What else can be improved in the marine electronics space?

[Dogscout]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Having a boat under total nmea 2000 control , you better have a (a) big cheque book (b) a good electronics degree or (c) accept that you’re whole boat could be dead in the water without you having a clue how to fix it.

The last thing we need on “Ordinary “ boats is to go down the automotive route , it’s one thing to roll to the side of the road and call the Triple A , quite another to wonder why you can’t start a fully functioning engine or turn on a nav light because of a “ computer error “ . I will shudder the first time I see a whole boat “ yellow engine block “ warning light !!!!!

I write software for my boats systems ( I did it professionally too for a while) and develop electronic hardware for it too. But nothing goes on the boat I can’t either fix or have a work around for ( which is why I have redundant systems and a proper chart table with paper charts as well , I can do nav by sextant too but it’s getting rusty these days )

So build a system with redundancies and backups. Make it modular and removable from the NMEA 2000 backbone and individually control the lights if needed. Monitor engine systems temp pressure time and level but keep control seperate.

I only have degrees in Industrial Systems Engineering, an MBA and worked 30 years in the weapons industry. The post above is what I want, not what everyone wants. Give people options so they dont need paper charts and antiques.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dogscout

So build a system with redundancies and backups. Make it modular and removable from the NMEA 2000 backbone and individually control the lights if needed. Monitor engine systems temp pressure time and level but keep control seperate.



I only have degrees in Industrial Systems Engineering, an MBA and worked 30 years in the weapons industry. The post above is what I want, not what everyone wants. Give people options so they dont need paper charts and antiques.

Building useful redundancy can be expensive , complex and hard to install

Let’s say you have nmea 2000 digital switching system handling your lights ,redundancy means potentially duplicate systems or running parallel conventional switch wires etc.

This is all “ easy talk “ the devil is in the detail

Never sail without some form of paper chart solution

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by JackNet

...I am interested in knowing how the marine electronics and technology scope is like from the perspective of boaters and sailors and what else can be improved. As for myself, I believe the way forward is embracing open technologies like OpenCPN and I also noticed the thread here regarding Starlink internet access and I also bet that will take off for maritime applications.

I suggest that if you can produce the electronics equivalent of the Volkswagen air-cooled Beetle, Maytag washing machine, Ford Model T, Coleman stove....you'd have the most customers. A product that is "most analogous to an analog instrument" that never, ever needs updates (save navigational), where inexpensive and very common components are used, something that has a very, very long service life. An entire kit, if zapped by lightning, swaps out for peanuts.

I think this is practically impossible for IT/engineers to do, resist the siren's call of fiddling with, improving their baby, where it's ordinary to ignore the enemy of good is better principle (and/or answer the ?minority consumer's challenge for new and flashy).

Ultimately if you're just going to run with the newer is better and neater market then you've got a lot more competition. I don't know the legality of semi-commercializing OpenCpn, but if you're familiar with the old HeathKit model, I suggest selling ensembles that are stem-to-stern plug and play and forget it would be very well-received.

[Alita49DS]

Agree, or disagree, I think that we should all the grateful to JackNet for starting a really interesting thread.

One reply stated: "The average yachtie couldn’t give a damm about open systems , they just want a system that works and the big four have largely done that".

I suppose that adequately encompasses the Apple view of the consumer. Someone who is prepared to pay more, get less and then be locked into a relatively reliable proprietary ecosystem.

Conversely, others, usually with a bit more IT knowledge, want the equivalent of USB-C which will work across devices from different manufacturers and perform a multitude of tasks. So much better that even Apple uses the standard on its newer devices but not phones where it can milk profit.

NMEA 2000 should have been the marine equivalent of USB-C but only Furuno, as far as I am aware, used a standard Ethernet connector. Which is all 2000 is. The rest of them went proprietary with the aim of locking the consumer in - a la Apple.

So for hardware, I would posit that there should be regulation to ban proprietary connection systems. That will enhance choice, put pressure on prices and reduce waste. Otherwise, I accept the argument that IP68 hardware in a relatively small market will always be relatively expensive.

Where matters really could be improved is in respect of the firmware in the kit. In an area where stability is critical, these devices, in my experience, fail to sandbox their systems. So one DLL error crashes the lot. That has been unacceptable in computers for years. Likewise, as these are essentially computers, the operating system should be opened up to all the end user to add their own apps. Independently developed apps and not from a manufacturer app store loading 30% on top.

The next area I would pinpoint is fault finding. Which can be a nightmare. Boat manufacturers generally provide excellent wiring diagrams but the instrumentation is not covered. I appreciate that fit out is generally left to the cottage industry populated by dealers. Who have to meet customer choice. However, the builders could put in the NMEA2000 backbone and document it. They could also require the dealers to document their work. That would be of enormous help to the end user.

There is a lot to admire about the developments in marine electronics but there is still a long way to go. The focus should be opening up the market.

