GPS Accuracy

I made some test and to my surprise, smart mode was better than 1 sec recording!

This is smart https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1659158124

This is 1sec https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1657354845

Pace on smart is smoother also.

Here they are on a comparative on MyGPSFiles

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#zfhtbgIZ

Interesting that you could make the argument that the Smart Recording / GPS Only Track is slightly better than the 1 s Recording / GPS + GLONASS track. As they are not identical tracks it is hard to compare distance accrual, Garmin Connect has the same distance, but calculation based on the GPS track alone has the Smart Recording track slightly shorter in distance (about 2% or so --> 10.2 vs 10.4 km).

735XT compared to fenix 5

Probably last GPS test I will run myself wearing 2 watches:

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#zsyApKPf

fenix 5: Left Wrist, 1s Recording, GPS + GLONASS
735XT: Left Wrist, 1s Recording, GPS + GLONASS

fenix 5 track is the same or better in some cases than the 735XT. Distance accrual is withon 1% of each other and based on my experience with many runs in this park the fenix 5 laps were more accurate and so was the final 6 mile finish point.

GC Files:

fenix 5: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1660415291
735XT: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1660436119

Note the massive dropouts from the Stryd Power Meter on the fenix 5 though, if they got that fixed I would be happy with the fenix 5 now I think.

Ugh I guess I have a lot of reading to do in this thread.

But anyway, first test with Fenix 5, it's leaving gaps of up to 7 seconds between samples.
(everything default, no ultratrac)

http://i.imgur.com/J534cLC.png
http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#AeuDv70L

The TomTom Spark I compared it to is doing every 1 second and is far more accurate.

Edit: OK so the mistake was leaving the defaults, I have to switch to 1sec and try again. Why make it so awful at GPS out of the box?

Chimpware you remind me of my experience with the F3. I had it boxed up for a week before I decided to give it another chance and so happy I did. I'm glad you're happy with it!.

andi, what exactly were you expecting? The TomTom was not 'far' more accurate. Both of your devices measured exactly 5km. Zoomed into 50m the TomTom path looks smoother but it also had you in the water and in a building at one point, the F5 did not.

Hey Olu, thanks. Yeah I had my f3 in and out of the box a few times and actually even returned it and exchanged it when I was convinced earlier delivered models had poor GPS accuracy. In the end kept it until the 735 came out and then sold it on eBay. Similar experience with the fenix 5, but much more compressed and a lot less comparative testing. Now if they can just sort out the Stryd connectivity issues.....

Here is my track from today after updating to the beta and letting it soak for 20 minutes...

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1660027919

Looks a lot better than my F3HR, and just as good as my A3P.

Setting are 1 second recording with GPS + GLONASS

Another comparison between my F5X and the FR935- the F5X did not have a good day, compared to 935;

Fenix 5X setup- HRM-Run+Stryd, watch calibrated to an altitude of 7m at the start;
FR935 setup- optical HR only, watch calibrated to an altitude of 7m at the start;

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#AtB3W1tr
https://www.stryd.com/powercenter/run/4927570833309696

Yeah, it's the same thing again and again... OVerall ok tracks for the F5 as well but (way) more noisy then the 935/735 counterparts.

I actually opened my watch yesterday to see what it's all about and thinking if there is a way to improve the antenna.

It is the same as the Fenix 5X but I didn't dare to disconnect the screen just yet so that limits the playing around a bit (also hard to test anything properly. Wrote a connectiq app which shows signal quality and sums distances between subsequent locations to measure error, so only usefull when staying in the same spot, but that's not ideal to say the least). But with the display connected you can't really easily do anything, no moving space.

So it looks exactly like this:
https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?373064-Fenix-5X-Disassembly-with-Photos

Quality goes from poor to good in no-time (Even in house, sitting a meter or 2 from the window) so that's no real indication. Good is defined as 'The Location was calculated with a good GPS fix. A 3-D GPS fix is available, with good-to-excellent HDOP.' in the connect iq API so that can be taken with a grain of salt as well.

Anyway, opening up is a breeze (Torx5 screws on the bezel and then just lift it off) so I might give another try in the future if there is actually something I can do or try with the gps.

Another comparison between my F5X and the FR935- the F5X did not have a good day, compared to 935;

Fenix 5X setup- HRM-Run+Stryd, watch calibrated to an altitude of 7m at the start;
FR935 setup- optical HR only, watch calibrated to an altitude of 7m at the start;

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#AtB3W1tr
https://www.stryd.com/powercenter/run/4927570833309696

To be honest I wouldn't say that the F5X was necessarily worse than the 935, I think both watches struggled quite a bit here. For some parts they are right on top of each other but most of the time one watch shows you on the road and the other sends you through houses and then 300m later it's the complete opposite. To be fair near the water in the beginning of your run the F5X went a bit crazy but later on it caught on quite okay.

Also I think some of us in here have somewhat high expectations of a GPS device the size of a wrist watch. According to the US Government a typical smartphone nowadays is accurate to within 4.9 m (16 ft.) (You can find the 2015 study they cited right here). They then use cell tower triangulation to boost accuracy even further, our GPS watches obviously can't do that.
This study from 2013 tested consumer GPS receivers with known positions across two seasons and several daytimes and found those devices to be accurate up to 4-5 m, but in some locations they were off up to 30m. I'm no expert in this area (so please correct me where I am wrong!!) but I don't think accuracy has improved much in two years, so to me around 3 m accuracy seems fairly reasonable, which both of the watches showed most of the time. And keep in mind that we are talking optimal conditions, lots of people in here already posted examples of them running next to high buildings of metal sculptures where the watch showed them some 10-15 meters off course, this is not due to the watch being utter crap but due to limitations to modern GPS.