I am sorry you feel that O is becoming more complicated. That is not the intent.
The idea is that OCPN will "do the right
thing", with very minimal input on the configuration screens, as initially installed.
And I think 3.3.x does that better than 3.2.x ever did.
Agreed, the options tabs are complex. But then so is electronic navigation
in general. We intend to provide configuration options for a wide variety of installations and equipment
, so we have a lot of options.
But virtually none of those complex options are required for initial use by novices. As has been said, get a GPS, get some charts, and go. O works fine with default settings.
About the fogging:
I feel pretty strongly about the dangers of overzoom. I cruise
in the real world, full time 12 months/year, covering thousands of miles per year, in areas where the best charts are unvalidated cm93.
I personally observed a the results of wreck in the Bahamas
where overzoomed charts were one proximal cause of the wreck.
Lagoon 450 (Next Life) damaged in the Exuma, The Bahamas
So I know it happens in the real world.
Simply, it would be remiss of us to show highly overzoomed vector charts with implied single
pixel accuracy. The accuracy is just not there.
Also, please recognise that the implied accuracy on overzoom applies mainly to vector charts. Raster charts, when overzoomed, show the characteristic "blockiness" of pixels. I am sure we would agree that any navigator could see that a small scale raster is unreliable at overzoomed scales.
Lets take a specific example and analyse it with real numbers.
Using Håkan's example location. The cm93 cell shown in the attached image (ozx1) is at a native scale of 1/50,000.
that virtually all vector charts come from tracing or digitizing original paper charts, and that the compilation scale of vector charts is seldom known precisely.
So, apply the rule
of thumb that cartographic details are accurately charted to a position of one pencil width( 1mm) at twice the stipulated nominal scale.
This means that at a screen scale of 1/2400, the accuracy of geographic features on this particular
chart at this particular
screen scale is about 10mm. I hope that math is clear...
I have taken the liberty of manually editing the screen shot to blur the geographical features out to 10 mm at 1/2900 and attached as ozx2. This is a rough equivalent of what one might see on a raster chart of the same native scale, if one were available.
Would you navigate with this
chart at this
scale in a place you have never been before, or at night? I would not, and that is my essential argument.
By the way, how did I learn the native scale and get an un-fogged image to work with? Press F9, switching to single
chart mode. Chart piano bar key rollover will show the chart scale, and OZ fogging is disabled for single chart mode.
Let us continue the discussion with real examples, and with native scales noted. That is the only way to make sense of this admittedly complex issue.
Thanks for listening