Electronic Charts

[Guest]

Re: What would it really cost ?

It is strapped down to the saloon table well away from the companionway entrance ....... just able to see from steering position, but to really check a quick nip into cabin to get close ..... and really you only need the mouse once you have the menu / tools displayed that you use.

When its well away from areas that require careful navigation I close it down and make sfe ----- getting it out again well in time for use.

Yes - I'm b........y careful as well !!!!



<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
Bilge Keelers get up further ! I only came - cos they said there was FREE Guinness !

 

[Guest]

Join us at GPS Nav ....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/

We pool all knowledge and whatever we can to help others to enjoy the sport and GPS etc.



<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
Bilge Keelers get up further ! I only came - cos they said there was FREE Guinness !

 

[david_bagshaw]

Charles

I must admit I still prefer the paper for the following reasons

1 It is more upto date when bought
2 it is more easily corrected
3 it still works when slightlydamp, or after droping on the floor
4 it is not dependant on batteries , or other electricity
5 it doesnt need Windows. tm


Although I will admit I have little practical experiance with gear other than that I have. (Garmin, yeoman, & laptop)


<hr width=100% size=1>David
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.euroboating.net>http://www.euroboating.net</A>

 

[coco]

Re: What would it really cost ?

It is a fascinating subject indeed.
I do consider the smaller plotters like the G176 as toys. Having had one, I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to navigate with it the way I can do it on charts. The biggest problem is the lack of overview, and zooming in and out does not really help. It is mostly related to the size of the screen. The G176 screen mesaures 3.8 in. Anything below 8 in. is, in my opinion, marginal. One of the reasons I suspect people use PC's on board (besides functionality and availability) is screen size. Even an old PC has more than 10 in.
But of course this is like religion, some believe in A and some in B.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: What would it really cost ?

Jeam-Pierre, I agree with you, and I find that even a 15 inch screen is, at times, too small for planning across a full small scale coastal chart where there are dangers to be avoided requiring that one cannot just sail straight from A to B. If one zooms out to see enough of the chart to set off courses, the detail of the small dangers disappears, and if you zoom in again you can't see where you want to get to without a lot of moving the chart around. Then during the voyage, one cannot look ahead to the dangers nearly as conveniently as with a paper chart, so one's strategic view of what is ahead can easily become limited.

It is difficult for me to give sharp examples of such voyages in the UK/Europe, but I would imagine there would be plenty of examples on the West coast of Scotland. In my own home waters (New Zealand) an easy example to see, in any atlas even, is Wellington to Nelson (only about 120 nm and 3 small scale charts to plan across). It is clearly not so much of a problem though if the waters to be sailed through are familiar.

For navigating in restricted waters, such as bays, harbour approaches I do not find it so much of a problem with a screen, and probably the same with even very small ones.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Martin_e]

I agree Charles, BUT; I would rather have the paper which I know is out of date, than the electronic that clames to be updated. I know I am going on but maybe there should be some kind of a europian standard for up dating e-charts. I KNOW people are going to want to keel haul me for that remark( to much red tape etc.) but after what I have discovered it is a thought.

Martin E.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Martin_e]

Re: What would it really cost ?

I have exactly the same feelings regarding plotting a longer route. so If E-charts are to be used we should be able to reiy on them closer in, but according to my experiance and several other postings we cant. So maybe the E chart manufacturers have released charts to soon or have inadiquate quality assurance.

Martin E.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Chartplotters

I believe you are saying that chartplotters do not compare with charts (a suitable combination of large and small scale) and a large table when planning a passage - especially smaller scale ones.
I would completely agree!
However as a working tool underway inshore they are far superior - especially at anything over 5 knots!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ponapay]

Sorry for the duff gen. I forgot I upgraded the memory in an attempt to speed up the web access. It is now 256Mb memory and only 2Gb disk.

I use windows 98 and have had no problems, I have never upgraded the W98 programme but have upgraded SEAPRO to the last but one major upgrade.

