Adding a 2nd Display to an E-120

[Hampton]

Are there any difficulties in adding a second display to a Raymarine (no comments) E-120 Radar, Chartplotter, Fishfinder? We're shopping for our next SR, and about 1/2 of them have 2 displays and 1/2 have just 1. Is it plug and play?

I understand there are warranty issues which make it advantageous to have your dealer plug it in. Thoughts?

 

[alnav]

As long as the original installation is sound, I believe it is pretty straightforward; the second unit acts as slave to the master that was originally installed. The RayMarine pub located here: http://www.raymarine.com/GetFile.aspx?fileId=677&categoryId=3 has diagrams and instructions on installation options. I don't know if there are warranty issues or not.

 

[Jackie J V]

As Al said, it is relatively straightforward. Biggest issue in adding a second display to an existing system is physical - i.e., dash space - including checking behind the helm to see that there isn't anything back there that would need to be relocated. Also, the installation will be a whole lot easier if the single display system was installed using the SeaTalk hs switch.

Paul

 

[fwebster]

The problem on an exisiting boat with one display is that many of them dod not take into consideration the adding of an equal sized monitor so panel real estate may be an issue unless you get the main panel re-cut. That shouldn't be a problem, but get the new panel before you start work. There seems to be a supply issue with the plastic panel material.

The marina has a very good electronics guy who is a full time employee now. Adding a panel for him would be an easy job and they know the cabling and interfaces needed. Ask you broker to make that a throw-in (that is a joke, John!)

 

[Alex F]

John,

I was just thinking about having similar thread as I have only 1 MFD (C120) and looking to add the 2nd one. As other folks said, just adding 2nd MFD is no big deal connectivity wise. SeaTalk does the trick allowing the two to communicate.

If you don't mind, I'll pop my question on the similar subject. I have number of C-Map chips from previous boats. I loved the setup I had on my 320, which had 2 different MFDs that took different cards. Some folks may say it's an overkill, but I found that it's very convenient to have two different charts sources as they show different data. One has better data in some situation over the other unit. I guess, the reason is simple. I paid ~$200 for about 200-300 miles radius C-Map card while Navionics card that covers all of the East Coast was about $200-$250. So, C-Map has a lot more details. On a trip to Wildwood (2 yrs ago) I couldn't even find very famous marina on my C70 (with Navionics card), but it was there on SL530 (C-Map card).

So, besides that this is something for you to consider, I'm trying to figure out what would be best solution, add just another C120 or E120, or even something like SR Navigator, or find something good that takes C-Map cards? I personally prefer the option of getting a unit for C-Map cards, but didn't have the time yet to research what's out there that's worth the trouble.

Any ideas guys?

 

[Jaws]

John,

When we re-did our original electronics the RL80CRC was removed and the autopilot relocated. It meant that we were doing two new dash areas. The results were worth it because it allowed me to place an E120 and an E80 below it (I did not have enough room for two 120 units).

Having two screens is great because you can have more information visible in larger windows without having to toggle. In my case it allows for an engine room camera on one split screen while above it I have a rear facing camera that I switch over to while docking. The possibilities really open up with that second display. Note that the 'classic' display has now been superceded by the touch/widescreen.

James

 

[Jaws]

John,

So, besides that this is something for you to consider, I'm trying to figure out what would be best solution, add just another C120 or E120, or even something like SR Navigator, or find something good that takes C-Map cards? I personally prefer the option of getting a unit for C-Map cards, but didn't have the time yet to research what's out there that's worth the trouble.

Any ideas guys?

Alex,

With the second display I am able to have the Eastern Great Lakes Platinum card on one display and the Western Great Lakes card on the other display. It's handy for us when we 'round the corner west of Mackinac. I do believe however that the new versions of the cards may contain our entire Great Lakes so the point is moot but still it may work well in your situation. It might be best though to add a second C or E display rather than the Windows based Navigator?? IMHO

James

 

[Jackie J V]

I can't comment on any area other than my own, however in Georgian Bay and the Trent Severn areas of Ontario, I've found my Navionics data to be far better than the old C-Map chips. I had C-Map units for 8 years and still do on my dingy. Using the RL80CRC, there were certain areas where I would lose the chart data and would be going blind into uncharted areas. I was concerned the crew would mutiny as we approached the edge of the flat earth - "there be dragons" :grin: Two examples (for anyone in this neck of the woods) were the middle of Lake Couchiching and the approach to the Minnicog Channel (north of Beausoliel). It appeared that these void areas corresponded with the edges of the paper versions of the charts. I don't get any such anomalies with the Navionics charts.

