Which Radar? Offshore/S. Pacific

[Dockhead]

Sure. If you go with Garmin, it might network with your existing gear.

Two little bits of advice:

1. Go NMEA2000, even if you don't have N2K devices now.

2. Invest in an accurate heading sensor. Will seem like a lot of money, but it's worth its weight in gold for usable MARPA, usable radar overlay, and good pilot operation. The best is the Airmar H2183; worth every penny of its stiff price.

[barnakiel]

There is a new sensor (I think a new heading sensor(?)) from Ray. Found out looking at their new AP. I may be wrong but it looks like a heading/roll/pitch sensor based on accelerometers.

Evolution Autopilot | Autopilots from Raymarine

I assume it may add precision to Ray based radar overlays too.

b.

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

I'm a bit dated, the last one I owned was an old Furuno back in 1982 with the peek-a-boo goggles. At least, I didn't have to buy paper rolls for it.

FLASHBACK ALERT!!!!

Boy... you really had to know your stuff back then.... They were akin to reading tea leaves!!!

[cruise]

My boss just brought the new Icom commander with all the goodies for his stinky (rich cobber ) its a nice setup but big $$$

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure. If you go with Garmin, it might network with your existing gear.

Two little bits of advice:

1. Go NMEA2000, even if you don't have N2K devices now.

2. Invest in an accurate heading sensor. Will seem like a lot of money, but it's worth its weight in gold for usable MARPA, usable radar overlay, and good pilot operation. The best is the Airmar H2183; worth every penny of its stiff price.

The airmar price doesn't seem any different then other systems. And yeah, NEMA 2000 seems to be the way to go, especially when it comes to wiring and selecting devices. Kinda like the start of building PC systems back in the 90's/00's.

Oh, and a second MFD is looking more reasonable now. One would need a display for each independent standalone anyway. So, if it's all connected to NEMA 2000 I'd be saving space and wiring. Am I assuming right?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

The airmar price doesn't seem any different then other systems. And yeah, NEMA 2000 seems to be the way to go, especially when it comes to wiring and selecting devices. Kinda like the start of building PC systems back in the 90's/00's.

Oh, and a second MFD is looking more reasonable now. One would need a display for each independent standalone anyway. So, if it's all connected to NEMA 2000 I'd be saving space and wiring. Am I assuming right?

NMEA2000 greatly simplifies the wiring of a network. One backbone for power and data. Note that it does not carry high bandwidth data like radar and plotter data - for that, you need Ethernet. But for depth, speed, wind, compass, gps, ais, etc, etc, etc, N2K is the way to go.

You will not really be taking advantage of it unless you replace all your electronics (as I just did), but you will be prepared for the future.

[delmarrey]

My boat has been bare bones for the past 12 years (while rebuilding) after ripping out a couple hundred feet of useless cut wires. So I'm only down to a S.H. VHF w/RAM, a Matrix fish finger, a Garmin 441s and I had a TackTick wind but that's been pulled now and installed the Maretron WSO100, which is the NEMA 2000. That's all I've needed for the San Juan's and coastal here. But Now I'm heading across the Pacific.

I assume I can tap the WSO100 into the system but if it's stand-a-lone, that's fine. It's the radar, AIS, maps/GPS and compass I'd like to bring together now. At first I was thinking stand-a-lone for each but now I see the benefit of the combo. I'm also adding a second VHF w/bells and whistles so that can be in the mix too.

So is it a correct assumption that one can mix and match different brands of devices into a select (pair of) MFD(s)?

In a ditch bag I plan to carry a handheld VHF and GPS as back up for the 'just in case' syndrome.

[S/V Alchemy]

Not to be a "nit picker", but just to clarify things....terminology is getting mixed up here...1) S/V Alchemy, "digital" and "HD" radars ARE klystron-based pulse-type radars (i.e. "older types"), with digital signal processing and higher definition/higher resolution processors.......the "broadband" / "4G" are solid-state FMCW-type radars (Frequency-Modulated-Continuous-Wave), the "newer ones" as you put it...

I just didn't want others here to be further confused....

Fair enough. I do understand the difference, but I also see these terms thrown around in the mix without necessarily defining difference. Thanks for the clarification.



2) Also, some more details...
a) Although a fairly irrelevant point as most here never need or use ranges in excess of 16 miles....
When affordable "broadband" marine radar first came out, it WAS significantly worse in "ultimate range" and long-range target reliability, but the newer "4G" FMCW radars are better in this regard, but the newer "digital or "digital HD" pulse-type radars are still better in long-range target acquisition and reliability...

So if we use "pulse" versus "broadband" as distinctions, I believe what I've been told is that "pulse" has the edge on range and definition at longer ranges. The broadband, lower-draw radars do seem to have phenomenal resolutions at short ranges, but making out a Zodiac hanging off davits of a boat at a well-outlined dock is not in fact something I need from a radar, myself. Nonetheless, it's objectively impressive if you think of it being used to spot awash containers or pangas dead ahead.


