Let's get rid of NMEA
 

The problem is across the entire marine spectrum, not just pleasure craft.
There are thousands of commercial vessels that not only bus the nav gear
through NMEA and other IMO approved interfaces,but now also host Ethernet
networks as well.

Thousands does not equal economies of scale typical for computer electronics
markets.

That and, iirc, ethernet has no standardized connectors for watertight
fittings. Then there's the hassle of all the wiring having to be home-run
back to a switch. There's no way to daisy-chain the instruments along a
single backbone. So it's more wire to break, more connectors to leak. No
thanks.

The IMO is a very conservative and at times very backward
organization. I do not agree with Meindert, but he does raise very valid
points. NMEA 2k is better than 0183, but it doesn't hold a candle in
transport capability or flexibility in comparison to Ethernet.

And what capability and flexibility claims are so great as to be useful in
the MARINE industry? Just what about TCP/IP is so useful in this
application?

The world has changed. I am an electronic engineer that has been involved
with both IT and aircraft instrumentation for 40 years. the world has
changed, we need to keep up.

NMEA2K keeps up, and more.

Ethernet and TCP/IP is used by billions world wide. Implementing this
technology allows this "very small" market place you speak about enjoy the
cost advantage of a technology used by the world.

How, exactly? More wire, non-standard connectors (RJ45 in a screw cap?
puh-leeze)

I'm all for cost effective solutions. But, as the saying goes, when all you
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

Something I'd like to point out: The market goes beyond boating. There
are others including aviation, automotive, sporting, surveying, research,
and I'm sure many others. NMEA is present in most if not in all of these
areas.

This is another reason why I'd like to see changes made. Open architecture
that is extensible, so that these other areas may be addressed easier.

The electrical part of the standard is brilliant in the use of CAN. My
argument is mainly about the sentence structure and how it is retreived and
used. 0183 is great because it is human readable, somewhat rs-232
compatible, and easy to implement. Also there is enough information
floating around the web to figure out how to use it. This is not the case
with 2k.

All this makes it easy to "plug" into a laptop and test or use the talkers.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

"Poit" wrote in message
00.119...
Something I'd like to point out: The market goes beyond boating. There
are others including aviation, automotive, sporting, surveying, research,
and I'm sure many others. NMEA is present in most if not in all of these
areas.

Indeed, because it's cheap and easy to implement.
Anything else will be more expensive and more of a hassle to connect.

This is another reason why I'd like to see changes made. Open
architecture
that is extensible, so that these other areas may be addressed easier.

Could you please explain where NMEA 0183 fails in this respect?
It is extensible, NMEA 0183 allows for "Proprietary sentences" which can be
arbitrarily defined and it really is an open standard.

Also there is enough information floating around the web to figure out
how to use it.

Ah, so that is your real point: you want all the information for free. You
think because of the fact that you have to pay to get the information, the
standard is not open. Wrong. NMEA is an open standard and available to
anyone. A closed standard like Seatalk is NOT available, except for the
reverse engineered stuff on the web.

Meindert

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

Something I'd like to point out: The market goes beyond boating. There
are others including aviation,

I'm sure the FAA would laugh in your face at that.

automotive, sporting, surveying, research,
and I'm sure many others. NMEA is present in most if not in all of these
areas.

And working quite well. Besides trying to shore up a weak argument, is
there a point here?

This is another reason why I'd like to see changes made. Open
architecture
that is extensible, so that these other areas may be addressed easier.

Bull**** again, and Meindert calls you on it in the next message.

The electrical part of the standard is brilliant in the use of CAN. My
argument is mainly about the sentence structure and how it is retreived
and
used. 0183 is great because it is human readable, somewhat rs-232
compatible, and easy to implement. Also there is enough information
floating around the web to figure out how to use it. This is not the case
with 2k.

Ah yes, the old "human readable" bogus argument. Are jpeg files human
readable? How about mp3 files? And yet they're amazingly useful in meeting
the needs of their applications.

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

"Bill Kearney" wrote in
t:

Something I'd like to point out: The market goes beyond boating.
There are others including aviation,

I'm sure the FAA would laugh in your face at that.

Why would they do that? Besides ARINC, NMEA is a format found there.

automotive, sporting, surveying, research,
and I'm sure many others. NMEA is present in most if not in all of
these areas.

And working quite well. Besides trying to shore up a weak argument,
is there a point here?

The point is that you are trying to make it seem that the market is too
small for changes, when in fact it goes well beyond your little world.



This is another reason why I'd like to see changes made. Open
architecture
that is extensible, so that these other areas may be addressed
easier.

Bull**** again, and Meindert calls you on it in the next message.


I know about the proprietary sentences. What is your
major malfunction?

The electrical part of the standard is brilliant in the use of CAN.
My argument is mainly about the sentence structure and how it is
retreived and
used. 0183 is great because it is human readable, somewhat rs-232
compatible, and easy to implement. Also there is enough information
floating around the web to figure out how to use it. This is not the
case with 2k.

Ah yes, the old "human readable" bogus argument. Are jpeg files human
readable? How about mp3 files? And yet they're amazingly useful in
meeting the needs of their applications.



