PDA

View Full Version : Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS


Rhett
April 24th 04, 02:08 AM
Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS

I've been using the GPSMAP 296 for about a week now, and since there's really not that much
detailed info available about it (even on the Garmin site), I figured it might help some
people to get a little idea of how it works. Maybe other owners can expand upon this and
fill in the gaps and correct my errors. I threw this together pretty fast, so take it with
a grain of salt…

[Disclaimer: I don't claim to know what I'm talking about; these are just my first
impressions from the unit. I could be wrong about any opinion expressed here, and probably
am. I just wanted to give some info to try to help out others thinking about buying the
thing. You mileage may vary. Also I'm posting the GPS groups as well as the aviation
group, since the automotive and marine features should ideally make this a universal unit]

-------------------------------------------

OK, my GPSMAP 296 is replacing the 295, which replaced the III+, which replaced the 45. I
also have played with the 196 in the air. So this is the frame of reference here. Since
these units aren't automotive-only, most of my auto-GPS experience comes from the commercial
PC programs on a laptop. Although the 296 is intended for use in the air, I'm intentionally
reviewing the automotive features, since I feel this should be a part of a box that costs
$1800.

GENERAL FEATURES:

The GPSMAP 296 is small, and as such the screen seems a little small too. But it has a very
decent resolution, and the shading capability of the 256 color display make it very
readable. The screen is very bright and readable, and the CPU is fast enough to provide
pretty fast updating, much faster than the 295, and probably something on par with the 196.
This makes scrolling around the maps relatively fast, and is a big improvement over the 295.

The GPS receiver itself is very good, and a definite improvement over the 295, which was on
par with other parallel 12 channels I've seen, like the III+. I'm not sure what they're
doing differently, but acquisition seems much faster, at least when "warm."

Power is provided via a lithium ion battery pack, which is recharged through the unit. I'm
not sure what the real lifetime is, since I haven't had to charge it yet. But it seems that
it will be an improvement over the 295 screen (i.e. StreetPilot Color), which could really
cut through some AA's. I haven't seen an option for normal battery operation, which could
be a downside.

Menu navigation is ok, and if you're used to older Garmin units you'll be able to get
around, although you'll notice some changes. There are a whole lot of nice things hidden in
there, which I'll mention more of later.

The manual is typical of that from the 295, with ok description of the aviation features,
and basically nothing about the automotive and marine features. Yes I know that there are
physically pages in the manual covering these features, but how much information is really
there? There are lots of questions I still have, after reading the thing cover-to-cover.
Like the 295 I'm sure I'll have to figure stuff out by trail and error.

The 296 package comes with all sorts of stuff you can read about on the Garmin page,
including mounts for the yolk and dash, power/data/charging cables, and remote antenna.
It's basically the same nice complete package as the 295, although it specifically does not
try to provide a "car kit" (save for the dash mount), which eliminates some features (see
below).

The unit takes the same datacards as the 295 (and StreetPilot?), and seems to work fine with
lots of Garmin data, even with my super-old Topo dataset that I bought with the III+.

AVIATION FEATURES:

Like the 196? Then you'll like the 296. Except this has color to help unclutter things
(not that the 196 was bad), and has terrain avoidance. Sorry if that doesn't sound like
much information, but I in a way I think this says a lot!

Terrain and "virtual instrument" pages the biggest differences the 295, along with the
general ease of use that comes from a faster processor, in tasks such as using the map or
programming routes. Actually, this is a big improvement when trying to use it in the air,
since some tasks such as editing a route were just too difficult to do while flying (in my
opinion) due to the time it would take to scroll the map or text identifiers.

It is still very much a VFR unit, with approaches basically only containing the FAF and MAP.
But it has all the fixes you need to throw together your approach. And besides, you're only
supposed to be using this as non-navigational supplement to situational awareness.

I'm still a little foggy about the terrain page. There is a dedicated terrain page, which I
understand, but the manual talks about a pop-up page that will come up on all other pages
(eg the panel or map) when in danger. But the manual doesn't explain how this happens, or
what setup parameters there are to make it happen. I haven't paid attention at low enough
altitudes to see if it happens or not. Still, I'm sure that this could be a really great
aid for situational awareness, especially when some controller is pushing you around in
areas and altitudes you're not comfortable with.

