|
Let's get rid of NMEA
I would like to see the community come up with an open standard that would
kill off NMEA. It could stay purely ascii, be bi-directional, easy to use, no binary mumbo-jumbo. It could be extensible like XML. Best of all it would be free for everyone including manufacturers. ---- 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
00.119: I would like to see the community come up with an open standard that would kill off NMEA. It could stay purely ascii, be bi-directional, easy to use, no binary mumbo-jumbo. It could be extensible like XML. Best of all it would be free for everyone including manufacturers. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups We've had one for years. It's called TCP/IP and I'm using it to send you this message. Every instrument SHOULD be placed on a STANDARD Ethernet bus controlled by a DHCP-enabled router...with wifi would also be nice. You'll never see it as long as naive boaters will pay through the nose for NMEA's archaic nonsense. You'd have to get them to stop BUYING NMEA's member's products to get their attention. That won't happen. The cheapest of off-the-shelf routers creates 65,535 ports on each instrument and will already handle up to 256 instruments, simultaneously without all this 4800 baud nonsense with one talker. It's time to move on... |
Let's get rid of NMEA
We already have it. It's called Ethernet. Even if you have NMEA instruments,
you can use intelligent gateways that already exist. What problem? Steve "Poit" wrote in message 00.119... I would like to see the community come up with an open standard that would kill off NMEA. It could stay purely ascii, be bi-directional, easy to use, no binary mumbo-jumbo. It could be extensible like XML. Best of all it would be free for everyone including manufacturers. ---- 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:
We already have it. It's called Ethernet. Even if you have NMEA instruments, you can use intelligent gateways that already exist. What problem? Steve "Poit" wrote in message 00.119... I would like to see the community come up with an open standard that would kill off NMEA. It could stay purely ascii, be bi-directional, easy to use, no binary mumbo-jumbo. It could be extensible like XML. Best of all it would be free for everyone including manufacturers. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups The problem is that applying these communication standards require knowledge that most people don't have, so they stick to what is offered and can interconnect without being a pro in data exchanges. If protocols like Ethernet or TCP/IP are applicable to marine equipment it would be wonderful to publish some installation procedures for people who are ignorant of them. Could this be done? It sounds that NEMA instruments could communicate using the Ethernet protocol. How do you do this? |
Let's get rid of NMEA
It would be nice to be able to take a handheld gps, run ascii through a pic
and into a lcd without have to pay through the nose just for the information to do this. Off the shelf stuff is fine for real applications for your boat or plane. But why should we have to pay for the signal that comes out of our units? Besides if the manufacturer did't have to pay license fees themselves, maybe they would pass on the savings. ---- 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
|
Let's get rid of NMEA
I have no idea what you are lamenting. Have you tried to hook up a HD TV
lately? If this a general whine about complexity, perhaps you should recognize that complexity goes hand in hand with capability. You rarely can have one without the other. Please understand that ascii is a 7 bit digital character set, not a transport standard and I have no idea what a pic is. Just what payment are you referring to for plugging in a lcd or for that matter, what maufacturing license are you referring to? Steve "Poit" wrote in message 00.119... It would be nice to be able to take a handheld gps, run ascii through a pic and into a lcd without have to pay through the nose just for the information to do this. Off the shelf stuff is fine for real applications for your boat or plane. But why should we have to pay for the signal that comes out of our units? Besides if the manufacturer did't have to pay license fees themselves, maybe they would pass on the savings. ---- 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 ... I have no idea what you are lamenting. Have you tried to hook up a HD TV lately? If this a general whine about complexity, perhaps you should recognize that complexity goes hand in hand with capability. You rarely can have one without the other. Please understand that ascii is a 7 bit digital character set, not a transport standard and I have no idea what a pic is. Just what payment are you referring to for plugging in a lcd or for that matter, what maufacturing license are you referring to? He's also failing to grasp the TINY size of the marine electronics market. Much like the naive fools that rant about how their boat isn't serviced like their Honda. There's not a large enough market, in TOTAL, of likely vessels to make cost effective to cater to an EVEN SMALLER market of hobbyists. Yes, it would be good if Maretron and others made a cheaper interface to bridge NMEA2K. Their current USB unit is a bit pricey, but understandably so given the size of the market. I'm guessing by 'pic' he's thinking of the programmable chip of the same name. As for cheap LCDs, check out Lowrance and Garmin's options. They're amazingly inexpensive compared to offerings from other vendors. And Steve makes the excellent point of complexity and capability. I'll reiterate the old rule: "Good, fast, cheap... pick two." |
