NMEA 2000 & Actisense

Which one?
Don't think it should be any limitations
Have read this page?
http://www.actisense.com/products/nmea-2000/ngw1/ngw-1overview18.html

Thanks Knut, I should have listed the unit. EMU-1's. Getting ready to install one for each of my mains and would like to add one to each of the generators.

Can't understand why there should be any limitations..
Found this in the FAQ section, should answer your question
http://www.actisense.com/products/nmea-2000/emu1/faqs-emu1.html
Q:
How many engines can a single EMU-1 support?
A:
In the future, two engine instances will be supported by a single EMU-1. The initial release of the EMU-1 will be limited to supporting one engine instance. For installations with more than one engine a dedicated EMU-1 for each engine will be required.

Thanks Knut, Yes I did see that earlier but I was curious if they (collectively Actisense and any company that processes their signals) had considered more than two...

So the plot thickens...

I sent the following to Actisense inquiring about using four EMU-1's

TO ACTISENSE:
Purchased two EMU-1's for each of our two mains. Can we add two more EMU-1's; one for each generator. We are installing a Maretron system. 
 
ACTISENSE REPLY:
Hi Bo
There is no problem with configuring the instance number in the EMU-1 units to be different.
The limit is the instance value range in the NMEA 2000 specification, which is much larger than 4.
 
We have had reports that Maretron do not use the instance fields nicely.
You would need to confirm that the Maretron system will display the data from 4 instances and display two of them as generators.
 
Best regards
Vlad Gorre,
Customer Support Engineer
Actisense®/Active Research Ltd

I then copied the Actisense reply and sent it to Maretron. Did you catch the comment from Actisense above; "We have had reports that Maretron do not use the instance fields nicely."

This is the reply from Maretron - AND Maretron copied this email thread to Actisense support.

Bo,
 
The Maretron displays and software allow for a users to configure each parameter component for instancing up to 252(see image below). Since the Actisense EMU-1 device allows for users to configure the engine data instance, I do not see a real issue here. Unfortunately, You will need to use a Actisense configuration tool being that I have doubts that the EMU allows for data instancing configuration with standard command messages from the N2KAnalyzer.

THIS IS GETTING INTERESTING... AND MAYBE A BIT BEYOND ME...

So then comes an email from Actisense support...

Bo,

I should have provided a bit more information regarding this.
The EMU-1 uses the ‘PGN instance’ (field 1 inside PGNs 127488 and 127489).
If that is the instance used in the Maretron software that is great, it will work the same as it does with all the other hardware and software systems tested so far.
If it is the ‘Device Instance’ (field 3 & 4 inside the 64-bit NMEA Name), it will not work.
 
The next Firmware release for the EMU-1 will address this issue to improve compatibility with systems that don’t utilise PGN instance.

Best regards
Vlad Gorre,
Customer Support Engineer
Actisense®/Active Research Ltd

I have sent this on to Maretron for their reply. I will advise once I get a reply.

Don't you love getting everybody in the same room together. Once they finish beating each other up maybe I will have my answer.

Hi Bo,

I find this disturbing. I've had good tech support experience both with Vlad Gorre at Actisense and Mark Oslund at Maretron. They are both well run companies in my opinion, and a nice thing about their relatively small size is that you almost always get help from the same guy who's been there a long time and knows what he's talking about.

But it looks like you had a nasty finger-pointing experience mainly due to Vlad. I'd like to think he was just having a bad day, because "We have had reports that Maretron do not use the instance fields nicely" is a truly annoying thing to say to a customer.

I hope that you and others are wise enough to at least think to yourself something like: "Well, exactly what sort of Maretron instance issue are talking about, and why the heck haven't you confirmed it with your own Actisense gear? Isn't the EMU-1 -- which Maretron doesn't offer -- perfect for using with Maretron's NMEA 2000 monitoring and alarming products, which you don't offer?"

At any rate, in my experience no company handles Instances better than Maretron, as I wrote about here: http://goo.gl/Jbq1o

But it is a complicated subject and I've heard (from Maretron) that the N2K Standard is not as clear about how to use it as it could be.

For instance -- and I think Vlad got confused about this -- having four EMU-1's minding four engines on your boat should not be a problem as long as you can give each a different device instance. Maretron in particular is well designed for this since so many of their sensors are used in multiples.

But I've hardly dealt with PGN Instances, which I believe is the nuance that would allow a single EMU-1 to output, say, coolant temperature for two different engines. In fact, I think I've only seen PGN Instances used by Maretron and Actisense. So wouldn't it be nice if they compared notes?

Actually, I think the effort of Maretron's Tech Support to include Actisense in the conversation was great. That's exactly what we customers need and deserve. I don't even blame him for the potshot about how Maretron software and gateway could change Actisense Instance numbers if allowed, but the sad truth is that no manufacturer (except maybe Airmar) has used this part of the N2K Standard (as best I can tell).

I am going to push these thoughts up the management line at Actisense. I'm pretty sure that this is just an anomaly -- or misunderstanding on our part -- from a good company that likes to do right by customers and play fair with competitors.

Ben, I received a reply from Mark at Maretron explaining the last email from Actisense.

