POST
|
Idea: Attribute Table — Show annotation SHAPE as Annotation, not Polygon
... View more
59m ago
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
IDEA
|
Thanks @marksm_macomb and @CharlesGrant. @dolson_farmington and @MErikReedAugusta might find this interesting.
... View more
an hour ago
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
POST
|
When releasing a new version of Pro, benchmark GP tool execution times against previous version "The specific issue you've brought up was introduced in Pro 2.9.6 and 3.1 and has been addressed in the coming release of ArcGIS Pro 3.3"
... View more
2 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
IDEA
|
I came across an issue in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12 where the Make Route Event Layer geoprocessing tool was much slower than previous versions (2.6.8). Route Event Layers — Slow performance in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12, but not in 2.6.8 That performance issue is a significant problem for my unit. We can't upgrade from 2.6.8 to 2.9.12 because route event layers are unuseable in 2.9.12. (My organization will upgrade to 3.x eventually; that's beyond my control.) I'm wondering if that kind of performance issue could have been caught by doing something like the following: When testing/releasing a new version of Pro, benchmark GP tool execution times against a previous version of Pro to find issues. Could that be incorporated into existing automated Esri testing mechanisms? For example, if that had been done, then it would have been clear that the Make Route Event Layer tool is significantly slower in 2.9.12 compared to previous versions. That would have raised a red flag, and Esri could have addressed the Route Event Layer performance issues before releasing 2.9.12.
... View more
4 hours ago
|
0
|
1
|
123
|
IDEA
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; Oracle 18c 10.7.1 EGDB; SDE.ST_GEOMETRY: I sometimes have issues where I can't copy/paste a FC via Catalog. I get this error: Copy Failed Message [Error]: ERROR 000260: Shape integrity error Failed to execute (CopyMultiple). After some troubleshooting, I realized that the shape integrity error is actually an error in a related annotation FC, not the FC I right-clicked and copied in Catalog. (The annotation FC is being copied because there is a relationship class.) It would have saved me a lot of time if the error message told me the issue was with the annotation FC. Could that error messaging be improved to show the name of the FC the error came from? Related: Find & repair problem ST_GEOMETRY rows — "Shape integrity error" What is CopyMultiple? (Catalog copy/paste shape integrity error) Esri Case #03605230 - What is CopyMultiple? (Catalog copy/paste shape integrity error)
... View more
4 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
78
|
IDEA
|
@JesseWickizer In your screenshot, if the annotation FC is feature-linked, then why is the Related feature class name field blank?
... View more
4 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
32
|
IDEA
|
Thanks @JesseWickizer. I don't see the Annotation section in the Properties > Source of an annotation feature class in 2.9.12: So maybe that's new functionality that's been added in a later version.
... View more
4 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
34
|
IDEA
|
Another idea could be to grey-out the non-editable area (the area that's outside of the projection).
... View more
5 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
POST
|
I think the problem is an annotation feature class. The annotation FC gets automatically copied with the main point FC due to a relationship class. The reason I think the problem is the annotation FC: I can add the annotation FC to a map without errors. And the annotations show up in the map if I zoom in. However, when I open the attribute table and navigate to the last row, I get an error: Failed to load data. Error: Shape integrity error I haven't determined the cause of that error yet.
... View more
5 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
11
|
IDEA
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; File Geodatabase: I have a feature-linked annotation FC. When I create new annotation features for existing lines, I need to manually populate the annotation's Feature ID field in order to link the annotation feature to the line feature. Idea: Instead of manually entering the Feature ID, click the existing line to automatically create a linked annotation. Video:
... View more
6 hours ago
|
0
|
1
|
89
|
IDEA
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; Oracle 18c 10.7.1 EGDB: As far as I can tell, there isn't a way to determine in the Catalog properties if an annotation feature class is feature-linked or not. Could that functionality be added? If I understand correctly, the presence of a relationship class doesn't necessarily indicate that the annotation is feature-linked.
... View more
6 hours ago
|
0
|
5
|
105
|
IDEA
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; File Geodatabase (and Oracle 18c 10.7.1 EGDB): I've created an annotation FC using the Create Feature Class wizard in Catalog: The annotation FC is shown as SHAPE = Polygon in the attribute table. Idea: Show the SHAPE as Annotation, not Polygon. I think that would be more intuitive. Related: Annotation shown as SHAPE=Polygon in attribute table
... View more
6 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
64
|
POST
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; file geodatabase: I have a line FC and a feature-linked annotation FC. When I create a line, an annotation feature gets automatically created, which is expected. But the annotation feature's STATUS field is 'Unplaced'; an annotation is not displayed in the map. How can I place an unplaced annotation in ArcGIS Pro? Video:
... View more
6 hours ago
|
0
|
0
|
80
|
POST
|
ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12; File Geodatabase (and Oracle 18c 10.7.1 EGDB): I've created a feature-linked annotation FC using the Create Feature Class wizard in Catalog: Why is the annotation FC shown as SHAPE = Polygon in the attribute table? I would have expected the SHAPE to be Annotation, not Polygon.
... View more
7 hours ago
|
0
|
2
|
46
|
POST
|
I found Route Event Layers were extremely slow in some versions of Pro, like 2.9.12. Removing the geoprocessing history from the FC metadata helped a lot, but it was still slow compared to other versions, so it was clearly a bug. Route Event Layers — Slow performance in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.12, but not in 2.6.8 Maybe upgrading to a newer version of Pro would help.
... View more
yesterday
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
Title | Kudos | Posted |
---|---|---|
1 | yesterday | |
1 | Friday | |
1 | a week ago | |
2 | 2 weeks ago | |
3 | a week ago |