Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
g-o-cashers

Garmin Oregon 2.86 Beta

Recommended Posts

Used a Or 300 last week in the hills/mountains in south of Spain.

My waas was working, Epe about 5 feet

The tracks I made are perfect and reading them back in Mapsource gives a very good result, also the tracks I made in very narrow alley's in Granada are ok

 

Splashy,

 

Compared to what? Did you have a 60csx with you to make a track comparison or does your track match up with the trails visible on Google Earth. I'm not doubting I'm just wondering what your reference was. :)

Edited by yogazoo

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Jetskier,

 

Well glad to hear some are getting good results with their Oregon. When you test your tracklog can you please try to test in "real world" environment...ya' know in and out of some tree cover. Out and back tracks are great to see the deviation in tracks. I wish I thought this problem was me, but my 76csx consistently works and tracks correctly. A 500 foot error can be quite "challenging" when looking for a track snow shoeing in the mountains.

 

cheers,

 

rd.

I'm doing some caching in the Ocala National Forest on Monday. Doesn't get any more "real world" than that. I'll make sure my friends send me their track logs so I can compare. I'll post my results next week.

 

JetSkier

Share this post


Link to post

I tested the tracklog with my Oregon 300 in the Ocala National Forest and I didn't see the huge "spikes" that have been reported. The biggest error I got was travelling south down a dirt road, finding a cache and then travelling back up north on that same road. The distance between the North and South track at it's widest point was only 18'. Here are some pics...

 

b2b6a34c-fc75-456b-8713-a218e3d29d1f.jpg

 

677e4094-9a60-4efb-a9e6-779dfc98ef36.jpg

 

Widest point on the next one is only 18' or .003 minutes:

ba1595de-f79b-422e-beac-df7bfdec8225.jpg

 

JetSkier

Share this post


Link to post

Your tracklogs in a vehicle traveling down the road are no surprise. That's really what we've been saying the whole time, in the car tracklogs are great. At driving speeds the Oregon Tracks just fine. I'm actually impressed with the tracklogs when I'm in my vehicle.

 

Where you need to really pay attention and compare tracks is when you're moving slowly (walking/hiking speeds). This is when the Oregon tracklog really gets funky.

 

Did you have WAAS at all during this outing?

 

Edited to add: Not to mention Florida is flat as a pancake and in a great location for WAAS birds. ;)

Edited by yogazoo

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't check my WAAS very often, but I did have it half the time I did check. Also, the trails in the ONF are dirt trails so our vehicle speed was no more than 20 mph. Even when we did hike to a cache, I did not see any "spikes". Two of my friends with the 60cx both said they get "spikes" in their tracklogs sometimes. So I guess the Oregon is doing what the 60 would do here in Florida.

 

JetSkier

Share this post


Link to post

As well for me in BC. Haven't tried it yet in a car, but hiking or walking is very erratic. I have been testing it further with a bunch of hiking tracks that I recorded over the years on my 76csx and many times the Oregon will take me WAY off track. It actually seems the slower I go the worse it is.

Share this post


Link to post

i have a curious bug:

i have different profiles with different map views - north,automotive

 

sometimes the profile with the north view has the automotive view

 

can anyone confirm that bug?

Edited by freeday

Share this post


Link to post

It appears DeLorme has seen significant improvement in the WAAS area, maybne Garmin will too soon? Since we're using the same Chipset, I thought this would be of interest to some of you!

 

I have seen 5' (feet) accuracy many times, so we're getting there! :lol:

 

Good luck to you all!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

It appears DeLorme has seen significant improvement in the WAAS area, maybne Garmin will too soon? Since we're using the same Chipset, I thought this would be of interest to some of you!

 

I have seen 5' (feet) accuracy many times, so we're getting there! :lol:

 

Good luck to you all!

 

Is it true accuracy improvement or just re-doing the equation to make the accuracy number smaller? There is some discussion here that 2.86 didn't improve accuracy, just the perception.

Share this post


Link to post

It appears DeLorme has seen significant improvement in the WAAS area, maybne Garmin will too soon? Since we're using the same Chipset, I thought this would be of interest to some of you!

 

I have seen 5' (feet) accuracy many times, so we're getting there! :lol:

 

Good luck to you all!

