data fields?

since i posted this 3 months ago i did some research and found that the entry level watches only allow 4 fields. i myself use "peter's race pacer" and that requires 4 fields which is lucky.

however it is possible to set up say 2 faces and of course you can have a different 4 fields on the second face.

however if you need more than 4 per face then you need to contact garmin directly by phone and ask them. There is precious little information online other than going through each watches' manual and figuring it out from there.

PS : i do however know that the 265 allows 6 data fields but of course the watch is a lot more expensive than the 55.

I am a developer who makes data fields. There are 2 limiting factors: CPU - for cheaper watches it might be an issue having too many fields, screen size. I think the fr55 suffers from both.

What you can do is to download a full screen data field. They can display way more than 4 data at the same time. I run, but you'll be able to find for some other sports as well. A few I like: GRun, Race Screen, All In One

Thank you for your help

flocsy🤠 said:

There are 2 limiting factors: CPU - for cheaper watches it might be an issue having too many fields, screen size. I think the fr55 suffers from both.

It could also be marketing / product segmentation. Even though "6 or 8 data fields per page" is not on the spec sheet, like many other obscure features (e.g. hot keys / shortcuts), it could be omitted on less expensive devices simply to give you an incentive to buy the more expensive device. Same as FR165 has a baro, but it doesn't have all the baro-related features (some of which were removed after release, like apparently the elevation data field, ABC glance, and storm alerts).

Many of the higher-end forerunners have up 10 custom data pages, while some Garmin watches still have 2 or 4, but I wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to hardware limitations. Similar custom data page limits applied to high-end and lower-end watches of previous generations (where the high-end watches probably had less memory and a weaker CPU than today's lower-end watches.)

At other times the limits could be arbitrary. Forerunner 955 supports up to 8 fields per page, but the more expensive Fenix 7 (likely with similar CPU/memory) only supports up to 6 fields (at least according to the official Connect IQ device reference), even though both have the same resolution (260 x 260) and physical screen size (1.3" diameter). According to the same device reference, the larger Fenix 7X (1.4" diameter and 280x280) does support 8 fields per page. (The device reference matches the capabilities exposed in the Connect IQ simulator.)

So it seems that some product manager decided that FR955's screen is physically big enough for 8 fields, but a (different?) product manager decided Fenix 7's screen is not (despite being the same size as FR955), but the larger Fenix 7X's screen is.

Meanwhile, Fenix 8 43mm also has a screen diameter of 1.3" (same as Fenix 7), but it does support 8 fields.

All of that is to say that sometimes these things are more arbitrary than we'd like to think. Ppl tend to expect every cheaper watch to have all the features as more expensive watches, as far the hardware will allow, but this is rarely the case. In reality, what happens is that the more expensive models are designed first, and the cheaper models are specified by removing stuff from the expensive ones. Sometimes that can include removing / downgrading hardware (which would necessarily remove features which are dependent on that hardware), other times it could just be arbitrarily removing software features just bc they can.

fr55 reacts way slower to button clicks than fr245. And the same CIQ watch face that I and my kids use(d) on fr245, fenix6, fr965 that has a battery life about 2 days less than the built-in watch faces on those devices has ~5 days less battery time on fr55.

I hope you don't believe that Garmin also adds sleep in their code or empty loops just to make them perform worse than they could.

Yes it's fair that FR55 may have an underpowered processor compared to other devices. It definitely has the same CIQ memory limits as FR935 (7 years old), so maybe it has the same processor, too.

TL;DR I think I have already provided some anecdotal evidence that there's likely (or even objectively) more to the max data field (and custom page) limits than simply CPU speed and display size, but read on for more.

flocsy🤠 said:

I hope you don't believe that Garmin also adds sleep in their code or empty loops just to make them perform worse than they could.

No. I don't mean intentionally crippling devices to make them run slow, I just mean omitting features that could be supported by the hardware. (Aren't forum users constantly complaining some feature like hot keys is missing from some low/midrange watch even though the hardware seems to support it.)

I'm just saying in general, these limits could *also* be based on market segmentation and/or fairly arbitrary reasons. I gave an example of seemingly arbitrary limits above, where FR955 supports 8 fields, yet Fenix 7 (same display size, same resolution, likely same memory, likely same or similar CPU) only supports 6.

Another example is the max custom data page limits.

FR935 had a max of 10 pages even though it was released 7 years ago and has the same amount of available memory for CIQ apps as FR55. FR55 only supports 4 pages. I think the most relevant difference, in this case, is that the FR935 was marketed as a high-end model and FR55 is marketed as a low-end model. My guess is that any 2 or 4 custom data page limit on new-ish devices would be based on market segmentation.

Venu 3 ($599 USD MSRP, clearly not positioned as a budget or low-end offering in Garmin's lifestyle range) only supports 3 custom data pages with up to 4 fields per page. I hope you're not gonna tell me that this is because of hardware limitations too.

(The reason here is that they clearly want to differentiate the "lifestyle" watches from the running / outdoor / multisport watches, even going as far as to hold back certain "running-focused" features from the expensive lifestyle watches. Others have complained about this kind of thing, too, because Venu 3 misses out of on some of the features that cheaper running watches have.)

At least as far as memory for CIQ apps goes, Venu 3 blows FR55 out of the water (with 8X the available memory for CIQ data fields). Since we're comparing with FR245, the CIQ Benchmark app has Venu 3 at CPU 7.8/62.5 Pips and FR245 at 2.8/27.0 Pips. Venu 3 is newer than FR245, more than twice as fast by at least one measure, yet still has similar limits on custom data pages and fields. Even more to the point, FR955's benchmark (for me) is CPU 8.8 / 52.6 Pips.

That's right, Venu 3 (max 4 fields / 3 custom pages) has a similar CPU benchmark to FR955 (max 8 fields / 10 custom pages). They both have identical memory limits for CIQ apps, too, which suggests that they could have similar amounts of physical RAM.

I just don't think it's impossible for an FR55 to natively draw more than 4 fields at a time. On the contrary, given that a CIQ data field such as dozen run or grun can draw 10-12 fields at a time, that seems like it would prove that it's possible (especially considering CIQ apps are much more inefficient than native code.)

Do you think that using grun or any of the other full-screen CIQ data fields that you suggested would result in unacceptably slow performance (or poor battery life)? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it, right? Therefore, drawing more fields natively should also not result in unacceptably slow performance, assuming that native code is inherently more efficient than CIQ apps.

I've used Dozen Run (12 fields) on FR630, a nine-year old watch, and there was no noticeable performance degradation. Then again, the watch was already sluggish to begin with.

FR935 is 7 years old, only supports up to 4 fields per page natively, but ofc none of the full-screen CIQ data fields which provide many more simultaneous fields seem to cause any issues with it.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, as the limits for FR55 probably won't change. I just thought it might be food for thought to consider that Garmin doesn't always add *all* the features that the hardware can support. And that there might be more to the data field / page limits than CPU speed, display size and even memory.