Boat in build pics (2013 Fairline Squadron 78)

[sarabande]

Hi Sara,

The test of the screen working through a piece of paper (well, any physical barrier) is to see how sensitive the touch-screen is. It's a good showroom test to indicate if you're using a good quality touch screen or not. Naturally, the thicker the barrier through which the screen works, the better the quality.

Sorry but I do not see that "the thicker the barrier, the better the screen" as a logically convincing argument. I'd be looking at the precision and accuracy of an unmediated (i.e. no barrier) screen response to digital or pointer input, not the ability of a screen to resolve someone pressing an (unseen and therefore presenting invisible data) screen through a piece of paper. Any barrier is likely to increase latency, and reduce any form of haptic response or feedback.




(PS I like the shoes response )

 

[Elessar]

Hi jfm,

I have have an update for you;
The TZ Touch runs at a really awkward resolution (16:9) and we only have one display which will worth with that at present, which is our 26".. However, Furuno recommends this display with their system and it is at the top of the recommendation list!

16:9 is an aspect ratio not a resolution but of course you know that. But what is awkward about the most common display screen aspect ratio in the world? I don't mean nav display, I mean display.

 

[Groot T]

Sorry but I do not see that "the thicker the barrier, the better the screen" as a logically convincing argument. I'd be looking at the precision and accuracy of an unmediated (i.e. no barrier) screen response to digital or pointer input, not the ability of a screen to resolve someone pressing an (unseen and therefore presenting invisible data) screen through a piece of paper. Any barrier is likely to increase latency, and reduce any form of haptic response or feedback.




(PS I like the shoes response )

Ahh - sorry Sara, I didn't quantify 'better screen'. When I say 'better screen', I'mm talking about the sensitivity of the predictive capacitive touch. Accuracy of the display is the easy part, in fact any screen proposed for navigation purposes, or one would hope, should be 100% accurate in relation to where one is placing their finger. The difficult part is in getting a high quality Predictive Capacity touch screen for the user to use, which is exactly what Hatteland bring to the party. Though the proof is definitely in the pudding.
If you're going to either SeaWorks or Southampton Boat show, I would be happy to go through this with you. Might event have a mini-fridge on the stand for Forumites..

I'm glad you liked the Shoe response.

16:9 is an aspect ratio not a resolution but of course you know that. But what is awkward about the most common display screen aspect ratio in the world? I don't mean nav display, I mean display.

Hi Elessar, the main reason why a aspect ratio of 16:9 is not widely available in the maritime market is due to lack of the demand. Currently the leisure market is requiring a few 16:9 displays (1920 x 1080, etc). The commercial market, our main market, is still mainly wanting 4:3. Most software is written to that, Radars output to that, fish finders, ECDIS systems, etc. So unlike with a PC where we can easily adjust window sizes to take advantage of wide-screen, the Maritime market is sluggish because all software has to be re-written and then re-approved for that purpose. Which is both time and money hungry.
Transas / Sperry are currently using our 24" Series-X Panal PC (aspect ratio of 16:10) for some of their latest software. But 16:9 kit will start to become the norm as the traditional 4:3 panels will start to become obsolete.

Hope that helps answer your question!

Toby

 

[Elessar]

Hi Elessar, the main reason why a aspect ratio of 16:9 is not widely available in the maritime market is due to lack of the demand. Currently the leisure market is requiring a few 16:9 displays (1920 x 1080, etc). The commercial market, our main market, is still mainly wanting 4:3. Most software is written to that, Radars output to that, fish finders, ECDIS systems, etc. So unlike with a PC where we can easily adjust window sizes to take advantage of wide-screen, the Maritime market is sluggish because all software has to be re-written and then re-approved for that purpose. Which is both time and money hungry.
Transas / Sperry are currently using our 24" Series-X Panal PC (aspect ratio of 16:10) for some of their latest software. But 16:9 kit will start to become the norm as the traditional 4:3 panels will start to become obsolete.

Hope that helps answer your question!

Toby

only sort of. It's cheaper to adapt software, than develop new hardware. It's free to put the old soltware on a widescreen with black bands either side, awaiting software upgrade.

To develop and produce screens for low volumes just keeps prices high. To deploy relatively mass market screens gets them down. The lack of demand is chicken and egg.

 

[Groot T]

only sort of. It's cheaper to adapt software, than develop new hardware. It's free to put the old soltware on a widescreen with black bands either side, awaiting software upgrade.