One missing detail from the new terrain information is information about glide capability in
an engine-out situation. There are some software-only GPS solutions that have a "cones of
safety" feature, graphically showing you which airports are within safe gliding distance at
any given time. This is a great feature, although I've only played with it a little. While
the Garmin has all of the information inside of it to make such a rough calculation, it is
not provided. And yes, I know that you should be able to make this type of calculation
yourself, but in the heat of the moment during an true engine-out in a single, the more
information you can have at your fingertips the better!

AUTOMOTIVE FEATURES:

[I'll apologize in advance about any errors in this section. The manual isn't all that
clear about some things, and maybe I'm a little ignorant about what to expect from turn-by-
turn routing with what I have, so maybe my complaints are just B.S.]

The big improvement over the 295 for automotive use is the turn-by-turn routing. Although
it was basically the same package as the StreetPilot Color, in typical Garmin fashion they
chose to "differentiate the products" by hobbling the 295 so it would only let you look up
addresses, which you could only "go to" directly, as the crow flies. Now the 296 has
corrected this by trying to route you along streets, with directions given at each turn.

But with the basic unit these directions will be text only, since the unit DOES NOT HAVE
VOICE PROMPTS without the addition of optional equipment. Expect the same Garmin beep
you've been hearing. The manual doesn't explain what these voice prompts say, and when
you'll hear them, other than to tell you how to change the language. So I have no idea
whether they work at all, or in what modes, with the optional car speaker.

One big problem I've had with the routing so far is the routing detail. I'd love to hear
what other owners have to say about this, because maybe I'm just stupid and doing something
wrong. Don't know. I'm using an older version of MapSource MetroGuide US (can't find the
box or instructions for the past week, so I don't know the version off-hand) that I bought
with my 295, so I've never had a chance to play with the turn-by-turn routing. The streets
themselves are fairly accurate in location detail. On the Mapsource PC software, routing
works great, with nice tracks swooping around clover-leafs - generally the route follows the
road. Not so on the 296. The routes the unit comes up with generally go from turn to turn
in mostly straight lines, mostly missing the (detailed Mapsource data) road entirely when
it's winding. I'm not sure if this is intentional, or just my screw-up, but it makes using
it for driving difficult, because the road you should be on is not highlighted (like I'm
used to from PC programs), but instead there's a line offroad somewhere telling you the
general direction you want to go. Since details like offramps are missed in this crude
routing, important turning points can be missed (which has already been really annoying when
traveling in unfamiliar territory).

Anyway, I'm hoping that this is a screw-up on my part or Garmin's, since this really limits
the functionality of the unit for automotive use. I'm certainly hoping this isn't another
attempt by Garmin for product differentiation. I know that there are newer versions of
MapSource than I own, but I will not buy something newer unless I know it would solve this
problem.

With other screens, the automotive functions are pretty much bare-bones. The "3-D" Highway
Page, which has been around on the Garmin's forever, could have been really useful. But it
only contains the jagged route I described above, with no cross-streets or other helpful
information, as is available on some auto-only GPSs. With this much CPU power, this is a
real shame. Garmin even hides this screen away now - you have to manually activate it from
a setup menu.

MARINE AND OTHER STUFF:

I'm not much of a sailor, so I can't comment well on these things, but this Garmin offers
everything that was on the older basic marine units with new features such as a tide
calculator and a "best times for fishing or hunting" calculator. The tide/moon calculator
is fun, even for land-lovers, and pretty complete, with lots of tide stations. Like most
non-aviation features, the manual doesn't really explain how it figures out the best times
to fish and hunt, but apparently it's smart enough it know.

There seems to be some sort of connectivity for marine sonar, but I kind of glanced over
this, so you'll have to read whatever the manual bothers to tell you for yourself.

OVERALL CONCLUSION:

The 296 isn't perfect, but it's pretty darned good, and does pretty much what you're
expecting from an aviation unit. Save for going with some of the "Pocket PC" software GPS
solutions, I'm not sure your going to get much better in a VFR GPS.

While I'm disappointed so far in the automotive functionality, I'll freely admit that this
could be due to the fact that I'm an idiot. And I'll certainly have to admit that it's
better than the intentionally dumbed-down 295.

Overall I'm happy that I bought it, save for the $1800 it cost. I hope this provided at
least some information for prospective buyers. Maybe my comments (and errors) will spark
more detailed responses from other owners. And I'm sure that in coming months the flying
magazines will have their own infomercial style write-ups.



[PS: I'd like to take the time to thank all of the contributors to alt.satellite.gps and
sci.geo.satellite-nav for contributing to my knowledge over the years. Although I haven't
had time to keep up with it in recent years, they've been a great resource!]

