Vista HCX new firmware 2.8 update

[+de3Koetjes]

Sold my vista Hcx and bought myself a oregon 400t (EU version). Now i find my geocaches when the oregon says 0....

 

But i hope Garmin will solve this problem for you all.

 

best regards

 

Ed

Edited November 10, 2008 by Ekoedijk

[bubnme]

bump...

[+NOV8TR]

I've been using 2.8/2.8 for about a month now (Etrex Vista HCx). No serious problems so far. However I upgraded straight from 2.3/2.3 and I did not have problems with that configuration either (other than the trip milage being off). The trip milage seems to be much better, and I have not seen it " position drift" yet. I'm still watching it though, and I really have not had it in questionable locations where drifting might be expected (heavy tree cover or urban canyons)

[+Team 53° Noord]

In some different dutch forums there are almost no problems with 2.80/2.80. I still think the problems only take place with a certain type of Hcx models.

Butt i don't know what makes the difference.

I still use the 2.70/2.60 software, because i have no problems what so ever with this combination. ( and i'm a little worried that 2.8/2.8 wil cause problems...)

[DonpK]

I have used the 2.80/2.80 combination since it was released over a month ago. Since then I have not had the "drift" problem nor accuracy issues with the Trip Computer page. With previous firmware versions I experienced both of these problems.

 

Don

[bubnme]

bump

[+Team 53° Noord]

Why do you push this topic to the top, if you've nothing new to add to the discussion. If you still have questions about the new 2.8/2.8 firm/software, you'd better just ask.

[bubnme]

Why do you push this topic to the top, if you've nothing new to add to the discussion. If you still have questions about the new 2.8/2.8 firm/software, you'd better just ask.

 

 

Lol... Bump

[Pacific NW]

Just bought a Venture HCx and it came installed with 2.60 software. Ran an update using Garmin's Web Updater and was prompted first for the 2.80 software update, then after prompted me for a GPS Chipset "M2" update. Ran that one too, although there were no release notes for it.

 

I'll keep an eye out for any drift or accuracy problems that creep up.

[TransFXB]

no more feedback about "drift" issue with 2.80/2.80 combination???

[+NOV8TR]

I "upgraded" from 2.30/2.30 to 2.80/2.80 about a month ago. I saw a 170 foot "drift" this last weekend that corrected with a power cycle. I never saw a "drift" with the 2.30/2.30 combination, though there was a trip distance and low speed (MPH) error. I am planning to "downgrade" back to 2.30/2.30 as soon as I have the time. I would rather know where I am as accurately as is possible, even if it means I can not trust the "traveled distance" or "low speed" numbers.

Edited December 3, 2008 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[+NOV8TR]

After a bad drift issue last weekend I am trying to get back to a "good spot" as far as accuracy confidence goes. I really do not care how bad the trip odometer is (don't really use it that much anyway), but If I can't count on my GPSr telling me EXACTLY where I am, than what is the point of caring it around? I found a post where someone had listed a link to get back to ver 2.3 chipset, and that file looked something like this "GPSChipsetTypeM2_RegionFile__230.RGN". Does any one know where I can get the same sort of file that will get me to "GPSChipsetTypeM2_RegionFile__240.RGN"? The software part is easy (I have all of those, it is just the "chipset" that really need!

Thanks in advance. I sure wish Garmin made moving back and forth between chipsets easier, after all, if they are going to use us as beta testers and give us buggy stuff, they should at least give us an easy path back to where we were!

Edited December 7, 2008 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[+NOV8TR]

Actually, it would be great to find both the 2.40 AND the 2.50 GPSchipset RGN files. Anybody?

[jmundinger]

Actually, it would be great to find both the 2.40 AND the 2.50 GPSchipset RGN files. Anybody?

 

In my opinion, the 2.50 chipset is superior to the 2.40 chipset. I'm currently using 2.80/2.50 and have been satisfied with the results - the trip odometer seems to work; the tracklogs are within standard error and there is consistency between the tracklog and odometer.