 

Is it true accuracy improvement or just re-doing the equation to make the accuracy number smaller? There is some discussion here that 2.86 didn't improve accuracy, just the perception.

 

I have seen much better accuracy, but I can only speak for myself. I've also had WAAS lock where I never had before!

Share this post


Link to post

As well for me in BC. Haven't tried it yet in a car, but hiking or walking is very erratic. I have been testing it further with a bunch of hiking tracks that I recorded over the years on my 76csx and many times the Oregon will take me WAY off track. It actually seems the slower I go the worse it is.

 

If you are tracking in canyons or similar the gps view is narrowed and trail might differ alot with the trail on the mapsource map, however if you do the same trail again you can most of the time follow the track you made before. I do this for years now in Az and Ne and never had any problems getting lost.

 

The basic question is what is the right trail not to get lost?

 

The one you made yourself doeing this track

The one mapsource shows you on the homecomputer

Edited by splashy

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Splashy,

 

These are trails I've hiked for years and the map for them comes directly from the track log of the 76csx. I know the track from the 76csx is correct because I can follow it directly on the unit and it matches almost (within a few feet) exactly with the trail. These are not canyons. I live in the mountains, but there is intermittent tree cover (very seldom heavy tree cover). Now when I load these same saved tracks into the Oregon and hike these same trails the errors are obvious. If I follow the track I have loaded on the Oregon it can veer me off of the known trail by hundreds of feet. If I followed it blindly (and who would) it would have twice walked me off of a large cliff into a mountain river.

 

So the error has nothing to do with Mapsource but directly a difference in the two units. When following the track in the 76csx it guides me correctly, when using the Oregon it guides me incorrectly. This tells me that the lat/long "accuracy" of the Oregon is off and/or drifts easily.

 

cheers,

rd

Share this post


Link to post

Right, that's exactly what I mean.

Make a new track with you new gps and you will be fine next time.

 

And yes maybe the Or has track errors, but so will be the case on the 76

The problem is, we want the track to be the same as the trail on the Mapsource/homecomputer

if it's not the same we call it a error, but as long as the Gps does not have a stable 5-6 feet EpE or a VERY clear view to the sky from begin to end of the track, all your tracks will differ a bit.

 

I don't think the Or is more incorrect then any other good working garmin, it's a hype to say so.

As I said last week I used the Or in alley's in Granada Spain in my pocket, the track shows more or less where I went, but don't expect it to be right on the alley on the map.

 

The tracks on and in the valleys in the hills/mountains are most of the time near to perfect with a working waas

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Splashy,

 

It doesn't work. I used the Oregon to map a couple of trails that I know. I then used those exact same track logs to hike the trail now letting the Oregon guide me (remember these were tracklogs that were created on the Oregon). If I followed the tracklogs it had me going all over the place...many times hundreds of feet off of the trail. This is further evidenced by the fact that on an out and back trail, where the tracklog should look like one trail, the tracklog would show differences of over 500 feet on the Oregon. Again these were tracklogs only created on the Oregon. If I use the Oregon to map a trail in the summer, then snowshoe it in the winter and it's "deviation" takes me well off the trail it could lead to big trouble here in the mountains. Imagine hiking and mapping a trail in one direction then using the GPS to guide me along the trail at a different time in the reverse direction...large guidance errors could be catastrophic. As a final note I loaded the tracklogs that the Oregon created into my 76csx and then used the 76csx to guide me. Once again I was all over the place. The only conclusion left was that the tracklog created by the Oregon was in error.

 

cheers,

 

rd.

Share this post


Link to post

There MUST be something wrong somewhere, 500 ft is much to much.

You're right, I could not find my trail that way, this error happens with how many sats fix and are the sats in a broad view, or more or less lined up behind each others?

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Spashy,

 

There was always a minimum of 5 strong signals (and usually 3-4 more weaker signals). They were well spread out. I just posted a screen capture of my results on Flickr on a day when I walked one trail with the 76csx in one hand and the Oregon in the other. Unfortunately Flickr will take a day or two before I can link to the photos, but as soon as I can I'll repost here. As a side note the results I've had with V2.85 have been much better (still way worse than the 76csx, but better). Keep watching for the posted screen captures.

