Delorme PN40 - WAAS NO GO!

[+Jeff in Pa]

I added a screenshot of a track faithfully following a coast road on an aerial image on a 60Csx but its on the 60Csx group unfortunately, so a link won't work.

 

So your saying that you have aerial imagery to the 60CSX? You mean have it loaded and working? I gotta see this one... Link please?

[Grasscatcher]

Forget superimposing a track over ANY imagery...especially GE imagery.

 

Take all the argument out of it and just do an out and back track on a singletrack in dense cover (not wide out in the open desert). That's comparing a unit's logging accuracy to only itself in "less than ideal" conditions.

 

Using a high mounted external antenna (velcro'd to cap/helmet) a 60CSx or 76CSx will actually superimpose the out and back tracks on a "single track" even when zoomed in (magnified) to the point where contour lines become pixelated. Not so without the X ant and definitely not so with the PN-40. Oh, that's right, the PN-40 doesn't have external antenna capabilities. That, along with the track comparison examples posted on Delorme Forum, is the reason my PN-40 was returned.

 

Let the flaming begin......sorry, but facts are facts.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

....... (not wide out in the open desert)........

Jeff, don't bother. You'll note that he is acknowledging the perfect track that I showed him out in the desert, but being not under dense tree cover, perfect is not perfect enough.

[+Team DeLorme]

As others have noted, we are beta testing a firmware update with improvements to the WAAS functionality that people are discussing here. While the beta testers are under NDA, I've included some of their results...

 

"After the reboot, sat. 138 appeared and showed lock about two minutes later, and the PN-40 had a WAAS lock about 5 minutes after that."

 

"SE likes the new firmware. See the sad satellites on the right (from 2.3 firmware) and now there are happy blue bars with single digit accuracy." [pic on the right was 3-D, pic on left was 3-D WAAS]

 

"Basically, while outside (N 47.17/

W122.30), I spent the day looking at total blue, w/an occasional red, or blank. accuracy has been hovering right

around EPE ±5'-±7' outside, ±7'-±12' inside. Needless to say my device is lovin' it."

 

For those with PN-40 devices, I'm expecting to be through the beta soon so that you can all try this out for yourselves. Grasscatcher, I'll try to get a track showing an out and back to give you a real world test of the firmware improvements. Please don't worry about flaming responses, I recognize the value of your test scenarios. An image with the right GPS evidence on it is worth more than all the GPS accuracy values we could post.

 

More to come...

 

Chip Noble

Team DeLorme

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

Let the flaming begin......sorry, but facts are facts.

No flaming, just visual facts:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=nqmknjck

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=bs7t1xgr

[reef mapper]

You've said you can do it, but can't be bothered to throw it on Photobucket for free to actually show it? How can anyone "acknowledge" it if you're not actually presenting the evidence?

 

Actually I was meaning having the track on the airphoto on the Garmin, not in GE on computer:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10187454@N00/3159078789/

 

So it can indeed be done but of course the unit wasn't designed for this so results aren't as good as those now have with a PN-20. But until getting to use the PN this was my only and very welcome option to aid field work.

Edited January 2, 2009 by reef mapper

[Grasscatcher]

 

Let the flaming begin......sorry, but facts are facts.

No flaming, just visual facts:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=nqmknjck

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=bs7t1xgr

 

Good grief TCP, zoom in where you can at least see SOME detail (for comparison purposes , as stated in the earlier post). At the magnification level you posted , literally ANYTHING would look perfect.

Zoom in to where the mag level is down to a min of 1-2 m/pixel or even greater if you want to see detail, and actual track logging accuracy.

Think about it , the width of the track line on the posted map probably covers 50+ feet on the ground!

[+jbar]

Here is Garmin's reply to my support ticket on the WAAS issue:

 

Thank you for contacting Garmin International.

 

The Oregon is having a harder time loading the WAAS satellites in

comparison to our other units. The new high sensitivity receiver we are

using is causing this to take up to 45 minutes to connect. It is not the

actual hardware itself but the software that communicates with the WAAS

satellite and the receiver. This issue will be addressed in a firmware

update. Once it is fixed you will see the paring of the WAAS satellites

as quickly as the other units. We apologize for this inconvenience.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

Good grief TCP, zoom in where you can at least see SOME detail (for comparison purposes , as stated in the earlier post). At the magnification level you posted , literally ANYTHING would look perfect.

Zoom in to where the mag level is down to a min of 1-2 m/pixel or even greater if you want to see detail, and actual track logging accuracy.

Think about it , the width of the track line on the posted map probably covers 50+ feet on the ground!

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=v8hzwz0n

 

Any more questions?