To develop and produce screens for low volumes just keeps prices high. To deploy relatively mass market screens gets them down. The lack of demand is chicken and egg.

I don't disagree with you, at all. Getting screens out there with lower prices to achieve higher volumes will help, or vice versa. Hatteland have the biggest share in the approved Maritime PCs and Displays market, but their turnover is only $50million US. So it's definitely a niche.
Also, Hatteland won't change to a new technology unless it is absolutely guaranteed to continue to be available for a very long time. They're very proud of keeping the mechanics and capabilities of the screens the same for continuity purposes. My customers are always amazed when they have an 8yr old TFT which has died and I have a drop in replacement. Apparently this is something incredibly rare in the maritime world!

And this is purely guesswork, so don't quote me on it, but if everything is setup to be 4:3 and it is expensive to upgrade to utalise the latest technology (be it for the screen manufacturers, software writers, etc), then why change?
in addition, we have seen widescreen change from 16:10 to 16:9, there is no guarantee it'll stay there in the next 5 - 10 years, so no need to change just yet.
But as I said, that is only personal opinion, not an official line from Hatteland because it could be hugely inaccurate, but is just my gut feeling / experience.

P.S. Heading to bed, look forward to reading your reply in the morning!

 

[MapisM]

Will post any findings, of course...

Following up for BartW, and anyone else interested of course: I got in touch with a CMC folk.

The engineer in charge wasn't in, but I got some first indications you might be interested in, anyway.
In fact, he confirmed me that among small(ish...!) boats, they installed their stabs on the SL72.
Whose dimentions aren't much far from BA - see link:
http://www.sanlorenzoyacht.com/range/sl72/layout

And on that hull, the equipment they use draws 3.5kW per fin (nominal absorption).
I think the total of 7kW is pretty reasonable for the kind of gensets normally installed on boats of this size.
Btw, when used at rest, also hydraulic systems require a substantial AC pump, whose absorption is in that order of magnitude anyway.
One thing to consider though is that at zero speed there can be occasional peak demands up to 1.6/1.7 times the nominal current absorption, so the genset must be able to cope with that.
Otoh, the average absorption is actually in the 4kW range.
And the current required is even lower while cruising, depending on sea conditins of course.
He also told me that they actually use brushless three-phase motors, and if three-phase power is available onboard the total nominal absorption is about 4 rather than 7kW.
But if the genset is NOT three-phase (as typical on boats of this size), the same motors can also work directly with single-phase, with no need to install a converter.

A system definitely worth considering, imho - even more so for retrofitting, but not only.

With apologies to jfm for the o/t, though in a build thread which covers as many technicalities as this one, hardly anything is really o/t...

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I totally disagree with you on this one, Mike.
Don't get me wrong - I DO have paper charts
But if you were to ask me if I ever use them - the answer is a definite NO.

Actually Mike, the original comment referred to plotting a route in Croatia where there are so many islands and assorted rock outcrops that it is difficult to visualise on a plotter screen the most direct route from one destination to another. A plotter screen or computer screen simply isn't large enough and if you decrease the scale then the detail is lost, sometimes dangerously so. So, if I have a longish passage to plan in Croatia I do scrawl a few lines on a paper chart simply because its so much larger than a plotter screen and therefore much better for visualising a long passage. In the W Med, I rarely did this because passages are much simpler but, in Croatian waters, you really have to be on your mettle
And I do still always have a paper chart at whatever helm station I'm using because I don't altogether trust electronic cartography (yes I know you use scanned charts) as I have come across too many examples of inaccuracies in electronic cartography. I like to know where I am at all times on both the plotter and the paper chart. I certainly don't trust electronic cartography for close quarters pilotage into harbours and anchorages and I will certainly be using paper charts and a pilot book to confirm my position, as well as the plotter
Then there is the issue of the loss of GPS signal or simply the plotter screen going blank. I have had occasional problems on my current boat with loss of GPS signal and, although I haven't experienced it for years, plotters do sometimes go blank due to loss of power. I may be old fashioned (or a fuddy duddy!) but I don't like to rely 100% on electronics unless I really have to

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Following up for BartW, and anyone else interested of course: I got in touch with a CMC folk.

Thanks, thats interesting. Did he say anything about the relative costs of buying and fitting hydraulic and electric stabs?

 

[MapisM]

Nope M, we didn't go that far.
Actually, my gut feeling is that they are not willing to compete mainly on a cost basis, which in a sense is a good thing.
But just thinking of the number and type of components involved in a hydraulic vs. an electric system, the latter is bound to be less expensive.
Not to mention the simpler installation - even in a new build, let alone in retrofitting!

