I received my 945 on thursday and am testing it in combination with my 935 to see if I want to keep it... I noticed the tracks were a bit more 'squigly' on the 945, they look smoother on the 935 but I then found out that the .fit files for the same tracks were over double the size on the 945 vs the 935 (same settings, gps only, smart recording, ohr).
When examining the fit files it seems as the 945 always records every second! Even when smart recording is set... This is both with normal walking as with running. This could also explain the more squigly tracks of course.
Can anyone confirm if this indeed is the case? I used fitfile editor to look at the recordings (where I had 4542 points for a 1:15:39 run activity and 5127 points for a 1:25 walking activity in which I manually paused the activity for about 13 minutes. So that works out... The 935 has 1749 for the same walking activity.
I just did a 1:02 minute 'walk' activity (sitting behind my desk) on the 945, one with smart and one with 1sec recording, both gave me 62 datapoints and the same file sizes.
This is on the latest 2.50 firmware btw..
* Other remarks:
GPS seems slower to acquire, <5s on the 935 vs <20s on the 945... And as mentioned, tracks less smooth.
Standby battery seems worse then the 935... say 0.3-0.4% an hour, vs 0.1-0.2 on the 935. Not convinced of the OHR either...
Maps, nice but takes a long time to calculate routes... I'd also like a 'back to start' in the form of an arrow instead of having to calculate a route for it. Now need an external datafield for it...
Operation is smooth, I like the new menus.
All in all not convinced yet, but not put off either ;)