[+trainlove]

Hey,

 

someone buy me a PN-40 and I'll fix that WAAS issue for you. LOL.

 

But since that model and the PN-20 have not been abandoned by Delorme as most Magellans has been by that maker I guess an outside hacker would not really be the way to get it fixed.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=210652

Edited January 2, 2009 by trainlove

[reef mapper]

So your saying that you have aerial imagery to the 60CSX? You mean have it loaded and working? I gotta see this one... Link please?

 

OK - check the earlier reply for a link.

Edited January 3, 2009 by reef mapper

[DJMOLL]

Great news! It looks like Delorme has a serious effort underway to improve WAAS reception and locking. I'm looking forward to the release of the new firmware soon (hopefully).

 

I know several contributors to this thread have commented about being happy with the current positional accuracy of their PN-40s. A number of people, however, are reporting significantly improved "single-digit" error estimates when WAAS is working, including some of the comments quoted from beta testers for the new firmware.

 

For me, I really want the improved accuracy. The ability to locate a geocache accurately depends on contributions from both the GPS that sets the cache as well as the GPS that finds the cache. Reducing the error from one of those is still an enhancement that, I feel, improves the overall accuracy of the geocaching experience and justifies having WAAS working correctly. I have other non-geocaching uses that also would benefit from improved accuracy.

 

Thanks to Delorme for admitting the PN-40 has a WAAS issue, for working on a fix, and for updating us on progress.

 

djmoll

[+TotemLake]

Great news! It looks like Delorme has a serious effort underway to improve WAAS reception and locking. I'm looking forward to the release of the new firmware soon (hopefully).

 

I know several contributors to this thread have commented about being happy with the current positional accuracy of their PN-40s. A number of people, however, are reporting significantly improved "single-digit" error estimates when WAAS is working, including some of the comments quoted from beta testers for the new firmware.

 

For me, I really want the improved accuracy. The ability to locate a geocache accurately depends on contributions from both the GPS that sets the cache as well as the GPS that finds the cache. Reducing the error from one of those is still an enhancement that, I feel, improves the overall accuracy of the geocaching experience and justifies having WAAS working correctly. I have other non-geocaching uses that also would benefit from improved accuracy.

 

Thanks to Delorme for admitting the PN-40 has a WAAS issue, for working on a fix, and for updating us on progress.

 

djmoll

On the flipside of that coin, it could actually lead to being led away from the cache. I just happened to do a positional accuracy test on a known cache. The coordinates I gained from standing there were 20 feet from the posted coordinates. The high res city image shows I was on top of the cache while the posted coords were actually 20 feet away. I'm in the middle of a review write up and will be posting it on my web when it is complete along with images.

[+RRLover]

Doc gave the thumbs up, glad to see, don't push it too far!

 

Norm....(aka Mr. titanium)

Edited January 5, 2009 by RRLover

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

On the flipside of that coin, it could actually lead to being led away from the cache. I just happened to do a positional accuracy test on a known cache. The coordinates I gained from standing there were 20 feet from the posted coordinates. The high res city image shows I was on top of the cache while the posted coords were actually 20 feet away. I'm in the middle of a review write up and will be posting it on my web when it is complete along with images.

I agree, I'm using the Hi-Res City imagery almost more than the coordinates lately.

[+coggins]

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=v8hzwz0n

 

Any more questions?

Yes, how would you rate the ford in the SE corner of the image, or was it a dry wash at the time?

[+Team CowboyPapa]

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=v8hzwz0n

 

Any more questions?

Yes, how would you rate the ford in the SE corner of the image, or was it a dry wash at the time?

Hey, Coggins, what a coincidence that you ask.

 

That crossing in the SE corner is known as the Second Crossing and that water has never been more than a foot deep for the last few years.

 

I've got a cache farther down to the south which got a comment about the depth at the Third Crossing, farther up to the north, two days ago:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ad-a6c64a9692c1

[+coggins]

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=v8hzwz0n

 

Any more questions?

Yes, how would you rate the ford in the SE corner of the image, or was it a dry wash at the time?

Hey, Coggins, what a coincidence that you ask.

 

That crossing in the SE corner is known as the Second Crossing and that water has never been more than a foot deep for the last few years.

 

I've got a cache farther down to the south which got a comment about the depth at the Third Crossing, farther up to the north, two days ago:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ad-a6c64a9692c1

Been looking into putting a snorkel on on of my Jeeps, helps with the dust but you know how deep it can get in SoCal on the right day, in the right place... Looks like a sandy bottom ford, makes for a messy crossing.

 

Back OT, I think WAAS is overrated, unless you're landing a plane under IFR.