Garmin 496 compared to the 396

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 a previous article, Jonathan Goodish said:
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
I suspect that the 496 is a better deal over the 396 for auto use
because it includes the "car kit" and City Navigator pre-loaded. With
Does it really include the car kit? Even the talking power cable? Well,
that accounts for $250 of the $600 difference between the 396 and the 496.
So I repeat the question: Why do you need the 496 for use in the car when
for $450 less you can have the 396 with a car kit?

Yes, it does, though I can't say that I'm very fond of the talking power
cable.

I am, but my wife frequently unplugs it.

$600-$250 = $350. I guess for $350 more, you get the taxi diagrams,

I guess I need coffee.

AOPA directory, slightly better terrain resolution, and a slightly
faster update rate.

I think we're in agreement then that the person who said you need the 496
instead of the 396 if you're going to use it in the car is mistaken,
right?

I'm pretty happy with my 296, which I bought earlier this year on eBay. I
kind of wish I'd waited until the 496 came out and drove down the used
prices on the 296 and 396 - I might have ended up with the 396 then. But
then I would have had to use my old 195 on my spring flights, including
the flight to Pinkneyville, and I wouldn't have had the Auto mode while
driving around Pittsburgh.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It's not 'I don't do Windows', it's 'I know nothing about Windows,
and it generally explodes when I get near it'.
-- Matt McLeod

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 ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
I think we're in agreement then that the person who said you need the 496
instead of the 396 if you're going to use it in the car is mistaken,
right?

You don't "need" the 496 if you want to use the device in the car, but a
brand new 396 + auto kit narrows the price gap between the 396 and 496.



JKG

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:
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?

The main money difference is the addition of the auto kit. The added
features are the runway layouts for larger airports (that I don't
frequent) and the AOPA directory (in a font size that I would find
impossible to read). The big book does fine for me. Oh yeah, the
"faster" screen refresh.

When I looked around, I saw that recent "factory refurbished" Magellan
auto units can be had for $500 or less with a warranty. I thought that
may make better sense than trying to "secure" my new $2300 396 Garmin
unit once I arrived at my destination. There is NO WAY you would leave
the Garmin in the car while parked in downtown Chicago. So, what are you
supposed to do with it? Carry it around? If they stole a $500 auto unit,
I would be ****ed off at around level 4. Ripping off my 396 (or 496)
would put me around a "9" on the PO Meter.

Others find the delay/blankout and awkward slew annoying. So far, it is
only a minor inconvenience. Guess I don't fly far enough away (Hey, its
a 140, where the heck am I gonna go?)

So, if you really WANT the auto kit and can USE the runway diagrams and
AOPA catalog, the numbers may add up to buy the 496.

I was not too concerned that the 496 came out a couple of weeks after
the 396 purchase. Had I known, I would likely still buy the 396.

Good Luck,
Mike

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