Thank you all for the excellent help with my questions. To conclude, I
am posting here a summary of what I have understood about all this.
Sorry that I am trying the first time the use of the translation
function of Altavista Web Site in order to convert the text from
Portuguese to English, and could have many crazy things in this text.
Regarding the comparison of Nasa x Smart Radio receivers:
1. NASA does not possess LEDS of form to indicate the functioning of
the device, thing that MR have standard..
2. Although the two receivers to be of the type of 1 channel, of NASA
function fixed with a canal 87 or 88, defined frequencies of VHF in the
installation, or then, alternating (flip-flop) between one and another
one, but for this need an update of firmware.
3. Already the SR161 has an algorithm that keeps one scan continues
in the two frequencies, and selects dynamically , the frequency with
better reception of signal.
4. Due to limitation of only 1 serial door in the majority of the
computers, and as the necessity exists to have the data of position and
time of one gps for the functioning, both the AIS receivers possess a
multiplex easiness, combining the data of the GPS received from the
4,800 NMEA IN bauds with data AIS of NMEA OUT the 38.400.
5. NASA filters the entrance of gps and sends only the message
#$$GPRMC>, what it can cause would be limitation in the software that
it executes in the PC, therefore omits other messages that can be basic
for the perfect performance of the applicatory one.
6. Already the SR161, makes to the multiplexing, without excluding no
message coming of gps, and the user can select to want itself, the
messages that he does not desire that they are sent, in proper gps.
7. One another important question is that, in the official
specification of the AIS for the IMO/MTU, the length of the messages it
is limited to a maximum size of 82 characters, being that bigger
messages must be broken in 2 parts. That is respected for the SR161, to
put the receiver of NASA it produces messages with ties 96 characters,
what it can create incompatibility with some softwares and
ChartPlotters.
Regarding the installation of the software update of C80:
1. An interesting information that I got now has little, and that
plotters series C/E of the Raymarine, are in the reality, PC's twirling
Windows XP internally, incredible hein?
2. To install new version 3.16 of software for series C (C80) that it
includes you vary improvements including the support for AIS and
NavTex, we need:
a.Reader of cartridge CF-Card type for door USB of PC
b. Empty a CF-Card Cartridge of 32 MB or in the compatible maximum 64
MB with the C80 Plotter.
3. This cartridge and its reader, will be able later serving to
transfer waypoints and routes from/to PC/Laptop, and therefore its
justifiable cost and; besides this, Raymarine recommends the reader of
SanDisk mark, which cost around USS 20 for the research in the site of
them, therefore very cheap. I did not verify the price of the
cartridge.
4. I also discovered that this already announced, in the site of the
Navionics, the NavPlanner software that will allow to the Planning of
Routes and Waypoints in the PC, using the cartridge of letters
Navionics Gold, and that it will be sell together with a
multi-functional reader of cartridges, compatible with some devices,
also the C80 Plotter; this set (software + the hardware). This will
cost about USS 130. Therefore would be valid to wait.
5. To put, more good still, after a consultation on the NavPlanner, I
was informed by the technician of support of the Raymarine, that the
same one must now announce in May a program of planning for the letters
Navionics, based in the Raytech software, that allows the same
functions of the NavPlanner, and that he will be "freeware", that is,
free, being able to be download from the web site; and the proper CF
Card/Reader-Writer will be selled directly by Raymarine web site too.
Plus a reason to wait.
Regarding the installation of the SR161 on C80
Finally, the question of terms the Gyro of the on S1G to the C80 saw
NMEA, after you vary questions and answers in the site of support of
the Raymarine, and exchange of opinion with some understood in fórum
"recboats.eletronics of the Google, we arrive at the following
constatações: .
a. The linking of the Gyro of pilot S1G in the radar of the C80 and
recommended by Raymarine had the one that the indication of heading
(proa) of Gyro and more necessary of the one than the indication given
for GPS (Track).
b. This occurs mainly when the boat very sails slowly due the great
bar waves for example and the nose leaves very or when the boat and a
motor boat high speed making closed curves.
c. The information of the Gyro is important only when the overlapping
radar to the nautical letter is used (overlay) or when the MARPA is
used (collision avoidance function of the radar).
d. This connection can be made in two ways:
i. Binding the Gyro through the Seatalk, linking that already exists
normally, therefore is necessary for the eventual use of the C80 to
command the pilot, or
II Binding the Gyro through NMEA to the C80
e. In the linking it saw SeaTalk, the C80 receives the information
from heading of the brought up to date Gyro 2 times for second while in
the linking saw NMEA, the information and brought up to date 10 times
for second, reason for which the Raymarine recommends the use of the
connection saw NMEA, only with the objective to improve the performance
of the Overlay and the MARPA.
CONCLUSION:
After giving one looked at in new manuals brought up to date for the
new level of software 3,16 of serie C-80, in the relative part to the
AIS, I arrived the conclusion of that:
1. The support to the AIS in the C80 and good, very easy for using,
sufficiently simple and very useful and therefore, valley the penalty
to install the AIS in the C80, exactly that this causes some small loss
of performance in the MARPA and the ChartOverlay of the Radar.
2. My suggestion therefore is, to leave the Gyro-C80 connection only
using the SeaTalk, and to liberate door NMEA IN of the C80 for AIS
SR161, and with this none of multiplexors will not have necessity.