Paul

 

[fwebster]

I don't do Raymarine, but I do have the same 2 independent Furuno plotters/gps, one WAAS/differential receiver, the other differential. I prefer them to be independent because of redundancy and the ability to use one for planning or for a different scale while navigating with the other. It is really nice to leave the A/P following a pre-planned route on one plotter underway off shore while you zoom in to more detail on an approach to an upcoming harbor entrance and channel on the other.

 

[Alex F]

.... It might be best though to add a second C or E display rather than the Windows based Navigator?? ....

Thanks James. Yeah, Windows based doesn't sound very convincing. I've got to dig more in to the options. I didn't look very closely in to E models, but if I recall they have video input and adding camera input from ER or other areas would be nice, although not a must have feature.

I don't do Raymarine, but I do have the same 2 independent Furuno plotters/gps, one WAAS/differential receiver, the other differential. I prefer them to be independent because of redundancy and the ability to use one for planning or for a different scale while navigating with the other. It is really nice to leave the A/P following a pre-planned route on one plotter underway off shore while you zoom in to more detail on an approach to an upcoming harbor entrance and channel on the other.

Frank,

What cards Fruno units take?

 

[Hampton]

The boat is designed for 2 big panels on two separate helm locations, so, I'm hoping that isn't an issue.

Thank you all.

http://www.searay.com/Page.aspx/pmId/80640/pageId/10250/view/Overview/Past-Models.aspx See 4th "Interior" photo.

 

[fwebster]

One takes a Navionics , the other a Furuno style C-Map. For some reason the chip case has a groove in it that prevent it from being used in a non-Furuno Plotter.

 

[bmac]

Alex, the ability to handle a video input is one of the upgrades available when going from C to E. I have two E-120's multiplexed and find it to be a very useful and robust arrangement that provides a ton of flexibility in both planning trips and while underway. I use one MFD for radar and depthsounder (we boat in very skinny waters) and the other as the chartplotter, sometimes with radar overlay on but mostly off. Based on what I've seen on similar boats, I'd go with muliplexed E units, or even two C's before I'd mix with the SR Navigator.

 

[Alex F]

Brian,

That's great info. I'm glad you have good experience with RM units. I know that if I add E120 as a 2nd unit they should communicate via SeaTalk. But, do you think that "E" and "C" mix will loose some features that you have with both "E" units?

What Navionics card do you use? If I recall, mine is CX-16....or something along those lines. It's the one for the whole East Coast.

As you've seen in my earlier post, the main objective was to have the 2nd unit to take different card (e.g. C-Map) to provide different source of data. Do you use a single card with your units?

 

[bmac]

Brian,

That's great info. I'm glad you have good experience with RM units. I know that if I add E120 as a 2nd unit they should communicate via SeaTalk. But, do you think that "E" and "C" mix will loose some features that you have with both "E" units?

What Navionics card do you use? If I recall, mine is CX-16....or something along those lines. It's the one for the whole East Coast.

As you've seen in my earlier post, the main objective was to have the 2nd unit to take different card (e.g. C-Map) to provide different source of data. Do you use a single card with your units?

Alex

I think you can multiplex an E and a C (though I'm not certain of that). If not you can run them independently and only use the E for our video inputs. I don't recognize the CX-16 designation and my card is on the boat so I can't check, though I think mine goes beyond the East Coast. I do use a single card with my units. Why do you want to use different data sources? I'm not sure I see the advantage of that, but maybe I'm missing something. I'd agree with Frank Webster regarding having two GPS inputs. I'm also pretty sure the E units can differnetiate between two GPS inputs and use them indpendently or one as a back up.

 

[Alex F]

I got all my cards home. I just checked and it's CF/16XG (US-EAST).

I want to use different data sources for the reliability reasons. For the same area two will show different data. This is what I always observed between Navionics and C-Map cards. I like Navionics data better, but there were times when I couldn't trust either one.

