jmedlock

Ya, I get the same results. But I got hold of a 60CSx and took it out to the forest yesterday to compare with my Oregon 400t: some rough impressions below from only playing around for about an hour before the rain came. WAAS: of course, the 60CSx picked up WAAS and kept it locked (satellite #51), whereas the Oregon never achieved WAAS lock (it reported seeing #51, and then #48, for a brief period of time). So far, in my experience, the Oregon only seems to lock on WAAS in very open / clear conditions. EPE: I know you shouldn't compare EPE between two different GPS series, but the 60CSx usually reported a lower EPE than the Oregon, but not significantly so. The worst sample was a 22 foot difference, but on average, it turned out to be about a 10 foot difference yesterday. Note that this is without the Oregon being able to lock on WAAS, whereas the 60CSx was receiving WAAS correctional data. POSITION: I suppose I trust the 60CSx position over the Oregon, but the most variation I saw in forested terrain was about 60 feet; on average the two units varied about 30 feet E/W and 36 N/S, which should be well within consumer GPS tolerance levels? TRACKS: I was somewhat surprised in this area. At the worst point on the hike, there was a 50 foot difference between the track that the 60CSx put down vs the Oregon. While I can't say which unit is correct, the Oregon seemed to lay a better track overall since the trail is narrow, and the Oregon track was narrower than the 60CSx; the 60CSx seemed to wander a bit more than the Oregon. Here is a SMALL-sized version of the track: And here is the Full Sized Version RAIN: I got caught in some (temporarily) heavy rain while trying to get back to my car [so that is what cut the trip short since we've had massive flooding and it is not safe to be up a canyon due to ground saturation levels], and I used the Oregon a bit with rain falling on it without a problem. I'll do more 60CSx/Oregon comparison later this week, but I was surprised by how well the Oregon appeared to perform yesterday, even without WAAS. J

Except the hardware is also turned off and on.... so undergoes a bit of reset itself. But I agree that the evidence seems to point to firmware given what we know about the Vista HCx.

Ya, I just went outside and powered it up, and it locked on to satellites extremely fast. I saw it try to lock onto #51, then it dropped it for a while, and then it picked it back up again and kept it locked. And, sure enough, the WAAS "D" appeared within 4 minutes of powering it up: Note that this is in the same open area I used this morning. I am confused about one thing: tonight my unit showed a lock on #51 (and #51 was in the screen shot behind #4). But my screen shot from this morning does not show #48 or #51, but it does show the WAAS "D" (I think it was picking up #48). Maybe this is a display bug; from this morning: So far I haven't seen WAAS while in the forest. So maybe it is user error, and I haven't left the unit on long enough in good conditions to build an almanac? I dunno... Finally, what is with the crazy file naming for the SCRN shots?! I've had 812, 245, 2090, blah blah blah.... Maybe this is in a Wiki. Regards

A few days ago, I sent Garmin an email with the starting message in this thread regarding WAAS (so the tech should have seen quite a number of replies). I heard back from them this morning asking about the highest satellite # I usually see (since #48 & #51 are the WAAS satellites). I went outside in an open area and turned the unit on, and kept it on for about 40 minutes. I had it horizontal on a chair, so the screen was facing up towards the sky. For about 30 minutes, it had an unusually awful EPE (200+ feet) and had me at 9500 feet (I was actually around 7500). The strongest satellites were grouped together, so that is probably why. After a while, it settled down to a 122 feet EPE and started to see satellite 48: About 10 minutes later (a total of 40 minutes now), I saw the WAAS "D" show up to my amazement! "Wow, Garmin must have pushed the easy button....", I thought. I usually hike in dense forest / mountains, and I've never seen the unit show the WAAS "D" until this morning when I intentionally left it out in the wide open for a very long time. Granted, the satellite constellation probably had a lot to do with the amount of time it took to acquire WAAS -- I had to get to work, so I'll try again this week. I'm going to respond to the Garmin tech that emailed me, and send him the pictures with an explanation. At least now I know the unit will display "D", but it doesn't seem to be processing WAAS correctional data in forested terrain. I dunno. So far I've only seen one significant location error on the Oregon -- that is much better than the Colorado -- but I'm still trying... BTW,that was interesting info you go about the patch-quad-helix-combo antenna in the Oregon. I'm already ready for a software update for the Oregon 400t. Regards

