v1nc3 a écrit:janolesurfeur a écrit:la SIRF III a longtemps prouvé sa fiabilité et son efficacité.
peut-être un peu plus gourmande sur la consommation ? pas sûr car la 310 a été longtemps le top de l'autonomie pour un volume pas si gros.
probablement mieux sur le fix mais là, quand on part pour au moins 1h, attendre 2 minutes au lieu de 30 secondes...
oui tu as raison ... pour ma part, j'attache plus d'importance sur la précision que sur la consommation.
Mais à en croire ce (gros et complet) test : http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy , la Fenix 2 est particulièrement/bizarrement positionnée.
A tel point que je ne comprends pas pourquoi tant d'écart avec la 310XT, sauf si le soft d'interprétation des données GPS est codé différemment !
très très bon lien.. on notera:
4 Recommendations
Here are some recommendations for GPS watches.
GPS watches are accurate enough for casual running.
The better devices are accurate enough for most runners if their limitations are understood.
None of the devices were accurate enough for a runner to trust the display of current pace for training or race pacing.
For interval training, use a track or measure out the distance using some other mechanism.
For general training or for races, use a device that supports displaying pace from the Footpod while using GPS for distance.
Adding a Footpod to the Garmin 310XT improves its GPS accuracy.
For the Garmin 610 there was no difference with and without the Footpod. (Trueness was 3.33%/3.32%, Precision was 3.54%/3.68%, with/without).
It takes time for the GPS watches to acquire the satellites. Some watches tended to say they are ready to go before they have an optimal lock. Therefore, to improve accuracy try to give them a little more time. Note that some newer GPS watches such as the Garmin 620 have the ability to be preloaded with the satellite positions, reducing this startup time and start up in accuracy dramatically.
sinon content que tu aies pu trouver le moyen de reconfigurer ta montre...