DFF3D
- Thread starter Seadog
- Start date
Good morning Seadog,
In some instances the triple beam view can provide changes in the bottom by looking at the change in bottom tail length and density. However, the DFF3D cannot perform Bottom Discrimination like some of our other soundes IE: FCV588 or BBDS1. Please see the photo below that shows a change in the bottom tail.
Unfortunately I don't have many examples or photos of the DFF3D being used as a bottom truthing sounder. I know in the past you have seen some photos of the WASSP with wide beam angles and widths in the triple beam view. But as you know the WASSP and the DFF3D are different beasts. So I don't know if it is fair to say because the WASSP can show that info on the triple beam view, it doesn't mean the DFF3D can. They are different transducers. As you know, the transducer specifications and characteristics are the key factor in bottom truthing.
As you have probably read on this forum from Snips, we typically recommend lower frequency transducers and transducers with a high "Q" rating when truthing the bottom. Wider beam angles allow for more length in the bottom tail as you likely know.
I was looking back to threads on this forum, and noticed some exchanges you had with Snips back in late summer 2018. You mentioned quite a few things, including some interference on your 295, did you ever get that cleaned up? You also mentioned about possible moving towards a stand alone Furuno Transducer like a 38kHz for that machine, did you ever move forward with that? Based on what I could research bottom truthing is a key component to your fishery. I know that you are actively trying to find that right piece of equipment to increase your efficiency. You mentioned in one post that a friend of yours is using a FCV295 with a CA50/200-12m and it is working great for finding changes in bottom tails. I guess what I am trying to allude to is; the DFF3D based on my experience has not been thoroughly tried and tested for bottom truthing especially in the region you fish (gulf). You/we have first hand experience with a setup in your fishing region that is tried and true and is working the way you need on your friends vessel. Why not go with a a different transducer for the FCV295, something similar to what your friend is using to get known results? I can understand trying to use different tech/new tech to get an edge, unfortunately I don't have any photos, experience using the DFF3D in your region, on your fishing grounds, that i could use to back up a recommendation. I hope you can appreciate that.
It is going to be difficult for the DFF3D to show you a 1ft contour in the bottom at 600 feet. There are only so many vertical pixels available in the screen, as you mentioned there is no bottom zoom in the TZT/TZT2 system when using the DFF3D so there is no way to manipulate the depth to pixel scale ratio. Hope that makes sense.
Kind Regards,
C-Bass
In some instances the triple beam view can provide changes in the bottom by looking at the change in bottom tail length and density. However, the DFF3D cannot perform Bottom Discrimination like some of our other soundes IE: FCV588 or BBDS1. Please see the photo below that shows a change in the bottom tail.
Unfortunately I don't have many examples or photos of the DFF3D being used as a bottom truthing sounder. I know in the past you have seen some photos of the WASSP with wide beam angles and widths in the triple beam view. But as you know the WASSP and the DFF3D are different beasts. So I don't know if it is fair to say because the WASSP can show that info on the triple beam view, it doesn't mean the DFF3D can. They are different transducers. As you know, the transducer specifications and characteristics are the key factor in bottom truthing.
As you have probably read on this forum from Snips, we typically recommend lower frequency transducers and transducers with a high "Q" rating when truthing the bottom. Wider beam angles allow for more length in the bottom tail as you likely know.
I was looking back to threads on this forum, and noticed some exchanges you had with Snips back in late summer 2018. You mentioned quite a few things, including some interference on your 295, did you ever get that cleaned up? You also mentioned about possible moving towards a stand alone Furuno Transducer like a 38kHz for that machine, did you ever move forward with that? Based on what I could research bottom truthing is a key component to your fishery. I know that you are actively trying to find that right piece of equipment to increase your efficiency. You mentioned in one post that a friend of yours is using a FCV295 with a CA50/200-12m and it is working great for finding changes in bottom tails. I guess what I am trying to allude to is; the DFF3D based on my experience has not been thoroughly tried and tested for bottom truthing especially in the region you fish (gulf). You/we have first hand experience with a setup in your fishing region that is tried and true and is working the way you need on your friends vessel. Why not go with a a different transducer for the FCV295, something similar to what your friend is using to get known results? I can understand trying to use different tech/new tech to get an edge, unfortunately I don't have any photos, experience using the DFF3D in your region, on your fishing grounds, that i could use to back up a recommendation. I hope you can appreciate that.