It seems clear that there is an issue with the Oregon and WAAS! Maybe ( A ) they simply don't show "D" when the unit is correcting the GPS signal using WAAS (the manual doesn't show specifics), or ( B ) WAAS isn't working at all on the 2.2/2.42 software. Either way, it looks like a fix is needed. I'm going to email Garmin and see what they have to say. Thanks

Regarding WAAS - I haven't seen this question raised yet. When I had a Colorado 400t, I had WAAS enabled, and the unit would often indicate that it was receiving and utilizing WAAS correction data by displaying a "D" on various satellite bars. I've had WAAS enabled on the Oregon 400t, and I have yet to see it indicate that it is utilizing WAAS (assuming it would also display a "D" on various satellite bars). Has anyone seen their Oregon indicate it is utilizing WAAS data by displaying a "D"? Regards EDIT: Running 2.2/2.42 software.

I have 2.2 and I did not see the same behavior without batteries: in my case, the Oregon dumps the GPX file and I can access the internal memory from my computer. The Oregon remains in storage mode (or whatever it is called) without resetting. I'm not a GeoCacher, so I don't have any caches loaded on my Oregon. So I suppose that is one variable between your unit and my unit. Regards

I emailed Garmin Tech Support and provided them a link to this post: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...780&st=222# Their reply: Deja vu. I think I've read this response somewhere before.

It appears that you meant to write that you "have experienced drift" (instead of "have not")? You are lucky that the drift problem is not very common for you. I don't know if this is because of your GPS unit, or because of the terrain you live in, or because the Garmin Angels are overhead and protect your unit from gross deviations. Regards

Did you upgrade to 2.2 after Sunday? I remember seeing more problems like this on 2.1. I upgarded to the 2.2 software on Friday afternoon. I saw all of the problems on Sunday using the 2.2 software (using freshly charged PowerEx 2700 mAh batteries). I'll email Garmin a list of problems I've seen so far. Thanks

It was very strange: the screen wasn't locked and simply stopped working (e.g. I didn't get that message that will display when the screen is locked and you try to do something). I saw this happen twice on Sunday, but haven't been out with the unit since then. I only saw this happen a few times on Sunday, so it was reproducible yesterday! I'll see if it happens again. Hmm.. well, I'm somewhat disturbed by the variation in the Oregon track. The Colorado did a much better job laying down a track. I was going to open a trouble ticket with Garmin to report some of the issues I've seen, but their online submission tool doesn't recognize the Oregon yet. I want a paper trail, so I'm not going to call Tech Support. So far I'm not very impressed with the Oregon. I expected better. J