Let's get rid of NMEA
In article ,
Boeland wrote: Steve Lusardi wrote: We already have it. It's called Ethernet. Even if you have NMEA instruments, you can use intelligent gateways that already exist. What problem? Steve "Poit" wrote in message 00.119... I would like to see the community come up with an open standard that would kill off NMEA. It could stay purely ascii, be bi-directional, easy to use, no binary mumbo-jumbo. It could be extensible like XML. Best of all it would be free for everyone including manufacturers. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups The problem is that applying these communication standards require knowledge that most people don't have, so they stick to what is offered and can interconnect without being a pro in data exchanges. If protocols like Ethernet or TCP/IP are applicable to marine equipment it would be wonderful to publish some installation procedures for people who are ignorant of them. Could this be done? It sounds that NEMA instruments could communicate using the Ethernet protocol. How do you do this? Ethernet is NOT a Protocol...... it is a Hardware Connection Standard. TCP/IP IS a protocol..... that can run on Ethernet, or a lot of other Hardware Connection Standards...... Nema018x is a Protocol, as well as specifing a Hardware Connection Standard, that few OEM's actually pay attention to...... Nema2K is also a Protocol, with a specific Hardware Connection Standard, that OEM's have to pay attention to...... 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 |
Let's get rid of NMEA
|
Let's get rid of NMEA
I'm not whining about complexity. I'm just thinking that it would be nice
to get away from NMEA. As I said in the original post that if an open standard were created it would eliminate un-nesessary costs. Manufacturers and hobbiest alike would benefit. Open standards has worked well for the internet for years and this could be applied here as well. I'm not lamenting anything... I'm just trying to get people thinking about moving forward, taking some control, and maybe just maybe benefiting mankind in some sort of way :-). BTW a pic is a programmable chip by the same name. ---- 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
00.119: Open standards has worked well for the internet for years and this could be applied here as well. AS much as I like open source and open standards, on boat electronics I'll have to disagree. Profits would be so low with so few actual customers, none of them would survive..... How many people within 10 square miles of your house own a boat radar? See my point? The market is really TINY, even if the clients are very rich. Bill Gates is only gonna buy ONE radar for his yacht. The guy down your dock only buys his because he can't get one for free on the cheap. So, we sold 2 radars at amazing profit margins.....instead of one at lots less profit margin in the open source radar world. Manufacturers would flee the market if they couldn't rip off the rich boaters with proprietary stuff to sell 'em more....... The market is just not there..... |
Let's get rid of NMEA
I'm not whining about complexity. I'm just thinking that it would be nice
to get away from NMEA. Why? As I said in the original post that if an open standard were created it would eliminate un-nesessary costs. Based on what do you make that claim? Manufacturers and hobbiest alike would benefit. How? There aren't enough numbers to justify it. Open standards has worked well for the internet for years and this could be applied here as well. You naively equate what works for BILLIONS of devices, across hundreds (if not thousands) of markets with the SIGNIFICANTLY smaller marine market. There's just no comparison. I'm not lamenting anything... I'm just trying to get people thinking about moving forward, taking some control, and maybe just maybe benefiting mankind in some sort of way :-) Oh please, spare me the ill-informed naive sentimentality. Back it up with a sound argument and facts, not fluff. |
Let's get rid of NMEA
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t... He's also failing to grasp the TINY size of the marine electronics market. Much like the naive fools that rant about how their boat isn't serviced like their Honda. And that is exactly why marine instruments will not support an ethernet interface with TCP/IP because it is simply too expensive to implement. And surely people will now tell me that I can buy an ethernet card for my PC for less than $5. But this will simply not happen for the relatively small marine market. Meindert |
Let's get rid of NMEA
"Poit" wrote in message
