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 Dr Phil

    oooook - so i had 2 runs yesterday and today on the same course - 7 laps of the park; same place to take the turns, same line in the middle etc and setting was gps + glonass, 1 sec recording: 

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4385172696 - 15.21 km

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4382442290 - 15.31 km

    although the difference is about 100m, i think it's still a lot...and most probably the difference is due to the improper placement on some segments from the 30.12 run; i also think that 15.21km is closer to the reality...

    anyway - tagging Former Member as well, perhaps some devs will look into this...

    all the best in the coming year and many happy and injury-free runs ;-)

    tudor

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    I don't see any problem there at all. Given all the variables involved getting a difference of 100m of 15.2km (0.66%) is pretty good for a consumer GPS being worn on the wrist.

    I really don't see there's much that could be improved.

    Remember too, the 1sec recording only makes for a better track display and a larger file size. All data is recorded at 1Hz intervals. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Dr Phil

    i know it's pretty subjective :-) - but the old 920 never missed the distance on the same track. the first km was at a specific tree each every time - with the 945...it varies - sometimes it's 10m, sometimes 5m but it's never in the same spot; if you'll look at the lap makers, lap nr 8 is already ahead (or behind :D ), so about 50-60m of the 100m difference was already after 8km. again, from my perspective, the tracking and accuracy are worse, at least when compared to the 935 and 920. one of the tracks looks also bad when zoomed in, just look at how poorly it tracked the long line...

    i'll also have some further 15k runs and report here, as for me as an it guy, this is really interesting :-) 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    I get that and fully understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately I have rarely run the same course with my earlier pre-parkrun watches so cannot offer up a similar comparison. Actually, thinking about it, that's not quite true. I might have a slew of 935 parkruns recorded that I might be able to compare with a 945 run or two. Or at the very least look at the variance. 

    Might be of interest. I am swimming with a 5+ and a 6 sapphire along a buoy line with buoys at ~250m intervals. The 5+ does hold the distance better with a 250m alert going off pretty much alongside the buoys. The F6 does always come up short by a 100m or so over a 2 to 3km swim but given the vagaries of GPS tracking, I still reckon that to be ok. Not perfect, but ok.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    All this talk about GPS tracking and I've just realised I've got a great example of a track that does not follow what appears to be a mapped track. This is a three lap course under trees virtually all the way around so the track is actually very good. But, if you didn't know better, you'd be complaining about the track not following the path.

    However, the satellite image shows different:

    I do remember making this point several years back about the need not to take for granted that the track on the map is actually the path on the ground. I know this is an extreme example but it does serve to make the point.

    Here's a link to the activity too - www.strava.com/.../2971789372

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Dr Phil

    :-). happy new year, oh man you started early. regarding the track - if i would have had that track, i wouldn't have complained. something like that delivered both older garmins and although i don't believe having a faulty watch, i will try to get another 945 to see how a different one tracks. regarding the swim - well that's a thing i would have definitely not complained about, regardless how bad the track would have looked like :-). 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    Mine tracks similar to yours, it may have something to do with the region. I am using GPS+Galileo (using https://www.gnssplanningonline.com/ seems that there are more Galileo satellites above than Glonas over my region)

    I've seen quite an improvement after 3.90 (even though nothing changed according to Garmin, before that almost all the tracks had some kind of staircase effect, ) but still nothing close to my old 735xt.

    pre: 3.90 pre 3.90post 3.90: post 3.90

    735xt 2 years ago: 

    I can have tracks similar to the ones of  only if i'm in the middle of nowhere with no tree in sight.

    I can get decent tracks if there are more than 5 GPS satellites at more than 40* up in the sky

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tsofron

    Sorry but... the end of the recording is different in those two runs :-P So, yes, there is 100m diff ;) 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to RISBAC

    :D - caught in the act, i moved the tree a few meters between the runs; kidding aside - it's too bad they don't manage to get the same level of accuracy - at least i'm totally not happy with it :-). but hey, i have music and garmin pay, and that's what i actually wanted :-)))

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Nathair

    I did a track run yesterday which is difficult for gps. I did run in lane 1 and two for overtaking slower runners. And i think it is pretty accurate. 

    it was an interval session. Even starts and stops are accurate