Is it accurate?

Hey! I'm gonna be careful to not voice any criticism of the mighty 5x as a lot of folks on here take too sensitive to that, but in MY experience over the last 2 or 3 weeks the accuracy of the GPS (both track and pace) and altimeter has been basically identical to my fenix 3, so marginally disappointing. I'm optimistic that things will get slightly better with further updates, but for now the meat of the product remains largely the same. There are some other major improvements though over the 3 that I've found cool like the increased mapping ability. Sadly enough though it seems like 10 out of every 10 people on here have wildly different experiences with theirs, ranging from flawless to almost un-usable. Hopefully you have better luck than most! The first image is from my 5x, running opposite directions but same side of the road, should be same exact track. The second image is the same example just from an older run on my f3. As you can see, not much different

Hey! I'm gonna be careful to not voice any criticism of the mighty 5x as a lot of folks on here take too sensitive to that, but in MY experience over the last 2 or 3 weeks the accuracy of the GPS (both track and pace) and altimeter has been basically identical to my fenix 3, so marginally disappointing. I'm optimistic that things will get slightly better with further updates, but for now the meat of the product remains largely the same. There are some other major improvements though over the 3 that I've found cool like the increased mapping ability. Sadly enough though it seems like 10 out of every 10 people on here have wildly different experiences with theirs, ranging from flawless to almost un-usable. Hopefully you have better luck than most! The first image is from my 5x, running opposite directions but same side of the road, should be same exact track. The second image is the same example just from an older run on my f3. As you can see, not much different

Well that is disappointing, but I doubt it will get better because its basicly the same housing. If Garmin would have actually made a real EXO (antenna attached to the front metal bezel ring) antenna this time around maybe it would have gotten better, along with WAAS support.
What a bummer
Thanks for the honest answer

Hey! I'm gonna be careful to not voice any criticism of the mighty 5x as a lot of folks on here take too sensitive to that, but in MY experience over the last 2 or 3 weeks the accuracy of the GPS (both track and pace) and altimeter has been basically identical to my fenix 3, so marginally disappointing. I'm optimistic that things will get slightly better with further updates, but for now the meat of the product remains largely the same. There are some other major improvements though over the 3 that I've found cool like the increased mapping ability. Sadly enough though it seems like 10 out of every 10 people on here have wildly different experiences with theirs, ranging from flawless to almost un-usable. Hopefully you have better luck than most! The first image is from my 5x, running opposite directions but same side of the road, should be same exact track. The second image is the same example just from an older run on my f3. As you can see, not much different

And here we have the main problem with many of the complaints - exaggerated expectations that will never match reality. Never, ever will you ever see a completely perfectly matched inbound and outbound track with any wrist worn GPS device. You might see occasional matches on parts of a track, but you will never see an exact match throughout even if you retrace your steps along the same path. You might see some better or worse differences between different devices on the same day or different days. But you will never match identically 100% of the time. My tracks that I have recorded over the years with devices from the 305 through to the 920 all look perfectly fine when viewed as a whole course. But when I zoom in I can see all sorts of deviations from where the track may or may not go according to the lat/long reading laid down by the device. You simply cannot expect a wrist worn device to correctly and accurately pinpoint the exact location of a 3D position on a 2D map. No device will do that at the price point most of us are prepared to pay. What I do expect is that the recorded distance is within +/- 5% of the known/expected distance. Invariably it's within 1%.

I an happy to accept that some devices might have real problems. But in too many posts, and this quoted post is one of them, there needs to be an alignment of expectations with reality.

dirty urgos

And here we have the main problem with many of the complaints - exaggerated expectations that will never match reality. Never, ever will you ever see a completely perfectly matched inbound and outbound track with any wrist worn GPS device. You might see occasional matches on parts of a track, but you will never see an exact match throughout even if you retrace your steps along the same path. You might see some better or worse differences between different devices on the same day or different days. But you will never match identically 100% of the time. My tracks that I have recorded over the years with devices from the 305 through to the 920 all look perfectly fine when viewed as a whole course. But when I zoom in I can see all sorts of deviations from where the track may or may not go according to the lat/long reading laid down by the device. You simply cannot expect a wrist worn device to correctly and accurately pinpoint the exact location of a 3D position on a 2D map. No device will do that at the price point most of us are prepared to pay. What I do expect is that the recorded distance is within +/- 5% of the known/expected distance. Invariably it's within 1%.

I an happy to accept that some devices might have real problems. But in too many posts, and this quoted post is one of them, there needs to be an alignment of expectations with reality.

I completely agree that expectations for consumer grade gps devices should be metered, and I actually don't have much of a problem if the tracks aren't perfect as long as the distance is right (which like yours, mine does a great job with distance although your expectation of 5% would be well over a mile in a marathon). What does frustrate me is the wild pace inconsistency. Over the course of an entire mile it may get the average pace correct, but I hate looking down during a constant speed run and seeing swings from 5:45 to 9:00 during short periods where I know my pace isn't varying more than 5 seconds either way.