00.119... I'm not whining about complexity. I'm just thinking that it would be nice to get away from NMEA. As I said in the original post that if an open standard were created it would eliminate un-nesessary costs. The NMEA standard IS an open standard. The information is available to anyone who wants it. And yes, you have to pay a small fee to get th standard on paper but that is quite a normal procedure. Manufacturers do not pay royalties or whatsoever for NMEA devices. But I agree that there could be s more mature version, created by all of us, still using cheap standard serial comms (no ethernet), in ASCII and capable of having multiple devices on one bus. A similar standard exists and is called SeaTalk. This one however is binary but it wouldn't be a problem to create an ASCII variant of it, running on a comfortable high speed and having a better hardware layer that is insensitive for interference and still be cheap (CAN style). And to ease implementation, the ASCII data could still be in NMEA format which everyone already supports. So basically, just a change in the hardware layer could take NMEA up to the next level. Meindert |
Let's get rid of NMEA
Meindert,
Very nice to hear from you again. You have been away quite some time. I can't believe I am hearing this from you. You are the perfect person for this thread. I think you need to think a bit outside of the box. As you know, each NMEA manufacturer today is addressing the inadequacies of NMEA with their own propriety solutions and selling them as the next best thing in boat electronics, like SeaTalk. Yet we have a huge, inexpensive commercial infrastructure all around TCP/IP and yet the marine industry is trying to reinvent the wheel. You should revel in this foolishness and consider this as a golden opportunity to develop a transport network like the CAN bus SAE J1939 standard, but using TCP/IP as the flexible transport medium. Where the entry and exit ports are box standard NMEA, but are in fact intelligent gateways to the Ethernet transport. You can buy off the shelf single chip TCP/IP support and inexpensive switches. I see these gateways programmable as talkers or listeners with a central router/controller accepting the NMEA inputs and buffering them as well as distributing them by IP address at any rate the listener required. This solution solves all the NMEA problems and by developing additional gateway flavors, solves all the compatibility issues between devices and manufacturers. Most of this already exists inexpensively. All it takes is a little ingenuity to integrate it into a total package. I think the market is huge. There are a lot of floating customers out their just waiting for this. Please also keep in mind that this same transport can also move all data types including other, unrelated traffic like audio, video and other computer related data streams. Steve "Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ... "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... He's also failing to grasp the TINY size of the marine electronics market. Much like the naive fools that rant about how their boat isn't serviced like their Honda. And that is exactly why marine instruments will not support an ethernet interface with TCP/IP because it is simply too expensive to implement. And surely people will now tell me that I can buy an ethernet card for my PC for less than $5. But this will simply not happen for the relatively small marine market. Meindert |
Let's get rid of NMEA
Hi Steve,
"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message ... Meindert, Very nice to hear from you again. You have been away quite some time. I'm lurking here every day... so not really away :-) I can't believe I am hearing this from you. You are the perfect person for this thread. I think you need to think a bit outside of the box. As you know, each NMEA manufacturer today is addressing the inadequacies of NMEA with their own propriety solutions and selling them as the next best thing in boat electronics, like SeaTalk. Yet we have a huge, inexpensive commercial infrastructure all around TCP/IP and yet the marine industry is trying to reinvent the wheel. Well, I think it is not that simple. Off course we have thousands of cheap products for ethernet networking. Most of which are not suitable nor allowed in marine environments. Take the average UTP CAT5 cable: not permitted on board of SOLAS vessels. The average hub is not IEC945 compliant: not permitted on SOLAS vessels. Not to mention the average RJ45 connector... Furthermore, while everyone is hammering on using TCP/IP to replace NMEA: TCP/IP is the least suitable protocol for this. In a marine network, one has several devices all sending information to whoever it concerns. TCP/IP on the other hand, is a point to point protocol. UDP broadcasts would be much better since they reach every device on the network. Look at the average Serial-Ethernet bridge: they all to TCP/IP to replace ONE serial link. Not suitable. Look at the price of these little boxes compared to bog standard ethernet cards and you see how in a relatively small marine market prices would increase when you equip devices with an ethernet interface. You should revel in this foolishness and consider this as a