Thread: Question for anyone who has a 8600 series garmin ?

From my understanding, the 93SV produces the same Livescope images as the higher resolution units. Since the data interpreted by the GLS10 and produced into an image doesn’t even exceed the resolution of lower end units. The advantage is screen size, networking with other units, etc, etc.

I’m just basing this on research around the web a d youtube, no personal experience. Please take it with a grain of salt.

Hmmm, pass the salt and call me a skeptic. I've never read this anywhere. PLS images look much nicer on my Ultra 102sv which has 1280 x 800 pixels, compared to 800 x 400 of my 93sv UHD, in my personal experience.

If the image itself is created in the GLS10, as your post seems to assert, how are the different display modes (with varying aspect ratio) VGA, XVGA, FHD of the various chartplotter series handled? I have not read anything anywhere that suggests that the GLS10 module has a fixed resolution at a low standard, or what that resolution actually is. I'd like to see anything on the subject you have that is from Garmin. IMO YMMV

I believe the Livescope images on my 8612 are better than they were on my Ultra 122. Clearer, sharper, more target separation.
I believe the Livescope images from my Ultra 122 were better than those from my 93 plus. Definitely also much better in bright sunlight.
My 93 plus gave me ok Livescope images but like most things in life you get what you pay for.
Can I prove any of the above? Nope!

Originally Posted by jawjatek

Hmmm, pass the salt and call me a skeptic. I've never read this anywhere. PLS images look much nicer on my Ultra 102sv which has 1280 x 800 pixels, compared to 800 x 400 of my 93sv UHD, in my personal experience.

If the image itself is created in the GLS10, as your post seems to assert, how are the different display modes (with varying aspect ratio) VGA, XVGA, FHD of the various chartplotter series handled? I have not read anything anywhere that suggests that the GLS10 module has a fixed resolution at a low standard, or what that resolution actually is. I'd like to see anything on the subject you have that is from Garmin. IMO YMMV

I definitely don’t want to pass along misinformation. Couple places I’ve seen comparisons or statements made relating to the topic. Sorry to mislead anyone if that’s been done.

Echomap, ultra, UHD, GPSmap 8x, 10x, AAAAHHHH!

Screen Resolution for Livescope

Ultra 126sv VS Echomap 93sv Livescope Comparison - YouTube

I don't believe half of what I read on that forum. I was hoping for some definitive info from Garmin. Thanks anyway.

Originally Posted by jawjatek

I don't believe half of what I read on that forum. I was hoping for some definitive info from Garmin. Thanks anyway.

Me either, take everything on the web with a grain or two.

What I can find is anecdotal pointing to increased resolution equaling better LS target separation, detail, etc. I am in 100% agreement that larger screen size is more important than anything with LS. Those larger units just so happen to be higher resolution than the 93SV for instance. That leads folks to believe performance increase is solely related to resolution when in fact the screen area seems to be the most important advantage.

Like you said before, YMMV.

Roy or anyone who has one, do you think the higher resolution makes it easier to see your jig and if so can you get a cleaner screen i.e lower gain and still be able to see the jig. Thanks, Scott