GPS accuracy very bad !!

The Runalyze track is also more angular than either of the other two, as if data points were being sampled more widely. It's all beyond me but enough to confirm my misgivings about the new plus range. I tested and returned a 5+ after establishing (to my own satisfaction) that the battery life was too short to be convenient, at least compared with a 935. I was toying with the idea of a 5x+ but it seems, like its predecessor, to have significant problems with navigation. My sense was that the 5+ was about on a par with the 935 in terms of GPS accuracy - i.e. entirely satisfactory - so it seems as if it is one step forward and one back with this Fenix refresh. I am sure Galileo will be a game-changer at some stage in the future, but maybe not with the current generation of hardware. My (hazy) understanding is that the MT3333 gps chip used in all of these watches will not provide much more accuracy with Galileo than it does with GPS. The chip needs to be Level 2 capable (whatever that means) to get down to the 10cm +/- accuracy people are hoping for. Of course, none of that explains why GPS accuracy should be so much dodgier in one watch than in another that is essentially using the same hardware. Perhaps, as some have speculated, there really is a fault with some batches. I await NemoSandman's further tests...

davidhurst i really do think there is something wrong with the HERE map for that area. I've run to that bridge several times and HERE always shows me in the same place as the screenshots. Google always shows me in the correct spot. The fact that the results are so repeatable is a good indication that the 5x Plus' GPS accuracy seems just fine. This morning's run for instance i ran almost to the bridge and turned around. See these screenshots. This doesn't seem like a GPS problem, but a map problem. ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1387465.jpg

The Runalyze track is also more angular than either of the other two, as if data points were being sampled more widely. It's all beyond me but enough to confirm my misgivings about the new plus range. I tested and returned a 5+ after establishing (to my own satisfaction) that the battery life was too short to be convenient, at least compared with a 935. I was toying with the idea of a 5x+ but it seems, like its predecessor, to have significant problems with navigation. My sense was that the 5+ was about on a par with the 935 in terms of GPS accuracy - i.e. entirely satisfactory - so it seems as if it is one step forward and one back with this Fenix refresh. I am sure Galileo will be a game-changer at some stage in the future, but maybe not with the current generation of hardware. My (hazy) understanding is that the MT3333 gps chip used in all of these watches will not provide much more accuracy with Galileo than it does with GPS. The chip needs to be Level 2 capable (whatever that means) to get down to the 10cm +/- accuracy people are hoping for. Of course, none of that explains why GPS accuracy should be so much dodgier in one watch than in another that is essentially using the same hardware. Perhaps, as some have speculated, there really is a fault with some batches. I await NemoSandman's further tests...

Are you sure that 5Plus series have the same chipset as the previous model??? I haven’t read anything about it, I still questioning myself which chipset is being used with the new models.

Hazy, as I say, and far from sure, but it seems to be a widespread assumption on the basis that the gps software version is identical across the old and the refreshed hardware. I haven’t read anything definitive either way.

I have had: FR 305XT, 920XT, Fenix 1, Fenix 3 (Returned after 4 months), Fenix 3HR (Best Fenix accuracy), Fenix 5x (Terrible accuracy/ returned), Fenix 5x+. I also own the 705, 64st, 60scx, and a 405.

Just talking about the watches - The accuracy on all of them on reasonably straight roads or trails with wider/fewer turns is pretty good.
The 3/5X/5X+ are about 7-10% low on distance with winding switchbacks and tight trails compared to Suunto or other gps watches for biking. For some reason, the 3HR works much better.
The 5X+/3 report lower distances on tight trail runs of about 4-7%.

On a MTB trail, my brother and I did two laps. His bike garmin gps (cant remember the model but newer and better than 705) reported 7.5 miles for each lap exactly. My 5x+ reported 13.55 total. That is a 10% drop. The 7.5 is what is generally recorded on Strava. His F3hr also reported about 13.4 miles.

I love the 5x+ for the gps tracking, the features, music, apple pay, maps, rowing, skiing, etc.
But it does kind of suck that I have to buy Stryd and tire based measurement for my watch because I can't rely on the gps distance.

Hiking in the wilderness has the typical canyon issues and bounce but it is more pronounced on the watch than my 64st. acceptable.

So if you road ride - Its probably a non-issue.
If you mountain bike out west or on trails without tight switchbacks - non-issue.
If you trail run on trails without tight switchbacks - non-issue.

But the gps ability has gone down with the Fenix series. All the great features are there but it isn't so good at telling you how far you went in some circumstances. I thought the newer chipset would have been acceptable.

And yes, I use 1 sec recording with gps/galileo or gps/glonass. And yes, I do realize its a watch and am not expecting perfection. Just as good as Suunto, Polar, TomTom.

I have had: FR 305XT, 920XT, Fenix 1, Fenix 3 (Returned after 4 months), Fenix 3HR (Best Fenix accuracy), Fenix 5x (Terrible accuracy/ returned), Fenix 5x+. I also own the 705, 64st, 60scx, and a 405.

Just talking about the watches - The accuracy on all of them on reasonably straight roads or trails with wider/fewer turns is pretty good.
The 3/5X/5X+ are about 7-10% low on distance with winding switchbacks and tight trails compared to Suunto or other gps watches for biking. For some reason, the 3HR works much better.
The 5X+/3 report lower distances on tight trail runs of about 4-7%.

