Setting up a PC, Time Zero and Furuno networks

[ChristineKling]

Completely agree. Mine has only navigation tools on it, and is not used to test new pieces of hardware/software, browse the web looking for things, or anything else other than running the boat.

I don't do automatic upgrades for any software, including Windows itself, and I set the network interfaces to "metered" both so it does not eat up my LTE data, but so it only downloads critical upgrades, and restricts other programs from doing the same.

I do try to keep it updated with as recent updates and patches as possible to prevent any issues with malware and the like, but I do those BEFORE a trip by a week, not during

It should be treated the same way you treat your autopilot or MFD - upgrade only when there is a bug or issue that you are worried about. The rest of the time, leave it alone and let it do its job.

I also will say that relying on one PC has been a bad idea for a long time. I've seen just about every piece of software out there navigation-wise crash at some point, usually silently. If it is sending out course/route data, eventually the autopilot should alert you (several don't!) and you can then figure out what happened. But if it can't be salvaged quickly, and you rely on it for driving routes, then having a second one is a good measure of redundancy.

The other challenge with two PCs is that most navigation software sucks when it comes to keeping the two in sync. That has improved both in CE and TZ in the last year or so, but there are still some minor gaps.

Steve - Thank you for this post and your earlier comments on this thread. Your suggestion to use two ethernet ports per computer, one for the Furuno network and the other for the Internet connection and all other systems was brilliant. And it was simultaneously suggested by another tech guru friend we were Skyping with. From that conversation, I also realized we needed a second computer not only for redundancy, but also because the distance for the cable run from the helm computer to the two fly bridge screens was going to be around 15 meters (not good for HDMI), and we wanted to put the USB-based Furuno MCU 004 up there.

I understand the idea of wanting to keep the navigation computers as single use machines, but we have been intending to put our Maretron N2K View and Victron Connect software on these computers for monitoring purposes. Is this what you mean by other stuff for "running the boat" in your comment above? We will also have a YDNU-02 USB Gateway connected at Wayne's office, and he can plug his laptop into the system there as well as the N2K Diagnostic meter that is on its way for updating, tweaking and testing. But for day to day viewing, we have been planning to have it all on the nav computers.

Of course we have 3 iPads and 2 phones, as well. We had a friend in the South Pacific who had sailed from France to Australia, cruising for over 10 years crisscrossing the Pacific, and all he used to navigate was an android phone. On our last boat, all we had was a single RayMarine E7 and our mobile devices while we we crisscrossed the Pacific, as well. We are going to consider ourselves super spoiled with this new boat, but the complexity is adding a whole new hurdle.

Christine
http://mobius.world

 

[mvweebles]

Can I ask what problem is being solved? Seems to be a converging consensus to segregate subnets in a manner that emulates an MFD. Why not just stick with the base Black Box (or MFD) system? Sounds like the concern is introducing instability, interoperability, and incompatibility issues, especially as one software pack is updated /upgraded and the effect in the overall environment. Risk of HW failure is also increased with router (which also runs SW). What is the upside benefit to the elevated risk?

Steve Dashew has robust complex navionics displays in their recent pilot houses. Given how prolific his writing is, you may ping his website for info.

 

[ChristineKling]

Can I ask what problem is being solved? Seems to be a converging consensus to segregate subnets in a manner that emulates an MFD. Why not just stick with the base Black Box (or MFD) system? Sounds like the concern is introducing instability, interoperability, and incompatibility issues, especially as one software pack is updated /upgraded and the effect in the overall environment. Risk of HW failure is also increased with router (which also runs SW). What is the upside benefit to the elevated risk?

Steve Dashew has robust complex navionics displays in their recent pilot houses. Given how prolific his writing is, you may ping his website for info.

The problem you are asking about is how best to run a boat as a PC-based boat with no Black Box or MFDs. The question you are asking is - why on earth would we want to do that?

I can only offer the reasons my husband and I have, and these relate to our use case. We intend to continue our cruising lifestyle of crossing oceans and seeking remote, off the beaten path locations.

1. MFD and BB systems are expensive closed boxes. You are stuck with the hardware inside and cannot upgrade it without buying a new unit.These new units are often not available in third world countries. PCs with monitors are upgradable at a fraction of the cost, and generally available in the most far-flung locations these days.

2. Software upgrades are necessary for both systems. On our last sailboat we only had one screen and it was an MFD. On the new boat we want at least 4 screens and keeping 4 MFD's software up-to-date is just as difficult and can introduce problems with integrated hardware, so that's not really an issue to argue against PCs.

3. On today's vessels many of us want Maretron monitoring systems and will need a PC to do this (not interested in more $ systems like Böning or Praxis). Some MFDs are beginning to incorporate a certain level of monitoring, but not enough for us. We will use our PCs to monitor our Victron Multiplus Inverter Chargers, solar panels, tank levels, temperatures of everything from batteries to engine room to fuel in and return, EGT, bilge water levels, etc.

