Grasscatcher

Where did you see them say this? Thank you for contacting Garmin International. Thanks for the response back. We have received an answer concerning this issue from our engineers. Basically, they explained that the Oregon models and our older models, such as the 76CSx, when acquiring satellites and WAAS have a completely different design. Both are able to acquire WAAS, but will may perform better or worse in certain situations due to antenna design. Therefore, as long as the unit is within the 3 to 5 meters, then they units are within range and normal operation. I hope this helps and please let us know if you need any further assistance. Also read this other response........ keeping in mind that Garmins own info says that with WAAS corrections the user should expect <3 meter accuracy. Thank you for your reply. When you are making he comparisons, can you tell me what the accuracy is of both devices? Keeping in mind that without Waas information, the best that you would home for would be 15 meters, which is approximately 45 ft. If you're getting less than 45 ft of accuracy the Oregon is receving Waas information, regardless of what's happening on the display. If it's not showing this information correctly, we can certainly try to get this taken care of. It appears that they don't even know how their own units are supposed to function.

No, compare the words from the Garmin description of the 78 and 450 in that same area of the description. Also talks about Hotfix........ Also new operations menu..... looks like 450 (and other Oregons) but of course will be accessed by buttons instead of touchscreen. Look at antenna end of 78.....similar size and curvature (center portion) as Oregon.

My observations are based on info that is already out there from Garmin. Essentially 76 form factor, with same screen size (as 76), and buttons , instead of larger touch screen. More memory. Remainder of specs just about exactly duplicate the 450, which make me think the innards will be essentially the same. Comparing wording on Garmins site about quick acquisition and "maintains position in heavy cover and deep canyons"......that's all word for word. (and nearly false advertising) Yes, pure speculation and definitely "unqualified observer" but if you do your own comparisons, I think you'll come up with the same conclusions.

I am trying to find out , but even the service reps at Garmin say they don't know. I've asked about chipset and also antenna type and design. Supposedly they will send me an e-mail when they find out.....at least they said they would.

Not my opinion......Garmin's own words.....they say the WAAS "problem" is caused by"antenna design"....and since nothing(brand or model) with that chipset (Cartesio) gets WAAS reception worth a durn, I'd say it must be included .

As stated elsewhere, I'm thinking that the "new" 78 is just going to be a repackaged Oregon 450 innards. I'd almost bet that it will have the same "WAAS lousy chipset" and "ceramic" antenna. I sure hope that I'm wrong.....

Hey the 76 series had/has a quad helix antenna 2000 vs 10,000....yeah, but its a Magellan

If it's a really old grave then it's probably in the Animas Cemetery at 37 17 27.3 , 107 51 32.0 WGS 84 Datum The Green Mtn Cemetery looks newer developed ,with dividing drives,etc It's at 37 16 31.1, 107 53 18 WGS 84 Datum

Freeday, Why the frowny face on screen resolution? Same screen apparently as the 76 series (160X240) which is already brighter and clearer than the Oregons which have more pixels (240X400) . Nuther possibility is that the 78 Series is INSTEAD OF a 62 series.

Those are UTM coordinates Zone 13 245590 Easting 4131613 Northing Be sure which Datum the coordinates are in. The Lat/Lon coordinates you posted (37,16N-107,53W) are in the south part of Durango. Just NW of there , there is a Green Mountain Cemetery. The UTM coordinates you posted are in the North part of Durango. There is an Animas cemetery SE of that location.

Oregons / Dakotas only rarely get a WAAS lock, and even then won't maintain that lock. Sometimes, when trying to obtain a lock, the units seemingly don't have a clue about what they are looking for or what they are supposed to do with it when they eventually stumble across it....... If compared to 60 / 76 series units, the Oregons don't even come close to being a "WAAS capable unit",........as they are advertised.

I'm beginning to think that the 78 series is essentially a repackaged Oregon 450. Essentially same form factor as the 76 series- with serial port and ext antenna port, same screen size as 76's Operational buttons and brighter non-touch screen replaces visibility problem touch screen . More internal memory than O 450 but remainder of specs about the same, with no games Better battery life probably due to different screen. Have to wait and see which chipset and antenna........sure hope it's different than Oregon or else it will be just another Garmin model that doesn't do WAAS

I believe the newer Oregon units (550 and 450) require Basecamp...have you tried that? I have a 550 and data transfers fine using Mapsource.......... I'm using Mapsource v 6.15.11

How does a unit with no camera or viewer "handle " photos? Wouldn't the "coordinates in the exif data" be interpreted as just a "location" or "waypoint" ? What am I missing here? Maybe I'm having a "DUH" moment.....