John Bell
April 25th 04, 07:42 PM
Rhett,

I thought that I would take you up on correcting some gaps and errors.
However, please take the tone to be constructive rather than critical.
Thanks for taking the time to post the review. I should also add that I
have played with the 196, but do not own one.

> The manual is typical of that from the 295, with ok description of the
aviation features,
> and basically nothing about the automotive and marine features. Yes I
know that there are
> physically pages in the manual covering these features, but how much
information is really
> there? There are lots of questions I still have, after reading the thing
cover-to-cover.
> Like the 295 I'm sure I'll have to figure stuff out by trail and error.

I have a free downloadable book at www.cockpitgps.com which might be of some
use. I do not have any 296 specific examples, but the book is about GPS in
general rather than specific receivers. Even so, I do have some 196
examples. There is a voluntary payment link, but the book can be downloaded
for free. At least sign my guestbook or drop me a not from the feedback
link if you find it useful.

> Like the 196? Then you'll like the 296. Except this has color to help
unclutter things
> (not that the 196 was bad), and has terrain avoidance. Sorry if that
doesn't sound like
> much information, but I in a way I think this says a lot!

I would agree with that summary.


> I'm still a little foggy about the terrain page. There is a dedicated
terrain page, which I
> understand, but the manual talks about a pop-up page that will come up on
all other pages
> (eg the panel or map) when in danger. But the manual doesn't explain how
this happens, or
> what setup parameters there are to make it happen. I haven't paid
attention at low enough
> altitudes to see if it happens or not. Still, I'm sure that this could be
a really great
> aid for situational awareness, especially when some controller is pushing
you around in
> areas and altitudes you're not comfortable with.


Go to page 69 of the user manual and it points out how to get to the terrain
setup page. It appears that you can select various paramaters for warnings.
Now for the Demo. Page 9 explains how to set up the simulator mode works.
Essentially, go to the satellite page, press MENU, and select start
simulator. If you go to the HSI page, you can override the automatic
simulator navigation. Up and down on the cursor pad controls speed and left
and right allows you to steer manually. In the simulator mode, the zoom
keys will change the altitude. Using the simulator mode, you can fly into
terrain and see the warnings in action.

I used this feature to set up the CALI crash and was very impressed with the
terrain feature.

If you go to the main map, anywhere you put the cursor will show you not
only the lat/long, but also the terrain height.


> One missing detail from the new terrain information is information about
glide capability in
> an engine-out situation. There are some software-only GPS solutions that
have a "cones of
> safety" feature, graphically showing you which airports are within safe
gliding distance at
> any given time. This is a great feature, although I've only played with
it a little. While
> the Garmin has all of the information inside of it to make such a rough
calculation, it is
> not provided. And yes, I know that you should be able to make this type
of calculation
> yourself, but in the heat of the moment during an true engine-out in a
single, the more
> information you can have at your fingertips the better!

I think that there is some neat future potential in what you describe and I
know that some of the Pocket PC programs offer this. I think that the
development of this feature holds much promise, especially with some of the
glass cockpit aircraft that have airspeed information and could back out
wind information. Anyway, back to the 296 (also the III Pilot, 196, and
295)-- the 296 has VNAV that allows you to set a height above a waypoint.
Let's say that you have the default set to 0 ft. above the waypoint. You
may actually might want to set a different altitude, but that is a different
discussion. If you execute a GOTO an emergency airport, the VNAV will
indicate vertical speed and/or glide slope required to make it to the
airport. Assuming a constant groundspeed, if VS to TARGET sinkrate is
increasing then you are floating above a straight line to the waypoint and
should be able to make the airport. If it is increasing you are sinking
below -- you will not make it. You can also use GLIDE RATIO to TARGET,
except that an increasing GR to TARGET means you are sinking and will not
make the target.

This is not the same as having the circles representing the glide cones that
you are talking about, but it still might be of use. For situational
awareness, calculate how many miles your airplane will glide per 1,000 ft.
in still air. With that bit of knowledge, you can look at the map display
and at least have a rough idea of what is reachable.

> [I'll apologize in advance about any errors in this section. The manual
isn't all that
> clear about some things, and maybe I'm a little ignorant about what to
expect from turn-by-
> turn routing with what I have, so maybe my complaints are just B.S.]
>
> The big improvement over the 295 for automotive use is the turn-by-turn
routing. Although
> it was basically the same package as the StreetPilot Color, in typical
Garmin fashion they
> chose to "differentiate the products" by hobbling the 295 so it would only
let you look up
> addresses, which you could only "go to" directly, as the crow flies.

