Torn, I respect your opinion and appreciate your input in this forum. From your past posts here, I suspect that you have ties with Case in some way. If this not correct, please set me straight. But for this reason I do not consider you to be unbiased in this discussion. torn - 1/20/2007 11:04 Don, I don't know if it's intentional or not, but your post is quite misleading. "As AFS PRO has posted above, AFS is not compatible with anything but red paint and they are not even trying to be compatible." Not true. All AFS file formats can be read by Ag Leader's SMS, which is widely recognized as an industry leader. Let's tell the rest of the story here. The AFS software is a rebadged version of SMS. Agleader wrote the AFS software so yes SMS can read AFS log files. But I stand by my earlier statements that No Third Party software can read AFS logs. I don't consider SMS to be third party in this case since it is the AFS software. Try reading logs from the 600 pro into Farmworks, SST, Mapshots, or even Apex for that matter. If you're talking about hardware, you're closer to the mark, but I don't see JD making a system to use on a red machine, either. John Deere makes the ATU steering system which supports CNH platforms. It uses the JD 2600 display unless I am badly mistaken. I am not a big fan of John Deere and I am not trying to support them here. I am just saying that they are much more supportive of open architecture and cross company platforms that CNH is. There's a lot to be said for open architecture, but there's also merit to proprietary design. "They use some Trimble components, but use their own firmware so that Trimble can not even plug and play with them in every situation." True, but this is not entirely by choice. There are legal and other issues in both companies that currently prevent this. You could look at it the other way and say that "Trimble uses their own firmware so that CaseIH cannot even plug and play with them in every situation". Trimble also shares components with AgLeader and Mid-Tech. There is much more plug and play compatibility with these companies than with CNH. "AFS will not cooperate with third party software developers in any fashion." Again, not completely true. With older file formats (YLD and Voyager), the "reader" component was made available, so if a software company didn't incorporate compatibility, that's by their choice, not by some lack of cooperation from CaseIH (and several have choses to release YLD and Voyager-compatible software - FarmWorks, Red Hen, SMS). With the new Voyager format for the color displays, you're again closer to the mark. This discussion was centered around the 600 pro. Yes, third parties can read the YLD format, but YLD was not a AFS format. It was an AgLeader format that C-IH(at the time) licensed to use on hardware that was being source thru AgLeader. When AFS went to their own formats, they stopped providing technical specs and component to third parties. Some software can read the Voyager format, but AFS was not forth coming with help in that endeavor either. And AFS is not providing any file specs or technical support on the new systems at all. Since none of the new AFS hardware uses the YLD format I will stand by my earlier statements. I don't consider YLD or Voyager formats to be relevant to this discussion at all. "They will not provide their file specs or reply to any request for technical assistance in reading those files." Not sure what you're looking for here. The new file spec for the color displays is ISO-compliant, and anyone can view the data structure and even the data files themselves with a hex editor. If you want them to make their display software source code available, I'm not sure that's an entirely reasonable request. I am not talking about their source code or any of the firmware in their display. I am talking about data logging. Any log files that are collect from any hardware on my farm should be in a format that I can import into any analysis software I choose to use. No hardware vendor has the right to tell me that I can only use the software of their choice and they do not have the right to try and force that upon me either. That is the current stance of CNH and AFS. That is the reason I no longer use their hardware. It is a business decision on their part and it is very obvious this the stance they have taken. If you can not see this, I am sorry. But it is very obvious to me. I am a former AFS user and will freely admit that AFS has had some good hardware. But we need open architecture in the precision Ag industry and AFS is making no effort in any way to support open architecture. "They are dead last in support of open architecture." I'm not sure how you can support this statement without knowing the exact status of all other iron mfg and 3rd party precision ag manufacturers. I have a rainbow of precision ag equipment on my farm. I have used AFS, Mid-Tech, Zynx by Kee, AGCO GTA, John Deere, AutoFarm, Trimble just to name a few. I have used desktop software from Farmworks, AFS, AgLeader, Mapshots, and SST. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about who is supporting open architecture both pubically and behind the scenes. "The only way we are going to influence them to change this attitude is to speak with our pocket book. We need to refuse to buy from companies that do not support open architecture." IMHO, and you're free to differ, this is like saying "I refuse to vote for a candidate that doesn't support X". The candidate might be perfect in every other way, but if he doesn't support X, you won't vote for him? There's a lot more to farming than precision ag, as I'm sure you know. I have spoken with many involved in the industry about open architecture over the years. Nothing gets their attention more than $$$. AFS is trying to force their customers to uses only AFS offerings. If not, why will they not supply components to read their new file formats. Or at the very least they could publish the formats along with the technical specs behind them. "In his