I would like a faster way to find bad depthreadings fast. When testing the BT-beta and therefore importing 136 or so sonarlogs over and over it would be nice to have a quick way to delete those few points that mess up everything. :)

Today I use the max depth value in the Project Settings to determine if I might have a few bad points, since I know what the maximum depth in my project should be. What would be cool was to have an option so that I could open all tracks that has a depth deeper then a certain depth for editing in one click. In this project I would like to open all tracks with a depth greater then 21 meters, as I know the maximum depth in this lake and it's 20,5 meters.

Another option would be to open tracks for editing that have drastic changes in depth between one or a few points. This would probably be the best way to go, both because one rarely knows the maximum depth of a lake straight of the batt, but also because it's simpler for projects mapping deep lakes. (One of the lakes I'm working on is 305 meters deep.)

Yep - it could be easier to do this, so we'll look at implementing something. Perhaps a global depth filter (similar to the per-track one), that applies to all tracks within the project?

The new beta now bases track-point colours of all tracks in the define map view off the overall project min/max, which also makes it slightly easier to find bad track-points. The track can then be opened from the define map view by double-clicking or using the right-click menu.

Matt

Yes, some sort of "data laundromat" would be very nice to have. Not all automatic but equipped with a few tools, for example:

Scan and list tracks with speed > X knots (high speed loggings are nice to have in the beginning of the mapping of a lake, but after a while they often create noise...)
Scan and list tracks with dramatic depth changes/big gaps in data
Scan and list tracks with more or less constant depth for a long time/area (=depth locked on downrigger weight)
Scan and list tracks with depth > X meters
Scan and list tracks with hardness > X units
More advanced - scan and list tracks/areas that have points standing out from the average in that area
etc

And, ideally, have the option to remember/reapply the edits I do in case I have to reimport all tracks again.

Some good ideas Martin, and the track clean-up function definitely needs to be updated. At the moment it is all "track by track" - when the current mechanisms were designed, I don't think we really anticipated the high number of tracks (> 400) that some people were going to use in just a single project :). I'm not sure we will be able to "remember" changes for future imports as such, but if we make the clean up easy (and fast) enough then perhaps this will be less of an issue?

Matt

Lots of good points from Martin there, but please keep us with several MFDs and trancedusers in mind. :)

I just bought another ducer now, wich means I have data from a total of 6 different ducers on 4 different MFDs if you include my LSS-1 (Lowrance StructureScan). Add to that users sharing sonarlogs to build common maps, even units of different brands, and especially filters based on bottomtype can get a bit complicated.

I see in the beta that my 600w Airmar P66 ducer on an HDS Gen 1 gives different bottomcomposition then the data from my 250w OEM Lowrance 83/200 ducer on an HDS Gen 2, especially in larger depths. If it is any constalation, I get the same differences in IG).

Team Colibri wrote:
If you want me to complicate things I am sure you get different bottomcomposition using HDS Gen 1 firmware version 4.0 compared to HDS Gen 1 firmware version 4.1 when you are using Airmar P66 :/ It differs very much for me so I have to treat those loggings seperately.

/Martin

Team Colibri,


do You have note, that a standard Lowrance 83/200 kHz transducer (600 W), same also a 600 W Airmar, have great problems with correct depths over 40 ... 60 m. There is an increase difference to the reality. I don't believe, that the differently be will with bottom hardness. In norway i would ever prefere 1 kW for half decent results. 600 W is sufficient only for fishing, if You have a correct chart as control.


Best wishes
fjordfisher

Martin wrote:
I didn't start logging untill the latest Gen 1 software was released, so I wouldn't know, but You are probably right. I belive I did notice a change in the sensistivity after the upgrade, so something defenitely changed. (I have been running the P66 on my Gen 1 all the time.)

fjordfisher wrote:
I doubt the OEM 83/200 is 600W, at least I doubt the quality of the ceramic element and the dampening-material surrounding it can Delivery 600W in the real world. The P66 is without a doubt a true 600W transeducer, and the OEM 50/200 is very similar to the P66. (The OEM 50/200 is made by Airmar, I don't know who makes the OEM 83/200).

I use two different boats, and different hulls and different ways of mounting the TM-ducer (TM=transom mounted) can make for very different results. Since I have only had one trip with the new OEM 50/200, it's a bit early to tell, but I belive it was a good upgrade for my fishing from the OEM 83/200. I have made a DIY-mount for the old 83/200 and will use this for icefishing and vertical fishing in the shallows (less then 30 meters). The mount fits to the side of my boats with suctioncups. I'll do some comparisons with the different ducers, but the ice is closing in fast in my part of the world so it might not happen untill next year. I have previously compared the 83/200 and the P66 and the P66 had superiour target separation on both frequensies in depths deeper then 15 meters. I belive the results will be similar when compearing the two OEM-versions. One should keep in mind though, that these three ducers have very different coneangle, especially in 200 kHz.

My P66 has no problem holding bottom in 305 meters, wich is the deapest place I have been with the boat I have the P66 on. I know of people running the P66 and it's through-hull version B60 down to 800 meters. (Tracing bottom that is, not fish.) With it's large cone in 50 kHz I would not really recommend the P66/B60 at those depths, but rather the TM260 or it's trough-hull cousins. My P66 shows fish pretty good down to 60-70 meters in both 50 and 200 kHz (freshwater).

The "problems" with 1KW ducers is the price, the size, the powerdraw and the narrow coneangle. The last point really does it for me, since I generally fish for species in the upper part of the watercoloumn, even when fishing in saltwater. If my main goal was cod, coalfish etc I would buy a TM260 or similar.

But CHIRP can change all this, so watch this space in the future. :)

Screenshot from Gen 2 with OEM 50/200 last weekend (freshwater):

For most chirp tranducers cone angle change with the frequency maybe not the best for mapping and botton hardeness, as if they are very good for fish.
New airmar TM150 will keep same cone at all frequency use not use yet.
Yet I use the TM258 will work very well but not give!.

nitro78 wrote:
The TM150 is not fixed-cone:
www.airmartechnology.com/uploads/brochures/TM150.pdf
Airmar do offer CHIRP-ducers with fixed angle, but not the TM150, unless there is a new version coming that I don't know about.

From what I have read, most mapping-software relies on 200kHz as their "main source" for data. I belive the coneangle on a given frequensy (for instance 200kHz) is fixed, ie the angle varies with frequensy but not within the same frequensy. I'm still waiting for a some testfiles from a BSM-2 but belive it should work.

Team Colibri, it was this new one with same cone at every frequency!!
www.airmar.com/blog/2013/10/airmar-deliv...m-chirp-transducers/