 

Several weeks ago I shared a copy of the 2.50 rgn file with one of the other members here and he put it up with a link. Check one of the other threads regarding Vista HCx and update issues and that post with the link should be in one of them.

[SiliconFiend]

Actually, it would be great to find both the 2.40 AND the 2.50 GPSchipset RGN files. Anybody?

I've got 2.50, which I think was the last "good" version (until 2.8). I got it from a link in another thread, but if needed, I can post it again. I had good luck with the 2.7/2.5 combination, but I've been using 2.8/2.8 lately with no issues (but I haven't tried it under really difficult conditions).

[+NOV8TR]

I've been "searching" the threads on this for the last 2 days, and have only found links to the 2.30 GPSchipset .RGN file. Maybe my search terms are not well enough defined? If you have that link (to 2.40 or 2.50) I would really apreciate a re-post or an E-Mail if that is easier. Thanks!

P.S. I put in a request to Garmin tech support, but we all know how that will turn out !

[SiliconFiend]

I've been "searching" the threads on this for the last 2 days, and have only found links to the 2.30 GPSchipset .RGN file. Maybe my search terms are not well enough defined? If you have that link (to 2.40 or 2.50) I would really apreciate a re-post or an E-Mail if that is easier. Thanks!

P.S. I put in a request to Garmin tech support, but we all know how that will turn out !

You need to work on your search skills. I linked to the file earlier in this very thread! But for future reference, the built-in search is horrible. The way to do it is go to Google and type in "site:forums.Groundspeak.com vista hcx 2.50"

 

Here's my earlier post about it.

 

Here's the zip file.

[+NOV8TR]

Wow, Thanks for the quick response! I'm looking forward to putting my trusty little Vista HCx back to a "trustworthy" state.

It is interesting that the file name is very different than the one Garmin supplies as the GPSchipset file. No wonder I didn't find it! I was using the file name as one of my search words!

[Pacific NW]

Just returned from a 1.5 mile walk with my Vista HCx with the track log on. I am running the 2.8 unit firmware and M2 GPS firmware, all applied through the Web Updater a few days ago.

 

The GPS was clipped to my belt in the Garmin pouch with window. So the entire walk the GPS was facing sideways, not straight up as recommended for the best reception.

 

I imported the track into MapSource, saved it as a GPX file, opened it up in Google Earth and checked it out. The track looks fine with no obvious errors. There are spots where the track doesn't match up perfectly to my route on the satellite imagery, but that is expected.

 

My impression so far...

[+NOV8TR]

Mine looked good for a while too (a little more than 2 weeks), but when "pushed" into low signal areas and then returning to very good reception conditions, the drifting started. A power cycle snapped everything back to perfect accuracy. I had to "downgrade" and that resulted in me starting a thread looking for earlier firmware revisions (follow this Link). Good luck to all, but I don't think 2.80 solved the "drifting" problem for those of us who have seen it.

Edited December 15, 2008 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[Pacific NW]

Took a slow drive this morning around town and still looking good so far. Kept the Vista HCx back away from the window on the seat and it had a great lock the whole time. Downloaded the track into Google Earth and it even shows where I stopped for coffee. No errors noted and track recording time was set as it defaults from the factory.

 

Next try will be going to a really low signal area...

[bubnme]

Took a slow drive this morning around town and still looking good so far. Kept the Vista HCx back away from the window on the seat and it had a great lock the whole time. Downloaded the track into Google Earth and it even shows where I stopped for coffee. No errors noted and track recording time was set as it defaults from the factory.

 

Next try will be going to a really low signal area...

 

So silly question... When is Garmin going to provide another update to fix this mess?

[bubnme]

Anybody?