"Bo, What Antisense support is saying is that they allow the data instance to change to a defined number allowing users to differentiate the messages and show parameters correctly on an NMEA2000 display. This is consistent with how Maretron allows users to select parameters for display. I believe there should be no issues once your EMU-1’s are configured correctly.

Regards,
Mark Oslund

This certainly helped considerably. I would like to agree about Actisense having a bad day. They have provided prompt answers to my previous, yet basic, questions. It was not until the blame started that I began questioning them.

Maretron (Mark) followed up by sending me links to several of their products, and an article he thought I would find of interest. He also provided his contact info and suggested I call him to discuss our Maretron installation and that we take our N2KBuilder to the Miami show so they can take a look. My tech that's designing the backbone was also told by Maretron support to send our design in so they can review it. Pretty smart business to make sure we don't screw up...

Thanks Ben for getting involved.

Hi Bo,
This is all simple so I will try to clear up the confusion:

In 2013 we were contacted by two knowledgeable customers that were using our Actisense EMU-1 with Maretron display products who said they could not get their Maretron display products to work with multiple EMU-1's. When they investigated it, they both came back with a similar story that they'd been told that each NMEA 2000 device (i.e. EMU-1) needed to have a unique 'Device Instance' (field 3 & 4 of PGN 60928) to be displayed separately. We assumed that this answer came from Maretron support but sadly we were not made aware of the true source.

It was this information gleamed from previous customers that we passed on to you (Bo) - it most certainly was not any personal thoughts on the subject. In direct response to your question we wanted to make you aware of what other customers had found out themselves. However, in trying to simplify our answer to you (and not give you the whole back story) perhaps we caused confusion instead, if so we wholeheartedly apologise for that.

It was never our intension to suggest that any Maretron product was inferior; instead we simply wanted to pass on feedback received from our customers regarding possible limitations that they had discovered. However, we can see that it is possible to misinterpret our response and again for that we apologise.

This is the question Actisense support asked you (Bo) via email to get an answer from Maretron:

We need to understand which instance value can be changed via the pull-down menu in the shown Maretron software screenshot:
1. is it ‘PGN instance’ (field 1 inside PGNs 127488 and 127489)?
2. is it ‘Device Instance’ (field 3 & 4 inside the 64-bit NMEA Name)?

The Maretron response that I now see above clearly supports the idea that it is indeed the 'PGN instance' that the Maretron software can use to uniquely identify an NMEA 2000 device. Now that we know that we can agree with Maretron support that both our products will work together and you shouldn’t have any problem with the 4 EMU-1’s sharing their information with the Maretron software.

There is still the final question of whether the Maretron software can be configured to understand that two engines are for propulsion and two are for electrical generation, but I’m sure that is a simple one for Maretron support to answer.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

Thanks for posting here, Andy, but I remain quite confused about all of this, especially why Actisense is apparently unable to find out how Maretron works with its EMU?

Andy,

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this issue. I am genuinely excited about having your company's product delivering data through our Maretron (still in the design stages) system. I have used other Actisense products with zero problems and good support.

I don't think I'm the only consumer who has felt the sting when a company blames another when two devices 'don't play well together.' It's like a wave of nausea, and you think - here we go again. For me, that feeling prompts a conditioned response where I often just write 'that' company off. Instead I reached out to Ben at Panbo, and then your response came in to clarify Vlad's comment. Thanks for not posting a third person retort to clarify your company's position on your FAQ.  Your personal response goes a long way toward building my loyalty to Actisense.

Thanks again,

Thank you for your kind words Bo, they are much appreciated. Again, we apologise that the original reply came across as us ‘blaming’ Maretron when we were simply trying to pass on information given to us from two responsible sources. I guess that was naive of us.

It is obvious that the common (Actisense & Maretron) customer base would benefit from us having closer links with Maretron tech support, so we will endeavour to set this up.

I have not used the Actisense EMU-1s but have two of the Maretron EMS100s. I used the Maretron N2KAnalyzer to configure the instance on each EMS100. Then in N2Kview when I display my Tach values, I have to select which instance of that PGN.

For Vlad or Andy - Can the N2KAnalzer be used to configure the instance on the EMU-1?

Bo - the folks at Gemco (Actisense's distributor)in North Carolina might be able to help also.

Hi Henry,

Unfortunately, you have to be more specific about which 'instance' value you mean. The details are above in my first post, but to summarise each device has a 'Device Instance' (inside the NMEA Name) and some data PGNs have a 'PGN Instance' field (e.g. Engine Parameters 127488 & 127249).

Both of these instances can be used to uniquely identify a source of data in the receiving device, although using the 'PGN Instance' is by far the most flexible and preferable.

Following the next firmware update to the EMU-1, any NMEA 2000 PC interface will be able to modify the 'Device Instance', that includes the NGT-1 (via NMEA Reader) and the USB100 (via N2KAnalzer).

Over the past 12 months, we have been working hard with the NMEA to complete a generic method for modifying 'PGN Instances'. This is vital to allow any tool the ability to modify a device's 'PGN Instance'. We have already added that ability to a beta version of NMEA Reader being tested now. In time, I'm sure Maretron will also add this generic method to N2KAnalzer too.

In the meantime, the 'PGN Instance' in the EMU-1 can be modified using the EMU Config Tool.