I am not so sure this is true. If I remember correctly, without bothering
to verify through research, the original Street Pilot Colormap did not offer
turn by turn routing. The later Street Pilot III introduced turn by turn
routing.

> But with the basic unit these directions will be text only, since the unit
DOES NOT HAVE
> VOICE PROMPTS without the addition of optional equipment. Expect the same
Garmin beep
> you've been hearing. The manual doesn't explain what these voice prompts
say, and when
> you'll hear them, other than to tell you how to change the language. So I
have no idea
> whether they work at all, or in what modes, with the optional car speaker.
>
> One big problem I've had with the routing so far is the routing detail.
I'd love to hear
> what other owners have to say about this, because maybe I'm just stupid
and doing something
> wrong. Don't know. I'm using an older version of MapSource MetroGuide US
(can't find the
> box or instructions for the past week, so I don't know the version
off-hand) that I bought
> with my 295, so I've never had a chance to play with the turn-by-turn
routing. The streets
> themselves are fairly accurate in location detail. On the Mapsource PC
software, routing
> works great, with nice tracks swooping around clover-leafs - generally the
route follows the
> road. Not so on the 296. The routes the unit comes up with generally go
from turn to turn
> in mostly straight lines, mostly missing the (detailed Mapsource data)
road entirely when
> it's winding. I'm not sure if this is intentional, or just my screw-up,
but it makes using
> it for driving difficult, because the road you should be on is not
highlighted (like I'm
> used to from PC programs), but instead there's a line offroad somewhere
telling you the
> general direction you want to go. Since details like offramps are missed
in this crude
> routing, important turning points can be missed (which has already been
really annoying when
> traveling in unfamiliar territory).
>
> Anyway, I'm hoping that this is a screw-up on my part or Garmin's, since
this really limits
> the functionality of the unit for automotive use. I'm certainly hoping
this isn't another
> attempt by Garmin for product differentiation. I know that there are
newer versions of
> MapSource than I own, but I will not buy something newer unless I know it
would solve this
> problem.
>
> With other screens, the automotive functions are pretty much bare-bones.
The "3-D" Highway
> Page, which has been around on the Garmin's forever, could have been
really useful. But it
> only contains the jagged route I described above, with no cross-streets or
other helpful
> information, as is available on some auto-only GPSs. With this much CPU
power, this is a
> real shame. Garmin even hides this screen away now - you have to manually
activate it from
> a setup menu.
>

The basemap only contains the level of road detail that you would get in a
state road map. Out of the box, you can route from city to city, but will
not be able to look up addresses. To get the street routing that you are
looking for, you need to load more detailed maps. Not only must you upload
detailed maps, but the maps must support auto routing on the GPS. The
product that Garmin sells for the 296 is CitySelect.

MetroGuide supports route calculation on the computer, but generally does
not support routing on the GPS. However, there was one version of
MetroGuide that will support autorouting on the GPS receivers that support
autorouting. It is the previous version which I beleive was version 3.
When you select a map area to upload, look at the list of maps. If you have
the MetroGuide version that supports autorouting, you should see a check box
option to "include route calculation data." On the left side of the
MapSource screen there is the box with tabs for waypoints, routes, and the
list of maps that you have selected to load into the GPS. The check box is
at the bottom of the list of maps if you have version 3 of MetroGuide.

You can probably find an inexpensive (but legit) copy of MetroGuide 3, but
the CitySelect maps have newer data.

The couple of times that I have actually used autorouting for real on the
196 or GPS V as opposed to going somewhere where I knew how to get to, it
was impressive. There are several options such as avoiding U-turns, toll
roads, highways, etc. The default values are good, but make sure that you
have the desired values checked or you will get some strange routings.

It is purely speculative on my part, but I am wondering if Garmin will
introduce XM weather capability to the 296. Go here:
http://www.garmin.com/marinenetworking/ and use your imagination. Once
again, this is nothing more than speculation on my part.

Hope this info helps,


John Bell
www.cockitgps.com

Rhett
April 25th 04, 11:16 PM
Just wanted to add a correction after doing a little experimenting and
researching.

About the Routing Issues:

The problem with poor turn-by-turn routing detail in Automotive Mode
probably has to do with the MapSource MetroGuide version I'm using.
Apparently Garmin has hobbled this software so that it will only let you
route on the PC, and the routing data is not sent to the GPS itself (I love
the logic of this). So what I was seeing was the unit trying to route with
its "Routable Base-Map" only.