golden opportunity to develop a transport network like the CAN bus SAE J1939 standard, NMEA2000 is based on CAN but using TCP/IP as the flexible transport medium. Do you realise that basic CAN only transports 8 bytes per packet at a time? To put TCP/IP on top of that causes a huge overhead on the network, not to mention the burden on the processor that drives the CAN controller. CAN was never invented for this. CAN was invented to broadcast data on a network to every one who needs it. No point to point connections. CAN is perfect for distributing navigation info. Where the entry and exit ports are box standard NMEA, but are in fact intelligent gateways to the Ethernet transport. You can buy off the shelf single chip TCP/IP support At a price.... and inexpensive switches. I see these gateways programmable as talkers or listeners with a central router/controller accepting the NMEA inputs and buffering them as well as distributing them by IP address at any rate the listener required. The speed of NMEA is so low that you can simply dump it on an ethernet network as it comes, without any intelligent distributing or rate control. Do some math: 100Mbit/s vs 38400 b/s: That is the equivalent of 2600 AIS receivers spitting out data continuously one one UTP cable. Meindert |
Let's get rid of NMEA
"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message ... Meindert, Very nice to hear from you again. You have been away quite some time. I can't believe I am hearing this from you. You are the perfect person for this thread. I think you need to think a bit outside of the box. As you know, each NMEA manufacturer today is addressing the inadequacies of NMEA with their own propriety solutions and selling them as the next best thing in boat electronics, like SeaTalk WERE reinventing, past tense. NMEA2000 is the solution for it, and it works QUITE well. Yet we have a huge, inexpensive commercial infrastructure all around TCP/IP and yet the marine industry is trying to reinvent the wheel. You should revel in this foolishness and consider this as a golden opportunity to develop a transport network like the CAN bus SAE J1939 standard, but using TCP/IP as the flexible transport medium. Which screams of how little you understand about instrumentation networks. I think the market is huge. There are a lot of floating customers out their just waiting for this. I call bull****. List actual numbers, not pie-in-the sky hopes. Please also keep in mind that this same transport can also move all data types including other, unrelated traffic like audio, video and other computer related data streams. Which, again, screams of how little grasp you have of how instrumentation networks function. |
Let's get rid of NMEA
Larry wrote:
Poit wrote in 00.119: Open standards has worked well for the internet for years and this could be applied here as well. AS much as I like open source and open standards, on boat electronics I'll have to disagree. Profits would be so low with so few actual customers, none of them would survive..... How many people within 10 square miles of your house own a boat radar? See my point? The market is really TINY, even if the clients are very rich. Bill Gates is only gonna buy ONE radar for his yacht. The guy down your dock only buys his because he can't get one for free on the cheap. So, we sold 2 radars at amazing profit margins.....instead of one at lots less profit margin in the open source radar world. Manufacturers would flee the market if they couldn't rip off the rich boaters with proprietary stuff to sell 'em more....... The market is just not there..... hmmmm, well, firstly I measure square kilometers, secondly where I live on the Norwegian coast I would count about 3000 leasure boat owners in the ten square kilometers, about half of them has a closed top boat with permanently fitted equipment like autopilot, GPS, some chart plotters etc. I would guess some 10% having large leasure boats with radar. Then there are somewhere between 20-50 full time or part time fishermen, all with fully equipped electonics on board and finally, we only have two ship lines with a total fleet of about 30 large commercial vessels using expensive stuff from Kongsberg, JRC and others. We who pay for our own stuff rant on a regular basis about the lacking interoperability, cost and for the techies - moaning&groaning about the closed proprietary standards removing all the fun. I agree with the original posting: communication should be as open as HTML and our kroner, dollars or what have you should be spent on developing better systems, not closed systems. I'd buy that open box, and a few houndred others in my neghbourhood. |
Let's get rid of NMEA
Bill,
