|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: TWL: chartplotter vs computer (was Nav software recovery)
From: Frank Timpano (ftimpano@XXX.XXX)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2002 - 20:28:50 EST
Having used both types of charts, I don't see any practical disadvantages
to vector charts for navigation. The Garmin charts I used are very
detailed. I have the paper charts nearby at all times anyway, so any
details missing on the vector charts are on the paper charts. The flip side
of the argument is this--you need to have the paper charts anyway, so why
have duplicates on the chartplotter? any errors would be duplicated on both
documents. At least with the vector charts you have two (relatively)
independent sources of data to compare. Remember, it's not good to rely on
one source of information to navigate, right?
If you haven't used recent versions of the vector charts, you probably have
an outdated impression of their suitability for navigational purposes. The
older charts (pre-1995 say) are quite a bit less detailed than today's
vector charts.
I believe the preference for computer navigation on this list might have
something to do with the computer tendencies of internet mail list users.
If you polled the general public, you would find chartplotters in use 100
times as often (or more) than computers.
Frank
Having used both types of charts,and I don't see any practical
disadvantages to vector charts for navigation. The Garmin (Gmap)charts I
used are very detailed. I have the paper charts nearby at all times anyway,
so any details missing on the vector charts are on the paper charts. The
flip side of the argument is this--you need to have the paper charts
anyway, so why have duplicates on the chartplotter? any errors would be
duplicated on both documents. At least with the vector charts you have two
(relatively) independent sources of data to compare. Remember, it's not
good to rely on one source of information to navigate, right?
If you haven't used recent versions of the vector charts, you probably have
an outdated impression of their suitability for navigational purposes. The
older charts (pre-1995 say) are quite a bit less detailed than today's
vector charts.
I believe the preference for computer navigation on this list might have
something to do with the computer tendencies of internet mail list users.
If you polled the general public, you would find chartplotters in use 100
times as often (or more) than computers.
Hey, I played around with two of the first computer navigation
programs-Maptech's Pilot and InfoNav's Mariner. Had one of the very first
prototype CDRoms of NOS charts. I'd still recommend a chartplotter over the
computer for the practical reasons I've outlined.
Frank
At 07:29 AM 1/3/02 EST, flyjbaker624@XXX.XXX wrote:
>In a message dated 1/3/2002 6:28:13 AM Central Standard Time, flyjbaker624
>writes:
>
><< In a message dated 1/2/2002 9:21:01 PM Central Standard Time,
>ftimpano@XXX.XXX writes:
>
> << I have repeatedly taken the position that a dedicated chartplotter solves
> nearly all of the issues related to PC navigation-stability, power,
> readability, connectivity, etc. There are no doubt other with this opinion.
> The only downside is the cost of the chart cartridges which, I believe,
> exceeds the cost of charts on CD Rom. Not many members of TWL have spoken
> up to agree with me, so perhaps I'm alone (with you) in this position.
> >>
>
> The problem with dedicated chart plotters is that they usually use
>vector charts and not the more favorable raster scan charts. The only
>chartplotter I know that uses raster(there may be more) is
>Northstar...........and they are extremely expensive. SO that is probably
>why you haven't had a parade of supporters.
>
> Trawler on,
> John >>
>
|