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