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. 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. It is no longer necessary nor desirable to host stove pipe transports for different purposes. 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. 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. Steve "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... "Steve Lusardi" wrote in message ... Meindert, Very nice to hear from you again. You have been away quite some time. I can't believe I am hearing this from you. You are the perfect person for this thread. I think you need to think a bit outside of the box. As you know, each NMEA manufacturer today is addressing the inadequacies of NMEA with their own propriety solutions and selling them as the next best thing in boat electronics, like SeaTalk WERE reinventing, past tense. NMEA2000 is the solution for it, and it works QUITE well. Yet we have a huge, inexpensive commercial infrastructure all around TCP/IP and yet the marine industry is trying to reinvent the wheel. You should revel in this foolishness and consider this as a golden opportunity to develop a transport network like the CAN bus SAE J1939 standard, but using TCP/IP as the flexible transport medium. Which screams of how little you understand about instrumentation networks. I think the market is huge. There are a lot of floating customers out their just waiting for this. I call bull****. List actual numbers, not pie-in-the sky hopes. Please also keep in mind that this same transport can also move all data types including other, unrelated traffic like audio, video and other computer related data streams. Which, again, screams of how little grasp you have of how instrumentation networks function. |
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
|
Let's get rid of NMEA
Børge Wedel Müller wrote in
: 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.... My cellular provider, Alltel, is being swallowed by the most dispicable company in America, Verizon Wireless....5GB/mo for $60 + 25 cents/MEGABYTE over that limit....$250/GB! That isn't going to happen. We have a new carrier on CDMA with EVDO called Cricket. Unlimited service is really cheap in limited areas, one of which I live in. Cricket only has one model of USB cellular modem and won't permit tethering via bluetooth to my Nokia N800 Linux tablets (2), so I've looked around and found a grand solution! http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/...000-best-evdo- router-ever/ The cellular phone modem (upper left in picture grey plastic) is plugged into this magic box, which is a real router with the added feature of a USB modem port that the cellular connects to. 256 wifi users can now share the one cellular modem's limited bandwidth over regular wifi. I borrowed the router from a company here until mine is delivered and signed up for the $40/month Cricket (www.mycricket.com) EVDO cellular modem $59. Wherever I go, my car now creates a wifi hotspot I can use up to about 35 meters from the car to my Nokia N800 Linux tablets. Both tablets can be connected, simultaneously, and use the same internet connection, which on little Cricket is about 300-700Kbps on the street. It even works great underway as the car drives around because wifi doesn't handoff but cellular does. My SSID on the wifi is W4CSC/MOBILE and it's wide open....help yourself. The router is about $200 from places on the net.... This thing would be great on a boat, as the solution to the internet problem, even away from the marina with wifi. It's its own hotspot, so anywhere you'd have cellular data connectivity, you have your own wifi internet....such as anchored out in the harbor far away from the free wifi. Cellular has much wider range than any wifi to get to the boat's system. Put these things in a plastic enclosure at the top of the mast or on the yardarm and simply feed +12VDC from the house batteries permanently to it and you'll have internet wherever you have cellular. Mine simply sits on the back shelf of my '73 Mercedes 220D sedan and provides plenty of signal for sitting at a table in any restaurant, whether that restaurant has wifi or not.... I'm sure there's a similar GSM capable router that would work in Denmark and the EU available. Only the programming on the USB port interface would be different. |
Let's get rid of NMEA
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:33:31 +0000, Larry wrote in
: My cellular provider, Alltel, is being swallowed by the most dispicable company in America, Verizon Wireless....5GB/mo for $60 + 25 cents/MEGABYTE over that limit....$250/GB! That isn't going to happen. We have a new carrier on CDMA with EVDO called Cricket. Unlimited service is really cheap in limited areas, one of which I live in. Cricket only has one model of USB cellular modem and won't permit tethering via bluetooth to my Nokia N800 Linux tablets (2), so I've looked around and found a grand solution! http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/...000-best-evdo- router-ever/ The cellular phone modem (upper left in picture grey plastic) is plugged into this magic box, which is a real router with the added feature of a USB modem port that the cellular connects to. 256 wifi users can now share the one cellular modem's limited bandwidth over regular wifi. I borrowed the router from a company here until mine is delivered and signed up for the $40/month Cricket (www.mycricket.com) EVDO cellular modem $59. Wherever I go, my car now creates a wifi hotspot I can use up to about 35 meters from the car to my Nokia N800 Linux tablets. Both tablets can be connected, simultaneously, and use the same internet connection, which on little Cricket is about 300-700Kbps on the street. It even works great underway as the car drives around because wifi doesn't handoff but cellular does. My SSID on the wifi is W4CSC/MOBILE and it's wide open....help yourself. ... Good way to discourage carriers from offering unlimited access in the future. [sigh] -- Best regards, John Navas, publisher of Navas' Sailing & Racing in the San Francisco Bay Area http://sail.navas.us/ |