4. So, if we are going to have at least one ship's computer anyway, and we want at least 4 screens to look at, it is cheaper and easier to maintain a PC-based system.

Note: We both have laptops, too, that are not hard-wired into the boat's system that are used for email, photos, net surfing, and our personal businesses.

Fortunately, Wayne and I love this stuff and consider ourselves somewhat techie. Although we are having our new boat built for us here in Turkey, we are not hiring outside vendors to do the commissioning of our systems. We are designing and commissioning it all ourselves so we will know what parts we carry and where they go - and when we need to fix it in the middle of nowhere, we will be the ones who know it best. We wouldn't have a clue what to do with an MFD when it stops doing its thing, except try to ship it back to the manufacturer or buy a replacement.

And if truth be told, we kinda like the challenge of doing things a bit differently.

 

[caltexflanc]

Some really excellent info on this thread. I'd be a little careful in describing "network". Personally I include NEMA 0183 to be part of the "network", and had no issues feeding a variety of sentences from my Furuno BB's into our Imac and MacBook via serial to USB adapters.

I can understand why Furuno now shies away from having networking discussions on its website, there are so many variables these days and hodge-podge DIY solutions these days, as witnessed on this thread.

I'm also surprised at Traveler's comment about TZ being full screen only. To me that is a big flaw. I find the ability to show multiple display options on the same screen to be very handy; we could run on one 19" monitor up on the flying bridge quite comfortably without futzing around switching views. We fed that BB unit to its own screen at the lower helm. In bad visibility, very handy to have one full screen of radar down there.

 

[wkearney99]

In regards to networking kit. I would highly recommend Ubiquiti UniFi. It will give you the flexibility you need and is centrally managed from the boat. It’s relatively cheap, and easy to use. My recommendation would be a Dream Machine Pro as it is a single device and you can add switches and access points as needed. Reach out directly if you want to chat more. Been following the blog and very excited for you guys!

Be careful about Ubiquiti gear. Especially when it comes to more esoteric networking stuff like unicast and multicast setups for dynamically configured stuff. I've run into some issues with this and some home automation gear. Plain old IP stuff works fine, as do VLANs. But the multicast stuff is voodoo a lot of folks don't understand.

I have, and love the Unifi access points I've installed (but on land-based locations). Their dashboard for management is fantastic. But their simplicity does come at the higher mental price of learning "their way" of doing things. Not that it's difficult, just that it's not necessarily ideal, especially if you're going to get into integrating cell and/or wifi shore connections. Integrated systems like theirs tend to have trouble interacting with anything they don't make.

It's kind of like other gateway devices, folks here have learned the hard way that sometimes you "can't get there from here" because of vendor-chosen limitations. When you're using a mix of vendors you often have more choices on how to get your actual goals accomplished, not just what any one vendor "says is the right way".

 

[rslifkin]

Personally, I like the Unifi access points a lot. I don't tend to use the rest of their gear though.

I don't have a full network setup on the boat, but at home I run pfSense for a firewall, a managed network switch (currently an Aruba S2500) and then Unifi access points. Basically a game of pick what meets my needs best for each piece and then put it together exactly how I want.

 

[wkearney99]

Personally, I like the Unifi access points a lot. I don't tend to use the rest of their gear though.

I don't have a full network setup on the boat, but at home I run pfSense for a firewall, a managed network switch (currently an Aruba S2500) and then Unifi access points. Basically a game of pick what meets my needs best for each piece and then put it together exactly how I want.

Likewise, I've got a pfsense router/firewall, all Ubiquiti wired switches and several AP-AC-PRO and AP-AC-LR access points. Their WiFi access points are fantastic. All kinds of past WiFi nonsense just stopped once I switched to these.

I run the Unifi controller software inside a Debian VM (instead of an added CloudKey). More recent iterations of the Ubiquiti controller software show a trend toward pushing their own Security Gateway. Which I don't want to use, as pfsense gives me more options (including running it's own OpenVPN service).

The downside to using the Ubiquit stuff on the boat would be PoE (power over ethernet) requirements. I've not looked into it fully, but last I checked it was a bit of a hassle getting from 12v to the PoE requirements the Ubiquiti stuff wants.

 

[AdmiralS]

Likewise, I've got a pfsense router/firewall, all Ubiquiti wired switches and several AP-AC-PRO and AP-AC-LR access points. Their WiFi access points are fantastic. All kinds of past WiFi nonsense just stopped once I switched to these.



I run the Unifi controller software inside a Debian VM (instead of an added CloudKey). More recent iterations of the Ubiquiti controller software show a trend toward pushing their own Security Gateway. Which I don't want to use, as pfsense gives me more options (including running it's own OpenVPN service).



