PSA: 10.xx Beta firmware CIQ Position bug

flocsy said:

As far as I understood from DCRainmaker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_g0rJ51i7A&ab_channel=DCRainmaker Instinct Crossover doesn't have multi-band. It has "all systems" but not multi-band. (look at 11:20)

I don't think the new enablePositionLocations configuration docs are wrong at all, though, just a little misleading.

They do say that the new configuration in general is available for 3.3.6 but they pointed out that certain options are only for System 6 devices. Again to me this strongly suggests that 3.3.6 is not System 6.

Cuiv I think you are correct that the best option is to default to just GPS.  It may be best to just leave the :constellations setting out of your options so the system will default to GPS only.

As far as the second option, that only became available with the new SDK released today, and there are no stable firmware for the F7 that has the 4.1.6 VM as those are still beta releases.  Since Beta is a release candidate, any of them could become the next stable.  In which case what you see right now would be what you get in the sable version.

I agree that a little more clarity would go a long way. 

sabeard said:

I agree that a little more clarity would go a long way

The irony here is I'm guessing the reason they don't say things with clarity because they know it would only add to the confusion.

e.g. "Since API level 3.4.0" is a lot more concise and easy to understand than "Since API level 3.4.0 for CIQ 3 devices, and since API level 4.2.0 for CIQ 4 devices."

What happens if and when CIQ 5 comes out and we have 3 tracks of versions? Like "System 7 is since API level 3.5.0 for CIQ 3 devices, API level 4.3.0 for CIQ 4 devices and API level 5.0.0 for CIQ 5 devices." What a nightmare that will be.

If it was simple and easy to explain, they would've done so already IMO. It's obviously not an ideal system (pun intended) because they almost never explain it.

Since the bug is posted in the Beta FW, you may also try posting it here in the CIQ bug reports with details on how to recreate the crash.  That way the CIQ team may have a bit more info on how the device team can fix the bug.

jim_m_58 said:

You should have watched and not expect me to tell you.  Then you'd know

Uhhhh, I don't expect you to tell me anything.

You said "3.3.6 is System 6", I said "I'm not sure about that", and you doubled down, leaving no room for doubt in your mind. I challenged you to provide evidence and solid reasoning for that, is all. You can't do that and all I did was point that out. You said I should've watched the GDVC videos yet can't point to anything in them that would support your case. All you have to do is say "Garmin said X" where X is something, anything that would make your case, but seems like you can't do that.

I don't care if you can't back up what you say, yet refuse to admit any chance of being mistaken -- I'm used to it by now.

Time will tell whether "System 6" is 3.3.6 or 3.4.0. I admit I could be wrong, which is more than I can say for some people.

I could be wrong but I've never seen any reference to a 3.4.0  Just 3.3.6

jim_m_58 said:

I could be wrong but I've never seen any reference to a 3.4.0  Just 3.3.6

I don't really see what that proves. Because you haven't seen 3.4.0 yet, it's never going to exist? Because 3.3.6 has an exciting new feature, it must be a new System level?

And:

forums.garmin.com/.../1524809

In case you missed it, my problem here isn't people being wrong or even arguing - it happens all the time.

My problem is when people condescendingly dismiss the statements of others, almost as a knee jerk response to anything which contradicts their own preconceived views.

- Someone files a bug report?

"It must be user error" or "That's not a real problem"

- Feature request?

"I don't know what that is", "Nobody wants that", "It's not important to me" and "No one's ever asked for that before"

- Interesting tool for enhancing CIQ?

"Does anybody need this?"

- Question about how something works?

"My understanding of how this works is the only possible explanation, no matter how much evidence you provide"

Like I remember years ago when someone first brought up the bug (yes, bug) where Garmin looks at today's date to determine whether it's DST for dates which are not today. You argued that there's nothing wrong with that (because I guess times and dates are just a matter of opinion, except ofc your opinion is always correct) and you even said that the C standard library does it that way. Travis quickly provided an example which proved you wrong, but ofc there was no mea culpa or my bad in response to that.

It could also be that only devices with 4.2.0 are "System 6".  Maybe just ignore the :"system X" and go buy the min API level for something