I played off and on with the Oregon 400t over the weekend, and I can't say the results were good. I will continue to use the Oregon and decide if it is going back to where I purchased it. Location Drift Problem: I live in forested / mountainous terrain and frequently saw the location drift problem occur on the Colorado 400t. It looks like I hit a similar problem on the Oregon 400t, but it was not as easy to hit. The first picture shows a "GPS Accuracy" of 26 feet, but it is also showing me at the "B4R" (before reset) waypoint. I was actually at the "Big Rock" waypoint). The second picture I transferred the waypoints to my computer and saw that the error was 1,411 feet. I added some notes to this picture: 1. I looked at the display and knew there was no way I was at the location the Oregon was placing me. So I took a waypoint (B4R) and then reset the unit by doing a power-cycle. 2. When the unit came back on and acquired satellites (very quickly), it corrected itself and placed me at the ARST ("after reset") which is at the "Big Rock" waypoint where I was standing. I did not see any other location drift problems on the Oregon, even on a trail where the Colorado would frequently lose its mind. I tend to think this is a buggy software problem (instead of a hardware fault), especially since the GPS chipsets are different in the Colorado and Oregon. So I speculate that Garmin should be able to fix the location drift problems on both series. Unit Lock Up: Twice today the touch screen stopped responding and the unit seemed to "hang". I was able to hold the power button down and it did shut off. Map Redraw: Like the Colorado, the Oregon doesn't always redraw a complete map. However, a few times I hit the problem below where the Oregon didn't have a map at all (I didn't have this problem on the Colorado). The workaround is to zoom in or out to have it draw the map. "GPS Accuracy": I suppose the "patch"(?) antenna on the Oregon doesn't allow it to get as good of accuracy as the Colorado? With the Colorado I would normally see anywhere from 20 to 30 feet EPE (usally 30 feet). With the Oregon, I sometimes get as low as the teens, but I would say 80% of the time it is at 50 feet or greater, and it isn't uncommon to see higher numbers. For example, the screen shots below show 63 feet on a trail where the Colorado would have shown 30 or so (based on my memory). EDIT: I have no idea how the Oregon / Colorado calculate "accuracy", and I don't have a Colorado to compare with the Oregon. So I don't know how far off the Oregon really is to what a Colorado would report. Tracks: This has already been pointed out elsewhere, but the tracks that the Oregon lays down are not as nice as the Colorado (ignoring the location drift problem). For example, if you hike up, and then back down a trail, the Colorado will lay the to/fro tracks pretty close to each other. This isn't so with the Oregon and the tracks are usually pretty far apart (e.g. 50 feet isn't uncommon in forested terrain). Compass Calibration - Missing Instructions: A few times today I was trying to calibrate the compass, and went to the screen where it tells you to rotate, but the screen was blank: the instructions to rotate didn't appear. Powering-off didn't seem to matter. I turned off the compass, and then turned it back on, and even that didn't work. Then I turned off the compass, and then powered-off the unit, and that seemed to work. I don't know what caused it to happen. I'll try to get a screenshot of it if I see it again. EDIT: I was using PowerEx 2700mAh batteries that were freshly charged. The batteries are about 5 months old and have been conditioned in the Maha charger. EDIT: I was using an Oregon 400t running 2.2 software with the 2.42 GPS software. J

Duplicate

Ya, the CSx is also on my short list -- however, I really like the DeLorme Topo USA 7 software and the abilities it provides when interfacing with a DeLorme GPS. It is a tough decision, but if the new Cartesio 32-channel GPS chipset proves to be excellent, then I will probably suggest the PN-40. Regards

Garmin also mentions 0.1m/sec for "velocity" for the Oregon. If the Oregon does have the STM Cartesio chipset (seems likely now, but I'm not going to open it up to see), then perhaps Garmin is using "state of the art"; at least that is the same chipset that the new and upcoming DeLorme PN-40 is using. DeLorme is not afraid to mention specifics, unlike Garmin. Speaking of DeLorme: I am going to take a very serious look at the PN-40 to replace 7 GPS units for our search & rescue team. I have used the PN-20 before and found the user interface to be simple to understand, and I suspect the PN-40 would be a great fit for our team. No way am I going to suggest the Garmin Vista H-series since Garmin has (so far) failed to fix the location error drift problem on that unit. J

I don't think the Garmin Oregon has the MTK chipset - well - all we can tell is that it is a different chipset than the Colorado unit. Oregon Chipset This weekend I will see if I encounter the location error problem on the Oregon that I so easily experienced on the Colorado. J

Some things I noticed while glancing through the Oregon users manual: The Oregon must have a different GPS chipset than the Colorado. The Colorado users guide says "12 channel WAAS enabled/High sensitivity" whereas the Oregon users guide says "more than 12 channel WAAS enabled/High sensitivity" (emphasis mine). So I'm guessing, as someone else had previously guessed, that the Oregon has the STM Cartesio 32-channel GPS chipset. It makes perfect sense since 32 is "more than" 12. The "aquisition times" that Garmin provides in the manuals are equivalent between the Oregon and Colorado: < 1 sec (warm start), < 33 sec (cold start), < 36 sec (autolocate). Unlike the Colorado manual, which explicitly mentions a quad helix antenna, the Oregon manual does not provide any antenna details. J

