garmin 18x usb receiver

Can anyone tell me a bit about using the garmin 18x?

Since the output is not in standard format, does that mean it will only work with garmin specific software.
Are there software adaptors to turn the output into standard gps output?

You probably can using Garmin Spanner or GpsGate Client. These will convert the USB Garmin output into NMEA format on a virtual COM port.

You probably can using Garmin Spanner or GpsGate Client. These will convert the USB Garmin output into NMEA format on a virtual COM port.

Thanks for the input. Very useful.

Do you have any personal experience with the Garmin 18x? Does it require more than a usb connection to work properly?
Any idea where I could see some screen shots of it in use?

GPSGate should be able to convert the data to NMEA format. But it sounds like you have the cart before the horse to me. First you need to choose the software, then pick a receiver that's a good match. Can you use Bluetooth? I recently got a Garmin GLO and have been really happy with it. Gives you GLONASS capability and 10hz data rate. I recently posted a review of it on gpstracklog.com

If I just wanted a USB unit though, I'd probably go with a cheaper device like GlobalSat however. There are some good user reports about it on laptopgpsworld.com.

-Boyd

GPSGate should be able to convert the data to NMEA format. But it sounds like you have the cart before the horse to me. First you need to choose the software, then pick a receiver that's a good match. Can you use Bluetooth? I recently got a Garmin GLO and have been really happy with it. Gives you GLONASS capability and 10hz data rate. I recently posted a review of it on gpstracklog.com

If I just wanted a USB unit though, I'd probably go with a cheaper device like GlobalSat however. There are some good user reports about it on laptopgpsworld.com.
-Boyd

Thanks Boyd, good input.
Probably right about cart and horse... here is how it happened:

I shied away from the "GlobalSat BU 353 S4 usb GPS Sirf 4" after reading quite a detailed review that claimed the Star IV chip has a problem with receiving "Satellite Based Augmentation Systems" signals like egnos/waas and reported that even the starIV tech helpline admits that is so at least with some of the released chipsets.

Its an interesting review and appears well informed... but I wouldn't really know for sure since I'm basically a dunce about this.

Here's the reveiw:

http://www.amazon.com/BU-353-S4-Weather-proof-USB-GPS-Receiver/product-reviews/B007KQI1NA/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
(Look for Pete's review)

And I thought backing off to StarIII (reportedly trouble free in that regard) might be stepping a bit far back... I think 2005 release of StarIII.

That same review touted 18x as being more capable than the Star IV, hence my questions about 18x here.

Does the 18x do any thing better or more useful than the "Garmin Glo" you mention? I'd need to add a usb to bluetooth adaptor to use it with my Toshiba NB305 notebook.

I'm looking for highest accuracy and assuming augmentation of some type would be about the only thing getting it below 5 meters.
I work with trees... documenting things about the various species which requires being able to find a specific tree in a forest. 5 meter readius is quite a lot even in a medium density forest.

I've found my Garmin Oregon550t to be nearly useless in that regard often locating things on the wrong side of a 75foot river. The GPS on my blackberry 990 is not noticeably better, although between the two I do usually flail around far enough and find the tree I'm after.

Please give any more guidance you can think of. Like is the glo capable of receiving other kinds of input that will enhance the accuracy.

OK... something is suspect with the Oregon. Nothing much should be better than it other than moving to survey grade equipment is DGPS and post processing.

5 meters in a dense forest is not really possible. WAAS is nearly impossible to lock on in the forest as well unless you are well south.

I think you are expecting too much from consumer grade devices - especially under heavy tree cover. I wrote a review of the GLO and found the accuracy very good in static testing, but just average if you are walking. See the tests I ran here: http://gpstracklog.com/2013/04/garmin-glo-review.html

I was getting 3m accuracy with the GLO out in the open and not moving, which is what Garmin's spec calls for. The Montana in my tests uses the same chipset as your Oregon and should give similar results.

-Boyd

I think you are expecting too much from consumer grade devices - especially under heavy tree cover. I wrote a review of the GLO and found the accuracy very good in static testing, but just average if you are walking. See the tests I ran here: http://gpstracklog.com/2013/04/garmin-glo-review.html

First... thanks for the input.

What grade of equipment would be more accurate... Can you name units or something? Any of it available to consumers?

I was getting 3m accuracy with the GLO out in the open and not moving, which is what Garmin's spec calls for. The Montana in my tests uses the same chipset as your Oregon and should give similar results.

-Boyd

To describe a bit more of my usage... I use a sony A65 camera that has gps and embeds the info into the exif data of the images. I often set a waypoint with the Oregon 550t at the same spot. When I get home and plot it on homebase there will be a fair bit of variation between the waypoints and image points.
Ok, that could be the camera gps... but the real rub comes when months later I try to go to those same spots. The garmin is sometimes right close but more often is 35-65 feet or more off. Roughly 10-20 meters.

But getting back to the point of the thead... should I expect better accuracy from the 18x?

OK... something is suspect with the Oregon. Nothing much should be better than it other than moving to survey grade equipment is DGPS and post processing.

5 meters in a dense forest is not really possible. WAAS is nearly impossible to lock on in the forest as well unless you are well south.

Isn't the Sirf Star IV a newer chip... is it not more accurate than the chip in the Oregon? In general, are there no more accurate chips available to consumers than what is in the Oregon? Is the chip in the Garmin 18x the same as the oregon?

should I expect better accuracy from the 18x?

No. The Oregon should perform better than the 18x.

If you just walk up and take a waypoint, in heavy tree cover, then 10-20 meters is expected. You need to stop, hold the antenna above your body and let it settle, then take a waypoint and start the averaging function until it reaches 100%. If you want to check the waypoint, walk away 50 meters and then navigate to it with the GPS. If it is off, you have not gotten a good reading and you should try again.

Isn't the Sirf Star IV a newer chip... is it not more accurate than the chip in the Oregon? In general, are there no more accurate chips available to consumers than what is in the Oregon? Is the chip in the Garmin 18x the same as the oregon?

It is a different brand. I doubt you will find one more accurate than the other. It comes down more to how well the math in the units deals with the multipath.