post above AFS PRO stated that you "might" be able to log with the 600 pro in your John Deere tractor. That may or may not be true. I can not confirm or deny that. But if you can log with the 600 pro, you will not be able to read that log with anything but the AFS software. You will not be able to use those logs in any of the better third party software that is on the market. I am not sure if outside vendors can write prescription maps for the 600 pro or not. If they can, they have developed this capability without any help from AFS." You can in fact use the Pro600 in a JD tractor for prescription and as-applied mapping with a 1200 planter, just as you have always been able to do with the Universal Display Plus monitors. Case IH offers a generic tractor harness that can be added to essentially any tractor. Once you've recorded the data, you can read the data in the AFS software or SMS, just as with any other AFS data. You will need the latest software to process as-applied data. The Pro600 currently does not have third-party control; however, it is ISO compatible as indicated in another post, so as more manufacturers incorporate ISO compatibility into their equipment, the Pro600 stands ready to communicate. All that is needed is a generic third-party software app. Can you use the GS2 2600 in a Case IH tractor? (I'm really asking - I don't know.) The key here is "Once you've recorded the data, you can read the data in the AFS software or SMS, just as with any other AFS data." You are locked in the the AFS software which is SMS. I spent a great deal of time investigating software 7 years ago. At that time I selected what I felt was the best software package for my situation that was on the market at the time. This package continues to be one of the most inovative in the market today. I was using AFS hardware at that time. Then AFS decided that I would no longer be able to use that software with their hardware. Anyone considering the purchase of AFS hardware needs to consider this very carefully. Will the current AFS software (I am including SMS in this statement) offering be satisfactory in the future? Because if not, you do not have the option of using anything else. Simple put, that is not acceptable in my book. Many people are starting to hire consultants to process their data. Consultants hate to see the new AFS data, because their software will not read it. You are severely limiting yourself about what you can do with your data when you choose to use AFS hardware. I have a very large data base of collected field information now that I use extensively to make management and agronomic decisions based on. I would have to essentually walk away from that data to use AFS now. That is simply the stance AFS has taken. Anyone considering the purchase of AFS hardware needs to take that into account. They are locking themselves into the AFS/SMS fold. They will have problems if they want to use non-AFS equipment also. AFS will not control it and the AFS data is not compatible with it. I want to be able to run the equipment/hardware that best fits my needs and at the same time run the software of my choosing also. If you decide to run AFS, you are locked into AFS. Yes the GS2 2600 can be used in a Case tractor and it can actually steer the tractor using the ATU. Again, I am not advertising for Deere. They have their own set of issues. "If you want to look at steering systems that are compatible across different vendor's platforms, I would suggest that you give strong consideration to Trimble or AutoFarm. Even John Deere has support for other manufacturers platforms." Rather than reinventing the wheel and developing guidance systems for lots of third-party platforms, Case IH chose to partner with Trimble. Case IH offers red-branded systems for red equipment, and Trimble-branded systems for other equipment. Deere chose a different path, which is certainly fine. I would guess, but can't prove, that you'll find more CNH-retailed Trimble Autopilot systems on green machines than you'll find Deere Autotrac systems on red machines. This would be an interesting statistic to see. I can not begin to quote on sales statistics. I have no access to that kind of data. Case has made the business decision to be a close door system. They have never supported control of third party controllers thru their own hardware. You mentioned above that they were ISO compliant and could support ISO controllers in the future. To do this they will still have to write the control features into the software and to this point they have shown no inclination to do this. I would not even consider that possibility in my decision to purchase AFS hardware based on their past performance. "If you are wanting to move the terminal between tractors and a combine for yield monitoring, the Trimble autopilot using the AgLeader Insight for control will be your best bet. The Insight is currently the only third party platform that does both yield monitoring and steering control." I actually can't disagree with much in this section :-) Don, my point is not to pick you apart; I've read, enjoyed, and learned from your posts for quite a while. But there were a lot of misstatements in this one, and where this poster is looking for accurate information with which to make $$ decisions, I needed to at least provide "the rest of the story". You're certainly welcome to your opinion that he should run from AFS. I think the support you gave for that argument could have been more carefully thought out. As I said above, I have great respect for your input also, but I will stand by what I have said and I do not consider it to be a mis-statement. You and I will have to agree to disagree. My statements come from my past experience and not from glossy sales literature. I have found in my experience that just about all of that glossy sales literature greatly overstates the capabilities of the product in question when you actually get it to the field. And that statement applies to all colors of equipment. | 
CASE iH AFS PRO 600 AUTOSTEERING