It is going to be difficult for the DFF3D to show you a 1ft contour in the bottom at 600 feet. There are only so many vertical pixels available in the screen, as you mentioned there is no bottom zoom in the TZT/TZT2 system when using the DFF3D so there is no way to manipulate the depth to pixel scale ratio. Hope that makes sense.
Kind Regards,
C-Bass
flowmotion
Furuno Fan
What beam angle and width do you recommend for the dff3d in water depths between 100 and 200'? My interest is bottom fishing. The transducer is 165T-B54.
S
Snips
Guest
Flowmotion,
Hard for me to say use these settings and life will be good for you.
However, these are the steps I would take to find out. I would start by using the DFF3D in the single beam mode, 10 degree beam width using a short pulse length. Once you find some targets close to the bottom I would switch from 10 to 20 degrees just to see how the targets appear. If they look OK I would then switch from single to the triple beam using 10/10/10. The method here is to start narrow and gradually widen your field of view.
Below are a couple of interesting screen captures of predators, bait and a wreck.
Snips
Hard for me to say use these settings and life will be good for you.
However, these are the steps I would take to find out. I would start by using the DFF3D in the single beam mode, 10 degree beam width using a short pulse length. Once you find some targets close to the bottom I would switch from 10 to 20 degrees just to see how the targets appear. If they look OK I would then switch from single to the triple beam using 10/10/10. The method here is to start narrow and gradually widen your field of view.
Below are a couple of interesting screen captures of predators, bait and a wreck.
Snips
Attachments
flowmotion
Furuno Fan
thank you Snips..I will use your approach on the next trip...the resolution you showed is great!
C-Bass
I bought the DFF3D a few months ago and I am not very happy with it in deep water. It is really slow compared to the 295. I have the TX rate on max. I have to anchor or hold the boat over a rock for a little bit before I get any fish or structure markings. Also if I run over 5knts in deep water it has a lot of interference. Transducer is in a good location because I had a B258 in the same location and it marked great on the 50 or 200khz up to 25knts and depth didn't matter. Here's a couple pictures of shallow water of both the 295 and DFF3D that's not bad but I really can't get close to this picture in anything over 200ft. Is there anything that might make it mark better and faster in deep water?
I bought the DFF3D a few months ago and I am not very happy with it in deep water. It is really slow compared to the 295. I have the TX rate on max. I have to anchor or hold the boat over a rock for a little bit before I get any fish or structure markings. Also if I run over 5knts in deep water it has a lot of interference. Transducer is in a good location because I had a B258 in the same location and it marked great on the 50 or 200khz up to 25knts and depth didn't matter. Here's a couple pictures of shallow water of both the 295 and DFF3D that's not bad but I really can't get close to this picture in anything over 200ft. Is there anything that might make it mark better and faster in deep water?
Attachments
S
Snips
Guest
Seadog,
Multibeam systems will have a slower TX rate than a regular sounder. You can have a faster TX Rate by setting it to MAX and by changing the TX pulse length from STD (Standard) to Short 2 or 1. But even doing this the DFF3D will be a little slower because it is always looking off to the side.
One way to get the know the DFF3D a little better is to use it in the single beam mode at 20 degrees. Here you can set the ranges to same depth to compare the screen advance rates. You can adjust the TX rates to get a better match if you want. Next you can adjust the Gain, Clutter and TVG on the DFF3D to compare with the 295. In you are using a 50/200 transducer on the 295 I would suspect the DFF3D would look more like the 200Khz side. Once you find some nice settings you can widen the beam from 20 to 30,40 or 50 to see how it affects your returns. Then switch from single to the triple beam mode. Start narrow and then widen them.
Snips
Multibeam systems will have a slower TX rate than a regular sounder. You can have a faster TX Rate by setting it to MAX and by changing the TX pulse length from STD (Standard) to Short 2 or 1. But even doing this the DFF3D will be a little slower because it is always looking off to the side.
