GPS Accuracy

Here is a sample comparision: https://photos.app.goo.gl/E3SaPfQ8xFPM8pH37

In forest it is even worst.

So first long run in the Nuuksio forest. Big disappointment. Had the both 935 and 945 on my wrist to the point where I'm measuring the distance failures (I gave 935 for others for navigation aid before I took short cut, btw. 945 and routing back to start was WOW, just WOW! Why doesn't it give similar turn instructions when running an course?!).

But the results to that point:
945: 40,0 km (GPS+GLONASS)
935: 39,2 km (GPS+Galileo)

For the map wise in the higher level it looks ok, but when zooming closer there are differences that apparently count up.

800m difference. Granted it's only 2% but still. I'm not seeing this as upgrade as newer watches should be. And friends Polar was pretty similar for the Km's as 935, so those are just extra bogus meters. And this 800m is almost 1 km and in the Marathon and it makes a lot of difference on the finish line if you are pacing yourself with the laps your watch is giving. Blue is 935, green is 945.



And for the battery life, I can compare too different runs: Last long run with 935 only it did use around 50% for this: 7:30:11 Time, 8:11:45 Elapsed Time. Now I got the same around 50% with 7:20:21 Time, 8:19:44 Elapsed Time. So not much change in the battery usage in my case, but the GPS accuracy is noticeably worse :( 

So Garmin, fix the firmware or release 945v2 with the old GPS chipset, which I can then replace my 945 with annoyingly working button (which I plan to exchange as that's just unacceptable, but waiting for you to first fix the issue).

I've only done 4 activities with the watch but so far I'm not impressed. It's not that fast to lock on, and the track isn't that accurate. I think my Garmin 230 did at least as well, both in terms of locking in faster and tracking more accurately. I think for my next run I'm going to use both watches (one on each arm). I'm using the GPS + GLONASS setting on both watches.

I'm not in the UK by the way (Chicago, USA).

My track is from Espoo, Finland. GPS+Galileo has been really great on 935, not so great on 945 so changed to GPS+GLONASS as it was recommended that it has been optimized better, but does not seem to be that good.

I agree, if they can't fix the GPS accuracy they ought to release v2 with the old chipset and give early adopters the option to exchange to that, plus fix the buttons. Improved battery life is great, but not at the expense of GPS accuracy, after all, that's the main reason we buy GPS enabled watches.

FWIW, battery life has never been an issue for me, and I don't mind charging my watch more frequently if it give me more accurate results.

Disappointed with the GPS here too. On GPS and GPS+Glonass. Always reads long. Compared to friends on Strava doing same run and also Vs my 235. The 235 is faster to lock by a long way too. To the point I almost missed a race start waiting for it.

It would also be nice to know how some seems to be getting good results. Like if we look at DCRainmaker's data sets, only the track data set has clearly more distance compared to others.

Unfortunately I don't see Garmin doing v2 :( So waiting to see gps firmware updates.. If they would like optimize the GPS+Galileo if that could be done to as good as 935.

I'm still trying to get the signal locked in quickly. On my 230 it takes at most 5 seconds, on the 945 30+ seconds, sometimes two minutes.

CPE is current, I'm connected to  Wi-Fi, and also sync via cable to the computer daily.

Frustrating.

You can’t compare the 2 watches unless you use the same settings on both. Using different satellites could well make the difference. Also I have read that if the watches are on different arms this will make a difference, so you need to wear both on the same wrist. Suggest you repeat the run and then see if you still get the same discrepancy.