Forerunner 945 SW 5.20 - Live to 100%

HRM was completely off when starting the activity. I was about 140-160bm, and sensor was showing 80-120BPM (first hour or two or whole activity). No way around it. Different apps. Different weather. With or without poles, gloves, took the watch off put it on, switch hands, hold hands high, low... efffing going insane. I had 735xt before without problems, decided to get a new one and it was one HUGE disappointment. They changed my watch for a new one without much fuss and still nothing. Figured it's a piece of *** and started thinking of going to SUUNTO.


Woke up today and seen that there was a software and sensor update in the night. Went hiking and it was almost great. The only time that the same thing happened was when I was going back down and I took off the jacket and I was back in short sleeves. Figured out that HRM is off again so I stopped and held my hand horizontal and measured my pace manually. 

When I did that, the watch figured out that something is wrong and went from ~95bp0m to 120-130 which I manually measured as correct and figured as OK from the way I was breathing and moving.

Good job!

tess said:

I was posting my photo just to show that my graph doesn't start at zero as yours and jmto's shows even though the two of you have very different elevation readings.

Yes, it goes between our numbers and maybe mine really started at -10 today, now that I took second look at it, it's 25m per lines.

But I think the main point what Frederico is saying to which I agree the scaling should be better, more near the min/max values to show the changes as big as in that small graph they can be shown.

jmto said:

maybe mine really started at -10 today, now that I took second look at it, it's 25m per lines.

That would make the line under your 40m at 15m, so 10m and not -10 would be correct.

jmto said:

I agree the scaling should be better, more near the min/max values to show

I find your graph quite sufficient if it were displayed on my watch, but Fedrico_Amanzio's graph is a different story.  I'm just trying to figure out why the 3 of us have different elevations and 3 completely different graph scales?  I wonder what Garmin is using to determine the scale displayed?  Just curious, your min was 10m and max 63m.  What scale would you have preferred to see on your watch?

Good to hear.  I know many were having issues with HR, especially with the Hike app.

My 945 healed itself. Today I was running 21km (Virtual Run GMM) with my Jaybird Vista and actually expected that I would have to re-establish the connection every 5 minutes, but nothing like that. The music played right through with no problem. I thought about what I could have changed, but I can't think of anything, except that I have fully charged all my devices. Fine thing, hopefully it stays that way.

Before version 5.00 you didn't have to ask what the right scale was because it self-adjusted, like the altimetry graph of an activity. Now the more you climb in altitude, the worse you read the changes in altitude on the screen

Federico_Amanzio said:

Now the more you climb in altitude, the worse you read the changes in altitude on the screen

Agreed.  This is what I was speculating yesterday when I said:

tess said:

I believe the higher your elevation, the larger the increment display on the graph.

Imperial vs metric setting must factor in somehow.  In jmto's graph, his increments are 25m.  If I were to convert my measurements to metric, my display would have an elevation of 140m with my increments at 30.5m.  I'm still not sure why both of your graphs start at zero and mine starts at 300' or 91.4m?

tess said:

That would make the line under your 40m at 15m, so 10m and not -10 would be correct.

I don't follow. If there's 5 lines, two of them lines 5 and 3 has labels, 90 and 40. We can calculate that the difference is 50m, so 25m per lines. So:
5. line 90m (shown)
4. line 65m (calculated)
3. line 40m (shown)
2. line 15m (calculated)
1. line -10m (calculated)
Total difference 100m, divided to four parts, is 25m per part.

tess said:

What scale would you have preferred to see on your watch?

I also find my graphs not so bad, but I think they still exhibit the problem that the scaling should be better. They are wasting good space to grapth the differences. I think I would just do some MIN-MAX based. In my case values where
10-63, so scaling could be from 10-70. But then if they want to divide it to 4 parts to get the labels.. which would be 70m on the top, and spacing would be 15, so labels would be 70 and 40.

Your case:
440-460, so that's already good for scaling in my eyes. Label wise no problems difference is 20m, so it's 5m per part, so labels 460 and 450m.

Frederico's first case:
1781-2768, scaling 1780-2770. Difference is 990, so one part is 247.5m, so still labels would be ok 2770 and 2275.

Second case:
1110-1113, scaling 1110-1120. Difference is 10m, one part is 2.5m, so labels 1120 and 1115.

If we round to nearest 10m in low and high parts, I think we can always use these to calculate the scale and labels:
Max scale value:
maxs=MAX+(10-MAX%10)
Min scale value:
mins=MIN-(MIN%10)
Top label is the same as max scale value:
topl=maxs
Middle label:
midl=maxs-(maxs-mins)/2