What"s bogus about that argument? Jpeg and mp3 standards are readily
available on the net. Also I'm not arguing that NMEA does'nt do it's
job. In fact I was standing up for NMEA 0183. What's wrong with having
it human readable? If something breaks having it easy to work with makes
troubleshooting a lot easier.

I don't understand why you keep missing the main point. Maybe you work
for NMEA? You'd think that by the very nature and even the title of this
newsgroup, the audience would be in favor of the do-it yourself. Even
some of the other posters see the point.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

We are not talking about replacing NMEA 0183. In fact, just the opposite.
What we have stated is the requirement to upgrade the transport system, not
replace NMEA. What could be better than NMEA over TCP/IP? This can easily be
accomplished by assigning an IP address to each device.. The gateway then
strips off the TCP header and feeds the the device NMEA 0183. What problem?
Steve

"Poit" wrote in message
00.119...
"Bill Kearney" wrote in
t:

Something I'd like to point out: The market goes beyond boating.
There are others including aviation,

I'm sure the FAA would laugh in your face at that.

Why would they do that? Besides ARINC, NMEA is a format found there.

automotive, sporting, surveying, research,
and I'm sure many others. NMEA is present in most if not in all of
these areas.

And working quite well. Besides trying to shore up a weak argument,
is there a point here?

The point is that you are trying to make it seem that the market is too
small for changes, when in fact it goes well beyond your little world.



This is another reason why I'd like to see changes made. Open
architecture
that is extensible, so that these other areas may be addressed
easier.

Bull**** again, and Meindert calls you on it in the next message.


I know about the proprietary sentences. What is your
major malfunction?

The electrical part of the standard is brilliant in the use of CAN.
My argument is mainly about the sentence structure and how it is
retreived and
used. 0183 is great because it is human readable, somewhat rs-232
compatible, and easy to implement. Also there is enough information
floating around the web to figure out how to use it. This is not the
case with 2k.

Ah yes, the old "human readable" bogus argument. Are jpeg files human
readable? How about mp3 files? And yet they're amazingly useful in
meeting the needs of their applications.



What"s bogus about that argument? Jpeg and mp3 standards are readily
available on the net. Also I'm not arguing that NMEA does'nt do it's
job. In fact I was standing up for NMEA 0183. What's wrong with having
it human readable? If something breaks having it easy to work with makes
troubleshooting a lot easier.

I don't understand why you keep missing the main point. Maybe you work
for NMEA? You'd think that by the very nature and even the title of this
newsgroup, the audience would be in favor of the do-it yourself. Even
some of the other posters see the point.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News
Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to
100,000+ newsgroups

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message
...
We are not talking about replacing NMEA 0183. In fact, just the opposite.
What we have stated is the requirement to upgrade the transport system,
not
replace NMEA. What could be better than NMEA over TCP/IP?

NMEA over UDP!

Meindert

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

In article ,
"Meindert Sprang" wrote:

NMEA over UDP!

Meindert

I'm in agreement with Meindert, NEMA over UDP makes a lot more sense....
Just the change in Physical and Electrical Layers would be GREAT....

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:29:28 +0200, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

What could be better than NMEA over TCP/IP? This can easily be
accomplished by assigning an IP address to each device.. The gateway then
strips off the TCP header and feeds the the device NMEA 0183. What problem?

I believe that Furuno has been doing something similar to that with
their NavNet equipment for years. Each separate unit gets its own IP
address on the LAN and NMEA data is being shipped around between them.

Let's get rid of NMEA
 

YES - Very good.
Now we do just need a brave "greenfielder" who want to bring us all to the
next generation....

sincerely
/Børge


"Larry" skrev i meddelelsen
...
Bruce in alaska wrote in news:fast-
:

One would NEED, to first have a Hardware Bridge that bridges the two
different Hardware Connection Standards. Then a Protocol Converter
that can translate between the two Protocols in question,
BiDirectionally....

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply



I have this silly dream of a wifi network you just plug any DHCP-enabled
device into 12V. The "marine router" connects to it and assigns it an
DHCP IP, then makes a connection to its port 12345 and presents it an
automatic broadcast of every data statement being received at the
router. In that data stream is the IP and ID data of every instrument
available. When you turn on the new Wind instrument, the router reports
to all connections the new wind instruments ID/IP and starts feeding the
wind data to the broadcast stream.

Even your handheld walkie talkie, pocket GPS, tablet computer, laptop,
etc., all connect to the boat's network. The walkie talkie can display
lat/long/wind/course/speed/distance to waypoint....any data that's
available...right on the walkie screen. The chart plotter in the hand
held GPS shows the same data as the one at the helm or on the nav
software on the computer.

It all exists with off-the-shelf hardware. Software for it exists or is
easily written in Linux, holding down cost by using an open source
operating system every manufacturer can use for free. All instruments
will talk with all other instruments WITHOUT this proprietary bull****
trying to force the boater to buy only our equipment we have now.

Any device can connect DIRECTLY to any other device on the network. The
computer can directly connect on a separate channel to the autopilot,
for instance. They can swap data separately from the public broadcast
channel.

Ethernet - TCP/IP can make this happen this month.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel with a bunch of "marine", read
that "proprietary" nonsense....