Related
Options
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

GPS + Glonass vs GPS + Galileo

scotthunter2
over 5 years ago

Has anyone done any detailed comparisons between the tracking accuracy of different satellite modes on the Fenix 6 yet?

Is it better to stick with the tried and tested GPS + Glonass or is GPS + Galileo theoretically superior even though it's still in development?

Top Replies

All Replies

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    I’ve been using GPS + Galileo and the tracks and pace have been meh. But the 645 wasn’t much better.

    Oddly when in cycling the tracks are near perfect on that setting. Maybe it’s because the watch face points downward when you are running which affects the satellite signal? And your arm is constantly moving.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago in reply to Odie21

    thanks for this tip!!!

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to nmyeti

    It would be cool if they gave us the "Satellite Information Page"

    Using the Satellite Information Page on an Automotive Device

    The Satellite Information page displays the strength of the satellite signals you are receiving and your GPS accuracy. Generally, the accuracy of your device will range from 3 to 5 meters, or 10 to 16 feet. It also displays the coordinates (latitude and longitude) and elevation of your current location.

    https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=CGLbyjTCVcAw055Oj9rHi5

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to DarrinC

    I agree - it doesn't even need to have that much data, just a simple indicator that says how many satellites it sees and the radius of accuracy is good enough.

    The "4 bars" GPS indicator is worthless. 1, 2, and 3 bars all mean you don't have good enough GPS signal for it to work correctly. 4 bars could mean you have full signal with dozens of satellites, or it could mean you barely have any signal with 4 satellites, or anything in between.

    GPS satellite signal quality really can't be displayed like a cell signal on an old flip-phone, because it's really not as simple as "here's your percentage of signal", it's a lot more complicated than that.

    As I've said before, the data is there and the watch could display it, Garmin just needs to update the firmware so that we can access that data.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to C.sco

    Funny enough, not so many years ago, Garmin had a sattelite view page similar to this GNSS View (albeit less detail and B&W) and it showed you the sattelite count. I used to look at that page until I had a 3-5m accuracy before I started a run, which came much later than the "Sattelites found" popup. These days it's clear Garmin have lowered the bar for that "popup" in order to advertise the watch finds sattelites in under 15 seconds, but if you ever look at the map on the watch you'll see movements, same for GPS elevation. Garmin decided to remove that helpful page.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    For info here is a test done, while running in front of my house here near Paris, GPS+Glonoss and same with just GPS


    forums.garmin.com/.../for-those-who-ask-about-what-gps-to-set-and-it-s-accuracy

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to talsela
    talsela said:
    Funny enough, not so many years ago, Garmin had a sattelite view page similar to this GNSS View (albeit less detail and B&W) and it showed you the sattelite count. I used to look at that page until I had a 3-5m accuracy before I started a run, which came much later than the "Sattelites found" popup. These days it's clear Garmin have lowered the bar for that "popup" in order to advertise the watch finds sattelites in under 15 seconds, but if you ever look at the map on the watch you'll see movements, same for GPS elevation. Garmin decided to remove that helpful page.

    Those were the days...

    You could see overall signal strength and accuracy:

    As well as which satellites were being received, signal strength for each satellite, and whether differential GPS data was available for each satellite (the small "D" at the top of the signal strength bar:

    I never understood why Garmin decided to "hide" all this info...

    HTH

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to C.sco

    Last year, I gave the Coros Vertix a try. They had one widget that actually did something like this. It told you how old your EPO data was and that you could actually “push” to update. It also told you your signal strength as well. I submitted this as an idea to Garmin awhile back. I’m sure it fell on deaf ears though.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to gaijin

    Garmin would probably claim customers aren't interested in this information. My assumption is different - that the newer models have inferior GPS chips, or otherwise have inferior pure accuracy, while more smoothing algorithms are in use now than were in the past.

    Over the decade+ of using Garmin Forerunner models I've seen nothing but degredation in the reported pace (not 'current pace' which can and could never be trusted of course, but 'lap pace') and the activity map trace.

    I have no proof for this theory, but there's no doubt in my mind that watches like the FR405CX, FR610, FR620 and even the FR630 were far superior in the bottom line - consistency in distance and pace and map tracing. I used to be able to train based on 'lap pace' and produce perfectly accurate intervals (i.e. all intervals within 1sec of the target pace) or steady state runs, and starting with the FR645 - my ability to do that was gone. Lap pace all over while pace is completely steady. Same for the FR945.

    Nowadays I use Stryd, because otherwise pace with these new models is just a joke. My Garmins are now merely a monitor for Stryd data.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to scotthunter2
    scotthunter2 said:
    I'm assuming it doesn't matter where in the world you live?

    I had the same assumption, but I no longer think that's the case.  I've tried the 3 different settings and I was a little surprised that the edition of Galileo had the poorest tracks for me. I decided to download a similar app to Odie21 and found two interesting things for my area in the Pacific Northwest in the US. The first was Galileo always had the fewest satellites in view. Not a big concern. My app has a color code for each satellite's SNR's, and the surprising thing I found is at best Galileo is yellow (poor to marginal) even when they appear on top of or next to a GPS or Glonass satellite which are green (strong).  So, it appears the satellite signal strength is more important than it's location.  I have no idea why I never get a strong signal from Galileo, but after several test, that's the case for me.  Here's an example of a screen snapshot I just took.  It's currently very overcast and rainy.  I've filtered out all other satellites.  GPS is a circle, Glonass a triangle and Galileo is the "crown like" symbol.  As you can see there are several Galileo satellites in view (oddly enough the most I've ever had at any given time), but all are red (poor).