Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Feedback for GPS 2.60

Nolihe
over 5 years ago

Hello,

Today I've updated GPS 2.60 on my FR945 (FW 3.30).

After a run, I noticed that the battery had dropped less than before the update of the GPS.
An activity is not very representative so I wanted to know if you notice the same thing on your side.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Levon

    i ran today the same course - and just for the sake if it i did some measurements as well - the lower footway is about 4m wide, i always take the U turn in the same starting place - that's about 2m wide, on the left there's a tree and on the right a bike rack so not much room and the upper footway is about 2m wide. so as you can see - there are no really that many drift possibilities, as you're being restricted by design :D. the printscreen below is from today (https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4286983295) - what can i tell - not too good, not too bad, i'd say average. next time i'll put the 935 on the other wrist as well, see what it records :D

     

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    How does the distance stack up per lap? There's often confusion between distance accuracy and track accuracy. Garmin appear to do some magic with the data points they receive to offset some of the satellite precession and other errors to arrive at the distance and pace that might result in the placement of the track points. Since you are running multiple laps, it would be interesting to see the lap distances.

    I have to confess that often I don't zoom in to look too closely if I see a solid line when surveying the resulting track. I usually run with someone else or at least one other watch for comparison. If the distances between the watches lie up then I'm happy. But I might not be if I zoom in lol!

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Dr Phil

    well...i'll measure that tomorrow, using custom laps taken in the same spot and get back; my feeling is that there's a gap sometimes - for there are times when the pace decreases suddenly for a couple of seconds while i'm running at the same pace (i'm a decent runner, 2:50/marathon so i can tell if i slow down even for 5 secs/km, so it's not just a feeling) - without any particular reason and when arriving back home and zooming into the map i find out i've entered the bushes or the lake ;-). indeed, when looking at the big picture without zooming in, the track looks pretty nice - but the devil is in the details, or so they say...

    obviously, gps by design has it's know inaccuracy but again- i'm comparing it to the older devices that imho performed better :-). anyway - be prepared for tomorrow...;-)

    le: the running area is a parc in the center of the city, no skyscrapers, no hi-voltage electricity lines just some leafless trees - so reception should be very good

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    I ran today using an Apple Watch and Forerunner 945, seems the Apple Watch GPS tracking was almost spot on, where as the Forerunner was off. (Forerunner had me going thru a building and the Apple Watch had me pretty much on the sidewalk). 

    Prior to GPS 2.6 the forerunner was closer to the sidewalk and not going thru the building on the same route as today  

    Hopefully Garmin fixes this issue. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    After multiple activities with GPS 2.60, I find the accuracy of the gps worse than the version 2.50.

    And regarding the battery no improvement of autonomy in the end.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    ok. as promised - here's the run. 945 on the left, 935 on the right, both galileo enabled, 1 sec recording, manual laps, latest gps fw on both watches (the 935 acutally has the beta :D), laps taken in the same place, about 1 sec apart :-). no skyscrapers, high voltage lines, etc

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4289695186 - 935

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4289705910 - 945

    1st. distance is off :-) - in the 935 recorded 14.01 and the 945 14.23km. i would say that's a lot for a 14k run

    2nd.split distances: few meters here and there and it simply stacks up...

    3. course: the U turn: the 935 is almost perfect, just a minor glitch; the 945 is rather erratic; as said in the previous post, i always start the U turn in the same place, between the tree and the bike rack - the 935 tracked that nicely, the 945 was all over the place

    4. the lake: i always try to run in the middle of the footway; i think that although even the 935 was off, it tracked this a bit better compared to the 945; at least the upper side track of the lake looks consistent...

    5. the skate park: here the 945 is a few meters off to the left compared to the 935, as I've followed the footway that's recorded by the 935; for how it tracked, i'd give the 935 an A+ :-)

    so as you can see, there are small details that make in the end a somehow big gap :-). 

    tudor

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    Хороший отчёт.

    Часы на одной руке?

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    as i've been advised to try gps only - here it goes:

    i'd say absolutely horrendous, at least as bad as gps+galileo :D. about the 'testing methodology', i always tried to run in the middle of the footpath - definitely not like the 945 positioned me. plus the lap pace is always jumpy at the start of a new lap (set to auto at 1k - it was showing 5:20-5:10/km for 10-15 secs but i was running 4:40-4:50/km), not as smooth as on the 935...

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4315014459