The downside to using the Ubiquit stuff on the boat would be PoE (power over ethernet) requirements. I've not looked into it fully, but last I checked it was a bit of a hassle getting from 12v to the PoE requirements the Ubiquiti stuff wants.

Air802 makes wonderful 12v to various Poe adapters. Expensive but solid.

 

[wkearney99]

Air802 makes wonderful 12v to various Poe adapters. Expensive but solid.

I do need to look into PoE injectors. Whether to set them up one-each for various devices or look into a combined setup. I don't have any IP cameras presently, but they're on my "maybe" list. So do I look for a PoE setup that'll handle multiple cameras/wifi access points, or implement them separately.

 

[MYTraveler]

do I look for a PoE setup that'll handle multiple cameras/wifi access points, or implement them separately.

You will probably need (or at least want) a switch to go with the cameras, and there are switches that also provide PoE. That's what I got and works fine.

 

[wkearney99]

You will probably need (or at least want) a switch to go with the cameras, and there are switches that also provide PoE. That's what I got and works fine.

Which has the ripple effect of how the switches are powered. You can either power the PoE devices through the switch, or separately via an 'injector'. Of which there are single and multiple port injectors. If you want everything powered through one breaker and the wiring is laid out effectively you could use a single PoE-capable Ethernet switch. The trick then is powering that switch from the boat's 12vdc source. Many ways to 'skin this cat'.

 

[AdmiralS]

Which has the ripple effect of how the switches are powered. You can either power the PoE devices through the switch, or separately via an 'injector'. Of which there are single and multiple port injectors. If you want everything powered through one breaker and the wiring is laid out effectively you could use a single PoE-capable Ethernet switch. The trick then is powering that switch from the boat's 12vdc source. Many ways to 'skin this cat'.

Exactly. My choice was to make sure everything worked on 12v with no dependency on 120v shore or Inverter power. This applies to cellular modem, Mikrotik Groove (Wifi CPE), router, and cameras.

Highly recommend the Ubiquiti Amplifi setup. Seamless self contained system.

 

[stevemitchell]

I manage about 500 different UniFi devices for various locations, marinas, and the like. The range and choices of equipment is very useful for those situations. I also have some of it on board, but to run it well requires 24-48v PoE. That requires either a higher end injector, or a better switch setup. Most good ones require AC power, which like others here, is a non-starter for me. I want my network to run off of DC power so that there is no dependency on AC inverter power.

I have been using the new UniFi Flex HD paired with the smaller mesh units aboard and at two properties, and they seem to work really well. I like the form factor of the Flex HD and how powerful its radios are. I may keep that aboard. They also have a version of that which is called the Dream Machine which has their management software, a WiFi AP, 4 port switch, and the features from their firewall/gateway line for IDS and such. I tested one during beta, but I didn't think it was a good fit for any of my non-boat locations because I always have dual Internet sources, and UniFi sucks at dealing with that. For a boat it could be a great solution since it is an all-in-one including some switch ports, and could be paired with an additional Flex HD or mesh unit for coverage.

For standalone PoE stuff, I've used Tycon's products for years. You can get them in just about any mix of input/output voltage. I have a 12v DC in to 24v PoE out on board now running my MikroTik, and generally use that for all MikroTik installs.

For switches, I've found good results from the industrial switch world when it comes to PoE simply because they generally have DC power input, whereas most other vendors require AC.

 

[MYTraveler]

Which has the ripple effect of how the switches are powered. You can either power the PoE devices through the switch, or separately via an 'injector'.

If you want a switch, it is going to need power. By using a PoE switch, you eliminate the need to provide separate power to the cameras. I must be missing something?

 

[rgano]

I just replaced my 3 Furuno NN3D Black Boxes with 2 PC's running TZT2 Professional. All of that is on its own network. Some of my Furuno (and other) peripherals are not networkable (like the scanning sonar and weatherfax). There is a third PC running the weatherFax and a bunch of other stuff. I didn't / don't see any benefit to having the Furuno stuff on the same network as the third PC running other stuff. I suppose it could be nice to put the chartplotter in one window and something else in another, but TZT2 Pro will not let you have a non-full size window. It is full-size or nothing. I run 4 screens in the PH and on the FB, typically with at least two displaying TZT (typically, chartplotter and either radar or fishfinder) and the other two displaying either a third TZT screen (fish finder/ radar) and the 4th screen shows FLIR, scanning sonar or the non-TZT PC running weatherfax or some other PC application. To make this all work, I have an HDMI matrix switch so any screen can show any source.

If you had a chaingun on the bow an say maybe a small self-defense AA missile, the Navy would be asking you to join up.