 

cheers,

 

rd.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the post with the screen shots. On this day I walked this short walk with the 76csx in one hand and the Oregon with V2.86 in the other hand. As you can see from the map underneath the first part of the walk is on roads with clear sky view (both units showed strong signals and minimal positional error), the remainder is very very light tree cover. Neither unit on WAAS.

 

76csx

3309809942_7a20856cf6.jpg

 

Oregon V2.86

3309810012_93c5a8f0eb.jpg

 

The trail is out and back and the error on the Oregon is over 500 feet. I was able to reproduce this multiple times with V2.86. With V2.85 better, but still pretty bad.

 

I hope it gets better. In conversing with Garmin they have not indicated that it is a problem just with my unit and from seeing many of the other posts I'm sure it isn't.

 

cheers,

 

rd.

Share this post


Link to post

I've finally got my Oregon back and have been trying 2.85 and 2.86 over the past several days. While this isn't much run time I've definitely seen some drift/location errors in 2.86 that aren't in 2.85 or earlier releases. For me 2.85 works about as well as any past release of the Oregon software, good overall, but it tended to produce very smooth, heavily averaged tracks that cut sharp corners.

 

With 2.86 the unit is very "jumpy", the map page and compass rotate constantly and the tracks are very noisy. But the worst part are the location errors, I've seen two in the two tests I've run so far and they are on the order of 100-200'.

 

I've sent the gpx file to Garmin today in hopes that they can fix this one before it exits beta.

 

I didn't notice any improvements with WAAS. I did notice that EPE is much lower, typically about 8' if reception is decent. I did see EPE jump up very high when there was an error -- a good thing, because at least I knew something bad was happening.

 

Either way, I would steer clear of 2.86 until this is fixed.

Share this post


Link to post

So far I was one of the guys heavily complaining about the accuracy of the Oregon on 2.86. However, in the meantime I took my Oregon on multiple geocaching trips and actually started to love its accuracy as long as I use the unit in the following way:

 

- Make sure that the Oregon has been switched on for at least 15 minutes

- Re-calibrate the compass

- Once you arrive at the coordinates just wait some time before you trust the Oregon

 

Following these rules my Oregon would precisely stop at the location of the cache in 20 out of 30 cases! In the remaining 10 cases it wasn't that bad either (just a couple of feet away which might of course also have been due to inaccurate coordinates of the cache itself). This is even true under heavy tree cover. I even do get a signal inside the house with the hurricane shutters down. It just seems as you have to give it some time until it is as accurate as it claims it is.

 

So far I haven't checked on the accuracy of my tracklogs. However, I did record a track while I was out kajaking and the recorded track showed a smooth line (again after assuring that the unit was switched on for at least 15 minutes before relying on it). I then recorded a tracklog while driving around in the vicinity and checked that tracklog against openstreetmap. Again, the tracklog was right in the middle of the roads...

 

I didn't change a thing on my unit since I wrote those negative reports about the accuracy of 2.86. I don't have any idea why it seems to be so much better now... Last time I definitely was more impatient when arriving at a cache. Now I slow things down a little and tend to re-calibrate my compass more often.

 

So here's a suggestion to the people at Garmin (in case you are reading this forum): Seems like there are a lot of people in this forum who would be willing to act as voluntary beta testers (I know I would). Why don't you guys just exploit this and coordinate whatever tests you think would be helpful for you. I'd be happy to collect some traces as long as this would help to improve the quality of my unit...

Edited by binzi

Share this post


Link to post

4.) Being back on v2.85 beta I unfortunately do experience a problem I already had before with this version: When the screen goes black while routing somewhere and I touch the screen to make it come back again, the screen turns white and stays white until I reset the Oregon. This happens like 1 in 25 times. Did anyone have the same problems with v2.85beta?

 

This bug was introduced back when the screen blanking feature was added in 2.7. I've seen it several times and it happens when: the screen has blanked, you get a routing turn alert and you touch the screen at about the same time you get the alert.

Share this post


Link to post

My Oregon 300 (2.86) must be broken :)

 

For the first time since I bought it, did I get an EGNOS lock!

Today in the morning I did a master reset (pressing left upper corner while switching it on), put the Oregon onto my balcony, had a shower, came back and all the bars had Ds in it!!!

