Watch face recommendations - what do you use?

Currently using the same one, mainly because of the dynamic fields...

Also like Quattro but can't suit it completely to my wishes.

Also like the stock watchface shown above, but I like to have date, HR, battery percentage, steps and calories (and the stock ones usually can only show 3 fields, and also battery is often just an icon instead of actual percentage)

Hi, maybe you can tell me who should i contact, i started using garmin fenix 5 native watch face (the digital one), its customized (no seconds, for baterie saving purposes), but it dont have a option for having the leading zero on the hours display, and i like to sugest that to garmin.

What is the best way to do that sugestion?

For any CIQ watch face I've tried, the battery life in smartwatch mode only does not exceed 7 days (6 days on 4.40 firmware). I switched to default stock watch face since last charge, and now after 8 days the battery is still 15%, I think it will hold the charge for approx. 3 days more.

Does anybody know some CIQ watch face which does not drains the battery?

I have no clue why do CIQ watch faces that I've used consume more battery even when they display seconds, because my current default stock face displays seconds as well as HR and battery life is great.

jim_m_58, I've read in this thread that you are the developer, could you please give me a hint on why is it so? I've looked through the API some time ago, they say that there is a method in new API that is called every second even when the watches are in low power mode, and they added this method to allow seconds to be displayed in CIQ watch faces, and the developer can define a small region on display that he can update that every second, and given that, the display of seconds should not be a reason for high battery drain, right? But I've also read somewhere that on previous products Garmin have been using the dedicated chip to always display seconds on their native watch faces, so maybe this chip is still used even in FR945 built-in watch faces and that's why being specially designed for that purpose it consumes less power compared to updating the display using the API method?

You can give mine a try (wrote them with batteyr use in mind, so as efficient as possible)

https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/23d0c24a-4592-484b-8dfc-a84912032d45
https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/eaa32b01-2868-4620-93f6-1e689bc5c75a

Regarding your question:

* It depends on the programmer of course, one can write stuff efficiently or inefficiently
* Custom watchfaces tend to show more data then the stock ones, depending on this it can decrease battery life
* The more dynamic stuff, the more battery use
* There indeed is a 1hz mode, a very efficient power mode allowing to redraw part of the screen. When set up properly it should be very efficient. But say you have heartrate and seconds displayed, it can't redraw these 2 parts seperately but can only redraw the smallest bounding box. So if your heartrate is shown close to seconds it's more fficient then when it's far away from it.
* In the past I saw that using layouts to design the watchface was less efficient then 'calculating' on the fly. Could also be of influence

All in all, the stock faces are allowed to run in the most efficient way (and I believe they aren't made in connect iq so can be run 'more directly') but when designed properly and not made too complicated a custom watchface sholdn't have much of an influence.

As an example, my "Direct Watchface" is my default watchface now... shows seconds and only shows heartrate when I flip my wrist. It uses about 0.2-0.3% /hr (no smart-mode, I don't use it for notifications etc) and I can do about 12 days between charges including 3 runs a week (GPS).

Thanks for the background info, very interesting. By the way, I really like your Forerunner 645 watchface - really nice layout and functionality.