madhatter1

I posted this on another forum and am copying it here since this forum has high traffic.

I also have a 6000i I need to get a few more years out of. Not that I am any kind of pioneer I tend to think of things a few years before they happen (technology wise). With todays technology this is the way marine electronics should go:

1- dual touch screens (redundancy) that can access any device
2- wireless networking of all devices
3- device (GPS, depth, radar) electronics will all be mounted in dry locations
4- updates to any device would be through local network accessing internet.

Think about it. When I change my 6000i using todays technology that means there will be 3 sets of holes under the latest bracket. That all goes away. You would be able to have as much redundancy as desired but number and sizes of screens are 100% optional. Swapping of parts would be easy. Other than the power source no devices would be physically wired to each other so failure of one device cannot affect anything else. Other perks would be to access your "marine network" with phones and tablets. Marine electronics guys would still be used for proffesional installs on large new ($) boats but we could install our own and the networking would be a snap. How long do I have to wait?


Does any of this exist yet? anything in the works?

teckersley

I agree to some extent. It would be nice to minimize wires and such. The ease of updates is already taken care of with the USB on the panel in the case of Simrad. Its not really that important, IMO, to be able to do it wireless. Where I tend to disagree is with a totally wireless device aspect. While wireless technology has come a long way, I personally don't think it is reliable enough for offshore use. We all know how we lose connection, delayed synch, etc with our mobile devices. Imagine that 100 miles offshore or in some safety sensitive situation. Even if someone had it, it sounds neat the state of the art but for practicality and reliability, I am not sure I would be a huge fan.

madhatter1

There are wireless technologies that are far more advanced than what we use in home networks. Been around for years in hotels (door locks). There could also be a hardwire comm bus for those that require it. Kind of like your home router. Plug in or hit it wireless. Same either way.

jethro1

I hope that you are wrong about the lack of reliability part. We are flying drones wirelessly over the mid-east from the US. Flying drones wirelessly over the US is coming soon to an area near you. Keep your head up for anything that might be coming down.

It was not all that long ago that folks were concerned about going to fly-by-wire in an air plane. We now have drive-by-wire in our boats for the motor(s). What was once thought non-doable is routine today.

And, GPS is not to be relied upon for safety of navigation anyway. What data could be lost that would compromise safety?

jhendric

I agree on the wireless!! If for no other reason...corrosion...802.11 (wireless ethernet) is plenty reliable especially in a small area like a boat...might not work in metal boats though. For downloads you could add G3 (cell phone data) if you don't park your boat near a wireless hotspot.....but Marinas would catch on fast and provide wireless access (many do now).

Also your maps, fishing spots etc should be stored in the cloud like your Itunes are now...you can drop a new spot onto your PC at work on Wednesday and it will be on your GPS when you are fishing on Saturday....

jhendric

Shoot...I think there would be a market for a ruggedized/waterproof Ipad...just dock it into a cradle on your helm and let it be the screen.

Itteldoo

Been around for decades. NMEA 2000 has effectively made the "any device" feasible, even if the market has been a bit slow to apply it as widely as it could be. (But note, "could" and "should" are different terms.)


Not as long-standing as networked MFDs; but still, most vendors offer this today. (Which is not to say that it is a good idea.)


Explain to me how you put a RADAR scanner or a depth transducer in a "dry" space. Some smaller RADARs are enclosed in domes, which is about as close as you're going to get. In-Hull transducers aren't directly exposed to seawater; but they must still be mounted in the bilge, which is hardly "dry".


Doable now; tho' more typically, it is a two-step process (and for good reason).


That's what they make fiberglass patch kits (or StarBoard) for. Some better boats have helms designed to use removable panels for mounting the electronics:



With each refit, a new panel is cut and fitted. Easy-peasy.


Again, this has existed for years: Raymarine G-Series; Simrad NSO series, various Furuno "black box" systems, and the new Garmin 8500-series come to mind.


That's not even a valid assumption, let alone a reasonable one. Wireless networking adds several layers of complexity vs. wired networking; and each one of them is yet another potential failure point. And since there is no practical way to keep RF signals completely segregated in the context of a relatively small confined area like a boat, all devices have to share one "pool" of RF bandwidth; so in at least some sense, this would constitute a single point of failure. Not good.


Do-able now. Has been for years.


Again, this has been S.O.P. for a long time.


For what? Virtually everything you've described is old news.


See above.

madhatter1

Who makes tis wireless touchscreen interface?
Who has wireless networkable GPS, Depth, and Radar that work with anyone else's products?
What radar has all the processor/interface mounted in the scanner?
Glad you can pay big bucks to de do your entire dash to change 1 device.
Why would I want any of the high end complicated systems you reference? 6k for a black box? 5K for a monitor screen that needs a separate remote?
Wireless works fine in any small environment that is effectively "open". Since most boats are fiberglass the signal is as good as open space.

Nothing I mentioned exists.

Itteldoo

For starters:

http://www.raymarine.com/view/?id=3945
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=129410
http://www.simrad-yachting.com/en-US...ule-en-us.aspx


You never asked that. But to answer your question, "wireless" is not the stopper. The inter-brand compatibility is the stopper. In theory, OneNet is supposed to ameliorate that. But based on NMEA's track record with N2K, I'll expect viable product introductions about the time my grandchildren (all of whom are currently under 9 years old) are buying their third or fourth boat.

And for reasons already discussed, you really don't want the connections between your various data sources and your displays to be wireless -- at least not exclusively wireless.


Again, not relevant, and not what I was addressing. You suggested placing the RADAR entirely within a "dry" space. Regardless of whether there is an external interface box or not that's simply not feasible.


