MFD / Chartplotter Size and qty

[sndog]

I have a question.

I have a fairly large pilot house in my boat and I am upgrading all the navionics. Essentially a complete redo.

I am wondering on what is a good size for them. I am currently debating between 19"~27"

Was wondering if there was any input on this. There will be three for navigation/radar/etc and one for vessel system monitoring.

[Comodave]

If you have room for 3 then I would recommend 3. You can display more data without having to switch screens.

[ranger58sb]

As big as space, tempered by budget, will allow.



We've gotten by with one 12" and it worked well enough. Now we have a 16" and a 12"... and that works well enough. And we actually often split each of those into two, e.g., radar long range/radar short range on one MFD, nav long/nav short on the other.

12" MFDs begin to allow meaningful screen partitioning, below that, not so much. Realistically, if you've got room for 4x 19" screens, I expect you'd probably find those sufficient.

You could have an in-person look at various retailer displays, see what sizes might really look like...

-Chris

[Greg QS]

I have 2 16" garmin displays at helm and at bridge. Each can be split into 6 displays. Giving me 12 data screens. This is very useful. Any one can easily be opened up to full screen. I generally run with 1 6 screen and one split in 1/2 for chart and radar. I would recommend at least 2 units. Gives redundancy and maximum flexibility . 3 screens even better. I think it looks the best if all the screens are the same size.

[rslifkin]

I'd say 2 minimum (1 for charts, 1 for radar), but if you don't have a bunch of other small displays for things like depth, speed, etc. then a third would be nice, as it lets you get the data displays onto their own display instead of overlaid. Or you can use the third to have a different chart (or different zoom level) displayed.

[mvweebles]

I'll offer a slightly different perspective. Since the OP apparently has both space and budget, he has a lot of flexibility - other factors will dictate the choices. I envy him - while I was budget conscious, that was relatively minor compared to space. My choices for a 36-foot boat are a meaningless example, but I do have experience on larger boats with well designed spaces for >$100k systems.

1. Layer 1: Segment the data. Coarsely, there is "Need," "Want" and "Nice" to have data. "Need" data would be depth. "Want" might be bilge pump cycles or holding tank level. "Nice" might be sea temperature.

2. Layer 2: Frequency of Use. Dictated by usage. As important as depth is, if you're making passages, you will go days without even glancing at it. If you're a fisherman, may often need a really robust 3-D display.

3. Layer 3: Consider your crew. Guys who buy boats tend to be geeks about electronics. If you will be a sole operator or person at the helm will only have sensory responsibilities, no problem. Go hog wild with the data displays. You're the only one who will pay attention. But if you will have crew and expect them to be engaged, make sure the important stuff is prioritized and easy to find. I've been on bridges where the data was so profuse that it was hard to tell what depth the water was.

Putting it all together.

First, recognize that some data portrayals do not scale, they just get bigger. A chart plotter for example. As Rslifkin states, 12-inches is usable, 16-inches is easier on the eyes. But with a larger display, the data does not improve, it's just a bigger.

Second, move as much as reasonable to alarms. There are a lot of binary data on boats - pressure too low, temperature too high, etc. You do not need to monitor normal, you need to alert to abnormal. Why clutter a bridge with monitor data that easily obscures important data?

Third, move critical information to dedicated displays - the "Need" data. This could be its own small MFD, or a 4.5" square digital display. What's critical information? Personal choice - when I came up to the bridge after a nap, the first thing I wanted to see was autopilot information: TTG, range, perhaps bearing. Told me immediately if anything had changed while I was off-watch. Personally, I think depth should have its own display, not just a quadrant or corner of a larger MFD.

Fourth, be selective about "Want" data; and purge command bridge of "Nice" data. To my tastes, the "Want" data is a good candidate for reconfigured and/or shared screens. One screen setup for coastal cruising; another for being in a channel, etc.

Finally, go easy on the Maretron monitoring data - much of it is "Nice" data and not really important from an underway perspective. It's a really cool setup with an enormous amount of data potential. Definitely gives a 747-esque feel to the bridge. But it can be really distracting. And can really disenfranchise your crew.

