Latest Contributions by DavidWheelock2

That's a great idea, Thomas.  That should be baked into the solution when it comes. ... View more

Great!  Can you subscribe me to that bug? ... View more

Thank you, Peter Klingman.  Will you post a link to the corrected/improved documentation here, when that occurs? ... View more

I understand and agree with the nature of that request that you cite above.  If I had seen it I would have up-voted it.  I completely agree that if I have made two layers transparent then I'm happy to have them be additive.  This is the expected behavior in ArcMap, too. HOWEVER, that's different from what your developers have done here.  What they have done is take layers to which I have assigned 0% opacity and reassigned them the opacity of the group layer to which they belong.  That's what's wrong, here. ... View more

Here are two examples.  In both, the group layer has 50% transparency and is above a TOPO layer.  We're looking at the edge of the upper layer of imagery running across the middle of the image. As you can see, the imagery in Pro is much less distinct in the upper part of the image where the two layers of imagery are fused. An additional very significant issue that I see here is this: With ArcGIS Pro, after all of the sub-layers have been made transparent, they are added together and their opacity seems to be the sum of their values, so the resulting opacity for the group layer is greater than it should be and the transparency is less than it should be, not truly 50%. With ArcMap, the whole group layer is drawn and then that image is made transparent, so the whole image for the group layer is truly 50%. This is really going to be a significant issue for those who finely tune their maps.  They may not be the majority, but they are your users who are serious about their maps. ArcMap ArcGIS Pro ... View more

A simple one that you can easily replicate there is this.    For aerial imagery, I normally have a group layer comprised of our high resolution imagery for the city and, underneath, statewide or global imagery.  This is so that when I pan to the edge of the extent of our imagery, the global imagery beneath enables me to continue panning and still have imagery.  I don't want to see the global imagery through our local imagery.  I only want it to appear after I have reached the edge of our imagery. I like having the imagery in a group layer, so that I can turn the imagery on and off with a single click, and also to make the "imagery" group layer transparent and have something underneath that. ... View more

Wow!  Thanks for all of that research and the time you spent documenting this. I know you probably have a long list, but every time you have an "ArcMap equivalency" issue, please create an Idea or a Question here on GeoNet and put the words "ArcMap equivalency" in the Tags section of your post. I, too, began with ESRI in the "good old days".  I began at ArcINFO 7.X and ArcView 1.0 to 3.X.  My first exposure to ArcGIS Desktop came at 8.2, which started at 8.  I remember my first impressions of ArcGIS 8.2 were that I liked it right away.  It was immediately the equal of ArcView 3 in basic functionality.  I do remember some challenges learning to burrow down through all of ArcMap's forms for labelling and other things.  It did take time for ESRI to add all of the geoprocessing tools, but ESRI was very clear on that and gave periodic updates to let everyone know where they were at with what we would now call "ArcINFO equivalency".  NOT that ArcMap has been a bed of roses, unless you count the thorns.  Don't get me started on bugs!  But as I've heard Jack comment at the conference, ArcGIS is the largest software implementation on the Microsoft platform IN THE WORLD.  So, bugs just go with the territory. I think that ESRI's big challenge here is that the ArcMap user interface is soooooooooo much more complicated and sophisticated than what came before it.  A LOT of fine tuning has gone into it over nearly two decades and it works pretty well.  Every check-box and input parameter has a user who asked for that and users who depend on it.  So, much thought has gone into ArcMap over the years that has not yet occurred to the ArcGIS Pro developers.  So, stuff has been left out. The big frustration is that we have to document every feature that was already there in ArcMap just to get the fabled ArcMap equivalency.  I wonder if ESRI could/has assigned a team to comb through all of ArcMap's menus, forms, tools, etc. in order to verify that every feature in ArcMap has equivalent functionality in ArcGIS Pro, and that if a feature has been left out, to document why it has been left out.  Has this occurred? ... View more

Yes, that's correct.  In both ArcMap and Pro I have, the following, with the results displayed above. Group layer 75% Transparency Parcels 0% Transparency Imagery 0% Transparency I understand that Kory has already helped you work through this. ... View more

Regarding the documentation that you posted, is that the only place that this is mentioned in ESRI documentation, buried in small print at the end of a paragraph? There should be a prominent table with bullet points showing what types of data apply to the usage credit limit and which do not. It's like a credit card with a credit limit and then saying that you can buy all you want of this other thing and the credit limit doesn't apply. ... View more

This is a MAJOR issue.  Last year, most of our ArcGIS Online credits were consumed by a few users who uploaded large amounts of test data and didn't delete it.  All of those users had a 50 credit limit that should have prevented this.  This year it almost happened again.   ESRI has GOT to provide a way to limit usage of data storage credits. Here's a question where I describe the issue we had in detail. Why aren't ArcGIS Online data usage credits charged to a user's credit limit?  ... View more

I have up-voted the idea that you recommended above. This is a MAJOR issue.  Last year, most of our ArcGIS Online credits were consumed by a few users who uploaded large amounts of test data and didn't delete it.  All of those users had a 50 credit limit that should have prevented this.  This year, as you can see, it almost happened again. ESRI has GOT to provide a way to limit usage of data storage credits. ... View more

OK, Marco, you win.   But to repeat my comment below, ESRI has found a problem that was slowing down labeling in Pro and a fix is forthcoming in 2.5.  Also, more improvements in future versions. I'm holding my breath. ... View more

Yes.  ESRI reported to me that it has has found the cause of the labeling performance problems that I reported above and the fix will be in 2.5. https://community.esri.com/message/893480-re-arcgis-pro-242-in-general-arcpro-has-less-performance-than-arcmap?commentID…  There is reason for hope.  ... View more