[+NOV8TR]

I'm a big Garmin fan, but don't hold your breath! I had to "downgrade" to 2.40/2.50 to get my unit back to an "acceptable" condition. I have been pelting Garmin for the last 2 weeks trying to get "previous revisions" of the firmware, but they say they no longer support those, and therefore will not (or can not) give them to me. Firmware 2.80 was only "marginally better" than everything from 2.60 and up, but the drifting was too bad for me to tolerate. For my unit (I think all units are not effected by the "drifting") I would love to get back to 2.40/2.40, but no one seems to have it. I will say that a 16 mile bicycle ride today showed almost perfect correlation between my Tomtom (SiRF chipset), and my bicycle speedometer, and my Garmin Etrex Vista HCx (all mounted on the handle bars). The trip meter was perfectly in sync (within .01 miles, which is the resolution limit), and the tracks from the two units overlaid to within less than 30 feet for all but the "drunken bee dancing" parts while cache hunting. If your unit is not drifting, DON'T UPGRADE!!! I'll put my plea out again for anyone who has a copy of firmware 2.40 to send it along to me ,, please..

[+stigloc]

Once you find the firmware 2.60, how does one install or downgrade?

[+NOV8TR]

Once you find the firmware 2.60, how does one install or downgrade?

 

On a windows platform: First, plug in your Garmin unit, then you just drag and drop the firmware (or software) onto the updater. I can send you the updater if you need it.

What version (software/firmware) are you running right now?

[+stigloc]

Once you find the firmware 2.60, how does one install or downgrade?

 

On a windows platform: First, plug in your Garmin unit, then you just drag and drop the firmware (or software) onto the updater. I can send you the updater if you need it.

What version (software/firmware) are you running right now?

 

2.8/2.8

 

Thanks in advance

[+stigloc]

Once you find the firmware 2.60, how does one install or downgrade?

 

On a windows platform: First, plug in your Garmin unit, then you just drag and drop the firmware (or software) onto the updater. I can send you the updater if you need it.

What version (software/firmware) are you running right now?

 

2.8/2.8

 

Thanks in advance

[guggie]

I've got a new Vista HCx and it came with 2.7/2.6. During its first day of use it locked up/froze during a hike and I had to remove the battery to re-boot it. It also had, on multiple occasions, tracking errors wherein it would show a track totally off the real course and seemingly be unable to lock on the true coordinates even when afforded a perfect view of the sky, both while moving and while stationary. With these two issues, I did the upgrade to 2.8/2.8.

 

My impressions so far, after using it for several days and several hikes with variable cover, are very favorable. First, it has not frozen up any more. Secondly, tracking is right on. Track out and track back lines up amazingly well. I may still see a RARE "blip" track point a hundred feet away from my home while stationary for some time, but the GPSr now promptly zeros in on the correct position in a manner of seconds.

 

As others have stated, it appears that prior versions of software/chipset were too likely to lock on a bad signal caused by multipath issues or poor sat reception in general, and then were "un-willing to give up that signal" for a better one. Garmin's upgrade version notes addressed this problem several versions ago, but their version notes apply to their software only, not the chipset. None of us know for sure what has been addressed with chipset firmware revisons.

 

At this time, I'm quite pleased by the 2.8/2.8 versions.

[eulerian]

I've just acquired a refurbished Vista HCX -- it arrived with 2.70/2.60 running on the "Bravo 2" platform. I've done two bicycle test rides so far. On day one I put the unit in my backpack outside pocket -- near ideal placement with the unit unblocked by my body and facing nearly horizontal facing up. The results were impressive, picture perfect for location and identical running over the same route twice. So accurate in fact that the tracks accurately showed which side of the street I had been on. Zero drift.

 

On day two I put the unit in a jacket pocket and repeated the same routes. The tracks show radical drift, off by as much as a kilometer. It was also slightly drizzly on day two, whereas it had been overcast but dry on day one.

 

I also noticed that the tracks when viewed under Mapsource for day one were automatically differentiated into sections partitioned off by stop points. A 20 kilometer ride on day one over two hours produced seven distinct log segments. The same ride on day two produced a single undifferentiated track log.

