Megalive 2
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 1:51 pm
Humminbird MegaLive 2
So how are we all going with the Humminbird news of 9 December? Did it satisfy our expectations?
Like any new releases, we ended up with more unanswered questions.
Humminbird sure was slow in responding to the challenges thrown up by competitors.
WHAT WAS THE MAIN PROBLEM THAT H'BIRD FACED ANYWAY?
The inadequate data-processing capability of the popular lower range of units (namely the Helix and a couple of the Solix units) to handle the extra data processing work in dealing with animation (live) displays.
The amount of data needing to be quickly “moved about” by the processors in these lower rung models weren't technically up to the task.
So an upgrade in data processing speed was needed.
Look at the difference in “data packet” size between displaying photo images and videos. Helix data-processor could handle sequential individual “photo” style images OK but not the amount video data processing necessary to display MegaLive 1 adequately.
Basically large moving fish in the MegaLive 1 display looked like "jerky Charlie Chaplin images ' of early movies.
Like chalk and cheese.
A reasonably clear photo of an object might contain up to 100 kilo bytes of data that had to be “moved around” to display it. Easy.
A video of the same object contains a lot more data (perhaps 30 - 100 times more) that has to be “moved around” quickly to display the video adequately. Also easy.
Cast your mind back to how animation changed society from mechanical manipulation of “still images” into apparent moving images by means of a device called a Zoetrope.
Remember this (Zoetrope):
Technology then progressed by more innovative methods of mechanical manipulation of thousands of still images to give us reel-reel movies. 1920s technology.
Now our display devices deal with millions of images (no longer thousands) in the form of computers.
So what is the current state of the art method of displaying “movies”?
Blink of the eye speeds found in electronic microprocessor “chips”
Here's what one looks like courtesy of Intel Corp.
There’s gotta be 100 legs on this thing (a genuine centipede) and it falls squarely under my definition of a “throbatron” (and this isn’t even classed as high tech).
Our fish-finders are simply computers with low performance digital data processing components which meant that fish-finder manufacturers were faced with the need to dramatically change the data processing ability of their product.
A couple of H’Bird models had already been upgraded to the necessary new technology (Apex and some Solix models).
But the Helix models hadn’t being the popular lower (and cheaper) end of the range.
Helix models simply couldn’t process data quick enough to keep up with animation requirements. They tried it not very successfully (Megalive 1) but the exodus to Garmin had started
And THAT is the basis of the main problem that H’Bird was up against.
The term QUAD CORE PROCESSOR is bandied around by “experts” in respect of MegaLive 2.
Sound impressive? Unusual sounding words usually do but quad-core processors are “old hat” data processing technology.
Increasing the number of “cores” simply means that the device can process more multiple tasks simultaneously.
Geez, we’re only talking about fishing so imagine how many multiple simultaneous task capability functions are required for fighter aircraft etc.
The computer I’m writing this on is quad-core processor with a clock speed of 2.4 ghz with “boost speed” capability up to 4.2 ghz. Nothing special.
The news about H’Bird and quad core processors should not be any surprise as far as data processing upgrades are concerned.
I’d suggest (an evidence-based suggestion from Livescope images) that Garmin went that way a few years ago with Livescope data processing so H’Bird is still playing catch-up.
Garmin did a couple of other things with their transducer at the same time which we can expect/hope H'Bird to have copied.
The most common question from fishos: " How does Megalive 2 compare with Livescope"?
And there you have it. Garmin has moved into the "yardstick/standard" space vacated by H'Bird.
Humminbird’s decision to simply replace the Helix range is understandable.
As user of a Helix, it looks like I’m one of those with my own decisions to make about what happens next. But its not all doom and gloom. After all, its fishing not a matter of life and death (I think).
Anyway, the much needed upgraded data-processing is the standout feature of the X-Plorer fishfinder which is the long-awaited replacement for the Helix models.
Unfortunately, it took H’Bird too long to come to that decision AND they didn’t take their customer base with them on the journey.
