Home Keys General Fishing & The Outdoors

Couple Quick Navionics Aerial Shots

I was talking to a couple people this weekend about fishing The Keys. I was showing them on a plotter at West Marine some spots and thought it would be worth sharing a couple of the new Platinum chip aerials here. If for no other reason than they are pretty (and on sale thru April 30). First is the Barracuda Keys and then a Platinum shot of one of those keys vs. a base map, because the difference was so striking.

Replies

  • thumperdumperthumperdumper Posts: 374 Deckhand
    What Lowrance models is it compatible with?! It doesn't work with the elite 5 or hook 5.


    might get one of the quants at work to overlay a google maps into the GPS.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    mikenav wrote: »
    I was talking to a couple people this weekend about fishing The Keys. I was showing them on a plotter at West Marine some spots and thought it would be worth sharing a couple of the new Platinum chip aerials here. If for no other reason than they are pretty (and on sale thru April 30). First is the Barracuda Keys and then a Platinum shot of one of those keys vs. a base map, because the difference was so striking.


    If you want these photos, you have to buy a new Chip.
    Customers should be aware if they already have a Plat+ chip and try to update it to get the latest data, the imagery will not update. Only map data will update. Thus, when Navionics modifies their raster in any way like is the case here with some additional low res photos or they digitally enhance the color of some of their existing older photos to make it look like its newer, you have to buy an entire new chip to get it. They don't make that very clear if you ever go to update your data on line. So if anyone is thinking I can just update my chip for the approximate annual $250 fee to update a Plat+ chip just be aware photos are not updated. Your chip updates whatever map features changed but the photos you have always had will remain unchanged. So, if photos are important to you this is not such a good deal because you would have to pay for a brand new chip with a MSRP of $399 and what you will get for your imagery is photos that are still about a decade old with the colors all dull blue grey and if you zoom in you can see no detail. This is likely why all the examples posted are smaller and zoomed out.

    Also, the imagery provided on the Plat + chips is different from what they provide on the mobile app. If you try to find these photos posted above on the mobile app you wont see any photos unless you are really zoomed out to a macro level. On an Ipad or similar if you zoom into a level where you would try to actually see something in reasonable detail for these same spots (or even at a level similar to what is posted above) and you will find no photos and a plain white map with a NO photo icon. They don't make that very clear either.
  • mikenavmikenav Posts: 850 Officer
    Wow! Let the misinformation begin! First of all, this is a post showing the new aerials shots (Far from low res, but maybe your computer needs some tuning). It was never said, nor implied, that they would update on your current chip. Simply screenshots. It is true that only the new chips will have the new aerials.

    It is NOT TRUE that there is a $250 annual fee to update a Platinum+ chip. That would be a $99 annual fee for the ability to update your charts everyday for a year.

    It is also NOT TRUE that the brand new chip has an msrp of $350. Those shots are from the Platinum 632+ chip that has a msrp of $199.

    As for rest of the post...those photos are straight off a Raymarine plotter.
  • gatorhookgatorhook Posts: 655 Officer
    Google Earth works better and updates faster than a chip and it's free.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    mikenav wrote: »
    Wow! Let the misinformation begin! First of all, this is a post showing the new aerials shots (Far from low res, but maybe your computer needs some tuning). It was never said, nor implied, that they would update on your current chip. Simply screenshots. It is true that only the new chips will have the new aerials.

    It is NOT TRUE that there is a $250 annual fee to update a Platinum+ chip. That would be a $99 annual fee for the ability to update your charts everyday for a year.

    It is also NOT TRUE that the brand new chip has an msrp of $350. Those shots are from the Platinum 632+ chip that has a msrp of $199.

    As for rest of the post...those photos are straight off a Raymarine plotter.

