Je viens de poser la question de lenteur d'Osmand au groupe officiel Osmand chez Google.
groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/osmand
J'ai obtenu une réponse très éclairante.
***********************************************************************************
Almost all navigation apps are faster than OsmAnd (at least all I know and
I know a lot). Also on a phone. Mapfactor Navigator is extremely fast.
Magic Earth is also very fast. Etcetera, etcetera.
The computing power of the phone is not the issue. Of course it is less
than the datacenters of Google and Waze.
The issue is OsmAnd and its heuristic coefficient of 1.0. Not any other
application is doing that.
If I calculate a route in OsmAnd of 217 km with the default routing profile
(routing.xml), it takes 1m and 6~8 seconds.
If I calculate the exact same route with my routing profile with a
heuristic coefficient of 1.5, it takes 6~7 seconds to calculate
When calculating a route of 394 km, it was at 30% after 3 minutes with the
original routing.xml
With my routing.xml it took 15~16 seconds.
I used to need to do some "tweaking" to make this work.
Since version 3.5.4, with a very buggy 3.5.5, and now a stable 3.6.2 you
can define profiles.
Now it is a piece of cake to use another routing.xml on top of the default.
I have already written many mails about this in the past 6 years, and
lately another series when profiles were introduced in OsmAnd and shared my
several profiles.
So much for phone computing power and a way over the top calculation
algorithm (my point ov view).
*********************************************************************************
Donc
- c'est un choix d'Osmand d'être lent. Reste à savoir pourquoi. Quels avantages et quel inconvénients ?
- il est possible de définir un profil sous la forme d'un fichier en langage XML.
- Harry partage ses profils plus rapides. Reste à savoir les désavantages d'un profil plus rapide. Une moindre qualité ?
On avance.