I've had the Oregon 400t less than 10 minutes and here is a complete and thorough review I haven't upgraded to the 2.20 software yet. It seemed to acquire satellite lock much faster than the Colorado 400t that I used to have; I'll watch and see how it does as I play with it more. So far I really like the touch-screen. Out of curiosity, I tried using it with (1) a pair of thin wool gloves, then (2) the wool gloves with an outer glove, and then (3) I took those off and put on heavy ski gloves. I found no problems using the touch-screen with (1) and (2), and believe it or not, I was even able to use the touch-screen without problem using (3), although I had to use the edge of my finger/glove instead of a direct downward press. I like the body of the unit and it seems much more resistant to water intrusion compared to the Colorado; in fact, I think it has a much nicer finish to it and feels very nice in the hand. I have the backlight on full. It is rainy / heavily overcast and getting dark, so I have no problem viewing the screen. I'll see how it does in other conditions. I'll put the unit through some real tests this weekend to see if I am able to reproduce the location drift (accuracy problem) that plagued the Colorado 400t that I used to have. tis all.... for now... EDIT: I forgot one thing. I have the Garmin Colorado "case" and the Oregon will fit inside of it, but the case is much taller than it needs to be (of course). I saw that Garmin has an Oregon case on their website for backorder (no pictures though). I might eventually get an Oregon case (it will probably be a bit lighter in weight), but for now will just use the Colorado case.

It is funny: after having a Colorado 400t, and many occurrences of the "location drift" problem, I find the Oregon location drift shown in the picture to be very tolerable. Of course I would like it to be better. Once I get my Oregon 400t (now possibly by Friday), I will take it out and see how it does in my terrain. I'll be taking it to the same area where the Colorado seems to lose its mind (a mountainous forested trail). I think Garmin should also consider taking some Colorado 400ts out in forested terrain in, uh, Colorado, and see how it performs. Perhaps they'll encounter the location drift problem and will eventually find a cure for the disease. Okay, sorry, this is an Oregon (Oregano) thread. J

(Duplicate)

Could you quantify this statment please. Did you make any screenshots? Thanks Check the "Colorado location error" post --> http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...158&st=145# http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...158&st=159#

Thank you so much for the accuracy comparison testing -- I'm sure you'll do much more. I returned my Colorado 400t to REI. I couldn't tolerate the extreme position drifts I was seeing on the Colorado in the mountainous / forested terrain I hike. So far your tests indicate that the Oregon "drift" is not as significant as the Colorado "drift". I should have an Oregon 400t sometime next week, and I'll see if I get similar results. I sure hope so.... Regards...

It appears that the Oregon series has more changes than just the addition of the touchscreen... The Oregon series has +1 hour of battery life over the Colorado, and has the "Hotfix" feature, and someone has stated in a different thread that they think the STM Cartesio GPS chipset is being used in the Oregon. Therefore, while some (much?) software may be shared between the Colorado and Oregon series, there does appear to be hardware changes, and not just with the touchscreen addition. The Colorado (and Vista H-series) "drift" (or "location error") behavior is a significant problem in mountainous / forested terrain (and maybe elsewhere?). This is apparently due to the MTK GPS chipset used in those devices, or a combination of the 2.6 firmware with that chipset, or due to blah blah. (Just covering all bases.) For me, the "location error" problem is reason enough to try the Oregon to see if it behaves much better than the Colorado series. J

The Garmin Oregon can now be purchased at REI on BACKORDER. They have three models: 400t @ $599.95 400c @ $599.95 400i @ $599.95 J

I think that makes sense and is probably reality. But if true, then it is strange that Garmin has not made available some of the Oregon features on the Colorado: for example, the track manager, and the ability to customize track colors. Maybe those are coming in a future software update. Also, the description of the Garmin "hotfix" feature sounds like a software, rather than hardware, function: Faster satellite acquisition via a new Garmin HotFix feature that calculates and stores critical satellite information But if it is a software function, then I again wonder why it doesn't already exist on the Colorado? Perhaps the Oregon has a different receiver chipset that makes the "Hotfix" feature possible? Perhaps blah blah.. (i.e. it will be delivered in a future Colorado software update, or blah blah some other reason). If Garmin messes up the Oregon release like they did the Colorado release, then I think DeLorme is very favorably positioned with their upcoming PN-40 release. J EDIT: On second thought, the description of the "hotfix" feature is ambiguous - maybe it is a software function, or a hardware function, or a combination of the two.