Well, Polar is known for it's good/great GPS accuracy afaik so that's no real surprise. Also, the FR935 is quite a different type of watch functionality and feature wise so comparing prices like that makes no sense imo.
Anyway, not sure what the issue is in your screenshot. I mean, the M400 is indeed a bit tighter but it's not as if the FR935 is so bad... seems perectly fine to me actually. The distances differ only 100m as well over 20k+ so no biggie there either. GPS isn't accurate by the cm, it's a few meters. What's more important to me at least is that it's stable.
I had the F5 for a while and there the track would bounce around a lot, the FR935 is smooth and stable. Not always perfectly aligned by the road, but sh*t happens. For me the accuracy is pretty damn fine, I do use GPS only atm because I actually read that GLONASS can make it worse but also because GLONASS has no added benefit in my situation (no thick forests and skyscrapers here).
If you want to make a point about bad gps please post complete tracks. But if the above is a reason for you to sell it I think you'll have a tough time finding a gps watch your completely happy with.
Oh, and Fellrnr is controversial... I take his results with a grain of salt, as do many others, while just as many others swear by his tests. Just don't take those as the only true ones blindly.
maybe i expected too much from the FR935 but to be honest a highend modern watch should do it better in my opinion especially if both, gps and glonass is supported. maybe better than the f5 (what in my eyes was a farce) but still much more unaccurate than competitors.
maybe i expected too much from the FR935 but to be honest a highend modern watch should do it better in my opinion especially if both, gps and glonass is supported. maybe better than the f5 (what in my eyes was a farce) but still much more unaccurate than competitors.
You certainly have far too high expectations! The picture you posted seemed to show only a couple of metres variation. Fail to see what is "inaccurate" here.
maybe i expected too much from the FR935 but to be honest a highend modern watch should do it better in my opinion especially if both, gps and glonass is supported. maybe better than the f5 (what in my eyes was a farce) but still much more unaccurate than competitors.
Yeah, that's a bit naive....
Older gps chipsets might have been better, but used more battery for example. It's all in the balance... I am quite a gps-track nitpicker, but unless you supply more examples and preferably from complete tracks instead of one single straight snippet I can only say that I hardly (or simply) don't see any issue with the little bit of info you posted.
In the past it was common for GPS watches to have a "bulge" where the GPS antennae went pointing straight up at the sky. Next to nobody would buy those "bricks" any more so the modern "sleek" devices are a bit of a compromise. That said I have had no particular issue with GPS performance for some years now. The last one I found "disappointing" was the early days of the 620 but that did improve.
Same here. This expectation that out and back tracks, or even multiple tracks will exactly overlay each other is wildly unrealistic. I rarely, if ever zoom into my tracks as I spend so much of my time running in off road in dense tree cover. When I do, as above, I've never been disappointed with the result. Sure some devices perform better than others, but Garmin (in my eyes at least) offers the more complete package for my use.
With some of the older watches you needed to have strong GPS to get good results. It's a bit different with current watches that have additional algorithms to aid with distance calculation. For example using secondary speed sources like wrist dead reckoning and/or foot pod.
The older watches didn't / don't necessarily have these aiding algorithms and need to rely solely on GPS to calculate distance. Hence they need big bulky antennas or are otherwise clunky in appearance. The polar watches for example didn't get a working pace / distance algorithm from their accelerometer until with recent firmwares. Even simple feature like cadence took long to be implemented for them.
Like stated earlier I've had one run on my F5 where the GPS track was a lot off and yet the total activity distance was still fine. So just looking at the GPS track isn't going to tell you everything. Of course you will get better total result the cleaner the track is. Slightly offset track on other hand is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it's relatively straight and doesn't have any big off shoots in it.
First of all, looking at both tracks they both seem perfectly fine by me. At some points the 630 seems a bit tighter, at others the 935.
Which watch was on which wrist? I mean, looking at your running it would make a bit of sense that the watch on your left wrist has some more distance (as it is on the outside and thus making a tiny bit more distance ;) ). But still, you don't run perfectly according to the planned route so some variation will always be there.
