Why So Long To Come Up With LiveScope?

[schplurg]

School me, I'm just curious.

 

I often wondered why I couldn't just tilt my downscan upward a bit and shoot it out ahead of me.

 

Okay sure that wouldn't work, not sure why technically though because I don't know anything about this stuff.

 

Why did it take so long to make FFS for fishing? Any thoughts? How is it so much different than downward, to build I mean?

[Deleted account]

8 hours ago, schplurg said:

Why did it take so long to make FFS for fishing? Any thoughts? How is it so much different than downward, to build I mean?

I know the reason they didn't do it in the 70s, is because the small parts would keep getting lost in the shag carpeting, and folks kept stepping on them with the platform shoes...

(Sorry, still hard to seriously talk FFs after the "electromagnetic wave range" they operate at thing) 

[Tennessee Boy]

The technology has existed for a long time.  It’s just been too expensive for the bass fishing market.

[MN Fisher]

28 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

It’s just been too expensive for the bass fishing market.

Still is for a fair number of us.

[Bankc]

I don't know exactly how FFS works, but I do know how regular fish finders work.  And they're basically just the same thing as the flashing sonar, only they have a screen that logs the previous flash returns.  It's a single line that's repeated over and over through time.  And that line represents two dimensions of time.  The vertical axis is the time delay for the return of a single ping from the time it was sent, and the horizontal axis is the time delay between two or more pings.  There's software in there too that filters out noise and helps to interpret what you're looking at based on signal strength and such.  Side scan is much the same.  You're looking at a one-dimensional signal (sent out in a cone shape) that appears two dimensional because it's mapped against time.

 

For a FFS to work, you're going to have to an entire two dimensional plane out in front of you.  And since sound will radiate out in all directions, you can't just beam a bunch of pinpoint pings, like lasers.  These sonar pings work more like lightbulbs.  You can direction them somewhat, like what a lamp shade does to a lightbulb, but as you know, you can't just illuminate a tiny point with a lightbulb across the room without at least some of the light illuminating the entire room.  Not like you can with a laser pointer.

 

So you're going to have to map an X and Y axis.  To do that, I'm guessing you're going to have to run a large range of frequencies, and focus them in different directions and sweep both left to right and up and down.  And since the ping is still going to spread out, there's going to need to be some kind of software filter that can triangulate exactly which direction the ping returns came in from by comparing multiple ping returns on different frequencies (the different frequencies are to establish which direction the ping left from).  So each pixel that the screen shows will likely be interpreted using many different ping returns as there's going to be a lot of bleed over from each ping.  Which means there's going to be a lot more noise to filter out. 

 

So all of that means you're going to need some powerful computing to do all of those calculations.  And you're also probably going to need some kind of sonar device that can direct ping outputs across and x-y axis, and probably eliminate off axis returns.  Maybe something like a series of hypercardioid microphones set up in an array, or a single one that follows the pings output direction to reduce noise.  

 

Like I said, I have no idea how it works.  But I do know that however it works, it's got to be hundreds of times more complex than a typical sonar.  

[Tennessee Boy]

I don’t know how it works either but I would be willing to bet that it’s similar technology to that used in medical ultrasounds.  Live returns in two dimensions.

[TnRiver46]

I got a new live scope today! 
 

 

 

 

Only $20

 

[Darth-Baiter]

i kinda want it.  not to watch fish hit my baits.  but to seriously scan for cover ahead of me.  it would be wonderful to see brush piles, grass lines, etc.

right now i have to go over it, and hit the brakes and back up.  i cast towards my kayak "wake" hoping i judged the distance correctly. 

 

marginally successful , thusfar.

[Deephaven]

1 hour ago, Darth-Baiter said:

i kinda want it.  not to watch fish hit my baits.  but to seriously scan for cover ahead of me.  it would be wonderful to see brush piles, grass lines, etc.

right now i have to go over it, and hit the brakes and back up.  i cast towards my kayak "wake" hoping i judged the distance correctly. 

 

marginally successful , thusfar.

It is GREAT for that.  Even just the added confidence that you made it back to the spot you marked...

[InfantryMP]

On 8/18/2022 at 11:04 AM, Tennessee Boy said:

The technology has existed for a long time.  It’s just been too expensive for the bass fishing market.

Agree. The ability to use the technology in such as small area, with small amounts of power, reliably is not an easy task I'm sure. Coupled with the fact of how much it would cost would not be advantageous for anyone. 

[Woody B]

Live Scope and other versions are referred to as "Forward Facing Sonar",  but there's more to it that that.   It if forward facing but it's not the same as "normal" sonar.  It's instant  You don't see movement, at least in real time on "regular" sonar.   

 

I'm willing to bet that someone around here can do a better job explaining it that I have.   

[WRB]

Scanning sonar has been around for decades and used by commercial ocean fisherman and off shore tournament tuna anglers since the 80’s. 15 grand in 80 dollars was high price.

Live scope has always been limited to depth, speed and distance until recently at a price point under 10K. 

Micro electronics business has made quantum leaps the last decade and continues to improve annually. 

3 grand sonar was unthinkable 5 years ago now it’s common.

Tom

 

[J Francho]

You could do a scan under a dock by slowly sweeping you SI with the trolling motor. It isn't live, but you could tell if something was under there. 

[slonezp]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:13 AM, Deleted account said:

I know the reason they didn't do it in the 70s, is because the small parts would keep getting lost in the shag carpeting, and folks kept stepping on them with the platform shoes...

(Sorry, still hard to seriously talk FFs after the "electromagnetic wave range" they operate at thing) 

Don't know if you're old enough to remember paper graphs. 2D really hasn't changed much. 

 

Platform shoes with the goldfish in them?

 

 

[flyfisher]

On 9/6/2022 at 11:31 AM, Darth-Baiter said:

i kinda want it.  not to watch fish hit my baits.  but to seriously scan for cover ahead of me.  it would be wonderful to see brush piles, grass lines, etc.

right now i have to go over it, and hit the brakes and back up.  i cast towards my kayak "wake" hoping i judged the distance correctly. 

 

marginally successful , thusfar.

I have side imaging and i do that just to the side.  A lot of times I will go near the shore and turn on just the one side that is away from the bank and it shows me what I need to know. I then cursor over to it and drop a waypoint and use the casting rings on my humminbird so I know when i am in range and can start casting. Live scan would be much more efficient but no way with me primarily river fishing that I could justify that type of purchase.

[WRB]

If the water clarity is decent $45AquaScope works?

Tom

PS, old school marker buoy is very accurate to mark isolate structure or cover. 

 

[Deleted account]

18 hours ago, WRB said:

Scanning sonar has been around for decades and used by commercial ocean fisherman and off shore tournament tuna anglers since the 80’s. 

As much as foreign fishing fleets and rolling gear, it's what decimated the cod grounds in the NE, saw it first hand in I want to say mid 80s.

[mcipinkie]

My real world guess is something to do with patents.  Bottom Line (Computrol) had a rudimentary scanning type sonar in the early 2000's.  I had it on a boat I bought in 2002.  It worked, but extremely crude. 

 

If I remember correctly, Johnson Outdoors (HB, Minn Kota, and others) bought Computrol and, I would assume, those basic patents.  I think about 2005 plus/minus.

 

I'm just guessing now, but I would imagine those patents started to expire and work began in earnest on scanning type units.  I'm still quessing again, but I would expect this is why HB came out so early with side imaging.