Let's get rid of NMEA
John Navas wrote in
: Good way to discourage carriers from offering unlimited access in the future. [sigh] Oh, John, I can see they're just terrified of my huge 20mw hotspot's range and bandwidth..... |
Let's get rid of NMEA
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:01:33 +0000, Larry wrote in
: John Navas wrote in : Good way to discourage carriers from offering unlimited access in the future. [sigh] Oh, John, I can see they're just terrified of my huge 20mw hotspot's range and bandwidth..... They actually are concerned, your sarcasm notwithstanding, because open hotspots are frequently abused, particularly with illicit peer-to-peer filesharing. Such abuse constitutes a substantial portion of network traffic at the expense of legitimate users. Since cellular spectrum is limited, it's an even bigger problem for cellular than for Wi-Fi. Many carriers specifically address network abuse in the terms of service. -- Best regards, John Navas, publisher of Navas' Sailing & Racing in the San Francisco Bay Area http://sail.navas.us/ |
Let's get rid of NMEA
John Navas wrote in
: They actually are concerned, your sarcasm notwithstanding, because open hotspots are frequently abused, particularly with illicit peer-to-peer filesharing. Such abuse constitutes a substantial portion of network traffic at the expense of legitimate users. Since cellular spectrum is limited, it's an even bigger problem for cellular than for Wi-Fi. Many carriers specifically address network abuse in the terms of service. My hotspot has a blistering range of 125 feet on its best day. I doubt many peer-to-peer downloaders are within its range circle during lunch at Waffle House. I've never seen any of them connected or on its log files. You call peer-to-peer filesharing "Illicit". Which law are they breaking file sharing? Got a URL to it so I can read it? I didn't know file sharing or using bandwidth sold to me as "UNLIMITED" was illegal or immoral. If they don't want me on the system, all they have to do is shut me off and NOT TAKE MY MONEY....same as any other business. So far, noone has complained as most of the bandwidth they cannot "store" until profits rise just goes to waste, unused by anyone. I've never seen the system slow down to a crawl because users had the audacity to actually connect something to it and USE what they are paying for. The slowdowns here are caused by poor propagation and interference from large military aircraft reeking havoc with multipath flutter bouncing off large aluminum clouds. |
Let's get rid of NMEA
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:18:17 +0000, Larry wrote in
: John Navas wrote in : They actually are concerned, your sarcasm notwithstanding, because open hotspots are frequently abused, particularly with illicit peer-to-peer filesharing. Such abuse constitutes a substantial portion of network traffic at the expense of legitimate users. Since cellular spectrum is limited, it's an even bigger problem for cellular than for Wi-Fi. Many carriers specifically address network abuse in the terms of service. My hotspot has a blistering range of 125 feet on its best day. I doubt many peer-to-peer downloaders are within its range circle during lunch at Waffle House. I've never seen any of them connected or on its log files. You might very well be surprised one of these days -- it's a big problem at local coffee houses, public libraries, etc, with open Wi-Fi. You call peer-to-peer filesharing "Illicit". Which law are they breaking file sharing? Got a URL to it so I can read it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13928.html http://www.copyright.gov/ I didn't know file sharing or using bandwidth sold to me as "UNLIMITED" was illegal or immoral. I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read your terms of service. http://www.mycricket.com/termsandconditions See #7 in particular. See also http://www.mycricket.com/cricketsupport/faqs/details?id=548 If they don't want me on the system, all they have to do is shut me off and NOT TAKE MY MONEY....same as any other business. So far, noone has complained as most of the bandwidth they cannot "store" until profits rise just goes to waste, unused by anyone. I've never seen the system slow down to a crawl because users had the audacity to actually connect something to it and USE what they are paying for. The slowdowns here are caused by poor propagation and interference from large military aircraft reeking havoc with multipath flutter bouncing off large aluminum clouds. With that attitude I suspect they'd be glad to be rid of you. -- Best regards, John Navas, publisher of Navas' Sailing & Racing in the San Francisco Bay Area http://sail.navas.us/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com