Prius Deal Breaker

Good on ya for being so passionate.
Looks like you have found a minor flaw to justify to yourself to not spend a bucket of money to have the latest and greatest. For me it will be, I can't really afford a new car until I pay off the one I have, for you the car is just too crap due to half the display being too low a resolution for you to look upon, that's good enough for me.

 

ok, i understand now what i am supposed to be looking at and i do concur about the resolution issues. on the one side (the good side) we have a display that shows us one (albeit changing constantly) value. on the other side (the bad side) we see a display that shows us many different things.

so easy to see that the displays probably are different. one may look nice, but has one color, etc etc. not sure i can call it "better" because the one thing it does it does well.

 

Both sides of the display are using a vacuum fluorescent display, which is made up of predefined segments which can be of any shape and size, and a predetermined color. The left side of the display is comprised of 'static' elements: the fuel and MPG meters with their bars, shift indicator, etc. MPH digits are each 7-segment displays. Each of those elements can be illuminated or off, but its size or shape cannot change. The MID on the left displays variable data. So rather than a relatively small number of larger segments, it is made up of a grid of very small segments, which are used like pixels on a CRT or LCD display. The resolution of the MID is much lower than a CRT or LCD, so the display has a pixelated look. For the left side of the display, the concept of resolution doesn't apply, though both sides are using exactly the same technology.

 

I initially didn't like the display on the 2010 at first, but its grown on me and I think it is less distracting.

 

Like I said, if it's a "Deal Breaker" for you? Then it's a deal breaker for YOU and nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. Congratulations, you've found a reason to NOT buy a new car.

I would debate a few assumptions you make, and a few points. First of all IMO when you are talking about an in car navigation system, lower resolution on a NAV screen isn't by my definition a step backwards in technology. It's just lower resolution. A NAV system is NOT a television screen or a computer monitor where the resolution is tied directly to the quality of viewing movies, sporting events and/or working on a computer...in a television or computer high resolution is IMO an advantage or luxury. On a NAV system you just want to get from point A to point B, one could argue that the less busy and simpler the graphics the BETTER. Your basicly looking at a computer rendering of an interactive map, what's the advantage of having super crisp, overly busy, intricate graphics? I think for most people they don't need razor sharp resolution when looking at what is essentially a map. It might even be better to keep the map and directions as simple and uncluttered as possible. So it's my opinion, as long as the screen is large and viewable, I don't need or even want or desire Super High Resolution.

But in anycase, Deal Break away...but for most I don't think it is an issue.

 

Why would a higher resolution screen mean a more busy screen? I don't have the nav on my current 06 so I can't compare (except my current consumption and energy screens look pretty sharp), but I did notice when I test drove the 2010 that the nav screen is somewhat washed out and slightly fuzzy. Higher resolution would make it brighter and sharper. The number of objects appearing on the screen is what makes it busy or not. In fact, the same number of objects would look busier on a low resolution screen than on a high one because they are fuzzier/more jagged.

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that if you are paying that much for the nav, you would expect something at least as good as the one on the previous generation. It's not like they are including nav as a standard option this time or making it cheaper so are lowering the screen resolution to reduce the cost.

I personally wouldn't make that a dealbreaker. (I don't like the nav but will get it anyway because I want the solar roof). But it obviously is reason enough for the OP not to want to upgrade yet. It might not have been such a dealbreaker if he really needed to get a new car.

 

You certainly have a right to complain about it. Even if it is a minor issue, this is how Toyota can get some feedback. I think that the reddish color (pwr range) doesn't stand out enough. I also think that some of the information being displayed could be done in a better way.

But I don't think the "resolution" of the right part of the dash display is really a problem and don't think that it can or should be compared to the left side of the dash. On the left side everything is a fixed element display with no screen real estate ever showing two different types of information. And only the actual speedometer even shows numerical values that change. I'm not sure how the screen technology works, but on the left side it is "like" cutouts with a light behind them so there is no concept of resolution.

On the right side the same screen region can show many different types of information, text, numbers, histograms etc so they now have the concept of a pixel and there is a resolution to it. Sure making the dots smaller would be better. But I'd rather have a better user interface design to improve what information gets conveyed with the pixels that exist. Not that it isn't an improvement in many ways over the G1 and G2 (in that you now get more data, more history, etc.)

Just an example. When you are looking at the hybrid system indicator screen you have 4 zones...regen, left half of ECO, right half of ECO and Pwr. I'll assign numerical values to these for ease of explanation. ECO left half goes from 0 - 50, ECO right half goes from 50-100, Pwr goes from 100-120 and regen is minus 20 to 0. When you are right near 0 (the "glide" zone) you really want to have more visual granularity on the display, but instead the bar curves to a smaller height. From 0 to 50 you gets lots of horizontal display, but you don't really need or care about where you are within this zone nearly as much as near the glide zone. Same for 50-100.

So, IMO, this is bad use of the pixels...and has nothing to do with the resolution. A more useful HSI display could be made out of little bars the size of the gas gauge bars.

But none of this would be a deal killer for me. My 2010 is 3 weeks old and I like it better than both my 2001 and 2004.

3PriusMike

 

and scene

 

I see the difference. It almost looks like the jagged lined one is digitally zoomed -- like the ridiculous feature "digital zoom" (as opposed to optical zoom) on digital cameras that merely magnifies pixels to simulate a zoom effect, but ends up looking like crap. In you rpicture, the one that is lined and jagged; that is not a zoomed image, is it? Maybe they are using some kind of digital zoom instead of a zoom that rebuilds the image as it moves in.

 

Just read this post.

A much more concise, focused and apparently technically accurate explanation of what I was observing (see how I claimed credit for this good answer?!

In short: Yeah . . . what I just said . . . but much better!

 

I had to repost this. If you don't like the GenIII. Get over on the Gen II thread and stay over there and cry about what you don't like about the Gen III.

 

Rest, I think I said all this a couple of posts back (except fot the part about using the screen to play movies!). How about acknowledging the few people that have agreed with you in this thread?

 

I'm not sure that the resolution is lower. I think the display is bolder and bigger so that it is easier to read while driving. It looks more to me like the new G3 display is closer to the Garmon style. There is a navi how-to video on the Toyota site. Based on that, I think the screen resolution is equal or better than the G2's. The graphics and touch screen controls are better suited to older, big-fingered drivers like me.

 

This is a site for people to share information. This isn't the Prius fan site where you can only "like" say, "like" man this car is cooooool.

I think there is a lot of interesting information under the resolution complaint. Is it really degraded res (which I strongly doubt) or is it an easier-to-see and use UI? If you look at the display in "Freeway" mode, there is very small type and tiny icons. This supports my belief that the change in the display is a design decision.

Oh, do they like your tissue box graphic on the Barry Manilow site? (just kidding)

 

I hope you are right. I will be getting the nav (if I decide to buy the 2010) because I really really want the solar roof. I don't have the navi on my 2006 so I can't compare. But when I saw the 2010 nav it didn't strike me as being very sharp looking (like the Garmin). When I test drove the car, I didn't try to use the nav and I wasn't paying much attention to it because I felt that the placement of the screen was a little too low for me to be comfortable looking at it. I am used to looking up at my Garmin on the dashboard so I hope it's just a matter of getting used to it.