Anyone else a little disappointed? I’ve completed at least 20 runs now and the majority have major anomalies in GPS tracking. Just today I’ve completed Leeds 10k and it had a spike in the GPS track that had me across the city. My 935 was much more stable.
While my vacation at the German north shore the watch absolutely nailed the tracks. But that's no wonder: flat, no trees, no high buildings, 99% open-sky. I guess all sports-watch producers test their products in such an environment ;-)
Back in my home area (south-west Germany; trail paradise): The watch performs pretty good even in deep forest BUT it starts to follow the wrong path when it encounters a multi-path problem due to signal reflections. I mean the watch show a significant offset (about 10m) to the actual position towards my left. That's because I wear the watch on my left arm and the watch faces to the left. So it's rather taking the reflected signals from there than the signal "above" me.
It's very easy to see this behavior when I do an out and back again run on the same stretch (covered by forest). The 935 manages to hit the track where I'm actually running. The Fenix 5 (not plus) was zick-zacking like hell. The Fenix 5plus puts too far left -> I get a frame around the actual track :-) But it does it pretty good on the other hand, it's just the offset that stops me from calling it great.
Distance is ok. When I load the tracks in a gpx-viewer the re-calculated distance from the track does a good match with the distance of my Stryd.
As always: it's a question of where do you run/hike/bike. I definitely owned watches that showed a worse GPS performance for me.
I’m finding it equivalent to my 630 - I guess it’s just the limitations of today’s technology. It’s really pretty good overall, except when I head into our downtown (very congested with many tall buildings).
I’m not surprised. Your narrow spanish streets can make it difficult for any gps device. :) IMO I would blame the surroundings for this trace, not the watch. Tell me if I’m wrong but maybe you walked 1 meter away from a 15m building and 10 meter from the buildings of equal height on the opposite side of the street. GPS satellites would have to be almost directly above you to have clear line of sight. Along the river the surrounding are more favorable and give better trace.
Smartphones do better in these surroundings because they also make use of the WiFi positioning system if turned on
Been holding off using GPS as I'm testing other parts of the watch to see what is causing battery drain. Only used it once stood outside in the garden... and it drained 8% of my battery in 15 minutes. I'll be testing the accuracy this weekend and if its out - I reckon I'll be saying bye bye to Garmin. Rubbish Battery, Rubbish Altimeter, and potentially rubbish GPS - not what I pay £700 for.
My experience so far is that Fenix 5s Plus is much more accurate than the Fenix 5S and a bit more accurate than the 935. Used GPS with Galileo (based in Europe) and didn't on the 935 and 5S (have the old activities) . I was really surprised to see considering I am doing my cycling rounds near buildings. So yeah , a win in my book.
My Fenix 5 Plus with GPS+Glonass had me within 2 meters of where I actually ran. I did an out and back on opposite sides of the street and this was reflected in my run.
I’m not surprised. Your narrow spanish streets can make it difficult for any gps device. :) IMO I would blame the surroundings for this trace, not the watch. Tell me if I’m wrong but maybe you walked 1 meter away from a 15m building and 10 meter from the buildings of equal height on the opposite side of the street. GPS satellites would have to be almost directly above you to have clear line of sight. Along the river the surrounding are more favorable and give better trace.
Smartphones do better in these surroundings because they also make use of the WiFi positioning system if turned on
Yes, this street profile may be causing some issues GPS issues, but the Polar v800 was doing far better job for less than half the price...