I use it primarily for back up navigation, for a permanent record and to ease the crews naviagtion problems at night. It is also very useful in blind pilotage when used in conjunction with radar.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Paulka]

This thread confirms the reluctance I always had to buy and install the electronic gizmos the industry would like us to buy.
As an electronics engineer, I always was puzzled by remarks I heard on the pontoons, about logs and/or depthsounders unable to work whenever the VHF, or any other system was in use, as well as many, many other similar stories.
Of course, I know how difficult it can be to avoid various instruments to influence each other. I know as well it is possible ... yes, at some cost!
I am just surprised that none of the various manufacturers has ever made the effort to market one line of reliable, well designed (I mean: to industry standards) instruments.
The only elctronic instrument which in my opinion is more or less reliable, is the GPS. Not because the manufacturers have to stick to any sort of standard, but, because of the very nature of the system, it either works, or doesn't. The reliability of the information only depends upon the satellites. And as the same satellites are used by commercial or industrial operators, they have to be reliable.
As a consequence to the above, I refuse to buy and install what I consider to be unreliable, thus potentially dangerous gadgets. The more so that the prices asked don't reflect the poor quality and dangerouseness of the products.
Of course, the fact that e-maps seem to be, in certain cases, up to 15 years out of date, is really freightening, and scandalous.
So how further?
For the time being, I'll stick to my policy to only use instruments I can personally assert the reliability - or lack of :-(
Here, what I use to navigate :
- Compass : Plastimo Contest 130,
- Loch : VDO mechanical (no longer in production ... ),
- GPS : the most basic (right now Garmin 12),
- Depth sounder : very old Seafarer (yes, the spinning wheel thingy!),
- VHF : whatever, they have to comply with the regulation!
- Wind indicator : Windex,
- Wind speed indicator : Nose, and horses,
- Sextant : Freiberger
- Charts : Paper,
- Pencil : .... hmmm. yes pencil.

And guess what.
Thanks to this, I have some cash left for a very, very good pencil sharpener!

Any other guess?
Yes, I always landed where I expected to!

Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

Re: Errors ....there\'s a NavPack and a NavPak

Might be good for me to add that there's two diff programs with same name but diff spelling, so not to be confused. I use latter with no problems. Thx, John F

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Martin_e]

Ok everybody I have done a lot more leg work. Phoned Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the UK. It seem that the outfit I bought my e-chart from have used old admiralty charts to make their new chart system from. (for my area) They knew about the problems but continued to market their charts for Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland as the latest thing, refering to the small print"our date of April 03 refers to the date for the dealer CD that the chart was produced from " or which CD the chart card is programed from, NOT the updated chart data. To be fare to the dealers, they were not informed although I belive the plotter manuf. was after a while.

So beware everyone. Do not just trust well known names and a good onscreen image and lots of out of date data. Check out which HO is used and when the latest update was for your area. NOT the latest reproduction.

Been told Sorry but I will have to wait to next year for a new version of the Skagerak and east Sweden and Finland. I am not prepared to dump over a grand and be told please wait. Think I will be changing outfits or giving up for a few years.

Martin E.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Chartplotters

Hi Duncan - am in total agreement.

Similarly, I tend to use a chart plotter (PC actually) for inshore close to dangers and especially so at night, as a tool showing position, heading and track. But only rely on it, especially in the dark, if I have already verified the electronic chart from a previous passage (we do not carry radar, a lot less other traffic and no fog out here).

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[markdj]

Re: Chartplotters

I'd like to know how much it costs to get a vector chart updated or if you have an area the size of the English Channel, how much does it cost to get that updated or even charts covering all of the UK and Europe?

Using the ARCS raster charts it costs us £60 plus VAT for ALL of our charts...

Regarding the use of vector charts and zooming out, losing details and marking out a route, I think this is where the ARCS charts are excellent. They have a high res. and low res chart. The low res can be used for marking the route. When you want to continue a route on to another area, just double click to finish the route, select the next chart and pickup the last WP on the route again and move on. It really does work smoothly and you can go through the route at high speed to check it due to the zero wait time for redraw.

Just my 2 pence

<hr width=100% size=1>Princess Owners Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://surf.to/princessownersclub>http://surf.to/princessownersclub</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Chartplotters

Mark, I use raster charts, not vector. The problem I set out is that on a small screen (15") when one zooms out, so (for example, taking the very worst case that the whole chart is "visible" on the screen), the writing and details are too small to read. Not a case of losing details because of the format, just of them becoming too small to read. For example, a rock that covers and uncovers may be very important in planning the route but is not decipherable when one zooms out to see the bulk, or even just a moderate area of the chart to plan a route. Similarly for depths. On a paper chart it is always laid out in front of one and all details can always be deciphered when planning across it.

Am not knocking electronic charts, just commenting.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>