One way to get the know the DFF3D a little better is to use it in the single beam mode at 20 degrees. Here you can set the ranges to same depth to compare the screen advance rates. You can adjust the TX rates to get a better match if you want. Next you can adjust the Gain, Clutter and TVG on the DFF3D to compare with the 295. In you are using a 50/200 transducer on the 295 I would suspect the DFF3D would look more like the 200Khz side. Once you find some nice settings you can widen the beam from 20 to 30,40 or 50 to see how it affects your returns. Then switch from single to the triple beam mode. Start narrow and then widen them.
Snips
Snips
I wish it would mark close to my 295 on the 200khz. I have it on RX max and short 1. I understand it would be slower but it will not mark a small rock in 500ft without the boat stopping for a few seconds. If you do not stop it just shows flat bottom. The 295 will be lit up on 38 and the 200.
Do you think they will add a zoom to the DFf3D anytime soon?
I wish it would mark close to my 295 on the 200khz. I have it on RX max and short 1. I understand it would be slower but it will not mark a small rock in 500ft without the boat stopping for a few seconds. If you do not stop it just shows flat bottom. The 295 will be lit up on 38 and the 200.
Do you think they will add a zoom to the DFf3D anytime soon?
I just fished my first trip out of Venice FL with newly installed dff3d with anticipation of using the equipment to find small breaks and ledges for grouper and snapper. I learned the hard way that the dff3d does not have bottom zoom. You will struggle to see small bottom changes with the dff3d alone. Frustrated at this point and wish I would have gone another route.
I have to agree with the comments made by Seadog and Strike.
DFF3D is absolutely useless for bottom fishing (especially at depths over 100-150ft)!
I rarely turn the DFF3D on anymore and consider it a waste of money in its current configuration.
Furuno should seriously consider some sort of bottom lock or bottom zoom upgrade to the functionality of the product, or, they will (start?) to fall behind their competitors in this market segment.
DFF3D is absolutely useless for bottom fishing (especially at depths over 100-150ft)!
I rarely turn the DFF3D on anymore and consider it a waste of money in its current configuration.
Furuno should seriously consider some sort of bottom lock or bottom zoom upgrade to the functionality of the product, or, they will (start?) to fall behind their competitors in this market segment.
S
squalis
Guest
The DFF3D is an excellent fish detection device. The frequency of the transducer is spread over an impressive wide angle which is not replicated by competitive units. The DFF3D transducer is optimised for fish detection. The unit is incapable of producing side the imaging detail demanded by previous posts. This is not due to software programming but due to the realities of sonar acoustics . The micro details of side imaging can only be achieved by the deployment of higher frequencies such as 900 to 1200kh ,these frequencies wont display fish but will render greater bottom detail but with shallower depth penetration. No single device manufactured in the recreational industry is capable of the demands placed by previous posts. Be aware of the capabilities of each type of technology. Dedicated side imaging recreational units will not be able to show a 6 inch ledge in 200 feet of water. A narrow beam 200kh transducer fitted to a standard echo sounder can show this type of detail due to the concentration of the sonar beam and its ability to display this level of detail. The side imaging achieved by the DFF3D is capable of locating sizable changes of the sea floor but it has its limits. The unit has to be used in conjunction with standard echo sounders. Finally the main task for the unit is to have a wide angle of fish detection especially fish of a larger size. Every type of technology has its limits.
C-Bass
Do you think they will add zoom to the DFF3D anytime soon? I think it would work very well for what we are asking it to do with a zoom feature.
Squalis
I think you are mistaken on the DDF3D. 165khz will show bottom changes very well if zoomed. 130khz would probably work better but 165 is what we have to work with.
900-1200khz would never work in 500ft nor would it show any kind of bottom changes. It works great showing a tree in 20ft but not hard to soft bottom.
Do you think they will add zoom to the DFF3D anytime soon? I think it would work very well for what we are asking it to do with a zoom feature.
Squalis
I think you are mistaken on the DDF3D. 165khz will show bottom changes very well if zoomed. 130khz would probably work better but 165 is what we have to work with.
900-1200khz would never work in 500ft nor would it show any kind of bottom changes. It works great showing a tree in 20ft but not hard to soft bottom.
Similar threads
