Raytech Planner

[Pat Anderson]

One thing I have found is pretty cool is to quickly route plan on the C-Map vector chart at the gross level with the raster charts set to 0% transparency, then to bring the raster charts up to maybe 50%, so you can see a lot more detail overlaid and drag the waypoints around to miss rocks, stay in deep water, etc. - my raster charts are the MapTech ones that came on CD with my Puget Sound and San Juan chartbooks, but I have a bunch of NOAA raster charts too, and they do have all the buoys, rocks and other detail stuff...Here is a screen shot (this is Everett to Port Ludlow):

[colobear]

Pat,

What kind of chartbooks do you have?? I'm interested in the raster charts. I don't have any now.

Thanks for "test driving" this product.

[flapbreaker]

So Pat, it doesn't look like your using the default charts then because I don't have near the detail that you are getting. I've posted some comparison pictures. Two of them are from the florida location that it defualts to. Interestingly enough both cmap and navionics have much more detail in this region than the other two pictures of the Columbia river mouth. There's no tide stations or bouys to speak of listed. I can access tide data but just no tide stations on the map.

c-map


Navionics


Columbia River entrance.
c-map


Navionics

[Pat Anderson]

Most of the detail is on the raster charts that are overlaid over the C-Map built in vector chart - I have the raster chart transparency set to about 50%, so it appears lighter (and the raster chart does not completely hide the vector chart). I'll bet you can get the raster charts you need for the detail you want from the NOAA Raster Navigational Chart download page. An interesting note on your area, it appears the Navionics base chart is better than the C-Map...here it seems just the opposite, but whatever works!

[flapbreaker]

Thanks for the link. I found some raster charts that work. Much better than the supplied ones.

[thataway]

I think it would be very difficult to make a judgement on Navionics base charts being better than C maps base charts. I have chart plotters which use both. (Not Raymarine) The detail given in the "C map" base chart, is far less than what is on the basic plotters. I suspect that this is due to the fact that RayMarine stopped using C map some time ago, and what is seen here may reflect relitatively old material. Or...could it be that RayMarine is intentionally using a map with much less resolution? I have used C maps (and Navionics) for the last 5 years--since discontinuing Garmin--and found that in some places one was better than the other--both in base charts and the detailed charts.

From what you show as the C map, it might be dangerous to use that as route planning material....or I am missing some major point here.

[flapbreaker]

[Pat Anderson]

They are labeled "Maptech Waterproof Chartbook"- I have two, one is 23 pages for the San Juans, and the other is 25 pages for Puget Sound (this one is labeled "West" but it is produced by Maptech). I think each one was $50. Starting with the ones labeled "Second Edition" they include a companion CD with the pages from the chartbook and a copy of Offshore Navigator Lite software. The chartbooks are very handy for the areas they cover. But I was mistaken, the raster charts I am using are not from the Maptech CDs, they are downloaded raster charts from the NOAA site.

[Pat Anderson]

Bob - I was only commenting on what is built in to the Raytech Planner distribution for base maps - for this area (Puget Sound, San Juans), the C-Map base map just has more detail than the Navionics base map. I still would not use either for navigation or the final route plan, the base maps lack most of the navigational detail required. I have no idea whether Navionics or C-Map is better generally, I have never used C-Map in a chartplotter. The Navionics Gold charts I use in the C80 are very good in my opinion. What I do for route planning is do a Q&D route very quickly on the C-Map base map at a zoom level where I can see as much as possible - might go through shallow water, over rocks or even across land! Then I zoom in and bring up the raster chart detail from the NOAA charts and start dragging waypoints around to stay in deep water, miss rocks, etc. Finally I use the el cheapo CF card to transfer the route from the computer to the C80. Works well for me, I have really just started doing this since discovering Raytech Planner.

[thataway]

I will have to confess that I still do it the old fashioned way; from paper charts. A couple of years ago I was doing the planing on the computer, and saw that there were two ways to get to my destination (near Tampa Bay). What I missed, on the scale of the computer, was that one of the bridges was fixed at 19 feet! I went merrily down the waterway, until I came to this bridge. Fortunately the boat had an 18' 6" air draft, and the tide was below mean water, so with Marie sighting the clearance, we squeeked under....but ever since I have gone back to the paper charts. This problem--but in a different way was recent brought to light by Ben Ellison (Panbo): http://www.panbo.com/ in his July 25 and 26 th blogs about some ledges near "wooded Island" Maine (how many "Wooded Islands" are there? Anyway, the issue is that often small rocks or ledges are obscured by a navigational mark, or may not have been put on the chart as it was transfered from the database to digital format. This is a serious issue, which is also further documented in his archives, and a definate defect in using electronic charts for route planning.

