What else can be improved in the marine electronics space?

[dstraton]

To slightly shift focus on your question, I think there is a need for better integration of satellite-based navigation (eg Google Earth) and charts. I discussed this in a blog post. https://nimrodcat.blogspot.com/2016/...d-coral_1.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Where do they go? If you say your lap I'll keel haul you. *grin*

I don't see them as practical at all in the cockpit offshore in weather.

I wasn't considering, nor do I feel the need for a keyboard to access the cockpit monitor. But a waterproof, wireless mouse might come in handy for zooming when doing inshore work, anchoring, etc. You may be correct about the practicality, of course, but I know of at least one serious offshore boat that uses both a waterproof mouse & keyboard in the cockpit, namely the couple from Morgan's Cloud who run the Attainable Adventure Cruising website. The photo shows the monitor under the dodger on the port side (for fear of being keel-hauled ) along with other instruments, and the radar, etc. to stbd. Somewhere on the website there's a pic as well as discussion re: the mouse & keyboard, but it might be paywalled at this point.

Maybe future boats will be built with mouse holders alongside the customary cockpit winch holders.

[Franziska]

I have to admit, I did not read through the complete thread, but few of the earlier posts.

As to interesting marine hardware and open source.

I think there might be interest in a real daylight usable fully waterproof chart plotter hardware running Opencpn as software.

Not as a DIY project but as a ready made unit, at a reasonable price and with full access to the OpenCPN installation when it comes to upgrades and plugins as well as all charts which OpenCPN can read.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll let you know as soon as I have the opportunity to actually sail somewhere! I'm actually pretty optimistic -- I have the monitor installed on a Ram mount under the dodger. It should (mostly) stay reasonably dry, but as you say the touchscreen doesn't work as well as its billing.

Kudos on having your monitor under the dodger. That's generally where one stands watch and it should be near to hand. By the time you need to get behind the wheel there isn't much need for messing about with the plotter. Extra credit for why the port side is marginally better than starboard for the display.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

At Present, I would look at COMMS, Specifically SSB GMDSS/DCS....Huge Gap in the market at present that ICOM has pretty much sewn up the market at a price point around $3K for a complete system.

You should look at the requirements for being part of GMDSS before complaining about the cost of an Icom SSB. There are good reasons the consumer grade satellite systems still don't measure up.

By the way, the new Icom 803 is a disappointment. The 802 is much easier to use.

Originally Posted by dstraton

To slightly shift focus on your question, I think there is a need for better integration of satellite-based navigation (eg Google Earth) and charts. I discussed this in a blog post. https://nimrodcat.blogspot.com/2016/...d-coral_1.html

Do you mean navigation or imagery? All kinds of tutorials on YouTube for overlaying Google Earth KMLs over OpenCPN charts.

[Captain Kdub]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

You should look at the requirements for being part of GMDSS before complaining about the cost of an Icom SSB. There are good reasons the consumer grade satellite systems still don't measure up.

By the way, the new Icom 803 is a disappointment. The 802 is much easier to use.

First, You should learn a touch of decorum and not speak out of turn without knowing WTF you are talking about.

Second, DSC Class E may be utilized without GMDSS FCC Certification.

Third, Read about DSC Clasifications here: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=DSCClasses

Fourth, Any USCG Registered Recreational Vessel may apply for FCC Radio Station - SA Ship Recreational or Voluntary https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/support...rsal-licensing Renewable after 10 years


Fifth, Any US Citizen with a Radio Station Authorization may apply for Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/support...rsal-licensing NO TEST REQUIRED and LIFETIME Authorization


Sixth, Digital Selective Calling Open Source Software is already available albeit limited. https://www.coaa.co.uk/dscdecoder.htm

Limited to Windows OS High Seas Radio LLC

Digital Encode and Decode will require an Audio Codecs such as used in a TNC device or coded as a function in OpenCPN or Open Plotter.
Mobilinkd | Highly mobile packet radio