How cool is that :D

 

On another note, so far 2.86 worked better for me than any other firmware prior to that, until that day about two weeks ago, when I took it with me on a trip to Austria. I was searching for a geocache in the mountains (tree cover, boulders, stone walls, etc) and the maps page and compass page went completely bonkers and they were pointing into different directions every other second or so. Mind you, from what I could see on the map my position was pretty much spot on. Despite that, I have never experienced any drift problems yet (touch wood...)

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. 2.86 works great for me. I pick up WAAS. And my track logs are fine. Last week two of us (each with OR 2.86) did a 5 km hike. Our track logs, out and back were right on top of each other.

 

I am quite happy with it. I do notice a very slight delay in changing profiles but nothing that is intolerable.

 

Now if they would only update the Wherigo player.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm beginning to think that v2.86 may be regionally wonky. It's funny to me that some folks get terrible results (me included) and others appear to get great results. I've done test after test and each time (under varying PDOP) I lose more confidence in the Oregon's ability to draw a consistant track.

 

It's also funny how some people are drowning in WAAS correction and many can't even fill a shot glass. Hmmmm, not sure what to make of it. Could there be a hardware divergence? Could it be regional? Anyone have any thoughts?

 

Here's my thought: In open, relatively flat terrain with minimal to moderate tree cover, the Oregon tracklog can remain stable and pick up (and keep) WAAS corrections. When you get a bit in the trees and have some hilly terrain for signals to bounce off (introducing bad data) the Oregon has trouble discerning what is a real signal and what is bounce (making for the kind of erratic tracklog I experience). This would be funny to me because discriminating what is real and what is bounce was supposed to be one of the Cartesio chipset strengths. I'm convinced they don't quite have the chipset firmware dialed in yet.

 

Just a thought :)

Edited by yogazoo

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm interesting thought. Thinking about it, in my case I had the terrible results while I was in Germany. At the moment I'm in Florida and the Oregon works like a charm. It is always spot on. I did another 30 or so caches and in the vast majority I would land exactly on top of the cache. Even if the cache was somewhere in the woods or the mangroves. Even under heavy tree cover I had very good reception and would land right on top of the caches. Btw I didn't get a WAAS signal so I switched the GPS to normal mode.

 

When I'm back to Germany I will do some additional testing and post my results here. I'll give the Oregon plenty of time to build up its almanac and will also give it some time to settle when I arrive at GZ.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank You Binzi. You point out something very interesting that I never noticed before. Most of the folks who are getting great results with the Oregon v2.86 are geocachers zeroing in on stationary coordinates. This brings me to my next statement. My beef is not so much with the stationary positional accuracy but with the units tracklog ability. When your moving and the Oregon is laying down a track, for me, it is HORRIBLE in its accuracy. Sure a single position after waiting for 30 minutes for it to settle down would be no problem. It's the moving or instantaneous positioning that troubles me. There is a big difference between stationary positioning and moving tracklogs.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Yogazoo,

 

Perhaps it is regional, but even under relatively open sky I'm having troubles (and forget WAAS altogether even tho' my 76csx locks on no problems). However, I also think it may be speed related. Even though I've reverted to V2.85 I still get the errors (although not nearly as bad). When I'm on a slow hike or snow shoe I seem to get the majority of drift errors, however twice now I've used the unit cross country skiing and noticed the tracklogs to be much better. Very similar terrain the only real difference is that I'm moving much faster skiing. Perhaps going slower it's allowing more of the reflected signals to "corrupt" the position calculation????

 

Anyhow my 2 cents worth. Looking forward to the next revision...like you I think the new chipset f/w is not fully flushed out yet.

 

rd.

Share this post


Link to post

Been using 2.86 since they released it. I haven't had any problems with it specifically. At no time have I had any kind of drift that shows me hundreds of feet away from where I'm really at or really was at. The track does get wacky when moving at a walking pace but it did that before 2.86. Makes that final 50 feet to a cache an unacceptable PITA. WAAS appears to work fine for me although I'm doubtful that it's making any meaningful difference. The EPE stays the same after WAAS sat data is is acquired.

 

I'm hopeful that they'll get it dialed in soon...ah, eventually. If they don't...well, I've purchased my last Garmin product.

