Why is the Legend HCx so much better than the legend Cx?

[TeamEcuador]

Now I get 9-foot accuracy. The best I ever got with the Legend Cx was 23 feet. I m in South America and do not expect WAAS correction.

 

I never got a signal from satellite 51 before. On the Legend Cx it would blink at the bottom of the satellite screen, as if expecting a signal, but it would never lock on. Now I get it a good signal from 51.

 

I'm not complaining, mind you. I am thrilled. But I'm just curious as to why things are so much better with the more sensitive receiver. I would not have thought it would have increased my accuracy so dramatically.

[gratefulHIKE]

the H in Hcx stands for the newer set of antennae's garmin used, which they classify as high sensitivity

[TeamEcuador]

the H in Hcx stands for the newer set of antennae's garmin used, which they classify as high sensitivity

 

I knew the new receiver would allow the unit to lock on faster and hold better, but if I place both units side by side on my roof, with a clear view of the sky, they are both getting a lot of satellites at good signal strength. So both units are getting a bunch of solid signals. Why does the HCx give me 9-foot accuracy while the Cx only gives 23-foot accuracy?

 

I always figure 9-foot accuracy was due t WAAS, which I'm not supposed to get in South America.

[+ventura_kids]

Better antenna, better chipset, better math = better accuracy

 

 

 

 

 

 

edited for better spelling

Edited April 27, 2008 by ventura_kids