ALL of this can be accomplished with low cost MF/HF SSB Software Defined Transceivers

My personal Choice is this https://lab599.com

You will need an additional Amplifier https://www.ebay.com/itm/Radioddity-...G/154136919038

You should add an Auto Antenna Tuner https://www.ebay.com/itm/Full-Kit-DI...h-OLED-Display

You would need a Counterpoise (Ground Plane) KISS-SSB TM

The Best Antenna made for Sailboat Backstays https://gamelectronicsinc.com/produc...-lead-antenna/

This is my system...total cost $1530 installed on my 72 Dufour Arpege

Yes, My yacht is USCG Registered
Yes, My yacht is a FCC Licensed Radio Station with a Call Sign and MMSI
Yes, I have a Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit (Lifetime)

I could eliminate the isolated TNC, and DSC Software if it were simply a function within OpenCPN or OpenPlotter.

The Problem with SAT COM and EPIRB is they have no way of contacting EVERY Military and Commercial Vessel in your area...all they do is beacon and do not provide detailed information..... With SSB you can reach 100's and 1000's of miles in every direction and explain the problems you are having in detail.

With DSC you can call individuals or select emergency channels, make scheduled group calls, or detail your specific needs or even add specific non emergency call channels.

With SSB you can also utilize other capabilities including Weather and Email

Regarding your comment on the ICOM-M802 ....you might want to read this
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums.../t-180745.html

Remember,
If you piss in my Cheerios, I'll Shove it Down Your Throat

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

At Present, I would look at COMMS, Specifically SSB GMDSS/DCS....

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

First, You should learn a touch of decorum and not speak out of turn without knowing WTF you are talking about.

Well bless your heart.

You are the one that raised GMDSS, not me. I simply pointed out that the GMDSS requirements are expensive to implement. Frequency stability In low and high voltage states alone are demanding.

I’m intimately familiar with DSC and with the US licensing requirements. I’m not sure how any of that is relevant to responding to your GMDSS citation.

It isn’t clear that the open source software for DSC is legal for use on the marine bands. Type acceptance? Who paid for that? Let that go under the terms of bona fide emergency exemptions, but bad form nonetheless. Then there is the discussion of whether Windows is appropriate for mission critical applications, or Win10 for cruising. Different topic, but you brought it up.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

ALL of this can be accomplished with low cost MF/HF SSB Software Defined Transceivers

Not legally on the marine bands. Have at it on the ham bands. Perfectly acceptable. Not okay on the marine bands. I’ve been working with SDR professionally since 1995. It’s good stuff. Who will pay for type acceptance to demonstrate that hardware and software meet the quite reasonable strictures for use in the marine bands? Certainly not Lab599 - we aren't their market.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

The Best Antenna made for Sailboat Backstays https://gamelectronicsinc.com/produc...-lead-antenna/

If you read the technical literature you’ll find that Dr. John Gregory used an antenna modeling tool for the McKim/GAM split lead antenna well outside of the parameters of the model. Unfortunately the result is inconsistent performance from boat to boat. There are many better alternatives.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

The Problem with SAT COM and EPIRB is they have no way of contacting EVERY Military and Commercial Vessel in your area...all they do is beacon and do not provide detailed information..... With SSB you can reach 100's and 1000's of miles in every direction and explain the problems you are having in detail.

Once you get into the SAR system that information goes everywhere through AMVER and military (not just US) channels as well as civil government organizations. The problem with consumer grade satellite systems is system reliability that meets life safety requirements.

I’m also painfully familiar with the reasons for the demise of the 802. My comment was that the 803 is a pretty dismal operating experience. A used 802—legal to purchase, install, and operate—is a better choice in my opinion for most cruisers.

There is no need to compare credentials. You can ask Jim or Ann Cate or John Macdougall KA4WJA about mine since you won’t take my word for it anyway.

[Captain Kdub]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Well bless your heart.

You are the one that raised GMDSS, not me. I simply pointed out that the GMDSS requirements are expensive to implement. Frequency stability In low and high voltage states alone are demanding.