 

2.70/2.60 is therefore confirmed so far in my own field test as being capable of producing flawless tracks in mostly unobstructed urban bicycle riding (with intermittent portions of urban high rise canyon), when placed in the recommended attitude (away from the body and horizontal/upright) under good weather conditions, and prone to serious drift when placed in a pocket during mild but sustained precipitation.

 

While these results are based on only two observations, it seems to me that the results are significant, at least for conversational purposes: they suggest that 2.70/2.60 may produce excellent results under optimal conditions. Further testing in required to discover whether this hypothesis obtains further confirmation, contradiction, or inconclusive results.

 

I have acquired offline software versions 2.30 through 2.80 inclusive, and firmware rgn files for 2.30, 2.50, and 2.80. My current inclination is to run a series of test runs with the unit mounted optimally and see if it produces consistently reliable results. If it does I would be inclined to accept the unit as "reliable when deployed optimally" and proceed accordingly. Alternately if the unit produces poor or mixed results over several test runs under optimal conditions then I'm inclined to attempt 2.70/2.30 and or 2.70/2.50 as alternate candidates.

 

Despite the many reports of poor results under 2.60 firmware, and despite the fact that I have also noted drift while using 2.60 firmware, I am still inclined to want to retain the capacity to return to 2.60 firmware due to the fact that I have noted the potential for excellent performance under 2.60 firmware under optimal conditions. Apparently 2.60 firmware is not currently available for download.

 

I'd appreciate it if our source for the 2.60 firmware here and the host of the helper subdirectory would agree to host the 2.60 firmware there.

 

Thanks, and I'm glad to be on board here at the Groundspeak forum.

Edited January 13, 2009 by eulerian

[+NOV8TR]

First, congratulations on your recent acquisition! Welcome to the “Etrex Crowd”. That was a nice write up you did, and it looks like you did your homework before you started. I’m wondering how you had your track recording set? Did you have it set at “automatic”, and “most often”? I have found that without those parameters being set, I get “choppy” results. The “drifting” is an issue that is somewhat erratic, but most often (according to my observations) occurs when the satellite signals get blocked for a short period of time and the unit just never comes back (correct the position) without a “power off/power on” cycle of the unit. As far as how the unit is orientated (horizontal or vertical), I have found that is does effect the accuracy, but it only has a small impact on the position accuracy compared to the “drifting” issue. I see as much as twice the EPE (depending on how much my body is blocking the view of the sky) when mounted on my shoulder strap (vertical) versus holding it in my hand (horizontal). That normally translates into something like 9~14 feet EPE (horizontal) to 12~20 feet EPE (vertical). Even with as much as a 20 foot EPE I can still differentiate between which side of the street I’m on (overlaid on Google Earth). Therefore, I don’t worry too much about orientation when I’m just laying tracks down. The drifting issue however seems to have little to do with unit orientation. If the unit has drifting issues, there is not much you can do about it, because it is inevitable that you are going to get into a place that has little or no satellite reception sooner or later. Unless you catch it right away and power cycle (unlikely if it is in your backpack), it will only get worse. I have seen drifts with software/firmware 2.80/2.80 as much as 180 feet, and even then I only caught it because I was near enough to a road (with City Navigator maps loaded) to recognize that something was not right. A power cycle snapped things right back to where they should have been. I have since started “downgrading” my firmware to a revision that so far has not shown any drifting. I have tried firmware revisions 2.40 (original configuration for me) which had no drifting issues, then 2.80 which was pretty bad, then 2.30 which had no drifting but had other problems, then 2.50 which has no drifting issues. As an interesting side note, it appears that the software has some effect on the units performance too! The combination of 2.80/2.50 generated some pretty bad trip odometer errors and some hints of drifting (but not too bad,, maybe 50~70 feet), but the 2.40/2.50 combination has shown perfect trip odometer and zero drifting! You can check out My Webpage to see how I'm going about all this. I am betting that each unit that shows the “drifting” issue will need a slightly different combination of software/firmware to resolve all the problems (due to hardware component selection over different production runs during assembly). That is why I started my quest of collecting all the firmware revisions I could get my hands on, and then getting them posted on the “Perry” site for all to use.

