We test a lot of machinery at Farmers Guardian, and as a machinery team, I hope we are reasonably competent at using most manufacturers' different control and precision farming systems.
Recently, we had the opportunity to use a popular model of tractor and integrate it with an IsoBus implement.
READ NOW: Manitou launches new Smart Weighing System for agricultural handlers
Once set up, it was very impressive. Both the tractor and implement worked almost seamlessly, and it was an accurate and comfortable combination to use, which did its intended job very well.
However, the set-up process to get there surprised me at the level of control set-up needed. In addition to deciphering what the various control symbols meant and what impact they had on the implement, the tractor control system required the operator to understand the thinking behind the software engineer's approach to which groups of controls needed to be switched on and what prior function they were assigned to.
READ NOW: Kverneland expands forage line-up with fixed and variable chamber balers
This manufacturer's approach was fundamentally very logical; it just followed a different path of logic compared with other approaches, which in themselves are also unique.
I appreciate that there is no 鈥榦ne-size-fits-all' tractor operating system, and integration with IsoBus allows combinations of tractors and implements to work together very successfully, but I wonder if the designers of the control software have really spent enough time in the cab using it, or fully understand the full range of machine operating systems users are supposed to be able to remember, 10 months after using it last time?