Although some anecdotal info does run contrary to these facts, most of this is comparing apples to oranges....meaning that many are comparing their new "4G" radar to an old (aged and possibly worn-out klystron) basic analog pulse-type radar....when compared on even footing the pulse-types still win in the long-range acquisition / reliability, and the "4G" wins in the very close range / target separation...

Yes, that was the impression I had.

b) Overall power consumption has always been a very over-hyped issue...as most of the power consumption comes from the "display" and not the radome...(a 12" full-color, full-sunlight-readable MFD uses about 60% - 65% of the power with its associated 4KW/24" pulse-type radome using about 35% - 40% of the power consumed....approx.!!!)
So, if you reduce the radome's energy use by 2/3's, and still have a power-hog of a display, you've only saved about 20% of your overall radar energy consumption....(this IS good, but not as much as the marketing-hype suggests)

Also reflects my understanding. Leave a broadband radome and display on constantly, and it will eat more amps than the intermittent use of the digital pulse type or the older analog type.

c) The instant-on / no-warm-up feature of solid-state FMCW radar, means that you do not need to keep the thing in "hot-standby" (using quite a bit of power) like you do with a pulse-type radar that takes approx. 70 - 90 seconds to come up on transmit...
This further saves on power consumption...

This relates to power management and the possibility of on-board power generation. You could conceivably run a "hot-standby" radar on a sunny day with panels or a windy night with a wind generator (along with every other relatively heavy draw, like refrigeration), meaning that the solid-state radar is going to be relatively easier on the batteries than pulse if you are on a light-air night passage. This is dependent on typical battery banks, not necessarily the larger battery banks associated with offshore cruisers or passagemakers, I suppose.


3) There's a lot more to all of this....
But, I don't want to drift the thread....just wanted to clarify some terminology..

I have benefited from the clarifications and should not have been sloppy in my naming conventions in the first place. Radar technology is a rapidly evolving area and I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all solution. From what I've understood, the advent of lower-draw broadband radar would allow smaller boats in coastal situations to have radar as an option without necessarily putting aboard extra batteries and larger alternators/charging sources. I consider that a real advance, particularly in cruising grounds foggy, busy and commercialized. I also think that RADAR and AIS are very complementary technologies and that if one is thinking of RADAR, one should consider AIS at the same time, as the number of AIS-capable ships and boats would seem to have nowhere to go but up.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

My boat has been bare bones for the past 12 years (while rebuilding) after ripping out a couple hundred feet of useless cut wires. So I'm only down to a S.H. VHF w/RAM, a Matrix fish finger, a Garmin 441s and I had a TackTick wind but that's been pulled now and installed the Maretron WSO100, which is the NEMA 2000. That's all I've needed for the San Juan's and coastal here. But Now I'm heading across the Pacific.

I assume I can tap the WSO100 into the system but if it's stand-a-lone, that's fine. It's the radar, AIS, maps/GPS and compass I'd like to bring together now. At first I was thinking stand-a-lone for each but now I see the benefit of the combo. I'm also adding a second VHF w/bells and whistles so that can be in the mix too.

So is it a correct assumption that one can mix and match different brands of devices into a select (pair of) MFD(s)?

In a ditch bag I plan to carry a handheld VHF and GPS as back up for the 'just in case' syndrome.

Yes! The other beauty of N2K is improved standardization.

You are actually really ready for this. We didn't talk about your pilot, depth, speed. Depth and speed are easy swaps for N2K devices, or an adaptor box for the existing ones. And you are all set.

But important to understand whether your new compass will talk to your pilot. Otherwise, you're in for a new pilot computer - a VERY slippery slope.

Then you'll need a couple-three Tritons to disp,ay all this nifty data . . .

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

So I'm only down to a S.H. VHF w/RAM, a Matrix fish finger, a Garmin 441s

I pictured Keanu Reeves as Captain Highliner there for a moment!

[savoir]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

That's part of the fun here. I already have a Garmin with charts for the USA, BC and the Philippines. So the question is; can they be routed into a Simrad or Furuno? I'm sure the Garmin radar it would work. There is so much research to do to see what works with what, and how. I lean towards the KISS methodology but I want to be safe as I can afford too.

No can do. Garmin charts are proprietary.

You have to select a mapping system and then run with it. Even with a brand such as furun, which doesn't own a mapping system you will have to select either c Map or Naionics when you order the unit. The newer 3D Furunos can also take MapMedia products.

I don't know of any navigation product that allows you to switch between maping systems.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by savoir

I don't know of any navigation product that allows you to switch between mapping systems.

Simrad just recently started allowing you to use both CMap and Navionics cartography. Kudos to Simrad for giving us at least some choice. I hope that this will be a sign of increasing openness across the industry. There is no technical challenge to it at all.

[savoir]

Furuno give you the same choice but you must commit to one or the other when you buy.

[delmarrey]

Well, time for more research to see what works with what.

I'm leaning towards the Garmin MFD(s) since I already have the maps. And the 18" 4Kw raydome which would fit my swing mount pretty good.

[sabray]

Plus one for the garmin hd radar. Can't compare with others but its images are excellent and the setup is typical intuitive garmin. Use mine with 4208 GPS map