Peter

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Second, move as much as reasonable to alarms. There are a lot of binary data on boats - pressure too low, temperature too high, etc. You do not need to monitor normal, you need to alert to abnormal. Why clutter a bridge with monitor data that easily obscures important data?

That perfectly nails the reason why I'm a big fan of analog gauges for engine instruments (and strongly dislike digital readouts). I don't need to know that my oil pressure is "43", I just need to know that it's approximately normal (but I can still stare at the gauge for an extra second to get a more specific value if I want). Interpretation at a quick glance is important for a lot of stuff.



Interestingly, I do find the seawater temp readout useful underway. It's periodically come in handy for answering something like "why are both engines running a few degrees warmer?" Look at the seawater temp and think "oh, it's because this water is 85*, not because I sucked junk into the strainers".

[sndog]

Originally Posted by Comodave

If you have room for 3 then I would recommend 3. You can display more data without having to switch screens.

Yes, I will have a total of 4 of them.

3 for MFD/chartplotter 1 for maretron vessel view

[Comodave]

I misread your first post. If you have room for 4 then I would do it.

[Airstream345]

I’m a big fan of more is more. We went with two curved 49” Samsung gaming monitors and couldn’t be happier. We’re all FURUNO sensors, networked into TimeZero and NMEA 2000. Works well and gets bright enough for summer and dark enough for night Ops. Plus you can split the monitors (puncture in picture) so you can essentially run four devices on two monitors

[Airstream345]

Step two will be to remove the raised center section of the table, slide the monitors together and build an enclosure so they are a bit more “built in” looking

[guy with a boat]

Originally Posted by sndog

I have a question.

I have a fairly large pilot house in my boat and I am upgrading all the navionics. Essentially a complete redo.

I am wondering on what is a good size for them. I am currently debating between 19"~27"

Was wondering if there was any input on this. There will be three for navigation/radar/etc and one for vessel system monitoring.

My answer is get the largest screens that will fit the helm and that you are willing to pay for. Not many people ever wished for a smaller screen once they are in.

Don't forget to consider your viewing distance from the screens. 12" screens are great on a smaller boat when you are seated fairly close to the screen. A bigger boat may have helm chairs well back from the screens and that usually requires larger screens. I would choose the largest screens that will comfortably fit your dash.

[nveater]

Gosh, I am feeling very inadequate now with my 9" Raymarine MFD

[sndog]

Originally Posted by Airstream345

I’m a big fan of more is more. We went with two curved 49” Samsung gaming monitors and couldn’t be happier. We’re all FURUNO sensors, networked into TimeZero and NMEA 2000. Works well and gets bright enough for summer and dark enough for night Ops. Plus you can split the monitors (puncture in picture) so you can essentially run four devices on two monitors

Attachment 135664

Thank you.

I was looking at those screens, as I am doing the same as you with Timezero.

Do you wish you had touchscreens, or not really noticeable?

[Comodave]

I would like to have had 2 12” MFDs but could only fit a 12” and a 9”, oh well…

[Airnet]

I've been replacing the 1999 electrics the last couple weeks. Almost done with the PH. I decided three 12" Garmins because of cost. Two 22" are pretty cool but 4 times the cost.of three 12s

The FB is next.

[sndog]

Originally Posted by Airnet

I've been replacing the 1999 electrics the last couple weeks. Almost done with the PH. I decided three 12" Garmins because of cost. Two 22" are pretty cool but 4 times the cost.of three 12s

The FB is next.

That looks great!

[Airstream345]

Originally Posted by sndog

Thank you.



I was looking at those screens, as I am doing the same as you with Timezero.



Do you wish you had touchscreens, or not really noticeable?

I don’t. Honestly when I’m planning or underway with that much screen real estate I prefer a real pointing device and keyboard. When the sea state gets rough my experience has been touch screens become fairly useless

[Senojev]

My recommendation would be to go as large as possible. I set up our NT with a custom helm station and a 27” Apple monitor fed by Furuno instrumentation. Even split into 4 quadrants, each is very legible and can display data clearly. The monitor is very bright (1000 nts) and in a pilot house is unaffected by sun. Another plus is being able to use it a monitor for a laptop. The only downside is it runs on 110v via a small inverter.