structure scan question

  • jwelch
    Iowa
    Posts: 48
    #1306933

    On my past trip, my structure scan was acting funny. The bottom would remain flat or unchanged (say 8.2′). But the the digital depth reading would bounce around saying 8.2,9.2,8.8,9.5,10.5,11.2,8.2) all while the bottom stayed the same 8.2′. Also while this reading was bouncing around, I had 2-d on the next screen next to it and stayed the same (not jumping up and down). Just wondering if anybody has experienced this. Or maybe a solution to it?

    I updated to 4.0 back in when it first come out and seemed to work fine – I don’t remember it doing it. Then I updated it again when the “new” 4.0 came out in July and now this.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks, Jeremy

    Randy Wieland
    Lebanon. WI
    Posts: 13297
    #988353

    Was there a good amount of boat wake, or waves? I’ll get that on my H/Bird in rougher water

    jwelch
    Iowa
    Posts: 48
    #988375

    No there wasn’t much chop, pretty flat. I’ve haven’t experienced this before since I’ve installed it last year.

    I know the the difference between wave induced depth change and what I am experiencing. The numbers and the bottom jump and what I am seeing is that the bottom is staying the same and reading very well. But the data overlay that reads out the depth is jumping all over to the deep side like it is reading at 8′ and the screen shows it is 8′ deep but depth overlay is jumping around from 8 to 9 to 10 to 11 to 9 to 8 all while screen (bottom) doesn’t change at all.

    Jeremy

    ottomatica
    Lino Lakes, MN
    Posts: 1380
    #988383

    Never notived that but maybe the bottom depth calculation algorythm is causing it to do that. Soft bottom?

    jwelch
    Iowa
    Posts: 48
    #988907

    It did it over all over the lake – rocks, weeds.

    I think I’ll try downloading the update and upload it on the graphs again.

    Jeremy

    Ken Sauret
    Paso Robles, California
    Posts: 164
    #989178

    I see by your depths that they went from 8.2 to 11.2 which is 3 feet. Assuming these are exact readings could it be the rocks were 3 feet tall? Maybe thick weed tops were interpreted as the bottom when you were going over them. Just a thought.

    jwelch
    Iowa
    Posts: 48
    #989429

    The numbers were just examples. Yes I thought about that too but it did even if there were no weeds or rocks on the graph and the numbers were jumping to the deep side of what the picture on the graph was showing, never shallower. The picture seemed accurate compared to the reg sonar. So thats why I’m think somethings funny.

    I’m going to try to reupdate them again and see if that works. If not, I will have to give customer service a call.

    Jeremy

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.