Specs say that it does have Sun & Moon page...... This is a puzzle to me..... Specs say "no camera" and no photo viewer, but that it can navigate to geotagged photos...... I guess just to the coordinates of the spot where photo was taken by another camera and that data was transferred to the 78 ???? That would be just like navigating to any other waypoint wouldn't it? Or, maybe viewer to be added later? Anyone got any other ideas?

Kinda like me WANTING WAAS to be working better so much that I think that it IS every time an update comes out ....but then reality sets in and....NO, not yet.... ...and I don't think they will get it (WAAS) working correctly until they change chipsets and/or antenna. THEY say it's "antenna design"... I don't know, but that's the basis for my first questions on the 78 series. ? Chipset ?Antenna

Just a comment along those lines..... what the useful purpose of being able to have multiple maps, GB's of data and such if you can't see it? That's the problem with the Oregon/Dakota series. Yeah, users can "get by" and they can "make do" because of all the other features, but screen visibility definitely needs MAJOR improvement. I'll have an Oregon 550 that will get sold or traded in a heartbeat!

Yes, MCX connector. Coggins, Where did you find that info? This may be the best thing since sliced bread , sex, and stuff like that were invented!

See if you can find a view of the back of the unit where we can tell if there is still a "4 post connector plug" for serial connection. Not for map data transfer but for NMEA data output.

I had to hunt to find whether or not it was WAAS compatible.....I now wonder if that feature will actually work. Can anyone find out what chipset? What kind of antenna?? .....Quad ? or ceramic like Oregon series ? External antenna capable?

That's the ONLY way to operate.........

I tried turning my manual on but it never even got excited..... Oregons, Dakotas,etc are SUPPOSED to support WAAS but they DON'T and NEVER HAVE. Unreliably they will occasionally lock onto WAAS sats and display Ds on the other sat bars but will not maintain lock, and almost never display WAAS accuracy levels of <3m. (Garmin's own description ) Reluctantly Garmin has finally admitted that there is a WAAS reception problem with all those units, and that "they are working on it".

RMB, Good Call ! I believe that will work! That eliminates the need to create a duplicate point. Now we'll see if the navigation will automatically progress to the next point as you said. Something odd though, ......as I said, one of the data fields on my map page is "waypoint at next", and doing it your way, that field never identifies that I'm navigating to P#1. I AM, but the data field just stays blank. I'll see what happens when I physically get to P#1, then hopefully P#2 will come up in that window. U dun GOOD! .........Thanks

Not meaning to sound argumentative, but I don't see how it would be unique in the least. If the user creates a route from Pt A to B to C shouldn't that be interpreted to mean that the user wants directions to each point, not just some of them? Unless they are always "AT" the start point. With Garmin's philosophy, why even have a first route point? They could easily "fix" the problem by designating the first Route Point in a route as the "Start Point" as they do with Tracks.

Here's the problem.... I hike a lot in some rugged terrain and create "pre-hike routes" from aerial photos, several topo maps, etc. Generally, the first route point is placed at a point on an established trail where I need to leave that trail (based on topography) to start bushwhacking cross country "toward" point #2, then 3, etc. In most cases, this is NOT the shortest distance between #1 and #2. (ie possibly detour off to a side canyon that intersects at Pt #1 and angles away. Pt #2 may be a mile up/down that canyon but only 1/4 mile from the closest point on the established trail) If I create this route, starting at other than my present location, then send it to my Garmin (Oregon 550, 76CSx, 76CS) and select it to use for navigation, my unit (any,all) start with directions to Route Point #2.........I DON'T NEED to be directed to Pt#2 YET...... I NEED to be directed to Pt#1 first, ......THEN to Pt #2. In many cases, I/You cannot physically get "directly" to point #2 from current location. I can "force" it to direct me to the starting point #1 only by adding a second, duplicate Route Pt #1 to the route ( now I have Two Number 1s) which seems redundant and stupid , like a philosophy that may have originated in Washington DC. If a "Track" is selected to be used for navigation, the unit(s) correctly direct the user to the "Start Point". This would mean that any "track" used would have to be a hand drawn guesstimate (since it hasn't yet been traveled and logged), then the user would have to manually switch from the "track" to the "route" once they were "on course" As I said, I have a "work around" that so far works, but seems so unnecessary. How many people have been confused by being mistakenly directed to th incorrect point?