John, every time we get an audience with the controller people, we ask them to make a really "dumb" box that will just silently log any information it can grab.   Something that the a "tractor driver" does not need to interface with.    Our experience last spring was that so much "wrong" data was logged into the GS2's and Insight's and it had to be corrected in the office.   It was easier to just put the right information in at the office to begin with than to have to correct information that was already supposed to have been correct.

One of our biggest challenges in working with some controllers is that commercial fertilizer dealers don't want their operators to have to pick fields.   So, if the are going to send the operator out to spray 1000 acres spread across 20 miles today, they want to merge all 15 fields that it takes to make up the 1000 acres into a single field, and have a single Rx.   They do NOT want the operator to have to change fields on the monitor when they move from one machine to another.    Makes sense.    Why should an operator have to?    They should drive into a field and, at the most, the machine should tell them what ought to be loaded in the bins or tank.    But... you take a device like the Insight or the GS1/GS2 that uses a raster prescription, that means we are being asked to make a single prescription file that covers 200 square miles... with 25' square grids.    How well do you think that works?

My point is... there is a very significant share of the machine operators that need controllers that have gotten so smart that they appear stupid.   Sure not much sex appeal in marketing that, though :(