Anyway, a different version of MapSource will probably do the trick; I'm
going to pick up City Select tomorrow (although I hate having to go through
the process of calling them to unlock the thing after I already paid for it
in the first place).

As a side note, while the Map Source MetroGuide USA I have will generate a
decent route on the PC and send it to the GPS, some of the info is lost,
including the street names. So you end up with directions like "Turn Left
on 041" instead of the street name. I'm not sure if this is expected or
not (still on 2.40 of the firmware). Anyway, don't buy MetroGuide for this
unit.

So, basically my last real complaint about the thing is just me being
ignorant. Finally they put out a unit that really is both aviation and
automotive - though it should be able to do that and make a cup of coffee
for $1800.


Other Side Notes:

The new anti-reflective screen seems REALLY easy to damage. They put a
note inside the box basically warning you, but it seems a lot worse than
they say. I've really babied mine, always wrapping it in bubble wrap
before putting it in its case, and it STILL has a couple of light scratches
on it after a week. Oh well.

I also wanted to comment on Garmin's service. I just sent my GPSMAP 295
back because it stopped running off batteries. It was way out of
warrantee, but they still fixed it for free AND updated the Jepp database.
Although it was a flaw in the unit, you've still got to give them credit.



Rhett > wrote in
. 198:

> Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS
>
> I've been using the GPSMAP 296 for about a week now, and since there's
> really not that much detailed info available about it (even on the
> Garmin site), I figured it might help some people to get a little idea
> of how it works. Maybe other owners can expand upon this and fill in
> the gaps and correct my errors. I threw this together pretty fast, so
> take it with a grain of salt…
>
> [Disclaimer: I don't claim to know what I'm talking about; these are
> just my first impressions from the unit. I could be wrong about any
> opinion expressed here, and probably am. I just wanted to give some
> info to try to help out others thinking about buying the thing. You
> mileage may vary. Also I'm posting the GPS groups as well as the
> aviation group, since the automotive and marine features should
> ideally make this a universal unit]
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> OK, my GPSMAP 296 is replacing the 295, which replaced the III+, which
> replaced the 45. I also have played with the 196 in the air. So this
> is the frame of reference here. Since these units aren't
> automotive-only, most of my auto-GPS experience comes from the
> commercial PC programs on a laptop. Although the 296 is intended for
> use in the air, I'm intentionally reviewing the automotive features,
> since I feel this should be a part of a box that costs $1800.
>
> GENERAL FEATURES:
>
> The GPSMAP 296 is small, and as such the screen seems a little small
> too. But it has a very decent resolution, and the shading capability
> of the 256 color display make it very readable. The screen is very
> bright and readable, and the CPU is fast enough to provide pretty fast
> updating, much faster than the 295, and probably something on par with
> the 196. This makes scrolling around the maps relatively fast, and is
> a big improvement over the 295.
>
> The GPS receiver itself is very good, and a definite improvement over
> the 295, which was on par with other parallel 12 channels I've seen,
> like the III+. I'm not sure what they're doing differently, but
> acquisition seems much faster, at least when "warm."
>
> Power is provided via a lithium ion battery pack, which is recharged
> through the unit. I'm not sure what the real lifetime is, since I
> haven't had to charge it yet. But it seems that it will be an
> improvement over the 295 screen (i.e. StreetPilot Color), which could
> really cut through some AA's. I haven't seen an option for normal
> battery operation, which could be a downside.
>
> Menu navigation is ok, and if you're used to older Garmin units you'll
> be able to get around, although you'll notice some changes. There are
> a whole lot of nice things hidden in there, which I'll mention more of
> later.
>
> The manual is typical of that from the 295, with ok description of the
> aviation features, and basically nothing about the automotive and
> marine features. Yes I know that there are physically pages in the
> manual covering these features, but how much information is really
> there? There are lots of questions I still have, after reading the
> thing cover-to-cover. Like the 295 I'm sure I'll have to figure stuff
> out by trail and error.
>
> The 296 package comes with all sorts of stuff you can read about on
> the Garmin page, including mounts for the yolk and dash,
> power/data/charging cables, and remote antenna. It's basically the
> same nice complete package as the 295, although it specifically does
> not try to provide a "car kit" (save for the dash mount), which
> eliminates some features (see below).
>
> The unit takes the same datacards as the 295 (and StreetPilot?), and
> seems to work fine with lots of Garmin data, even with my super-old
> Topo dataset that I bought with the III+.
>
> AVIATION FEATURES:
>
> Like the 196? Then you'll like the 296. Except this has color to
> help unclutter things (not that the 196 was bad), and has terrain
> avoidance. Sorry if that doesn't sound like much information, but I
> in a way I think this says a lot!
>
> Terrain and "virtual instrument" pages the biggest differences the
> 295, along with the general ease of use that comes from a faster
> processor, in tasks such as using the map or programming routes.
> Actually, this is a big improvement when trying to use it in the air,
> since some tasks such as editing a route were just too difficult to do
> while flying (in my opinion) due to the time it would take to scroll
> the map or text identifiers.
>
> It is still very much a VFR unit, with approaches basically only
> containing the FAF and MAP. But it has all the fixes you need to
> throw together your approach. And besides, you're only supposed to be
> using this as non-navigational supplement to situational awareness.
>
> I'm still a little foggy about the terrain page. There is a dedicated
> terrain page, which I understand, but the manual talks about a pop-up