    What the folks in your home office advise directly contradicts this $99 update fee and if you go to update a 906 chip which is what so many FL people run, the actual charge you get to do that also contradicts it . If you update a Plat + they say they charge 1/2 of the MSRP so if you update a 906p+ you are going to get charged about $250. That is what the charge was on my credit card to do that this week. So, in light of all of this talk about $99 I called them and asked what happened to the $99 and they advised the charge was correct and $99 was not correct. I guess they sell that 906 chip for about $500 now somewhere based on the actual charge for the update. I asked why does it say $99 in all the ads and why are your reps promoting $99 when it's not $99. They said because some chips do update at that fee. Perhaps there are some other chips they offer that update for $99 based on a $200 MSRP like you mentioned. The rep on the phone up there said you were not correct and it’s based on 50% off of MSRP and it’s not an across the board uniform charge to update. I think that is misleading. Don't you think so? But I'm going to call them back and let them know what you said about it and ask for a credit. He kept on telling me the 906 chip was a $400 chip but then when I told him then if that was really true it should be $200 to update and not $250. He had no answer and started talking in circles. His comments and effort to somehow reconcile this all sounded like total BS. I said so if its 50% off where does the $250 come from particularly since the MSRP on your own website is $399? He had no idea. So I checked to see if I could find an MSRP at $500 and couldn't but found $399. There is obviously a problem with the disclosures and promotions as the way this is set up to update. And the fact you guys at Navionics tell two totally different stories on this updating situation and don't disclose it is not a uniform $99 across the board is what seems misleading to me. So then I checked my credit card statement and found it was a $199 charge to update. $99, $199 or something different - I guess it depends on a number of different factors.

    And it’s also misleading that they don't tell you before you update that updating your chip does not update the imagery at all and that if you want to get any images that are updated you have to buy an entire new chip. So I said, well can I just send in the chip I have and get it switched out? He said no. You have to buy a new one. So all this freshest data stuff sounds good but from a customer’s perspective when they update they will want to get freshest imagery data too but they don't tell you before you update that if you do that it won't include any photo data at all. That is misleading I think. Shouldn't that be made clear before you choose to update? Doesn't that seem misleading to you? Do you think all of your customers clearly understand that before they update? So you go to update and go to see all these supposed fantastic new photos and you find nothing and then you call to find out why and then you get the real story as to how it works. You should call up there as a customer and look into yourself than you can appreciate what misleading is all about first hand.

    As for Hi res vs. Low Res, many people use the term but it is rarely defined with any specificity in terms of a legitimate benchmark a person could use as a real measure of resolution or fine image clarity. But I think it should be because there is a big difference between one person's or company's definition of hi res and another. It would be interesting to know how Navionics defines it or if they would even care to define it beyond the term itself. They sure love to define those contour details. Why not the res on the imagery with the same specificity? And why don’t they provide dates for their imagery either? There is a very good reason.

    From a marine GPS perspective and how most want to use their chart plotters, people want to see detail. It’s no different from 1' contours they seem to sell left and right. If there was not a big difference between 1' contours and just 3' contours they wouldn't talk about it every day and work to sell it. Details matter. There is no true hi res clarity on what Navionics is selling today and I don't appreciate the puffing you do about it as a rep as I think that is misleading just like the $99 update ads that are really $250. Selling without with meaningful actual disclosure that customers would really want to know is the reason I call you out when you make these kinds of representations. If you zoom in to see any detail that fisherman would really like to see on the photos you promote as hi res, the Navionics photos pixilate out. That is just the truth of the matter and it is the motivation driving the vexed comments so many have made about the imagery Navionics provides going back for many years. You can also tell it’s not really high resolution from the size of the data on the chips as well. There is not even 10 gb of data on the entire 906 chip and they sell it on a 16 GB chip. If it was really high res to avoid going fuzzy when you zoom in it would have to be about 3x that size for the area it covers and they would have to provide a 32 gb chip instead of 16 gb chip. If you are going to represent it's high res and to avoid being misleading about it you should define it in terms of the actual specs on the imagery so people actually know what they are getting and if you are going to post examples you define as hi res do it really zoomed in to demonstrate the resolution in action. Do you even know what the actual resolution on the photos really is? It could vary from 3 inches to several meters. If they don't want to tell you or don't want any of the customers really know this detail that is a pretty good sign the imagery is not really high res. If it was, they would be promoting it like they do their 1' contours along with examples to demonstrate. They certainly have no issue showing 1’ contours. Why not images shown at 200 feet instead of a ½ mile? And high res photos for marine use in the shallow waters should be presented in true color for accuracy and clarity. Why present it as a dull blue grey color? You know the water in most of FL bay and the coastal areas of Fl is a shade of Green. It's a shallow bay but most the water area on the 906 chip and the examples you posted looks like a shade of blue you would find near the gulf stream.

