Lack of information on CM93 charts

[HappySeagull]

ok, I got the old laptop out of the bilge and figured out how to run the old, old version of maxsea that is on it and I get this....


definitely different. There's soundings on it, for one thing.

same version of cm93 I do believe...Scale is 10,000

[HappySeagull]

1:25000...

[HappySeagull]

also testing : O v1.36 (as a homemade portable version), just in the unlikely case something got lost along the way but no -so far, I can't get those soundings whichever version, whatever boxes checked...

[Samarang]

Well this has moved on a bit from my original question, but I keep getting the mails so I'll chip in. I think Cagney has it.

If I look at the location in question on the same version of CM93 using Maxsea or CPM I see exactly the same information (except for presentational differences). Obviously there can be differences between versions of the chart, but whatever version I look at, as long as it's the same in both programs, the info is the same (as you have the display granularity/detail set the same of course). Pretty much as you'd expect really.

[sailorF54]

The CM93 V2 USED to have detailled info on that aera, up to the (so-called) 2009 version, based on UKHO chart 1670A.
My take is that in order to keep up with increased coverage in areas with major ship traffic on a single CD, they have deleted some 'backwaters'
A well-known example in Europe is the Golfe du Morbihan, a major cruising grounds in South Brittany - France, but without commercial relevance, which has been missing since 2009.

[nixontankgirl]

[QUOTE=HappySeagull;1053040]NixonTankGirl,
Please, scuttle back over there with a usb stick and get a screen grab for us of maxsea showing more detail, can you?

While you're at it sneak a copy of the cm93 folder, just in case it's a better version!



I will try and get over there later today.

[yachtvalhalla]

Here's my comparison screen shots.

The lack of detail in cm93 charts for 2010 and early 2011 are corrected for this location in the August 2011 version.

But I have to agree that the MaxSea 10.3.2.1 has better information

Terry

[HappySeagull]

Terry, you at least have O showing soundings where I , JimCate and others I think have none, so you do have a "better" cm93 version, whatever date it has.

And I can show similar dropouts O vs. MAX with my cm93 folder right here in local water . O is missing out on something in these cm93's
NixonTankGirl's found a weevil in the kool-aid.

[nixontankgirl]

I didn't get over to their boat today, but I think Terry nailed it with his screen shots.

[JesperWe]

Except Terrys screenshots are from the 2007 Edition of CM93, not August 2011.
So Cagneys explanation still holds.

There are a few differences:

- O does not show the NATSUR attribute (Co) for the drying areas. I don't think we ever show that on the map actually. It is available if you double click on them.

- O does correctly show the top-marks of the buoys. Maxsea doesn't show any.

- Then there is one sounding, the 18 feet on the rock about mid-screen. This is not in the database AFAICS so I do not know where Maxsea is getting that info...

[sailorF54]

Originally Posted by JesperWe

- Then there is one sounding, the 18 feet on the rock about mid-screen. This is not in the database AFAICS so I do not know where Maxsea is getting that info...

Here is the raster version of the original (metric) UKHO chart.

The 18 ft sounding seems a misplaced version of the 5.9 m sounding in the narrow passage between Nuku Rf and Malolo Isl.
See O rendering of the CM93 2009 version (193 feet)

[JesperWe]

Originally Posted by sailorF54

The 18 ft sounding seems a misplaced version of the 5.9 m sounding in the narrow passage between Nuku Rf and Malolo Isl.

Looks probable. Which means that for the same version of CM93 OpenCPN display is better than Maxsea (no misplaced soundings, accurate topmarks), Only the NATSUR attribute is missing. I can go back to sleep

[HappySeagull]

awww? sleep? Jesperwe, you can't sleep!
I want more stuff squeezed outta my crusty ol' charts!

How about this? numbers on the sounding lines...??

[JesperWe]

Well, that's a long standing feature request.
(Personally I think they are mostly clutter... )

[nixontankgirl]

Personally I have been in and out of Musket Cove WITH Ocpn more than 10 times and hadn't even noticed that the depths were not showing if I hadn't moved the CM93 detail slider.
As I said originally I wasn't 'driving' my friends computer who pointed out the Ocpn/Maxsea appearance difference, however they were using the slider.

If my opinion is worth anything to anyone other than myself I am more than satisfied with Ocpn and can manage quite happily without the contour lines etc.