[JackNet]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I suggest that if you can produce the electronics equivalent of the Volkswagen air-cooled Beetle, Maytag washing machine, Ford Model T, Coleman stove....you'd have the most customers. A product that is "most analogous to an analog instrument" that never, ever needs updates (save navigational), where inexpensive and very common components are used, something that has a very, very long service life. An entire kit, if zapped by lightning, swaps out for peanuts.

I think this is practically impossible for IT/engineers to do, resist the siren's call of fiddling with, improving their baby, where it's ordinary to ignore the enemy of good is better principle (and/or answer the ?minority consumer's challenge for new and flashy).

Ultimately if you're just going to run with the newer is better and neater market then you've got a lot more competition. I don't know the legality of semi-commercializing OpenCpn, but if you're familiar with the old HeathKit model, I suggest selling ensembles that are stem-to-stern plug and play and forget it would be very well-received.

Long term support is indeed of consideration. Swapping an installed rugged kit every 2-4 years is a ludicrous task, after all. For sure something in this market must be designed to work for ages by itself, even after EOL from the manufacturer, and that components can be hot-swappable. Exploring up-and-coming trends in the tech world to implement in a product to future-proof it to a certain extent, like USB type C connectors or NMEA OneNet, is another factor but predicting one that doesn't eventually spell impending doom can be a challenge in of itself.


As for the legality of semi-commercializing open software, OpenCPN itself actually has a commercial release for the Android builds in the play store alongside a free legacy release. As long as the core source code that the paid release uses is available and can at least be compiled, then this is actually fine. The thing that open software sells on versus closed software is vendor support and branding. Red Hat has done this for a long time with their Linux releases, where their core source is built from an upstream community project (Fedora), gets downstreamed for enterprise (CentOS), and then they sell it with the associated cost going to customer support (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). For OpenCPN, you purchase the Android app from the play store and with that gives you access to the app support forum, though there is always the option of compiling from the source yourself and releases compiled by community but support is dependent on the user and community.

[Jhhastie]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I suggest that if you can produce the electronics equivalent of the Volkswagen air-cooled Beetle, Maytag washing machine, Ford Model T, Coleman stove....you'd have the most customers. A product that is "most analogous to an analog instrument" that never, ever needs updates (save navigational), where inexpensive and very common components are used, something that has a very, very long service life. An entire kit, if zapped by lightning, swaps out for peanuts.

I think this is practically impossible for IT/engineers to do, resist the siren's call of fiddling with, improving their baby, where it's ordinary to ignore the enemy of good is better principle (and/or answer the ?minority consumer's challenge for new and flashy).

Ultimately if you're just going to run with the newer is better and neater market then you've got a lot more competition. I don't know the legality of semi-commercializing OpenCpn, but if you're familiar with the old HeathKit model, I suggest selling ensembles that are stem-to-stern plug and play and forget it would be very well-received.

Boy, do I agree with this quote. I have architected software for world wide distribution to make life easier for users. Redundant systems do not have to be expensive FOR CRITICAL key systems. I have redundant gps. I have redundant radios. I have a redundant plb, etc. Not that expensive. "Antique sextan"t, get real. Look at the naval collisions that made the Navy go back to sextants.

Also updates, a wonderful marketing strategy for getting your bucks. "We are dropping support for..." Shame on you. You want to start a revolution, start one for "BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY." If you use iOS, look at all updates. Remember the early days of "We will release no wine before its time". "ACEPTABLLE LIST OF BUGS", tell that to the astronauts.

Sorry for the rant, but after 61 years of sailing, and a career in IT, I just had to jump in.

[caffel]

My advice is to look at collision avoidance, both with the ground and flotsam. Aircraft have this for both, including GPS driven minimum altitudes nearly world wide.

[twig]

I’d like to see more aftermarket forward Looking sonar that is reasonable in price to help with shallow water navigation.

[Paul Carey]

When we add up the costs of all the various individual nav / coms devices, even assuming they are interconnectable , there has to be a market for a one piece radio/ais/plotter including log/wind/depth .. I can understand that on existing vessels, out of date devices can be updated one at a time ,, but on new build vessels there is a case & I would conject that most people normally replace their whole system anyway...

[Captain Puget]

Here's a challenge for you -

The newer chart plotters and autopilots with auto routing are great. However, I would like to be able to draw a route (or modify the suggested auto route) using a stylus or my finger allowing for curves, not just multiple straight line segments. The goal is allow for local knowledge to avoid or take advantage of known tide rips/ currents and headland wind shadow effects that are not not taken into account by the "shortest path" algorithms that the chart plotters use by linking multiple straight line segments added together.