    There are a number of map companies that talk about hi res and represent they provide it but when you take a look at their actual photos and zoom in to see what you get it's a very misleading statement and disappointing to most as well who buy it. Obviously, most have a quite a loose definition for what they say is high res. It looks to me like they just add some increased contrast or add some color or something to a raw image that is not really hi res and try to sell it as "hi res" but you really can't zoom in on it and see the detail most people would want to see. I think your representation in this forum also falls into that category and I think that is misleading. People who purchase Hi res expect it to actually work in terms of great clarity and look reasonably close to correct in terms of what is actually there when they go to that spot. When Navionics starts using images that are 3 inch resolution or 6 inch resolution as their basic data set then I think you could safely make that representation on the res as being high. I'll even give you 1' resolution as that is still very decent if its processed properly but I think what you will find is most of the raw imagery they provide on the product you promote is more low res than hi res (hi res being defined as 1’ or better). When you can zoom in and clearly see pot holes in the flat in that image you posted you will know they upped the quality of the data set and you could then represent it as hi res without disappointing anyone. Until then, if you represent Hi res as you do but the imagery pixilates out when you zoom in and is not close the actual color of what is really there it just creates more dissatisfaction than vice versa and continue to impinge on the credibility of these promotional puffing posts. If you want to promote and sell I have no issue with that - just tell it like it really is.

    And for those users that have not thought about it much or would venture to be OK with photos like these examples you posted it’s because they don't know what really hi res looks like on their chart plotter so they can't appreciate what they are missing. But I get that because how could they as very few map makers really provide it? People only know what they know and I think most map providers prefer it that way as providing the really great stuff on the imagery is a monumental effort time and cost wise by comparison to just the old status quo that most like Navionics is providing. It's certainly better than nothing but lets be honest - its not really even close to hi res. This looks like what we see so often with the same old photos being marketed with the some colored band aides wrapped in a misleading hi res label.
  • sharky12sharky12 Posts: 198 Deckhand
    Egret,
    You know WE have talked very calmly in the past. Why the sudden such anger at Navionics? Especially when you talk as an authority and really have no basis for what our business is. For those who don't know me, my name is Paul and National Sales Manager for Navionics. Let's get to facts here. No pitch.

    Slamming someone else's product is just really poor especially when you have no data and "appear" as an authority. Egret you and I have exchanged some very nice emails but this attack is unwarranted but if you want to appear in that light it's up to you.

    1. We sell SUBSTANTIALLY. More 632 Florida charts than the 906 which is 4 times the chart size of a 906. If you are going to the Bahamas and need all of Florida and most of the SE then yes a 906 is the card. The vast majority only buy the 632 and in fact this is what the boat builders and electronics manufactures steadily recommend their boaters use.

    2. Yes 906 is $399. The 632 is $199. If you wanted to buy all the same size charts as 632 it would cost $800. The 906 at 399 is a better value. Most boaters do not travel far from their home so 632 all of Florida more than suffices.

    3. $99 is the cost for the chart update for 632. The cost for the 906 is $200. Not sure where you got $250 from but just shows lack of facts.

    4. Updating the chart data is important. NOAA charts is highly out of date in many areas. And on the flats the difference from 3 foot to 1 foot is not only a difference in fishing but especially in safety. $99 or a new lower unit. Your call.

    5. Google earth doesn't work in areas without a signal.

    6. Yes the definition of hi def is not a standard term. Hi def does have to do with a level of clarity. Low def at a 1 mile zoom level can be very blurry. Hi def at 1/16 -1/32 mile would be clear. Which we are.

    7. You're right. One must buy a new chart for new imagery. That goes with any sat image product. Mike did not mislead anyone here. You just attacked him.

    In closing not sure what burr got under your saddle but at least get the facts correct before you attack a product many recommend using that simply believe in it. If you don't like the product, you have that right and use what you want. This opinion attack with misinformation brings no value to the thread. If anyone else has questions, we will be happy to answer. Very disappointed after some great chats with you Egret.
Sign In or Register to comment.