> page that will come up on all other pages (eg the panel or map) when
> in danger. But the manual doesn't explain how this happens, or what
> setup parameters there are to make it happen. I haven't paid
> attention at low enough altitudes to see if it happens or not. Still,
> I'm sure that this could be a really great aid for situational
> awareness, especially when some controller is pushing you around in
> areas and altitudes you're not comfortable with.
>
> One missing detail from the new terrain information is information
> about glide capability in an engine-out situation. There are some
> software-only GPS solutions that have a "cones of safety" feature,
> graphically showing you which airports are within safe gliding
> distance at any given time. This is a great feature, although I've
> only played with it a little. While the Garmin has all of the
> information inside of it to make such a rough calculation, it is not
> provided. And yes, I know that you should be able to make this type
> of calculation yourself, but in the heat of the moment during an true
> engine-out in a single, the more information you can have at your
> fingertips the better!
>
> AUTOMOTIVE FEATURES:
>
> [I'll apologize in advance about any errors in this section. The
> manual isn't all that clear about some things, and maybe I'm a little
> ignorant about what to expect from turn-by- turn routing with what I
> have, so maybe my complaints are just B.S.]
>
> The big improvement over the 295 for automotive use is the
> turn-by-turn routing. Although it was basically the same package as
> the StreetPilot Color, in typical Garmin fashion they chose to
> "differentiate the products" by hobbling the 295 so it would only let
> you look up addresses, which you could only "go to" directly, as the
> crow flies. Now the 296 has corrected this by trying to route you
> along streets, with directions given at each turn.
>
> But with the basic unit these directions will be text only, since the
> unit DOES NOT HAVE VOICE PROMPTS without the addition of optional
> equipment. Expect the same Garmin beep you've been hearing. The
> manual doesn't explain what these voice prompts say, and when you'll
> hear them, other than to tell you how to change the language. So I
> have no idea whether they work at all, or in what modes, with the
> optional car speaker.
>
> One big problem I've had with the routing so far is the routing
> detail. I'd love to hear what other owners have to say about this,
> because maybe I'm just stupid and doing something wrong. Don't know.
> I'm using an older version of MapSource MetroGuide US (can't find the
> box or instructions for the past week, so I don't know the version
> off-hand) that I bought with my 295, so I've never had a chance to
> play with the turn-by-turn routing. The streets themselves are fairly
> accurate in location detail. On the Mapsource PC software, routing
> works great, with nice tracks swooping around clover-leafs - generally
> the route follows the road. Not so on the 296. The routes the unit
> comes up with generally go from turn to turn in mostly straight lines,
> mostly missing the (detailed Mapsource data) road entirely when it's
> winding. I'm not sure if this is intentional, or just my screw-up,
> but it makes using it for driving difficult, because the road you
> should be on is not highlighted (like I'm used to from PC programs),
> but instead there's a line offroad somewhere telling you the general
> direction you want to go. Since details like offramps are missed in
> this crude routing, important turning points can be missed (which has
> already been really annoying when traveling in unfamiliar territory).
>
> Anyway, I'm hoping that this is a screw-up on my part or Garmin's,
> since this really limits the functionality of the unit for automotive
> use. I'm certainly hoping this isn't another attempt by Garmin for
> product differentiation. I know that there are newer versions of
> MapSource than I own, but I will not buy something newer unless I know
> it would solve this problem.
>
> With other screens, the automotive functions are pretty much
> bare-bones. The "3-D" Highway Page, which has been around on the
> Garmin's forever, could have been really useful. But it only contains
> the jagged route I described above, with no cross-streets or other
> helpful information, as is available on some auto-only GPSs. With
> this much CPU power, this is a real shame. Garmin even hides this
> screen away now - you have to manually activate it from a setup menu.
>
> MARINE AND OTHER STUFF:
>
> I'm not much of a sailor, so I can't comment well on these things, but
> this Garmin offers everything that was on the older basic marine units
> with new features such as a tide calculator and a "best times for
> fishing or hunting" calculator. The tide/moon calculator is fun, even
> for land-lovers, and pretty complete, with lots of tide stations.
> Like most non-aviation features, the manual doesn't really explain how
> it figures out the best times to fish and hunt, but apparently it's
> smart enough it know.
>
> There seems to be some sort of connectivity for marine sonar, but I
> kind of glanced over this, so you'll have to read whatever the manual
> bothers to tell you for yourself.
>
> OVERALL CONCLUSION:
>
> The 296 isn't perfect, but it's pretty darned good, and does pretty
> much what you're expecting from an aviation unit. Save for going with
> some of the "Pocket PC" software GPS solutions, I'm not sure your
> going to get much better in a VFR GPS.
>
> While I'm disappointed so far in the automotive functionality, I'll
> freely admit that this could be due to the fact that I'm an idiot.
> And I'll certainly have to admit that it's better than the
> intentionally dumbed-down 295.
>
> Overall I'm happy that I bought it, save for the $1800 it cost. I
> hope this provided at least some information for prospective buyers.
> Maybe my comments (and errors) will spark more detailed responses from
> other owners. And I'm sure that in coming months the flying magazines
> will have their own infomercial style write-ups.
>
>
>
> [PS: I'd like to take the time to thank all of the contributors to
> alt.satellite.gps and sci.geo.satellite-nav for contributing to my
> knowledge over the years. Although I haven't had time to keep up with
> it in recent years, they've been a great resource!]
>

