8:34 pm
It is worth noting the licencing conditions for use of Google Earth (Plus or Free). (”The what?” I hear you say…)Google states at the outset that…
“1. USE OF SOFTWARE
The Software is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Software or the geographical information made available for display using the Software, or any prints or screen outputs generated with the Software in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties…” (http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=34344&topic=1141)
That’s fairly plain.
ESRI software is available for commercial use. And as such the providers of imagery data products (who are probably providing millions of dollars worth of imagery data to Google) would be somewhat reluctant I imagine to licence their data to ESRI for use in an application which ESRI sells (at a significant premium over and above Google Earth Pro) and others in turn are likely to use for their own commercial gain (or non-personal, commercial use at least).
Whether or not Google has the capacity to bring to heal all those who are flouting the Google Earth licence conditions is a different story. However, if it came down to it, I suspect that I wouldn’t want to have Google on my tail!
10
SGD
// Oct 25, 2006 at 6:09 am
It’ll be interesting to see if Google one day decides to implement, say, the 20 most common geospatial functions in GE, even at the enterprise price point (if not the free version). Add that along with the ability to make a nice map layout. That’s probably all 50% of AV license holders need. How would ESRI respond to that?
11 ArcGIS Online - Bigger news to ESRI users than ArcGIS Explorer at James Fee GIS Blog // Nov 28, 2006 at 9:39 pm
[...] I think the big news of the night is ArcGIS Online. I commented a while back about the sorry state of the default ArcGlobe and how ESRI should offer up some nice looking globes for users to use. Well now you have it. On ArcGIS Online, ESRI is offering up MXDs, ArcGlobe Documents, Layer files and PMF (ArcReader) documents for you to use with your projects. Plus because ArcGIS Online is an ArcGIS Server service, you can connect directly from ArcCatalog. [...]
12
Ryan Miksch
// Apr 24, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I think the real winner is The Magic Planet digital video globe by Global imagination
13
will jones
// Oct 26, 2007 at 5:59 am
Google Earth ought to let businesses and Gov utilize their free version. Google Earth is mostly utilizing free data or low cost data to populate the aerial photography it is utilizing. Essentially GE is getting free or spending less than a $2000 per set for multi-million dollar rectified orthophotography. For example, the Indiana set is the 2003 leaf on flyover and was probably downloaded for free from the Indiana Spatial Data portal. Mosaics from the free download have issues that the purchased sets do not. Even if Google purchased the data it is relatively cheap- $1600 will buy you the full resolution 3 band color, near infrared and elevation data for the 2005 NAIP or you can download it for free. So I do not feel sorry for GE. They have a hefty licensing fee for a relatively simple product where they get over $90,000,000 worth of data for free. These flyovers typically run 3-5 million, so if just 30 States (low ball) produce the product and offer if for free (most States do), GE is making out like a bandit.
14
KoS
// Oct 26, 2007 at 6:35 am
Will correction…GE uses the 05 Indiana imagery. Unless they recently regressed. Plus you are confusing the two. The 05 imagery was done by IGIC through a Homeland Security grant, which provided the true-color, IR and elevation data to the public. NOT NAIP, that is a Dept of Ag program. The 03 imagery is NAIP.
One thing to note, the center areas of Indianapolis isn’t the 05 imagery. Not sure why they clipped small areas and replaced it with a different date.
GE didn’t download the 05. It was provided to them and MS by IGIC. Then again, maybe they downloaded the stuff before receiving the hard drives with the data.
KoS
15
KoS
// Oct 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm
One correction to what I said. I forgot to add.
The 05 state imagery is found in both GE and VE. The clipping I mentioned before, is done in VE not GE. At least since the last time I looked, a month or so ago.
KoS
16
Jason Birch
// Oct 31, 2007 at 11:36 pm
You’re commenting on a pretty old thread. The current version of the Google Earth license agreement allows use for internal business purposes:
http://earth.google.com/intl/en/license.html
17
jorge alejandro
// Aug 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm
tengo muchas ganas de aprender por favor
Leave a Comment