 

[BartW]

Nope M, we didn't go that far.
Actually, my gut feeling is that they are not willing to compete mainly on a cost basis, which in a sense is a good thing.
But just thinking of the number and type of components involved in a hydraulic vs. an electric system, the latter is bound to be less expensive.
Not to mention the simpler installation - even in a new build, let alone in retrofitting!

I have exactly the same feeling,
I've just asked them for a quote

 

[jfm]

Hi jfm,

I have have an update for you;
The TZ Touch runs at a really awkward resolution (16:9) and we only have one display which will worth with that at present, which is our 26".. However, Furuno recommends this display with their system and it is at the top of the recommendation list!

Raymarine, they use the Hatteland 12, 15 & 19" Hatteland Series-X displays but are only available in high-bright.

Garmin 8000 Series.
This system runs on a standard 4:3 (1280 x 1024) setup which makes things very easy.
The only piece of info I have managed to uncover about the MFD screens is they go very bright, up to 1,200 NITS.
I can't unearth any more info about their screens at the moment.

Points where I know Hatteland are just amazing;
Incredible touch screen technology. The test here is to see if the screen will register your touch through paper. I've had mine work through a glossy brochure cover..!
Deals with sunlight in the most efficient way possible, called Optical Bonding, and will never give dust build-up or condensation issues.
Day-light viewable displays are 1,000 NITS. This is very bright. Combine this with Optical bonding and you're streaks ahead.
Type Approval / continuity,
Finally, Price. We're a good thousand, if not more, less than anything else on the market which offers the same sort of performance as ours.

In short - Hatteland are streaks ahead.

Also, here is a picture of a 15" high-bright screen which is only 800 NITS. Half of it is in strong Norweagan sunlight (taken over the summer) and the other half is in a shadow. Note how dull the Apple display looks in the background.
As I said before, its how you cope with the light bouncing / reflecting off the screen, not just make the back-light brighter.

Hi Toby. Thanks for update. Gotta admit here that I'm sceptical about the benefits of a screen that can be "touched" through paper though! My only reaction is, honestly, "so what?". I'm looking forward to Garmin 8000. Given that their 7000 series had a fantastic touch screen since 2-3 years ago, i reckon that 8000 will be the best there is

 

[jfm]

Touch screens imho are okay when you are in your home berth - But when at sea in a force 4 plus is not very practical especially when you may end up in a force 6+ - Try hitting the screen then

I'd very much say each to their own on that T. Having had touch screens (Ray and Garmin) on my last 2 boats and having used them on several other people's boats, since 2009, I would never go back to buttons on the side now. I've never had any problems using touch screens in heavy seas

 

[Cardo]

I'd very much say each to their own on that T. Having had touch screens (Ray and Garmin) on my last 2 boats and having used them on several other people's boats, since 2009, I would never go back to buttons on the side now. I've never had any problems using touch screens in heavy seas

Whilst my use is on a very much more basic scale, I do like the whole "Hybrid" thing the modern Raymarine plotters are rocking. It's nice to have a choice between touching the screen or using the buttons.

 

[jfm]

Following up for BartW, and anyone else interested of course: I got in touch with a CMC folk.

The engineer in charge wasn't in, but I got some first indications you might be interested in, anyway.
In fact, he confirmed me that among small(ish...!) boats, they installed their stabs on the SL72.
Whose dimentions aren't much far from BA - see link:
http://www.sanlorenzoyacht.com/range/sl72/layout

And on that hull, the equipment they use draws 3.5kW per fin (nominal absorption).
I think the total of 7kW is pretty reasonable for the kind of gensets normally installed on boats of this size.
Btw, when used at rest, also hydraulic systems require a substantial AC pump, whose absorption is in that order of magnitude anyway.
One thing to consider though is that at zero speed there can be occasional peak demands up to 1.6/1.7 times the nominal current absorption, so the genset must be able to cope with that.
Otoh, the average absorption is actually in the 4kW range.
And the current required is even lower while cruising, depending on sea conditins of course.
He also told me that they actually use brushless three-phase motors, and if three-phase power is available onboard the total nominal absorption is about 4 rather than 7kW.
But if the genset is NOT three-phase (as typical on boats of this size), the same motors can also work directly with single-phase, with no need to install a converter.

A system definitely worth considering, imho - even more so for retrofitting, but not only.

With apologies to jfm for the o/t, though in a build thread which covers as many technicalities as this one, hardly anything is really o/t...

