Revolutionary Wi-Fi Gateway With Data Logging Launched by Actisense

10 Responses

  1. David B Gordon says:

    Depressing
    OneNet, NMEA finally creates a marine Ethernet standard!
    BY BEN ELLISON · AUGUST 1, 2012, and seven years later the Marine Technology companies are still being dragged kicking and screaming into the “modern age”

  2. Ted Arisaka Ted Arisaka says:

    I had a friend ask me about WiFi Gateways, in particular the Yacht Devices vs. Actisense. While only a snapshot in time (as of 12/30/19) here is a comparison of NMEA2000 to 0183 translations each can do https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QdjUNPs55qC6SFsYPvWubKEeCEerWeZ0o_nr2RF1nL4/edit?usp=sharing

    • Ted Arisaka Ted Arisaka says:

      Please see the 2nd sheet “PGNs”

    • Ben Ellison Ben Ellison says:

      Hi Ted and thank you very much for what looks like a valuable product comparison. But I’m glad that you call it a “snapshot in time” as we saw some interesting new WK-1 features in the Actisense stand at METS and I just learned that they will materialize next week with update v1.040. I have a WK-1, hope to try the update soon, and have already asked if additional PGN-to-0183 translations are included in the update.

      • Ted Arisaka Ted Arisaka says:

        YW Ben. I look forward to seeing these products evolve. If you have any pull with Actisense, please ask them to allow a user programmable Engine Hours offset in their EMU-1 product. Many of these are retrofits so I’m guessing I’m not the only one who has a “+250hrs” taped next to my engine display.

        • Ben Ellison Ben Ellison says:

          I agree with your request, Ted, but on my install the situation is actually worse because the EMU-1 counts hours whenever the engine key is activated while my Volvo Penta only counts them when the engine is actually running. In other words my +1,523 or whatever original hour differential has changed over time. But I think that new firmware for the EMU-1 is also in the works.

      • Ben Ellison Ben Ellison says:

        Hi again Ted. I got the following comments about your gateway comparison from Andy Campbell, chief engineer at Actisense:

        “Looking at the Yacht Device list you provided:

        * “DIN” is not a standard NMEA 0183 sentence so I will assume it’s a Proprietary sentence that will only work if the listening device knows how to decode that Proprietary sentence.
        If it’s a wrapping of the original NMEA 2000 PGN, that is not a logical direction to go and will become legacy before long.

        * “XDR” as you may already know, the XDR sentence has generally been poorly implemented, primarily because there wasn’t a complete NMEA definition which meant that Talker and Listener devices could easily have different understandings of what the data meant in the sentence.
        As I think I also mentioned to you, Actisense proposed changes to the NMEA for XDR some three years ago to complete the definition and make it workable. Those changes are now part of NMEA 0183 v4.11 – although there are a couple of typos that I have made the NMEA aware of that need fixing in that version.
        Therefore, now that the new definition for XDR is part of the standard, we do have plans to add conversions for many parameter that can be shared using XDR.
        However, this will require careful configuration control, otherwise the gateway can very quickly overload the NMEA 0183 output with a large number of XDR sentences.

        * AIS, the Actisense List is incorrect because it doesn’t include PGN 129038 “AIS Class A” – not sure why that has been removed.

        * The NGW-1 can convert more AIS messages than the Yacht Device: the NGW-1 can convert the widely used AIS binary messages.

        * The NGW-1 and W2K-1 can perform DSC and DSE sentence conversions – something the Yacht Device doesn’t indicate.

        * “MOB” – this is not a standard NMEA 0183 sentence, and therefore will have limited support.

        * Route and Waypoint PGNs, to our knowledge these PGNs are not widely supported by MFD manufacturers (that use their own proprietary methods of waypoint/route transfers) so we have not been asked to support these PGNs.

  3. Ted Arisaka Ted Arisaka says:

    Ben and Andy – thanks for the additional information. It helps to get insights on the implementations and/or decisions to not implement. I will update and fix the PGN list for Actisense – probably just a mistake on my part during a manual copy / paste exercise.

Join the conversation

Your email address will not be published.