Good luck!

Edited January 13, 2009 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[pipis]

What is the best firmware version to use? 2.50 ?

[+NOV8TR]

What is the best firmware version to use? 2.50 ?

 

This configuration is what works best on my unit.

(I've been all the way up to 2.80/2.80 and then back down to here)

Edited January 14, 2009 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[jmundinger]

This configuration is what works best on my unit.

(I've been all the way up to 2.80/2.80 and then back down to here)

 

I've been sufficiently satisfied with 2.80/2.50 that I felt no reason to roll back to an earlier software version.

[eulerian]

I’m wondering how you had your track recording set? Did you have it set at “automatic”, and “most often”? I have found that without those parameters being set, I get “choppy” results.

 

First, thanks for the welcome to the forum!

 

I had tracks set to "normal" and got excellent results under optimal conditions -- "most often", as you suggest, seems to produce even better results, especially for tight maneuvers -- I've been going with "most often" since you mentioned it.

 

I had a look at your website. I like your multiple mount setups for backpack, bicycle, and motor-cycle as well as the battery charge units.

 

I've made made one very small modification to my setup. I've noticed that Garmin have designed in a very tight battery compartment. Removing the batteries can require a bit of force. Forcing them from side to side risks damaging the compartment, and pressing a pen-point into the top area of the "+" end and leveraging them risks damaging the battery covers -- (pierced or tattered battery covers make batteries more prone to ambient drain). I just wrap a stretch of scotch tape around the battery bodies near the "+" end with extra length to create a tab. The tabs pack easily into the compartment with no issues. Now removing the batteries is as easy as pulling on the tabs.

Edited January 15, 2009 by eulerian

[+NOV8TR]

That is a great idea! I'll have to "tape wrap" my back up batteries before my next outing. Thanks for the tip!

[namiboy]

okay....so i got a vista hcx and did all the stuff i'm 'supposed' to do like put the disc in, load the mapsource, the web updater, blah blah blah as soon as i received it. i now have 2.80/2.80 installed on the unit and don't even know what was on it when i got it because i was trying to do what i thought i should. now i have been reading this thread for 3 days trying to see if i should have done all the updates 'out of the box'. i'm not very experienced, i had an old blue legend before this, have 30 something finds, etc. if i am understanding, the main problem with 2.80 seems to be that it tells you you're still moving when you're not and the track log is off? i drove around all day yesterday and when i was stopped it showed i was stopped. to check the track log thing should i just go for a long walk and see if it takes me back home? i also noticed that when i have both the old legend blue and the new vista hcx sitting on the dash of my truck the vista has more satellites but the +/- is about the same, about 9 feet. granted the hcx when put on the front seat was more accurate. so, what should i do to make sure i shouldn't try to atttempt to go back to one of the earlier versions posted in this thread? as always i appreciate any help.

[+NOV8TR]

If what you have is working, don't mess with it! The problems you have read about in this thread (and others no doubt) are mostly noticed at walking speeds and over several hours of operation. Some units work fine with the 2.80/2.80 configuration. Give it some time, keep checking it against your "blue unit", and build confidence in the new Vista. Hopefully you will not suffer from what some of us have seen!

Good luck!

Edited January 24, 2009 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[eulerian]

. so, what should i do to make sure i shouldn't try to atttempt to go back to one of the earlier versions posted in this thread? as always i appreciate any help.

 

Ok, what you need to do for now is to keep your unit as it is. Use it, work with it, test it, and decide whether or not its performance so far meets your requirements. If so, you may want to just keep it the way it is. If not then you may want to try one or more of the downgrade options.