No apols needed! These electric stabs sound very interesting. Definitely easier to install as a retrofit, provided you have the "headroom" for the tall motor and gearbox. It will be interesting to hear how BartW gets on with them as retrofits on BA.

I would be interested to understand how the CMC system reacts when a waves hits the boat at anchor. From watching the hydraulic stabs, they react VERY fast. With an electric system, the torque of the genset needs to increase almost instantly and I don't know if the genset's reaction is fast enough, or whether the stab makers have been forced to write algorithms that limit the reactivity of the fins. With a hydrualic system you use a pressure reservoir to allow for "instant" demand and this provides a couple of seconds of "cover" for the genset to torque up

 

[jfm]

Whilst my use is on a very much more basic scale, I do like the whole "Hybrid" thing the modern Raymarine plotters are rocking. It's nice to have a choice between touching the screen or using the buttons.

My first touchscreens were 2010 jobs on a squadron 58 - three Raymarine E140w. These were hybrid, but I found i never used the hard buttons because the touch was so good. Next boat, Match1, had touch-only Garmin and I loved those and would never have used buttons if they had them. I just think the buttons are a bit ancient history now because pure touch is so good. But each to their own

 

[gjgm]

My first touchscreens were 2010 jobs on a squadron 58 - three Raymarine E140w. These were hybrid, but I found i never used the hard buttons because the touch was so good. Next boat, Match1, had touch-only Garmin and I loved those and would never have used buttons if they had them. I just think the buttons are a bit ancient history now because pure touch is so good. But each to their own

I wondered whether something more tactile such as a hard button would be of benefit when bouncing about, but with touchscreen you can brace your wrist on the plotter frame and effectivly achieve the same as with a hard button.
I havent found weather or spray an issue either. If you need gloves, you need the ones witha silver tab on the finger, but ...
I can also say that I havent found any problem with touchscreen only.

 

[geoid96]

I'm in process of getting used to my new TZ Touch and am finding that I'm using about 90% touchscreen and 10% rotokey. The latter is mainly for quick screen selection and works very well. I've yet to use it in conditions that would cause me to 'bounce around', but don't believe, even in a vessel somewhat smaller than a Sqadron 78, that will be too much problem.

 

[jfm]

with touchscreen you can brace your wrist on the plotter frame and effectivly achieve the same as with a hard button.
I havent found weather or spray an issue

+1. BTW, the Garmin touch works perfectly ok when the screen and/or your fingers are wet

 

[jfm]

I'm in process of getting used to my new TZ Touch and am finding that I'm using about 90% touchscreen and 10% rotokey. The latter is mainly for quick screen selection and works very well. I've yet to use it in conditions that would cause me to 'bounce around', but don't believe, even in a vessel somewhat smaller than a Sqadron 78, that will be too much problem.

Geoid96, i and several others on here would be interested to hear how you find TZ, after you've got used to it. I looked hard at it and thought it was seriously clever stuff. The two-fingered actions were nice (pinch to zoom etc) and the graphics look fantastic. Plus, the black glass look of the unit is very nice too. I only didn't buy it becuase Furnuno (then) would display fuel and engine data, and I knew a while ago that Garmin were also introducing 2-fingered touch functions too, plus a rotokey/iDrive device that will go on the arm of the helm seat. I'd be very interested to hear how you get on

 

[Groot T]

Hi Toby. Thanks for update. Gotta admit here that I'm sceptical about the benefits of a screen that can be "touched" through paper though! My only reaction is, honestly, "so what?". I'm looking forward to Garmin 8000. Given that their 7000 series had a fantastic touch screen since 2-3 years ago, i reckon that 8000 will be the best there is

Thanks for your feedback, JFM. The point about the screen working through paper isn't supposed to highlight a 'feature', more as a generic test for the quality of the sensors on the Capacitive touch, because the screens works by the user being an electrical conductor, so when we touch the screen it creates an electrostatic field. By putting a barrier between your finger and the screen, the screen, the chances of creating an electrostatic field are reduced.
The same thing happens when the screen is wet (but not all that much) and also when your finger is super-clean, say after you've cleaned it with alcohol.
So the fact that the screen registers touch through paper is impressive and if it works through even thicker paper / card, the even more impressive it is.

Though I would also add that Hatteland were the first marine display manufacturer to produce touch screens in Capacitive, Projected Capacitive (multi-touch, allowing 'pinch-to-zoom') and Resistive (two layers physically pushed together).

BTW - are you fitting a search light to your new ship?