How expensive is a piece of StarBoard? Or mahogany-veneer plywood, for that matter?


So now you want ground-breaking cutting-edge state-of-the-art technology, with all sorts of completely unnecessary added complication, AND you want to buy it on the cheap?


Lack of signal propagation is hardly the largest problem. TOO MUCH propagation is likely to be a much bigger problem. Consider:

bigfoot2

Best part is I would be able to hack into the boats around me and get some good numbers

madhatter1

You are a real tool. Very full of yourself and seem to have big bucks. Maybe your boat is your only toy and it gets an open checkbook. Still an arrogant A-hole.

1- I did not ask who made anything until YOU said all already existed and had for years.
2- I never said to put an entire radar in a dry place. Everyone exept an A-hole like you knows what I meant. Same for depth finders. Proccesing equipment, not transducers or temp sensors dipshit.
3- YOU go rebuild your boat on your dime for every minor change.
4- I never said I wanted it cheap, you came up with that. 6K for a "black box" which acts as a router?? You can keep that.
5- What added complication are you talking about. If all devices talked the same "language" adding anything in would be simple. But not for you because it seems you get of by how much you can say your electronics cost.
6-According to you all our home and business networks DO NOT WORK due to other networks in the same area. Even if wireless was not the answer having a common bus with an open protocol is way better than having to dedicate with one brand of components. I looked at that Furuno system and it is a complicated expensive system. Again, you can have that.

As for my original post I was looking to the future which you cannot see. In 2006 as I was completing contruction on my new house my plan was to install touch screens to control automation system, burglar alarm, fire alarm, and sound system. The commercial touch screens were way too expensive and only the BMS and sound systems were networkable. Well today I have all 4 on the network and instead of commercial touch screens SMARTPHONES and TABLETS appeared on the scene. Wow, technolgy advanced. Except for you. F**k off as****e.

abbor

I have sometimes been reacting (not by posting) when Itteldo is being a bit though when answering here at THT, but this time he has my full support. You deserve what you got and more.

You seems to be one of these "world champions" thinking they know everything there is to know about technology but in reality have quite limited understanding of what is behind what they can see and touch. One example of this is your babbling about wireless control of drones, I can ensure you they don't use the very limited frequency open bands available for data communication onboard a boat for controlling a drone, I'm quite sure they don't have real time requirements either.

Your first post was describing partly things that exists and some of the rest was quite fuzzy. Itteldo is not the only one not understanding your radar in dry locations.

Wireless communications is not a good idea for time critical safety applications. I don't want a glitch on the wireless communications with the radar dome jeopardizing my possibility to detect a fast moving target. Radar communications needs to be reliable and the data available at the time it should be presented at the screen, this can't be guaranteed under all conditions using the wireless technologies available.

PS, this will be my only post in this thead

bills106

Ittledoo answered your questions in his usual detailed and precise manner Madhatter1, sometimes he has trouble "dumbing down" his technical descriptions to levels someone not in the industry understands easily and many take this as insulting but in this case you certainly did get what you deserve!

You obviously took insult at the expense of the items he provided links too and vented your displeasure in the form of a personal attack on him which is not only rude but also strictly prohibited on THT. Looking at the date stamp on your post I think cocktails may be involved which is no excuse but I hope when you sober up this morning you offer him an apology.

gettes

Frequent reader, infrequent poster. I really didn't see the perceived level of insult in the replies by itteldo. Some times matter of factness can be mistaken for arrogance. I'm also fine with some level of arrogance(real or perceived) from members like itteldo(and others) who spend so much time and effort providing thoughtful answers to random questions from usually complete strangers. Imagine getting asked essentially the same question over and over and still taking time to respond, my posts would probably have a different "tone" to them. Anyway, I just wanted to chime in because I would hate for members like itteldo and abbor to not provide their input. I've learned a tremendous amount from reading their responses to a multitude of electronics related questions. And if you think those responses were harsh you should head over and read some threads on the Wooden Boat forum, a lot of people over there own tremendously long legged equines and enjoy writing posts with thesaurus in hand.

Argue the point heatedly, it's entertaining, but don't resort to a repeated barrage of name calling.

kaz911

The wireless we have at home - is just about the fastest you can get. Not even the military uses faster wireless. Slower is safer. Drones uses special frequency for telemetry (the remote control part) and rather basic video transfer via wireless "long range"

If you take radar by itself (Digital) - they require between 1-3 Mbps constantly. That is equal to 10-60% (real world) saturation of the wireless signal - if NOBODY else is using it. Once you start to add "clients" the available bandwidth drops. If you then add interference from other wireless routers around you - signal can drop even further. Then add wireless structure scan, sonar and other data heavy devices and then it is "Huston we have a problem..."

And so far we have not even spoken about "standards" - NMEA 2k is fragmented enough as it is - and the recent v3 specs tries to help a bit - but there is still far to go. NMEA OneNet might make it possible to use a Raymarine Radar on a Garmin Chartplotter - but that is wishful thinking - and first devices will not hit the market until late 2014 at the earliest I think.

NMEA 2000 was outdated the day they launched it - and is only meant for telemetry data. But today with many devices with update speeds of 10 times pr. second (GPS, Heading Sensors, depth gauges) we do not need a very large N2k network before we reach the saturation points.

ClassicGuy

Actually I think the contrast between abbor and ittledoo is quite instructive. I suspect abbor is the one who has the greater technical knowledge and experience, yet he is unfailingly polite and never condescending. Ittledoo does not do himself a service with the tone he uses with anyone he feels is less well informed.