cache I thought the depth reading was taken from a different part of the tx. dont know all the technical terms for it lolQuote:
Originally Posted by cache22
Printable View
cache I thought the depth reading was taken from a different part of the tx. dont know all the technical terms for it lolQuote:
Originally Posted by cache22
Quote:
Originally Posted by slabbacks
I'm hoping Greg can answer this when he checks in Monday...Quote:
Originally Posted by slabbacks
My answer would just be a guess dealing with the "Depth Offset" setting in relation to the digital depth ....and the "Slant Range" calculation in relation to the range lines on the SI display...
Rickie
thx rnvinc
COOL picture of those beds! I have a question about using SI. I am still kicking around getting a new SI to replace my DI. I have noticed that hardly anyone post SI images using "Contour View" taking out the water column. Is there a reason you guys do not like this setting? I would think that it would be MUCH easier to interpret what you are seeing without the water column, especially when looking for contour breaks in deeper creeks and channels.
There is interesting history behind the "Contour" feature....Quote:
Originally Posted by TNAMBUSHER
HB introduced SI in 2005....for several years users asked for a feature to turn off the "dark water column"...so they could get a better understanding of how the bottom looks without the dark water column being in the way confusing things....
HB introduced the "Contour Off" feature somewhere around 2011 (I think)...6 years users had asked for this feature....
Then after HB finally introduced the "Contour Off" feature....very few even use it...
I think during those 6 years ...users realized there is valuable information in that "dark water column"....and shutting off the "dark water column" hides that information...
Rickie
Rickie hit it on the head, I like the water column to show for a couple of reasons. At a glance I can tell what the bottom is doing and this really helps in the skinny water. yes I can just use depth reading at that spot but having the trail is just something I prefer better. Also I like it in deeper water due to the information it gives you on whats under the boat when it comes to fish in the water column and or structure.
I started with a DI unit but with the cone it shoots you have to cover a lot of water to get an idea of what's in the area not to mention in shallow water you have to run over or very close to check it out. (spooking the fish). SI covering 75-100, 1 or 2 passes and I know what's there and if I want to take a better look at something. I mark them with a waypoint, bring in the view and re-scan to see if it's worth dropping a jig.
Don't get me wrong. DI units are great and will put you on fish with some very detailed images. Just ask yourself what you need and how you like to fish. good luck
Get both, they are invaluable IMO
I fish all of the time and (imo) ive got the best di unit going between humminbird,lowrance, and garmin and I still believe that di's primary use is playing.it helps very little fishing and acually waist time.the only thing that I'm seeing that might be helpful would be if churp could be added to foward looking sonar in future.(its already being used in more expensive units)Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw
Of course this only is my opinion, and if you believe that di what you need than thats great.thats why its good to have all the different brands with there different options available.
EXACTLY the way I see it... SI/2DQuote:
Originally Posted by kosmo
I think all 3 have their purpose,di sure can help tell you if you need to stop on a brush pile or continue to the next one