On a MTB trail, my brother and I did two laps. His bike garmin gps (cant remember the model but newer and better than 705) reported 7.5 miles for each lap exactly. My 5x+ reported 13.55 total. That is a 10% drop. The 7.5 is what is generally recorded on Strava. His F3hr also reported about 13.4 miles.

I love the 5x+ for the gps tracking, the features, music, apple pay, maps, rowing, skiing, etc.
But it does kind of suck that I have to buy Stryd and tire based measurement for my watch because I can't rely on the gps distance.

Hiking in the wilderness has the typical canyon issues and bounce but it is more pronounced on the watch than my 64st. acceptable.

So if you road ride - Its probably a non-issue.
If you mountain bike out west or on trails without tight switchbacks - non-issue.
If you trail run on trails without tight switchbacks - non-issue.

But the gps ability has gone down with the Fenix series. All the great features are there but it isn't so good at telling you how far you went in some circumstances. I thought the newer chipset would have been acceptable.

And yes, I use 1 sec recording with gps/galileo or gps/glonass. And yes, I do realize its a watch and am not expecting perfection. Just as good as Suunto, Polar, TomTom.

If GPS accuracy is a must, and no extra features are important for you, Polar V800 and Suunto Ambit 3 Peak still reign supreme. A3P especially is the king among the trails.

It's a shame Garmin is considering GPS on this watch as an extra feature.

I think also that Garmin is lying about implementing Galileo. There is no change when using it or not and telling that Galileo is not yet 100% operationnal is not an reason. I think it is just a marketing "trick", maybe the watch can receive Galileo signal but it doesn't deal with it. If Garmin could proove that their watch is Galileo compatible, it should be great but I think they will never show us any result or study about it.

I wil never trust again reviewer like DC Rainmaker that claims the Fenix 5 Plus has new GPS hardware and new software... Reviewer who works cloasely with vendors are not reliable. I bouhgt my watch based on his review but it was an error. Every Garmin watch will be grat for him.

Hello @indymtb

Trying to assertain what the issue could be, and reading an article on strava's homepage I just have a few questions and thoughts.

Strava does its own analysis of the data imported to come up with a distance estimate. You can read about it at https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/...-is-Calculated
.
Does your brother use a speed sensor on his bike with the Edge device and you did not? Did the ride contain a lot of climbing and downhill?
If so, his distance measurement will be based on wheelsize and number of wheel-rotations during the recorded ride, while yours will be based on a distance calculation between recorded GPS coordinates. His distance will be 3d distance taking into account elevation change. On a ride with a lot of climbing and downhill riding, you can expect these results, Flat terrain not so much.

Why strava show 7.5 is more of a mystery, since Strava's distance calculation (from the article) is GPS based, just like the watch (if no speed sensor).

It's a shame Garmin is considering GPS on this watch as an extra feature.

I think also that Garmin is lying about implementing Galileo. There is no change when using it or not and telling that Galileo is not yet 100% operationnal is not an reason. I think it is just a marketing "trick", maybe the watch can receive Galileo signal but it doesn't deal with it. If Garmin could proove that their watch is Galileo compatible, it should be great but I think they will never show us any result or study about it.

I wil never trust again reviewer like DC Rainmaker that claims the Fenix 5 Plus has new GPS hardware and new software... Reviewer who works cloasely with vendors are not reliable. I bouhgt my watch based on his review but it was an error. Every Garmin watch will be grat for him.

Sorry, but I'm not agree with you.

You have the right to be disappointed but be careful with your statement which are only based on assumptions not proof.

DCRainmaker was the first in his last swimming video to declare how he was fed up with the accuracy of his Garmin Plus.
Got to 07:00 and see for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_KMeKB708

Also Monsieur Yeti and myself have been plenty satisfied with the use and accuracy of our Garmin 5X Plus.

Hello @indymtb

Trying to assertain what the issue could be, and reading an article on strava's homepage I just have a few questions and thoughts.

Strava does its own analysis of the data imported to come up with a distance estimate. You can read about it at https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/...-is-Calculated
.
Does your brother use a speed sensor on his bike with the Edge device and you did not? Did the ride contain a lot of climbing and downhill?
If so, his distance measurement will be based on wheelsize and number of wheel-rotations during the recorded ride, while yours will be based on a distance calculation between recorded GPS coordinates. His distance will be 3d distance taking into account elevation change. On a ride with a lot of climbing and downhill riding, you can expect these results, Flat terrain not so much.

Why strava show 7.5 is more of a mystery, since Strava's distance calculation (from the article) is GPS based, just like the watch (if no speed sensor).

He uses the GPS without the speed sensor. The trail has many very small up and downs and the topology is very flat. I would expect a small variance because the Edge computers are perfectly positioned skyward.

I don't think as others that this is a conspiracy from Garmin. I have ordered the speed sensor for mine and I will use it along with the Stryd. Everything else about the watch is fantastic. If I had never owned a 310XT or 305 or 920XT or seen Suunto devices, I would be blissfully unaware a wrist worn GPS unit could get more accurate distance results.