Fenix 6 Series - 5.77 Beta Release

So guys, are HR problems resolved?

matej787 said:

So guys, are HR problems resolved?

Imagine the chaos on these forums when Garmin announces the Fenix 6 Plus line in a few months, with a new and much improved HR sensor 

and the pure GPS distance of the F6, is it similar to the F305/S10 then ? The F5 is using the metal case as the antenna I think (I saw an article from someone who opened its F5). Must be the same for the F6. That's a difference with the F945, but I would be curious to know if it makes a real difference. Same route but recorded on different days can't really be compared. The only way is to wear the watches the same day. Or to have multiple records and not just one or two. Satellites position can make quite a difference. I was surprised when you told me your S10 was doing really better for instance. I'm recording a bit with it now, and it seems quite similar to the F6 in terms of accuracy. And for the distance, I always use the Strava fix to get a pure GPS distance, it mitigates the pb at least for my stats...

After update to 5.77 b, i am not able to connect to wifi, have set up both in GC mobile android and the watch , but keep telling me don’t find any known network. When testin after setup it connect with both metodes. When sit watching winter sport on tv, had a sudden drop in body battery from 93 to 33. The cross country ski wasn’t that exciting. Fenix 6 pro. Have sent mail to the beta team.

Last open terrain asphalt run F6 was 10.32km and S10/Endomondo was 10.34km.

Today on my forest problem trail run, F6 9.81km, F305 9.85km, S10 10.00km. That is so far the best performance I have seen on F6, and guess within limits, now with GPS 2.70. Usually F6 is 3-400 meters to short on that run, but have to record several more runs to see the tendency of F6 in difficult gps-conditions.

Cell phones does use A-GPS, ie using local cell towers to improve position. In addition to GPS/Glonass/Galileo. So I assume the S10 is most correct. If there will be a F7 LTE, then maybe same.

And I agree, have to compare watches on same run due to gps satelites in different condition from day to day.

What is the HR problem?

Mine oHR seem to work as it should. And has been working on 5.72, 5.75, 5.76, 5.77. Both running and swimming.

Did three manual HR checks today during my run, and it was about the same as oHR on F6.

I went to read a bit about the AGPS thing. Apparently, AGPS is not for precision, it's for the speed of the first position : the device knows which satellites should be used. The mobiles are using that, and the watches too, if you sync them enough with a mobile. Garmin & Suunto are doing it, I'm pretty sure Polar must be doing the same. That's why it can be very long to get a GPS signal if you left a watch turned off for a while and don't connect it to a mobile.

The help from the cell towers to improve precision must be called differently, and I didn't see anything saying it would improve the precision. It seems to be mostly use to position a mobile when the GPS signal is not usable. Do you have any other article showing how it could improve the accuracy ? I didn't find anything.

What I found is a new tech available for some very recent mobiles, called dual-frequency in english I think. It's supposed to give a precision of a few inches (compared to the typical 3 to 5m). But apparently, it's not yet that efficient. Galileo was also supposed to be more precise, and I don't think anybody noticed that.

A smartphone can have a bigger antenna though. But I would be surprised if it was REALLY that precise in difficult conditions. I didn't test a lot, but from a few minutes with my S10+ next to the F6, I would say the F6 is more accurate. However, I'm NOT talking about the distance, which is another problem. The GPS distance of the F6 seems quite close to the S10, but of course during a run, the pace is wrong on the F6.