I find that reading Ben's cutting edge blogs on small boat (OK Yacht too) electronics is fascinating reading and very thought provoking.

Please understand this is not a criticism, of what seems to be an ingenious plan, but just some thoughts about the "dangers". I do certainly agree that for any route planning a base chart is not at all satisfactory. We also all acknowlege that many "obstructions" are misplaced on the paper charts as well.

Regards,

[Grumpy]

Just FYI. Boeing announced Friday that it has acquired C-Map. Below is copy of press release.

SEATTLE, Aug. 18, 2006 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced it has reached an agreement to acquire C-Map, a leading provider of digital maritime cartography, data services and other navigational information. C-Map will become a part of Jeppesen's marine division. Jeppesen is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing Commercial Aviation Services.

"We are excited about adding C-Map to Jeppesen's existing portfolio of marine information solutions," said Lou Mancini, vice president and general manager of Commercial Aviation Services. "C-Map's broad portfolio of cartography and data services, along with its key relationships with hydrographic offices, OEMs and customers, will accelerate Jeppesen's expansion in the marine information services market."

"C-Map complements Jeppesen's strategic direction," said Mark Van Tine, Jeppesen president and chief operating officer. "It blends well with our existing marine initiatives, and complements our long-standing competencies as an information solutions provider. Together with C-Map, Jeppesen will extend to the marine market a broad range of competencies we have developed and executed upon over the last 72 years -- delivering mission-critical operational information to people who depend on it."

C-Map has significant operations throughout Europe, Australasia and the Americas.

The companies are not disclosing terms of the transaction, which will not impact Boeing's financial guidance. Completion of the transaction is subject to customary conditions and relevant authorities' approval.

For more information on C-Map, visit www.c-map.it. For more information on Jeppesen, visit www.jeppesen.com.

On edit by Da Nag
Links fixed

[thataway]

Thank you for that news. This is most interesting, since Jeppeson already has purchased Nobeltec. It "rounds out" the line--having both CD/DVD and chip based GPS plotter charting.

One of the great features was that C map had people who regularly monitered the large forums (like The Hull Truth and Boater Ed) who very quickly responded to problems or errors. I hope that this type of service continues. I have been very happy with C map--I have the Max chart for the Inland US and Gulf Coast, but really haven't tried all of the full features. Interesting Max Logo!

[Da Nag]

[Sea Wolf]

Wow!

The new integrated GPS/Chartplotter/Map/Radar/Depth Sounder/Tea Leaves in the Galley Sink Systems seem overwhelming and unnecessarily complex.

Glad I'm on an inland lake with VFR and paper charts (only when needed).

Will check back in in 2025 (if I'm still alive) to see if the market shake out and further developments have made the systems more user friendly!

KISS, KISS !

Joe.

[thataway]

Joe,
You left out the Real time weather via XM satellite (or was that Garmin...?) I always just looked out the window for lightning and sent the dog outside to see if she was wet or not for rain.

Seriously, C map Amy and another person were right on top of problems which were identified. Based on input from the Trawler list/via Boat fix, with some personal input, C map changed their Bahamas Database from What DMA (or what ever it is called this week) was using and purchased the right to the Lewis Explorer Database, and then integrated this into all of the Bahamas charts. I found that both navigational issues, POI and functional issues were quickly resolved. There have been several generations of the C map planner; the most recent one seems to work quite well.

There is a place for the integrated systems--but I do believe that some people who have beginning knowlege tend not to understand the weaknesses and dangers of the integrated systems. I prefer separate screens. I am not convinced that the transparent charts really add any level of safety or speed to route plotting. That is why I still take a paper chart, protractor, ruler/triangle and dividers in planning my routes. I do believe that for long route planning, either coast wise or oceanic there is something to be said for the electronic plotting--but there are still regular reports of boats hitting reefs in the S. Pacific, because the scale was wrong, the Datum was incorrect, the chart was wrong, or there was too much "declutter".