GeoBobC Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Wow - what a bummer. I just tried out a new Vista HCX and was very disappointed in its tracking performance. I use a GPS to record trails both on a bike and running. I have been recording the tracklogs from trail runs for about five years, using a variety of Garmin GPS units. In the last 18 months I've been using the 60cX with the Sirf chip. The results from run to run were very consistent: tightly clustered from each recording. I just tried out a new Vista today, hoping I would finding its performance similar. If I could post a picture, it would tell the story. The track logs were consistently off the roads and trails, in no particular pattern. In some cases the points were 100 feet or more from the cluster of previously recorded tracks. I also had my 60cX along, and it performned as expected: with two tracks (one out, one back) right on the cluster of previously recorded tracks. My Vista goes back. I may buy a second 60cX or possibly the 60csx to have a compass when necessary. By the way, the Vista had the latest firmware (2.40) and the compass was turned off. Quote Link to comment
gratefulHIKE Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 so you are comparing your 60csx and your vista hcx tracks and they vary? What a surprise........ Quote Link to comment
GeoBobC Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 I was comparing 60cx (Sirf) chip tracks to the Vista HCX tracks. I expected them to be very similar. Quote Link to comment
+the hermit crabs Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 in the Track Log Setup page, are the "Record Method" and "Interval" set up to be the same on both units? Quote Link to comment
GeoBobC Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 Both units were set to "Auto - More often". Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I was comparing 60cx (Sirf) chip tracks to the Vista HCX tracks. I expected them to be very similar. I know that they use different high-sensitvity chips. The 60csx uses the Sirf chip and the Vista uses a Taiwan equivalent. There has been some discussion in these threads about the Vista HCX having a bug that causes it to be slower to update.... Quote Link to comment
GeoBobC Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 Yes, they are different chips. The 60x series uses the Sirf chip while the newer eTrex x models use an MTK chip. I've been following this forum since the Vista HCX came out, and really expected it to perform quite close to the 60cX. The differences I experienced today may not simply be a difference in the chip, however. The antennas are different. Who knows? Anyway, I tested them side-by-side today in a heavily tree canopied setting, travelling 12 miles on bike and foot. The 60cX definitely laid down more accurate tracks; no question about it. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Yes, they are different chips. The 60x series uses the Sirf chip while the newer eTrex x models use an MTK chip. I've been following this forum since the Vista HCX came out, and really expected it to perform quite close to the 60cX. The differences I experienced today may not simply be a difference in the chip, however. The antennas are different. Who knows? Anyway, I tested them side-by-side today in a heavily tree canopied setting, travelling 12 miles on bike and foot. The 60cX definitely laid down more accurate tracks; no question about it. A friend of mine accidentally left his 60CSX on inside his bag, which was in the overhead compartment during from his flight from LA to Yuma. He didn't realize it until he downloaded his tracks and had the entire flight in his track logs! Those Sirf chips are pretty amazing! Quote Link to comment
+Tui Chub Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I've used both a 60cx and Vista HCX, one in each hand, under heavy tree cover. Both tracks were similar, try another Vista HCX. Quote Link to comment
gratefulHIKE Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I own both as well.....I prefer my vista hands down due to low variance while stationary, its battery life, its small size, the metal backing, the push button microsd card slot and its great overall performance for the low price but you can bet your booty that when a new 60 model comes out, the vista will be put on the shelf, becauase I prefer the buttons below the screen and easy to push Quote Link to comment
GeoBobC Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 I truly wish the Vista had performed better. I like the size and screen. I'm reluctant to believe I got a "bad" unit. I think a new Vista would perform the same, which is not as well as my 60cX for track logs. I may try one more test, but I'm pessimistic. Quote Link to comment
gratefulHIKE Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I agree, I dont think another unit would make it perform any better..... You should try another test at a different location that you have not done yet and try taking the exact path without any variance......Iam quite satisfied with mine, to each their own though Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.