[Singularity]

Note the results of the poll in this thread:
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...cs-218208.html

If you put out a kit in 2020+ that provides the best utility that ~2017 had to offer (including AIS/radar target tracking), and supported it, I suggest it would probably suit the tastes of 25+% of the market for the rest of their lives (where these folks would be happy to be stuck in ~2017 for the rest of their lives). Or, if not one-size-fits-all, have 2-3 "tiers" were one tier stays in ~2017.

If Raspberry Pi and Arduino based...how problematic in the future would it be for the software/firmware to remain stable with newer versions RPi/Arduino hardware coming out over years? Does this same-family hardware still ~always cause firmware/software problems sooner or later....thus requiring software updates/bug fixes?

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I suggest that if you can produce the electronics equivalent of the Volkswagen air-cooled Beetle, Maytag washing machine, Ford Model T, Coleman stove....you'd have the most customers.

I also, also agree.

But having said that I'm making a new electronics change that is exciting to me. Currently my chartplotters are almost 20 years old and work great, but slow. Last year I bought a Samsung tab A for $399 and installed Navionics on it for around $30 per year. Really a nice program though it doesn't do everything my existing plotter does.

But my 25w VHF stopped working and my Vesper AIS stopped also. After researching I've purchased a new Vesper Cortex system for $2000. The capabilities of this unit are amazing and when coupled with the Samsung will provide me with all I can currently conceive of right now, including remote monitoring. I think that $2500 is inexpensive - super cheap - for what you get. So I guess it's not clear to me what area needs improvement as it seems to be covered.

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I suggest that if you can produce the electronics equivalent of the Volkswagen air-cooled Beetle, Maytag washing machine, Ford Model T, Coleman stove....you'd have the most customers.

I also, also agree.

But having said that I'm making a new electronics change that is exciting to me. Currently my chartplotters are almost 20 years old and work great, but slow. Last year I bought a Samsung tab A for $399 and installed Navionics on it for around $30 per year. Really a nice program though it doesn't do everything my existing plotter does.

But my 25w VHF stopped working and my Vesper AIS stopped also. After researching I've purchased a new Vesper Cortex system for $2000. The capabilities of this unit are amazing and when coupled with the Samsung will provide me with all I can currently conceive of right now, including remote monitoring. I think that $2500 is inexpensive - super cheap - for what you get. So I guess it's not clear to me what area needs improvement as it seems to be covered.

[JackNet]

Originally Posted by Singularity

If Raspberry Pi and Arduino based...how problematic in the future would it be for the software/firmware to remain stable with newer versions RPi/Arduino hardware coming out over years? Does this same-family hardware still ~always cause firmware/software problems sooner or later....thus requiring software updates/bug fixes?

Open software development can be broken down to nightly builds for development, beta builds for testing, and stable builds with long-term support for production use. This is why market products are to ship with the latter: core software builds designed for period hardware that have minimal errata after going through each downstream pass. Bugs and vulnerabilities certainly can slip through or be discovered, even in stable products, so out of the gate patches are likely unavoidable but those can be beamed to the units via your smartphone or through an SD card and won't necessarily happen as often after that. There generally comes a time that would end up being more expensive and it's better to just move to newer hardware. Inevitably, new hardware releases are a fact of life in the tech world now-a-days. As long as you get good mileage, support, and component accessibility out of the product for at the very least 10-15 years, in tech that's considered "good enough", but more preferably longer than that. I still use a Pi 3 Model B, even after the B+ or the 4 or any newer releases, and the Pi Zero is basically a legacy Pi 1 that is made far more compact to make it usable in more embedded situations and costs pennies to manufacture with its associated cost to use are the peripherals.

Originally Posted by Palarran

I also, also agree.

But having said that I'm making a new electronics change that is exciting to me. Currently my chartplotters are almost 20 years old and work great, but slow. Last year I bought a Samsung tab A for $399 and installed Navionics on it for around $30 per year. Really a nice program though it doesn't do everything my existing plotter does.

But my 25w VHF stopped working and my Vesper AIS stopped also. After researching I've purchased a new Vesper Cortex system for $2000. The capabilities of this unit are amazing and when coupled with the Samsung will provide me with all I can currently conceive of right now, including remote monitoring. I think that $2500 is inexpensive - super cheap - for what you get. So I guess it's not clear to me what area needs improvement as it seems to be covered.

There is the convenience factor to have the Vesper system put VHF, AIS, and remote monitoring all in one place and I can justify its price, but that Samsung tablet. It's Android. It's born for versatility. I wonder if that can be better embraced. I know there's apps and such, but those are primarily for companion use.

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by JackNet

There is the convenience factor to have the Vesper system put VHF, AIS, and remote monitoring all in one place and I can justify its price, but that Samsung tablet. It's Android. It's born for versatility. I wonder if that can be better embraced. I know there's apps and such, but those are primarily for companion use.

I'm not sure I've really followed what your trying to do from the start of this thread, but, in regard to the question about Samsung tablets, yes they could.