If I had based my opinion on my first couple of runs, I would have stated there was no difference to the GPS of the F3HR. However, my latest runs on 2.90 are promising. They virtually mirror my Tomtom watches and are vastly improved over the runs on firmware 2.50 (which looked the same as the F3HR). Too early to tell, however distance overall seems to be spot on, both with new and old firmware. The improvement seems to be in the GPS plot, which is not cutting corners, is placing me on the correct side of the road etc. I am doing something more demanding later today, with a walk through forest, so will let you know how that goes. My road runs with the F5 and F5X are on hilly roadsides, with trees over the sidewalk etc. While I am not obsessed with the GPS plot, it I was, I would have been a little disappointed with my first runs. The last couple have been excellent.

Optical HRM seems improved, but not perfect. I don't think anything on your wrist will be, but I have averaged 1-2 very slight (eg. 10-15 second periods) where my heart rate has jumped into unrealistic areas on each run. They are minor and correct quickly, but do provide some bad data points on the run. Over the span of a run, they make no difference to your overall stats, but they can certainly occur. If I am really fussy about positioning the watch, I can get through a run without any noticeable errors, but it takes some maintenance during the activity (ie. ensure the watch does not drift towards the wrist) to ensure this happens. I am now mostly using the HRM-RUN anyway, as I like the very neat metrics it supplies.

If you have an F3, there is possibly a hard case to justify spending more money to get the F5 or F5X, unless you need the maps. I find the F5/F5X both far more comfortable on my arm, as the difference in the sensor size seems just enough to mean I don't have to over-tighten the strap. As the F3HR really irritated my arm to make the OHRM work satisfactorily, it was enough to make me upgrade. It is a far more comfortable watch (in my opinion). Perfect it isn't, but I am very happy with it so far.

The forest hike is a challenge for even the Tomtom devices, so I will report back later today.

What I do expect is that the recorded distance is within +/- 5% of the known/expected distance. Invariably it's within 1%.

I an happy to accept that some devices might have real problems. But in too many posts, and this quoted post is one of them, there needs to be an alignment of expectations with reality.

My experience so far is that 1% variation is the worst I have experienced, in terms of overall distance. Some splits can vary either side, but in comparison to 2 x Tomtom watches (plus one run using the iPhone 7 Plus), 1% is the greatest variance I have seen. I am happy with that. Others won't be, but we all have different expectations. So far, I am really happy with the performance of the F5 watches. My wife now has the F5, as I loved mine but decided the maps would be neat. I have not really tried them out yet, so that is about to happen shortly!

Accuracy and precision are 2 different things. Accuracy is set by the receiver type/ antenna which in the case of most consumer GPS devices is 4-5m. That is, every sample could have an error of 4-5m under a best case scenario....certainly enough to put you on the other side of the street. This in inherent in all consumer grade GPS devices and it seems people's expectations often exceed the capabilities of their devices.

Precision is how often those samples fall within the exact same spot. For example, I could shoot at a target with a pistol from 25m and hit a super tight grouping on the top right of the target. My accuracy is poor as I was aiming for the centre, but my precision was excellent as every shot landed in the same place.


Accuracy isn't going to be improved without changing receiver/ antenna type. Precision can be improved in software by way of smoothing algorithms and by utilising accelerometers to assist with rapid changes in direction etc.

While we might frequently see positional accuracy better than 5m, Garmin will tell you that 10m is to be expected:

Today's GPS receivers are extremely accurate, thanks to their parallel multi-channel design. Our receivers are quick to lock onto satellites when first turned on. They maintain a tracking lock in dense tree-cover or in urban settings with tall buildings. Certain atmospheric factors and other error sources can affect the accuracy of GPS receivers. Garmin GPS receivers are typically accurate to within 10 meters.

That's been amended in recent times as it use to state 15-18m. Either way, many of the expectations are clearly out of alignment with reality.

Well that is disappointing, but I doubt it will get better because its basicly the same housing. If Garmin would have actually made a real EXO (antenna attached to the front metal bezel ring) antenna this time around maybe it would have gotten better, along with WAAS support.
What a bummer
Thanks for the honest answer

How do we know the fenix 5X does not have WAAS/EGNOS support. The fenix 3 did:





There is just no way to know when using the watch like we had with the fenix and fenix 2:



HTH

And here we have the main problem with many of the complaints - exaggerated expectations that will never match reality. Never, ever will you ever see a completely perfectly matched inbound and outbound track with any wrist worn GPS device. You might see occasional matches on parts of a track, but you will never see an exact match throughout even if you retrace your steps along the same path. You might see some better or worse differences between different devices on the same day or different days. But you will never match identically 100% of the time. My tracks that I have recorded over the years with devices from the 305 through to the 920 all look perfectly fine when viewed as a whole course. But when I zoom in I can see all sorts of deviations from where the track may or may not go according to the lat/long reading laid down by the device. You simply cannot expect a wrist worn device to correctly and accurately pinpoint the exact location of a 3D position on a 2D map. No device will do that at the price point most of us are prepared to pay. What I do expect is that the recorded distance is within +/- 5% of the known/expected distance. Invariably it's within 1%.

I an happy to accept that some devices might have real problems. But in too many posts, and this quoted post is one of them, there needs to be an alignment of expectations with reality.

I had some problems with the F3 that displays to short track. But it always show the track quite good. Maybe if I zoom in there will be differenses but overall I am very pleased. I also got the fotpod which helps.