 

Here in my judgment is the critical take away, summing up the Vista HCX firmware controversy:

 

1. Units vary. Some perform fine with this or that software / firmware combo, and some don't. Theories abound as to the reasons for the variance. Nobody so far has advanced a decisive knowledge claim on the point, although many credible candidates have been advanced.

 

2. The 2.60 firmware rgn version is the most unpopular version around. And yet some users report no problems with 2.60. I myself currently use 2.60 and so far consider it to be satisfactory when deployed optimally.

 

2. The 2.30 rgn has a reputation for providing accurate location results without drift, but has "other issues" that you can read about.

 

3. The 2.50 rgn has a reputation for being accurate without most (all?) of the "other issues".

 

4. The offline upgrade / downgrade combos freely available as of the date of this post include:

 

-software: 2.30, 2.40, 2.50, 2.60, 2.70, 2.80

-firmware: 2.30, 2.50, 2.70, 2.80

 

5. Downgrade pairs that have strong proponents include: 2.70/2.30, 2.70/2.50, 2.50/2.50, and 2.40/2.50.

You can get all of the software / firmware combos for these pairs from links you can find in this thread. You can, if I understand correctly, freely downgrade and upgrade, as well as mix and match between any of these combos.

 

As always, keep firmware changes down to a minimum on any mission critical unit (tinker on secondary units). And bear in mind that there is no technological or physical necessity for firmware upgrades to actually re-program every data location on the firmware chip, although that is the presumption and normal expectation. Firmware files can be written in such a way as to leave some data locations unchanged. Individual byte locations on your firmware chip can be "sticky", and fail to toggle (remember that it always boils down to "circuit open / circuit closed" at each byte point). It is possible to create unintended monstrosities via firmware changes. While the ticket may say "Kansas", you may not be able to get back there.

Edited January 25, 2009 by eulerian

[namiboy]

If what you have is working, don't mess with it! The problems you have read about in this thread (and others no doubt) are mostly noticed at walking speeds and over several hours of operation. Some units work fine with the 2.80/2.80 configuration. Give it some time, keep checking it against your "blue unit", and build confidence in the new Vista. Hopefully you will not suffer from what some of us have seen!

Good luck!

 

maybe i didn't articulate it well, but my questions was: what exactly is the problem with 2.80/2.80? since you seem to be one of the most critical of it, i find it odd that you would tell me to leave it alone. so...what exactly, and yes i've read all the posts, is the problem with it? i want to check right away to see if i'm having the problem as well. i may think the unit is working fine but in fact be missing something at the same time. thanks.

[+NOV8TR]

I'm only critical of the 2.80/2.80 configuration on my unit. Others have reported no problems with it on theirs. The previous post by "eulerian" did a good job of explaining what the options are, and why some of us have a need for previous releases of the firmware/software. The only way to tell, is to use, and document a particular configuration on your particular unit. Lay down some tracks, and then import them into Google Earth and see what your unit reports. If you see that your tracks "drift" away from where you know you were, then you have a problem. If on the other hand your tracks fall within 50 feet or so of where you know you were, then you have a configuration that is working fine,, don't mess with it! I started out just doing short little cache runs (after upgrading), and I did not present my unit with poor reception conditions (flat land caching). I did not notice a problem with drifting. Then one day I did a 6 hour hike in canyons and back country conditions (poor satellite reception conditions), and found that towards the end of my outing my unit was reporting my location several hundred feet away from where I knew I was. When I overlaid my track on Google Earth, my suspicions were confirmed, and I became critical of the software/firmware configuration I was using at the time (2.80/2.80). I had never seen the problem with my previous configuration (2.40/2.40), and I had used that configuration in worse conditions and for about 7 months. I would not have "down graded" if 2.80/2.80 had done its job properly. I am currently running the 2.40 software/ 2.50 firmware configuration and am very satisfied with the unit accuracy. However, I still carry another GPSr and lay down tracks with both units on every outing. When I get home, I import the tracks from both units into Google Earth, and verify that the units agree on both position and distance. Sometimes both units "drift" away (50~60 feet) from a known position (at the same time and about the same amount), but because the two GPSr's have different chipsets and operating systems, I know that this drifting is environmental (false or week satellite signal) rather than programing/firmware anomalies. You must do your own testing, in the conditions you operate in. What works for me may not work for you!

