Garmin 496 compared to the 396

My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396?

I've only played with the 396 a little, and the 496 for about 15 hours
of actual, in-flight use, so my comments are limited.

One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

Here's what I mean: When you "slew" the cursor around the screen on
our 496, trying to (for example) get some METARs from airports ahead,
the whole damned screen disappears for a second, while it "re-draws".
(This, of course, would be entirely unnecessary if Garmin would only
produce a unit with a usably-sized, portrait-oriented screen. But
that's a dead horse.)

We have found that this kind of constant slewing is our regular motus
operandi while on long x-country flights (the 496 is on the co-pilot's
side, so that they have their heads down), and it's something you just
have to learn to live with. If you want to check the weather ahead,
it's going to be slew...wait...slew...wait. It's like running the
latest version of Flight Simulator on an old Pentium I....

We've tried "decluttering" the screen, and turning down the detail, to
no avail -- so perhaps it has something to do with the XM uplink?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article om,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396?

I've only played with the 396 a little, and the 496 for about 15 hours
of actual, in-flight use, so my comments are limited.

One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

Mike Granby has provided some rather thoughtful analysis of the
real-world performance difference between the two units, but from what
I've gathered, it isn't too significant. A Google Groups search should
provide the relevant discussions.

In either case, the only good solution that I've found is to zoom out,
then pan over, and zoom back in. That will eliminate the need to scroll
over long distances. You can also go to the route page, select a way
point, and get weather that way. If I want a big picture, I just zoom
out; very little scrolling required.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article om,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

snip

One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

I have the 396, haven't seen the 496 yet. I agree, a faster screen refresh would
be an improvement, but I don't find it "agonizing".

snip

In either case, the only good solution that I've found is to zoom out,
then pan over, and zoom back in. That will eliminate the need to scroll
over long distances. You can also go to the route page, select a way
point, and get weather that way. If I want a big picture, I just zoom
out; very little scrolling required.

I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.

DB

I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.

How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
out?

Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.

If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
-- wherever "there" is.

The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
slow refresh rate.

Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
in a readable format at a usable zoom level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I have to admit, I'm still in the honeymoon phase with my 'old' 396 with
autokit. But isn't it great that we're fussing about the need to
zooming out and guessing where a weather reporting station before
zooming in to get the weather? All overlaid on a combined Nexrad and
cloud cover image. I mean, doesn't it all beat calling Fligh****ch and
trying to jot down some facts while hand flying in some choppy soup?

I gotta get an autopilot so I can more fully enjoy playing with this
thing while motoring along. "Honey, would you prefer the 60s or 70s
music channel now? The US Open broadcast just ended, I'm sorry you
missed listening to Phil self destruct but I muted it when you went to
sleep"

Heck, my panel mount 300XL seems like a stone tablet now... talk about
refresh time!

Loving it all

Jay Honeck wrote:
I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.


How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
out?

Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.

If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
-- wherever "there" is.

The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
slow refresh rate.

Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
in a readable format at a usable zoom level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
out?

Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.

If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

Presumably you know approximately where Joliet is in IL, correct? You
can zoom out, then position the cursor over the approximate location,
zoom in a little more (now you see IL), position the cursor more
accurately, and zoom in further. No scrolling required.

Alternately, if Joliet is in your flight plan route, simply go to the
route page and select it to see the weather at that point in your route.
No scrolling required.

If you had an instrument rating you'd probably be more concerned with
the NEXRAD image and convective activity than enroute surface
observations, and that information can be obtained without zooming in to
the individual airport. Also, don't forget about NRST weather.

I haven't tried it, but I'll bet if you turned off terrain shading on
the base map, scrolling performance would improve significantly.


JKG

Jay Honeck wrote:
I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.


How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
out?

I don't get around it, I just don't see it as a serious problem.

Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.

If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

Yep. Not too hard.

If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
-- wherever "there" is.

XM doesn't get to decide which airports report weather. As far as I know, any
airport that reports SAs shows up on the XM display. Is your experience different?

The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
slow refresh rate.

You could demand a refund, then take the money and go buy the unit that works
better.

Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
in a readable format at a usable zoom level.

While we're waiting, I'll just enjoy my 396.

Dave

If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Yes. For $3000, I should be able to demand any cheese I'd like.

Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
of insufficient processing power.

It's a design flaw.

Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
currently the only show in town.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
of insufficient processing power.

That isn't the only work-around, as pointed out by myself and others.
For some reason, you apparently refuse to acknowledge the alternatives,
which work fairly well.



It's a design flaw.

No, it's not. I'm sorry, but while I wish the 396/496 screen was
perhaps twice as big, that still wouldn't solve the "problem" of having
to scroll around. And, I don't believe that the mass aviation market
wants a 7" or 10" or 12" screen in a portable GPS.



JKG

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
currently the only show in town.

vistanav also provides XM weather. It looks like a waaaay bigger bigger
display, too.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out where to put that big a display in my airplane.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate