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

Ascent/Descent tracking: Forerunner 935 vs Vivoactive 3

Hi there,

Does the 935 have better accuracy at tracking ascent and descent while running/hiking than the Vivoactive 3? I understand the GPS tech is the same for both. I find this measurement not at all accurate on my Vivoactive 3 and was advised to upgrade to a 935 but I don’t understand why that would change the accuracy of ascent/descent if both watches have the same GPS tech/options. 

  • The 935 has the barometric sensor, so the altitude, pressure and temperature are calculated by the watch..
    In devices where the sensor is missing it is calculated with GPS (less precise), hence the differences.

  • In devices where the sensor is missing it is calculated with GPS

    The Vivoactive 3 has a barometric altimeter.

  • Maybe doesn't works well!

    Have you already try to clean the holes of the sensor on the watch?

  • Who advices you to buy a 935 for better hight accuracy? Someone who would like to make some more profit?

    Yes, gps isn’t very accurate for altitude, but neither is a altitude based on barometer. Air pressure changes based on altitude but also due to weather changes and your watch doesn’t know which is which. So it guesses, when you move all airpressure chnages are caused by altitude changes and when you stand still all airpressure changes are caused by changes im weather. Plus you have to calibrate your barameter to start with and your watch used gps for that. Remember, gps isn’t very accurate for altitude.

    Also, the air intake on a 935 is on the wrong place and it is easily cloughed up by sweat and dirt.

    The only thing a altitude monitor based on a barometer can do really well is detecting you start to go up or down. Great when you fly thermals , not that essential when running or cycling.