Distance Walked Graph Incorrect

I reported another error concerning this about half a year ago. When the watch is set to kilometers, as it would be for the whole non English language based metric world, the numbers on the right of the graph still refer to miles.

Of course, as basically always with Garmin, nothing at all came of this. So best of luck with your problem.

Yikes.  At least two problems on something so simplistic!

I guess they had a newbie software developer doing those labels. Most professional developers would be mortified if they fell into silly traps like miles/kilometer conversions or inconsistencies with how things are calculated, probably due to code reuse issues.

At least this isn't as bad as the 'watch sometimes doesn't tell the correct time in powersave' bug.

I certainly won't be recommending the Instinct Solar 2 to my girlfriend.  The track record for fixes/upgrades to the Instinct Solar 1 have been appalling.

I can confirm the labels are wrong when the watch is set to use the metric system, too. Today, I have walked 3.4 km and the bar is at 2.2 or so. And 3.4 kilometers = 2.16 miles! This means the watch displays miles on the Y-axis when set to kilometers and vice versa. This is the actual problem.

They just need to negate the condition which checks the metric system when calculating the numbers on the Y-axis and all would be fine. Garmin, I've made it easy for you. Please, fix it.

Btw, I don't think this is a newbie mistake. It is easy for anyone to overlook an extra/missing "not" inside an "if".

Ah yes, I didn't think it might be something as simple as that.  Well done.

On the subject of newbie mistakes, I'd still use (mostly) the same logic for the graph labels as the distance figure though, which would in turn pull the conversion factor correctly from the setting.  And a basic test to round things off.  So many features appear to have glitches and have the whiff of a lack of automated test coverage, as is evident by the number of little mistakes fixed in the past versions which wouldn't ordinarily happen.  The apparent race conditions on the display (like the way the separator line blinks when the path is being rendered on the map, and the fact if you use powersave the display can someones only half-update, losing you an hour) are also a bit silly.

Shame it's not Open Source (I'd definitely contribute), but then I think people would add features, and then nobody would buy subsequent hardware.  Having said that, I've already looked in detail into the individual components, because I'm getting a little fed up of the length of time it takes to sort small things out.  The releases should have much bigger changelogs.  Asking for feature requests and then simply not doing them, or limiting them to a couple of future hardware versions isn't good.

At the end of the day, this should be a 10-minute fix, minus whatever build time.

Shame it's not Open Source (I'd definitely contribute), but then I think people would add features, and then nobody would buy subsequent hardware. 

I would have opened a PR for fixing this particular issue, too.

And I would have bought a newer watch, if it had better sensors, even if it was open source. Making the watch more accurate (including in terms of GPS or heart rate measurement) is crucial in my opinion. It is what it does after all, so it is worth spending more money if the next generation does it better. And as for the features, well, I don't think it is possible to put much more, because the hardware of such devices has very limited capabilities and is designed to the only a handful of things, but do the very well. I may be underestimating the device, of course!