GPS Accuracy

The problem is that I and some others aren't getting that.

Problem is like this: https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-945/163517/gps-accuracy/893850#893850

800m extra compared to 935m in 40k. Would you call that good enough?

I am rather impressed with the 945 I did two official races one of 15 k measured GPS distance 15,01 and the 20 of Brussels GPS measured exactly 20 K this last course was with a couple of tunnels. So the results i am getting are on par with the 935 not worse. I am using GPS+Glonass. 

I can and I just did. Are you saying that 935 did give me too short distance or what is your point? Different satellites can be the reason but the what satellite it's using doesn't really matter me, the accuracy matters.

What I've understood it's recommended to use GPS+GLONASS for best accuracy with 945, so that's the reason I'm using it. I did use GPS+Galileo also with 945 but it was also worse than 935 so changed to GPS+GLONASS which doesn't seem to be better.

So are you now saying that GPS+Galileo is better in 945? And if I would have used that I would have gotten shorter distance?

And for the same arms thing, no they weren't but when Ray does comparison with 4 watches, he has those in different arms also. What he has said is that they can't be too near each other, and running 7+ hours with another watch in palm and another in the wrist.. just no.

And not running that trail run any time soon again.

Will probably run some other comparisons but I don't know how much I will have energy to do these comparisons as the results seems to be pretty same, 945 has worse GPS than 935 and without any firmware update to that the difference isn't going away.

And for the GPS+Glonass thing:
"All of the workouts you see here I did with GPS+GLONASS enabled, as Garmin noted that’s the mode they’ve spent the most time on the GPS performance on. They said they haven’t spent as much time on Galileo. However, in my testing of the older FR935 with Galileo, I’ve seen mind-bogglingly good results in the last two months since the bulk of the Galileo constellation went live back in February."

" In any case though, for the FR945/FR245/FR45 watches, I kept them all on GLONASS for the bulk of my testing (I did try some Galileo runs/rides and saw less accuracy than GLONASS)."

- https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/04/garmin-forerunner-945-multisport-watch-in-depth-review.html

And yes. FR935 with GPS+Galileo has been really great! 

GPS+Glonass. I'd suggest that GPS tracking doesn't get much better than this. Even separates the out and back on different sides of the road.

Road ride

Open water test today, 2k in water that was ~15 degrees.



945 (Green): https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3711788187
935 (Blue): https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3711967550 

So 945 shows that I have gone to the shore, which I didn't, but still logs fewer meters!? There are two buoys which makes the distance as 2km, and I probably didn't swim the most optimized route so 935 sounds really good, I would say like spot on, 945 sounds again disappointing, even if it didn't this time show extra distance :D But at least it didn't crash after 30 meters or so...

Wow .. that green spike to the right is nuts.

Yeah, well open water swimming is hard, really hard as the signal is lost with every stroke. They both have pretty few points when they have logged the position.

But still, if you move mouse over the map on Connect, it seems like 935 has more location points, so it's easier to get the spikes away and more realistic distance. Of course if 945 wouldn't have the spike it would look better, but then again, I'm not believing that I would have swam so directly, and 935 would look like jumping of course, but I would still think that the 935 has more better result as 945 is short, and 935 has 40m extra which has some extra because my not so perfect navigation.

Just another test where the GPS in 945 seems to fall short compared to 935. 

Done.