Edited January 24, 2009 by 1XL-on-XR650L

[namiboy]

^^^ i understand. thanks a lot. ^^^

[bubnme]

Anything new?

[eulerian]

I've been using 2.60/2.60 as it came pre-installed on my refurb unit for several months now.

 

I've got some bad reads in urban canyons -- in some places, for example Manhattan, the reads have been consistently wild. I have discounted these reads as likely due to signal reflection rather than a unit based drift problem. And, I've always been able to get solid locks within a few restarts.

 

I've used the unit in several cities and have noticed that overall location tightness varies somewhat with location. It seems that higher elevation and clear weather enhance accuracy. Again, these apparent variances seem to be location or weather specific, rather than unit based.

 

These caveats aside, the unit has proved thusfar to be reliable in 2.60/2.60 configuration when oriented face up.

 

If Garmin has released all of the firmware files, then thank you Garmin. And if they haven't done that yet, then I would request them to go ahead and release them. With reversion binaries in hand, one can experiment bearing only the risk of bricking. Without the binaries, one runs the additional risk of getting locked into unit specific bugs without recourse.

 

So, again, Garmin: if you haven't done so yet, please release the full binary sets for the Vista HCX firmware.

 

Thanks!

Edited June 16, 2009 by eulerian

[+allory]

We have:

eTrexVistaHCx_230.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_240.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_250.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_260.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_270.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_280.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_300.exe

in the archives at http://www.gpsinformation.org/perry/etrex/vista/

[+NOV8TR]

The above link is for the software versions,

Firmware versions can be found at

http://www.gpsinformation.org/perry/chipset_firmware/Type_M/

[jdawg7]

The above link is for the software versions,

Firmware versions can be found at

http://www.gpsinformation.org/perry/chipset_firmware/Type_M/

 

Can you also use that firmware for the lengend hcx?

[+flattie]

One question... Why is everyone using Google Earth as the consistant veriable when you are off x amount of feet? Why is that the constant variable? Maybe Google is off. Can you find the cache, yes no, or can you find the two track to lead you "home"? Other than that nothing matters. Go play have fun.

[+NOV8TR]

Google Earth=

free to all

Not OEM dependent (Garmin, Magellan, Lowrance, Tomtom, ect)

user frendly

huge user base (everyone knows how to use it!)

 

No, it is not super accurate in a lot of places (most notably where the elevation changes are significant), but it is a handy way to compare tracks from unit to unit, or from day to day. Ok, so your track does not show that you were in the far right hand lane of the freeway all the way to your destination, but overlaying several tracks over several days will give you an idea of how much (GPSr) error to expect in a given area. If Garmin's Mapsource could zoom into the same level as Google earth, AND accept tracks from my Tomtom, AND give me the same quality of aerial photography (to see features not shown on any Garmin map) then I would not need Google Earth! It is also nice to be able to "share" tracks with others that may be more into hiking, biking, off-roading (or other non-geocaching activities) where a geographic location accurate to within 30 feet is not that important. But, you are right,,,Google Earth is a very poor tool for geocaching!

[eulerian]

We have:

eTrexVistaHCx_230.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_240.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_250.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_260.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_270.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_280.exe

eTrexVistaHCx_300.exe

in the archives at http://www.gpsinformation.org/perry/etrex/vista/

 

...(it seems that the hosts have changed their website url -- I've tried kludging my way to where the archive might be on the new host, so far without success).

 

Would you please provide an update on the urls for this archive and for the archive of related rgn files?

 

Thanks!