There were also plenty of time that if I ws just using C-Map cards I wouldn't be able to move anywhere due to 1'-2' depths, while Navionics card showed 3'-4'. I'm just like you, in skinny waters, so this info is critical.

I've got about $1K worth of C-Map cards, so it would be nice to get some use out of them. But, my goal is to find the best solution for the long term use.

I don't think I want to rush with this, so I'll do more detailed analyses to outline couple of options. It might be worth looking in to GARMIN or FURUNO with dedicated GPS antenna as a stand alone system with it's own card. This would work well for system redundancy.

I've seen Robert's and Russ's GARMIN installation and they looked very nice with lots to offer. If I recall, GARMIN uses NEMA0183, so both units should have no issues communicating between each other.

 

[Alex F]

While at the AC boat show last weekend, I talked to RM rep and he clarified the difference between the models and their communications. As we know most of the primary difference between C and E models, the E/w models (e.g. E90/w, E120/w) have also built-in GPS antenna, so they can be considered as a stand alone redandency systems.

The major difference between SeaTalk and Ethernet (used for E units networks) is that SeaTalk transfers only data (depth, speed, lat/lon, etc.) while Ethernet transfers all other data allowing both units display exsactly the same type of info, including RADAR. So, in my example earlier, if I add an E120 unit to my C120 I won't be able to transfer radar data from C to E. Thus, it's not going to surve as a true redandency system. A better solution, as Brian mentioned, is to have:

1. two E120s - this allows to share all the info bet. both. The downside, IMO, is that they both rely on a single GPS antenna and single CF Card.
2. two E120/w units - the additional benefit (from redandency standpoint) is that they'll have independent GPS antennas. This leaves only one negative, which is a single CF card. If the card goes bad or shows not 100% accurate data .....you know the outcome.

 

[alnav]

Alex, I believe that all commercial electronic chart cards for US waters use NOAA Electronic Navigation Charts (ENC's) for their source data and therefore should be exactly identical. ENC's should also be identical to the paper (vector) charts equivalent. Any differences between cards even from the same distributor should be due to either differing dates of manufacture or because of display defaults/selections on the chartplotter (which can be bewilderingly complex).
I do have twin E120s and have a chart card for each one; that allows for some amouint of redundancy. I typically set one for long range and one for close in. If I were using two chartplotters from different manufacturers, I'd try to make sure that the displays were set up exactly the same in terms of, for example, chart datum, declutter settings and whether "spot soundings" are on or off.

 

[Alex F]

Alex, I believe that all commercial electronic chart cards for US waters use NOAA Electronic Navigation Charts (ENC's) for their source data and therefore should be exactly identical. ENC's should also be identical to the paper (vector) charts equivalent. Any differences between cards even from the same distributor should be due to either differing dates of manufacture or because of display defaults/selections on the chartplotter (which can be bewilderingly complex).....

Al,

I guess it would be nice if this was true regardless of the company that makes the charts. But, unfortunatelly my personal experience proved otherwise. While having C-Map and Navionics cards on my 320 I can say that there're very different in terms of depths and detailed data (e.g. marinas on the chart).

Major differences I experienced:
-Navionics shows more accurate depth data, while in some cases C-Map is very much just wrong.
-Navionics is missing number of marinas (that have been around for years) on the chart while C-Map shows a lot more of them, including all the details about a facility.

The differences I described are the primary reason why I thought to have different units allowing to get most out of combined information.

I'd say that in 2008 both cards were updated (this is when I bought new navionics card and updated C-Map card). So, having them with the same production time frame didn't help much.

It would be nice to be in the position where you can trust only one source (in this case I would go with Navionics), but I remember when I was plotting my course, before a trip, and I simply couldn't find marina I had reservations to. There were actually 3 marinas near by and none were on the Navionics chart. So, only by having 2nd unit that showed all marinas I felt comfortable to proceed.

 

[alnav]

Alex, looks like Geonav, which I understand is a relatively new player in the electronic navigation space, offers chartplotters with the capability to use both Navionics and C-Map chips: http://www.geonavmarine.com/Product.aspx?id=137. This would provide that redundancy you were looking for and the price looks like it may be less than the E120; BOE Marine has them in its online catalog as well.