Instinct 2x has API lvl 3.4.0 instead of 4.2.0

The Instinct 2x won't get the CIQ 4.x API. No CIQ 3 device will get CIQ 4

jim_m_58 said:

The Instinct 2x won't get the CIQ 4.x API. No CIQ 3 device will get CIQ 4

I'm not sure, maybe there are some device limitations, but right now it sounds like an architectural error. I mean, from the very beginning 2x was supposed to get the 4.x API lvl as he got features supported only in CIQ 4.

The current SDK (6.3.0) can build for any device at that device's API level or "System" level, so you can build for a fenix 3 with CIQ 1 as an example.

I'm confused not because of the System version or SDK version or API lvl. I'm confused because device (2x) has hardware abilities but i can't use this abilities programmatically because device does not support appropriate APIs.

As for me this is an issue.

And I have a feeling that the company has made some kind of a "flawed" device. And this is disappointing.

That's why I'm asking if they're going to fix it somehow. It doesn't matter how. Will they upgrade the APIs lvl or add functionality for smaller versions of the APIs? Or will they just pretend that this is the way it should be?

jim_m_58 said:

Don't confuse API level with "System" level.  While the Instinct 2 series has System 6, it doesn't have the CIQ 4.x API level.

OP didn't actually mention System 6 at all, they just said Instinct 2x has a flashlight so why isn't the flashlight API available for Instinct 2X? Only Garmin can answer that.

According to the *.api.debug.xml files in the devices folder, instinct2x doesn't have the flashlight API while epix2pro*, fenix7* and venu3* do, so it seems the flashlight API actually is a 4.2.0 feature and not a System 6 feature. But just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense looking from the outside.

For anyone else who's reading and doesn't find the "System X" system to be intuitive, this is the TL;DR:

- System 4 is CIQ 4.0 for CIQ 4 devices, and CIQ 3.2 for CIQ 3 devices

- System 5 is CIQ 4.1 for CIQ 4 devices, and CIQ 3.3 for CIQ 3 devices

- System 6 is CIQ 4.2 for CIQ 4 devices, and CIQ 3.4 for CIQ 3 devices

As jim_m_58 said, no CIQ 3 device will ever get CIQ 4.

Not all features in every system level apply to all devices. Notably, there are usually features in a given System level that only apply to the CIQ 4 devices, usually due to hardware differences (like the presence of a GPU in CIQ 4 devices and not CIQ 3 devices.)

Another note is that if the Monkey C API documentation says something like "Since API Level 4.2.0", that literally means what it says (as expected.) If it says something like "Since API Level 3.4.0", it actually means "Since API Level 3.4.0 for CIQ 3 devices, and since API Level CIQ 4.2.0 for CIQ 4 devices." Why the documentation can't say that, or "Since System 6 (3.4.0/4.2.0)", is truly beyond me.

None of that explains why Instinct 2X didn't get the flashlight API though.

Maybe just file a CIQ bug report to get clarity on the situation. At least you might be able to find out if this was intentional or if it's an oversight.

Thank you FlowState, for the quite detailed post.

I wanted to send report but found only possibility to send ideas in bug reports forum's branch.

I'm quite new here and the forum does not seem very friendly in terms of UI and UX.

P.S. and post editor is awful!

Regedi said:

I wanted to send report but found only possibility to send ideas in bug reports forum's branch.

Yeah, it's probably the best you can do. At least if you're lucky they might reply that it's either working as expected or that it's indeed a bug.

Regedi said:

I'm quite new here and the forum does not seem very friendly in terms of UI and UX.

P.S. and post editor is awful!

Yeah, there's multiple issues with the forum. A few years ago when Garmin decided to move on from the old forum platform, I begged them to use something modern like NodeBB or Discourse, but they chose this for some reason. I don't even bother trying to post from mobile.

TBH the lack of concern for UI and UX in the forums mirrors what I see in Garmin products. I mean Garmin didn't develop the forum platform but they chose it.

EDIT: Another note is that minSdkVersion in manifest.xml (which should really be called minApiLevel) works in a straightforward manner which doesn't take into account System levels. Meaning that if you set minSdkVersion to 3.4.0, that doesn't exclude 4.0.x or 4.1.x devices. Which means that it's impossible to select "System 4/5/6" using minSdkVersion. Garmin's counter-argument for this type of situation (and the API level documentation issue) is that it doesn't matter because all CIQ 4 devices will typically be on the latest version of CIQ 4.x, but I just checked the devices folder and d2airx10 is still on 4.0.1.

FlowState said:

A few years ago when Garmin decided to move on from the old forum platform,

I'm not sure if the company is fully behind the forums. It seems it's being run by a German* group (given the German Forum item and that the forum reverts to German periodically). (Garmin's official European offices are in the UK.) I suspect it's this or nothing.

(Garmin also said they'd move the old posts to this new forum and didn't. Kind of annoying because I spent a fair amount of time creating posts there.)

-----------------------------------

* To make things perfectly clear, I like Germany!

dpawlyk said:

(Garmin also said they'd move the old posts to this new forum and didn't. Kind of annoying because I spent a fair amount of time creating posts there.)

I think they did but they broke a lot of stuff in old posts:

- images and other attachments were removed

- certain formatting was lost

- post/comment URLs were changed so inbound links don't work (even links from Garmin's own still-existing blogs)

- Links were abbreviated on the old platform (same as they are now) -- meaning that the link title was abbreviated -- but during the changeover, only the link titles were migrated and not the link targets, so most outbound links were broken too

dpawlyk said:

I'm not sure if the company is fully behind the forums. It seems it's being run by a German* group (given the German Forum item and that the forum reverts to German periodically). (Garmin's official European offices are in the UK.) I suspect it's this or nothing.

Interesting. But I don't get how Garmin as a company can't choose any platform it wants for the forums? This platform is a 3rd party platform and so was the previous platform.

I mean if they're outsourcing the forums to some other group, that group also has the ability to choose the platform they want, and I assume Garmin would have the ability to specify the platform, or least certain requirements.

If I it were me, I would want stuff like:

- focus on mobile UI/UX. Even if it's not "mobile-first", the mobile UX should be on an equal footing with the desktop UX

- fast infinite scrolling with the ability to instantly jump to any comment in a long thread (Discourse and NodeBB use a custom scrollbar to accomplish this).

Early on after the changeover, the CIQ subforum had infinite scrolling and threaded replies, but implemented badly, which was why they switched back to pagination and linear replies.

- focus on UX/performance in general

I also like the way NodeBB has a combo of linear replies and threading. (You can see all replies in linear order, but each reply also has a mini-thread of its parents.)