Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:52:54 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 09:20:02 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


What's needed is a water-resistant laptop PC with a bright screen that
sells for about a grand. That'll be the kiss of death to the overpriced
"chartplotter" business.

================================

Probably not, although it might help to bring prices down. I have both,
and if one had to go, it would be the laptop. The chartplotter integrates
nicely with the RADAR which is a desirable thing. It also has dedicated
controls clearly labeled, and it will zoom in to a much greater level of
detail than the raster charts on the laptop.

There are two things the laptop does better which is why I use both. The
raster charts are very intuitive and easy to read since they look just
like the paper charts. My paticular software also does a good job with
trip planning and layout of routes, all of which can be done below decks
the night before.


Some PC nav software has radar integration. You're right about zooming
and detail though -- vector graphics allow this, plus they load faster.
Actually I think vector graphics are superior for electronic charts,
because aspects of them can be updated without having to redo the whole
chart. This is the idea behind the hew ENC charts. How they appear on
your screen with the colors, etc., can be completely adjustable too.

The one advantage of a raster chart is that the resolution is what it is.
It becomes appropriately pixellated when you zoom in too far, so there's
no way to read beyond the chart's true resolution. I'm afraid vector
formats may allow this, which could cause problems.

Matt O.
My biggest complaint with vector charts as compared to raster is the
lack of place names on the screen. Makes it a two handed operation to
figure out the name of a nearby point or bay. Not so bad when you are
familiar with the area but awful when you are somewhere new.

Gaz