Only because GMDSS is commonly associated with DCS and NAVTEX


Not legally on the marine bands. Have at it on the ham bands. Perfectly acceptable. Not okay on the marine bands. I’ve been working with SDR professionally since 1995. It’s good stuff. Who will pay for type acceptance to demonstrate that hardware and software meet the quite reasonable strictures for use in the marine bands? Certainly not Lab599 - we aren't their market.

According to the USCG.... SSB MF/HF are Legal and recommended https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=mtHighFrequency

If you read the technical literature you’ll find that Dr. John Gregory used an antenna modeling tool for the McKim/GAM split lead antenna well outside of the parameters of the model. Unfortunately the result is inconsistent performance from boat to boat. There are many better alternatives.

My boat must be an extraordinary anomaly


Once you get into the SAR system that information goes everywhere through AMVER and military (not just US) channels as well as civil government organizations. The problem with consumer grade satellite systems is system reliability that meets life safety requirements.

It's a Friggin BEACON....it can't talk.

I’m also painfully familiar with the reasons for the demise of the 802. My comment was that the 803 is a pretty dismal operating experience. A used 802—legal to purchase, install, and operate—is a better choice in my opinion for most cruisers.

There is no need to compare credentials. You can ask Jim or Ann Cate or John Macdougall KA4WJA about mine since you won’t take my word for it anyway.

Wasn't comparing...anything!!!

[Auspicious]

*sigh* Wrong place to look. See 47 CFR § 80.203(a) for the mandate for type acceptance. The FCC is responsible for enforcement.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Exile

As an aside, and again admittedly not being a techy, why is it that NMEA 0183 is a marine industry "standard" but allows mfgs. to use their own proprietary color coding for wires? And why is it that NMEA 2000 is a marine industry "standard" that allows mfgs. to use their own proprietary cabling/connections? On the latter point, someone just mentioned that only Ray does so, but I thought Furuno & Maretron were the only ones that did not (i.e. only ones that use std. NMEA 2K cabling).

I like using a PC too, and other components that can function on their own rather than be past of a proprietary integration.


And to address some of your concerns/questions...


NMEA 0183 defines the function of various wires, not their colors. It's really not that hard to look up which color wires perform which functions for any given device.


NMEA 2000 doesn't allow proprietary connectors. That's why Simrad's stuff was called Simnet, not NMEA 2000. And why Ray's stuff is called Seatalk.


Garmin uses standard N2K cables and connector. So does Simrad as of the past few years, having abandoned SimNet for most, if not all of their products.


NMEA 2000 doesn't define wire colors either, just functions for the wires. It's moot if you are using the Devicenet connectors, but N2K also allows wiring via junction boxes with discrete connections via terminal blocks, and in that case the wire colors are exposed.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

https://www.argonautcomputer.com/col...arine-displays

As for touchscreen displays, you can use a mouse and keyboard. Both can be waterproof and wireless. I found them reasonably priced from the medical supply industry.

That's a very good solution. To waterproof a tablet it's as easy as putting it in a ziplok. I already use a non waterproof Bluetooth mouse with my tablet with OpenCPN, just need a waterproof medical one instead.

Thanks for the info.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

I like using a PC too, and other components that can function on their own rather than be past of a proprietary integration.

Certainly my personal preference, but I can also see why the modern full integration set-up is attractive. My radar is also essentially standalone with a repeater in the cockpit. The only feature I've thus far lost with my new PC-based system is the ability to set the AP to a waypoint, but that may be just a matter of how I connected it all up. Either way I won't miss it as it made me a bit too complacent about doing my own set & drift calculations.

And to address some of your concerns/questions...

Thank you.

NMEA 0183 defines the function of various wires, not their colors. It's really not that hard to look up which color wires perform which functions for any given device.

This is true, and I eventually got used to having 3 different mfg. wiring manuals in front of me when I did the install. Not sure why the standard could not have included color coding, except perhaps that it would discourage consumers from using components from different brands.