Gerry Caron
April 26th 04, 03:19 AM
"Rhett" > wrote in message
. 198...
> Just wanted to add a correction after doing a little experimenting and
> researching.
>
> About the Routing Issues:
>
> The problem with poor turn-by-turn routing detail in Automotive Mode
> probably has to do with the MapSource MetroGuide version I'm using.
> Apparently Garmin has hobbled this software so that it will only let you
> route on the PC, and the routing data is not sent to the GPS itself (I
love
> the logic of this). So what I was seeing was the unit trying to route
with
> its "Routable Base-Map" only.

MetroGuide doesn't support autorouting, even if it's in a unit that has
autorouting capability. The MetroGuide database was never set up to support
autorouting. It ain't hobbled. It's what came with the original
StreetPilot and other units that were not capable of autorouting. You could
manually build a route on a PC and download it, but it was a pain.

As you found out, the 296 (and 196, which is what I have) has a routable
base map. You need CitySelect if you want to autoroute to an address
that's not in the base map. You can use CitySelect to autoroute on the PC
and download the route along with the maps, or you can autoroute on the
196/296. It's easier to use on the PC for a complex route. In a pinch,
autorouting on the 196/296 is fine, but it's harder to tweak the route. On
longer trips, I often tweak the route since the autoroute makes its choices
using a set of rules. In several cases, personal knowledge of the roads
allows me to pick a 'better' route (in my opinion,anyway.)


> Anyway, a different version of MapSource will probably do the trick; I'm
> going to pick up City Select tomorrow (although I hate having to go
through
> the process of calling them to unlock the thing after I already paid for
it
> in the first place).

It's no big deal about the unlock. When you install the s/w, it will prompt
you thru an on-line registration and then take you to the unlock page on
their web site. Follow the instructions and type in the 'coupon code' that
came with the unit. Print out the page that has the resulting 'unlock code'
and keep it with your manual/CD (you'll need it if you re-install the SW
later on). If everything went right, it should have unlocked your SW.
Worst case, you'll have to cut and paste or type the unlock code into a
dialog box to finish the unlock process. The manual makes it sound more
complicated than it is.

> As a side note, while the Map Source MetroGuide USA I have will generate a
> decent route on the PC and send it to the GPS, some of the info is lost,
> including the street names. So you end up with directions like "Turn Left
> on 041" instead of the street name. I'm not sure if this is expected or
> not (still on 2.40 of the firmware). Anyway, don't buy MetroGuide for
this
> unit.

