Rand McNally intelliRoute TND 500

So it sounds like the PC*Miler Navigator systems have a positive feature that the TND system does not have, is that correct?

From fellow posters feedback, it sounds like this POI issue can be a hinderance to proper planning while enroute to a destination. Am I reading this right?

 

this POI thing could be seen as a problem, but I guess if you are aware of the way it works, then it may not be a problem.

The PC Milerr has the extra step of pressing the "drive" button after the route is calculated. The TND you enter all the destination info and press the calculate route button, it then goes into the "drive" mode wheen the route is calculated. No button to press. Good, bad guess it is what you are used to.

 

As Espressolane has mentioned when you seek POI's you are given "by the way the crow flies" mileage. Based upon the length of your trip and the amount of POI's it would take the GPS device awhile to calcuate the mileage to each POI. I have always looked at the mileage and added 10% for a more accurate estimate.

The farther the POI is from your physical location, the difference between the "point to point" miles and the actually miles will increase.

If you are planning your run, then simply taking a moment to actually route to the POI would give you more control over if you can make it or not.

Thanks,
Mark

 

This is why the "route via" feature shown in the manual would be so good.

 

working on it... it is on the short list of features to be added..

Thanks,
Mark

 

So in conclusion, the PC*Miler Navigator Systems does have an advantage over the TND 500 by offering the "route via" (ie. via point or waypoint) feature?

Thanks for the info.

 

It actually did that coming into Chicago too. It wanted me to go all the way around through downtown to loop back on the interstate instead of cutting right up 83 like the 465t usually goes. When I pulled off at a pilot and got back on the highway, it recalculated to match the 465t, up 83. The interstates seem to be a bit sticky on the TND but it tries to iron out the route as you get closer. Sometimes it cuts miles off, sometimes it adds them.

When I was going north on 12 it wanted me to turn west on a county route (always questionable especially in a snow storm) so I double checked it. The county road turned north and crossed 12 after the highway turned west. No sense in getting off a highway just to get back on it. Since the distance was equal I'm not sure how that'd be fixed. That's a big reason to have more detail and more zoom levels on the unit so you can look around before you get to a turn you aren't sure about.

Oh yeah, I like the way the POI's are set up and they're a lot better than garmin's version but none of the filter settings have been set up at all. I guess they're still working on that part. And it'd be nice if it searched farther out than 49.9 miles from the truck. Garmin looks at everything in a 250 mile radius.

 

I found that the TND does a trade-off during the initial calculation phase that threw me at first too. I thought at first that it simply wouldn't show me the route anymore once zoomed in to a close-up view, but what they did was allow the unit to calculate the primary portions of your route in priority order (from where you are leaving, etc) in order to get you "on your way." But in reality, it is still calculating those last few roads at the END of the route, even when you see it is ready to drive. While it is still calculating those, if you use the map to zoom in there (at the end of the route,) the route will disappear at a certain zoom level. Turns out that when it completed the entire ending portions of the route (as seen in that right-side pop-out list of turns) it doesn't make the route disappear at the end anymore. It shows you precisely all the roads in even when zoomed way in. I have pondered this, because I do like the view that "last ten miles" portion of the route right way because they are the most critical. From a technical standpoint, it has to do with processor and program prioritization so at least I feel better because I understand the "why" of it. The TND does a phenomenal amount of "variable consideration" due to all of the bells-and-whistles, and some smarter-than-I-am dudes have to decide those priorities. This delay is, of course more pronounced the longer the trip is, but do a check on a zoomed in map after it has completed he entire turn-by-turn list and see what you get. I think you'll see what you are looking for.

 

So when the calculation bar goes away and it looks like it's ready to go it really isn't? Hmm. I've been testing it beside the 465t and it already takes 3 times as long on most calculations. If it does what you say on top of that I think they must have put a really cheap processor in it.

 

Yup. I find (the majority of the time) that where it is wrong in one, it's wrong in the other because the maps are all originating with NavTeq for Garmin and Rand. However, and I will declare this as a HUGE "however," based on what I know Rand is doing with their proprietary MCRA expertise, "Tell Rand" feedback, and in-house trucking maps and road attribute development - their database is rapidly refining from "gold" to "platinum" in front of our eyes. And this database is only found in their units, whereas the more generic data suffers somewhat in a more "vanilla" form for most of the other choices out there. Stand by for some very rewarding "fattening and refining" on a wholesale basis - maps, truck routes, program features and stability from what I'm seeing that I belive will be mitigating some of the concerns in your post soon

Correct - when the calculation bar goes away, it just means that it is ready to safely begin your trip (NOT that the entire trip has been fully calculated.) This again is a software priority decision that programmer have to make - software compromises are made every time you click anything on any phone, GPS, TV, computer, whatever. In keeping everything relative since you are testing beside the Garmin (as I am, along with Goodyear, Cobra, and 3 different sizes of PCMiler each with different processors and memory) the Garmin takes about twice as long to complete 100$ route processing as a PCM, and the TND takes longer than the Garmin as you correctly have surmised. I have no idea what other processing functions are working where that "full" route calculation could be in the current processor power capabilities from brand to brand but this is something that Rand is aware of as it is a line item in an unbiased "strengths and weaknesses" analysis I did for them. I am convinced that they are putting serious and focused energy into everything that the users are saying though - to include whether items of relevant and well-thought nature as yours always are - are getting a thorough and lucid ponderance over there.

Yes. It didn't have it at first, but they quickly added it. You can plan a trip from "another origin" now on the TND. Just make sure your software isn't outdated to get this feature.

Simply put (and in answering honestly on the comparison-style questions here) - YES. The multi-stop route "forcing" including designating POI's and other stops as "waypoints" is easier on the PCM brand. Also, once added to your current trip the mileage is road-miles to each stop and not as the crow flies. This includes multi-stop and route alterations on the fly (while in the middle of your current trip.) Rand does get a gold star here in one area though - you can click road segments and put them on the "avoid" list. The unit "remembers" that you didn't want to take that road segment for whatever reasons that you chose at the time until you "unavoid" it at your leisure later on. This rather HUGE ability for you to slowly but surely customize the unit to your routes even beyond the calculated ones if you ever go that way again. Now if these two would combine what each does best here into a single GPS, you'd have the perfect multi-stop and custom route manipulation scheme.