NMEA 2000 doesn't allow proprietary connectors. That's why Simrad's stuff was called Simnet, not NMEA 2000. And why Ray's stuff is called Seatalk.

I'm sure this is technically correct, but it again leaves me confounded why an industry standard wouldn't be just that. I suppose it follows given the lack of standardization throughout the industry.

Garmin uses standard N2K cables and connector. So does Simrad as of the past few years, having abandoned SimNet for most, if not all of their products.

This is good to know, especially since my experience with Garmin suggests it may be the most proprietary of the major brands (at least with its charting). Since Simrad and B&G (among others) are now part of Navico, I suspect B&G also uses standard N2K cables and connectors?

NMEA 2000 doesn't define wire colors either, just functions for the wires. It's moot if you are using the Devicenet connectors, but N2K also allows wiring via junction boxes with discrete connections via terminal blocks, and in that case the wire colors are exposed.

All helpful info, thanks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

That's a very good solution. To waterproof a tablet it's as easy as putting it in a ziplok. I already use a non waterproof Bluetooth mouse with my tablet with OpenCPN, just need a waterproof medical one instead.

Thanks for the info.

One problem with using tablets with waterproof covers (or ziplock bags) is exposing the charging port. There are solutions out there for this too, or you can go with having two, i.e. one in use while the other is charging in a dry environment below. For offshore work I don't think I'd personally rely on this for anything other than backup, but there are certainly offshore sailors who do.

[Captain Kdub]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

*sigh* Wrong place to look. See 47 CFR § 80.203(a) for the mandate for type acceptance. The FCC is responsible for enforcement.

Actually,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/80.359

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/80.7

The document below establishes only Performance Standards required by afore mentioned FCC requirements, Standards and Practices. I see no DSC Type Certification Requirements.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/...a.804.1995.pdf

All of this is Moot in the event of an Emergency.... No Rules

However, having the ability to use HF/MF SSB DSC for normal traffic as well as Distress is invaluable

BTW.... VHF DSC is far more Controlled by the FCC and not the ITU or IMO

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Exile

For offshore work I don't think I'd personally rely on this for anything other than backup, but there are certainly offshore sailors who do.

An additional role, tablets are convenient for keeping an eye on progress from one's bunk without making crew feel hovered over.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

The document below establishes only Performance Standards required by afore mentioned FCC requirements, Standards and Practices. I see no DSC Type Certification Requirements.

Read the vocabulary section. The radio needs to be type accepted (the word "certification" was deprecated many years ago). Breaking up the radio into modules (e.g. outboard DSC) doesn't make DSC any less part of the radio. Type acceptance is required.

Originally Posted by Captain Kdub

BTW.... VHF DSC is far more Controlled by the FCC and not the ITU or IMO

International agreements under the ITU and IMO are implemented by regulation of signatory countries. Most countries essentially copy and paste. Some--frequently the US--fiddle with it around the edges. An example is the differences between the COLREGS and the US Inland Rules. We do the same thing with radio regulation. In the case of radio type acceptance the differences are de minimus. Type acceptance is mandated of all radios in marine service: MF, HF, VHF, and above (EPIRB in UHF, radar and satellite in microwave and mmwave).

It is worth noting that this is not a case of bureaucratic overreach. There are good reasons for insuring performance including reducing cochannel and adjacent channel interference that could affect life safety communication as well as environmental factors cited above.

I bang on about this because someone may come along in the future and think your posts are credible. The ham radio based solution you propose is not legal and not safe for use in marine service.

You know that the USCG deactivated all MF capability some years ago? If you call on 2182 or 2187.5 there is no one listening.

[goboatingnow]

A simple case of listening on Marine HF shows it’s a very deprecated service imho.

But even if you haven’t HF , a sat phone call to Falmouth MRCC will do the same job , anywhere in the world.

These days inshore a majority of rescue calls come in by mobile phone !!