Agreed, MetroGuide was never intended to be used with the 196/296.
CitySelect works just fine. It does keep road names, but it does
occasionally have problems with transitional roads. Sometimes it will
display, "Turn right onto ramp." Other times it will display, "Turn right
onto road." Once you turn, it then displays the correct name at the top.

The one thing I learned to watch when driving is the distance to turn,
especially when the side street or exits are close together off a major
road. You can get your first beep with the prompt quite a distance before
the turn and then another beep at the turn. On some roads, there can be one
or more turns before the one you want. Watching the 'Distance to turn'
makes it easier to get in the turn lane for the correct exit.

Gerry

Peter
April 26th 04, 04:02 AM
Gerry Caron wrote:

> "Rhett" > wrote in message
> . 198...
>
>>Just wanted to add a correction after doing a little experimenting and
>>researching.
>>
>>About the Routing Issues:
>>
>>The problem with poor turn-by-turn routing detail in Automotive Mode
>>probably has to do with the MapSource MetroGuide version I'm using.
>>Apparently Garmin has hobbled this software so that it will only let you
>>route on the PC, and the routing data is not sent to the GPS itself
>
> MetroGuide doesn't support autorouting, even if it's in a unit that has
> autorouting capability. The MetroGuide database was never set up to support
> autorouting. It ain't hobbled.

It depends on which version of MetroGuide-USA you are using. The
original MG-USA didn't support auto-routing in any form. The
next version (4.0x) supported it both on a PC and on Garmin
GPS units that have auto-routing. The latest version (5) from
NavTech still supports it on a PC but no longer on GPS units.

Cockpit Colin
April 26th 04, 04:37 AM
> The new anti-reflective screen seems REALLY easy to damage. They put a
> note inside the box basically warning you, but it seems a lot worse than
> they say. I've really babied mine, always wrapping it in bubble wrap
> before putting it in its case, and it STILL has a couple of light
scratches
> on it after a week. Oh well.

This might seem a little out of "left field", but I wonder if we could use
one or more of the same screen protectors that we use on our PDAs to protect
it?

Jay Honeck
April 26th 04, 08:11 PM
> Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS

We played with it some at Sun N Fun, and your review is right on the
money -- thanks for posting it.

However, for the same price, or a bit less, you can get an AvMap -- which is
quite literally twice the GPS. The AvMap has a much better color display
than the 296, and is actually big enough to read without reading glasses
(according to Mary).

It doesn't have the "virtual instrument panel" or new terrain feature of the
296, but it graphically depicts obstructions (which, IMO, is more useful, at
least in the Midwest) and it has all the instrument approaches and detailed
airport information in a readable (meaning BIG) format stored internally.

Compare the products side by side, if you can find a dealer with both in
stock. It's a striking comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Stu Gotts
April 27th 04, 04:51 AM
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:11:53 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Amateur Review of the Garmin GPSMAP 296 GPS
>
>We played with it some at Sun N Fun, and your review is right on the
>money -- thanks for posting it.
>
>However, for the same price, or a bit less, you can get an AvMap -- which is
>quite literally twice the GPS. The AvMap has a much better color display
>than the 296, and is actually big enough to read without reading glasses
>(according to Mary).
>
>It doesn't have the "virtual instrument panel" or new terrain feature of the
>296, but it graphically depicts obstructions (which, IMO, is more useful, at
>least in the Midwest) and it has all the instrument approaches and detailed
>airport information in a readable (meaning BIG) format stored internally.
>
>Compare the products side by side, if you can find a dealer with both in
>stock. It's a striking comparison.

How about a review of AvMap? Can you point to a good website? (Please
don't say avmap.com, I'll feel really stupid.)

Jay Masino
April 27th 04, 12:05 PM
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> However, for the same price, or a bit less, you can get an AvMap -- which is
> quite literally twice the GPS. The AvMap has a much better color display
> than the 296, and is actually big enough to read without reading glasses
> (according to Mary).

Except, that the AvMap is WAY to big for most people's taste. That's why
it hasn't become more popular.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

David Aldis
April 28th 04, 10:55 AM
http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/ekpiiic.htm

Paolo
April 29th 04, 06:57 AM
"Stu Gotts" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> How about a review of AvMap? Can you point to a good website? (Please
> don't say avmap.com, I'll feel really stupid.)

I live near the firma; see www.avmap.it, i think there is an english page
too.

Paolo

Google