THAT added to H’Birds woes. Now they have to play "catch-up" with the remnants of their customer base which will be more difficult than the technological "catch-up"
So how are we all going with the Humminbird news of 9 December? Did it satisfy our expectations?
Like any new releases, we ended up with more unanswered questions.
Humminbird sure was slow in responding to the challenges thrown up by competitors.
WHAT WAS THE MAIN PROBLEM THAT H'BIRD FACED ANYWAY?
The inadequate data-processing capability of the popular lower range of units (namely the Helix and a couple of the Solix units) to handle the extra data processing work in dealing with animation (live) displays.
The amount of data needing to be quickly “moved about” by the processors in these lower rung models weren't technically up to the task.
So an upgrade in data processing speed was needed.
Look at the difference in “data packet” size between displaying photo images and videos. Helix data-processor could handle sequential individual “photo” style images OK but not the amount video data processing necessary to display MegaLive 1 adequately.
Basically large moving fish in the MegaLive 1 display looked like "jerky Charlie Chaplin images ' of early movies.
Like chalk and cheese.
A reasonably clear photo of an object might contain up to 100 kilo bytes of data that had to be “moved around” to display it. Easy.
A video of the same object contains a lot more data (perhaps 30 - 100 times more) that has to be “moved around” quickly to display the video adequately. Also easy.
Cast your mind back to how animation changed society from mechanical manipulation of “still images” into apparent moving images by means of a device called a Zoetrope.
Remember this (Zoetrope):
- Image 1.png (165.13 KiB) Viewed 1933 times
So what is the current state of the art method of displaying “movies”?
Blink of the eye speeds found in electronic microprocessor “chips”
Here's what one looks like courtesy of Intel Corp.
Our fish-finders are simply computers with low performance digital data processing components which meant that fish-finder manufacturers were faced with the need to dramatically change the data processing ability of their product.
A couple of H’Bird models had already been upgraded to the necessary new technology (Apex and some Solix models).
But the Helix models hadn’t being the popular lower (and cheaper) end of the range.
Helix models simply couldn’t process data quick enough to keep up with animation requirements. They tried it not very successfully (Megalive 1) but the exodus to Garmin had started
And THAT is the basis of the main problem that H’Bird was up against.
The term QUAD CORE PROCESSOR is bandied around by “experts” in respect of MegaLive 2.
Sound impressive? Unusual sounding words usually do but quad-core processors are “old hat” data processing technology.
Increasing the number of “cores” simply means that the device can process more multiple tasks simultaneously.
Geez, we’re only talking about fishing so imagine how many multiple simultaneous task capability functions are required for fighter aircraft etc.
The computer I’m writing this on is quad-core processor with a clock speed of 2.4 ghz with “boost speed” capability up to 4.2 ghz. Nothing special.
The news about H’Bird and quad core processors should not be any surprise as far as data processing upgrades are concerned.
I’d suggest (an evidence-based suggestion from Livescope images) that Garmin went that way a few years ago with Livescope data processing so H’Bird is still playing catch-up.
Garmin did a couple of other things with their transducer at the same time which we can expect/hope H'Bird to have copied.
The most common question from fishos: " How does Megalive 2 compare with Livescope"?
And there you have it. Garmin has moved into the "yardstick/standard" space vacated by H'Bird.
Humminbird’s decision to simply replace the Helix range is understandable.
As user of a Helix, it looks like I’m one of those with my own decisions to make about what happens next. But its not all doom and gloom. After all, its fishing not a matter of life and death (I think).
Anyway, the much needed upgraded data-processing is the standout feature of the X-Plorer fishfinder which is the long-awaited replacement for the Helix models.
Unfortunately, it took H’Bird too long to come to that decision AND they didn’t take their customer base with them on the journey.
THAT added to H’Birds woes. Now they have to play "catch-up" with the remnants of their customer base which will be more difficult than the technological "catch-up"