 

Matt

Edited by mattalbr

Share this post


Link to post

I really want to see 10 posts in a row where the word "tracklog" is not used. [:rolleyes:]

 

I just upped to 2.86. I live in Michigan...so I will see what I see.

Share this post


Link to post

I really want to see 10 posts in a row where the word "tracklog" is not used. [:unsure:]

 

I just upped to 2.86. I live in Michigan...so I will see what I see.

 

Move to a chessforum, they won't bother you with this gps stuff :rolleyes:

 

If you don't need help, some stuff seems ridiculous.

If you need a help, every answer might be the helping one.

Share this post


Link to post

I also just upgraded to the beta and will see what happens...

 

Maybe I will upload a "tracklog" LOL SORRY - I could not resist

 

DD

 

 

I really want to see 10 posts in a row where the word "tracklog" is not used. [:unsure:]

 

I just upped to 2.86. I live in Michigan...so I will see what I see.

 

Move to a chessforum, they won't bother you with this gps stuff :rolleyes:

 

If you don't need help, some stuff seems ridiculous.

If you need a help, every answer might be the helping one.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok Guys,

Got a new one for you. I'm running 2.86 for a couple of weeks now. My found caches have been reverting back to unfound. This has happened twice now. I load PQs using GSAK. I only get PQs once a week and I import my finds to GSAK before Importing new queries. Last time it happened I had been out caching and logged my finds on GC the next day but not into gsak. The next day I sent a cache directly to the GPSr and now I have 1 found cache. Any ideas?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post

Check \Garmin\GPX for gpx files. If the cache is showing up as unfound on the OR it must me in a gpx file in that directory and marked as unfound. It could be that an old gpx file with the unfound cache is somehow getting precedence over the same cache in a different gpx file that is marked found. This shouldn't happen but I think it does in some cases.

 

To fix the problem the easiest thing to do is delete all the gpx files in this directory, download your caches from gsak from scratch and whenever you update from GSAK make sure you write the exact same file as you did the first time. If for some reason you download a single cache gpx file in the interim just delete it when you download from GSAK the next time to keep that directory as clean as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm beginning to wonder if Garmin got the battery gauge profiles reversed for NiMH and alkaline. When using NiMH batteries the gauge shows less bars in the NiMH profile than when I set the profile to alkaline. Shouldn't the gauge show more bars on the NiMH profile when using NiMH batteries since NiMH cells are typically 1.2v and alkaline cells 1.5v? It's the same for beta 2.85 and 2.86. I'm currently using beta 2.86 on an Oregon 300, and now using the alkaline profile for NiMH batteries as it seems to be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

with 2.86b

 

1)

oregon hangs up during deleting current track (only remove of batteries solved the problem)

 

2)

running on a street in one direction and back the same street, i had an position error of more than 80 meters!!!

 

bbnyev98.jpg

Edited by freeday

Share this post


Link to post

I have a Oregon 400t of Taiwan version, The latest software of Taiwan GARMIN is v2.80

I encountered about the GPS accuracy problem two times, you can see the problem from the following picture.

001ssm.jpg

I stay here over 10 minutes ... Oregon 400t keep error ...

 

Oregon 400t coords : N23 12.296 E120 39.992 (Over 100 meters)

60CSx coords : N23 12.235 E120 40.035 (correct)

 

Oregon 400t GPS Elevation : -77m (Over 500 meters)

60CSx GPS Elevation : 479m (correct)

 

:anibad:;):D

Share this post


Link to post

New Question concerning maps on an Oregon 400c. Just got a 400c a couple of days ago. First thing I did was to update software to 2.86. Customized all profiles and settings to my likes. Have U.S Topo v3, CN NT v8, a few custom maps installed. Problem is when I zoom in I loose the Topo and/or street detail and it reverts to the base map being Blue Chart with only the major streets and highways.

 

Ex. in Automotive Profile with only CN NT v8 and U.S. Marine g2i v2.51 enabled my street detail appears at zoom level 0.2 miles, as I continue to zoom in all street detail disappears at zoom level 500' and I only see the base map. In Setup: Detail set to Normal; Shaded Relief Off; Text Size set to Medium for all choices; Zoom Levels all set to Auto.

 

Ex. in Recreational Profile with only U.S. Topo v3 enabled and U.S. Marine g2i v2.51 plus a couple of Custom Maps all topo detail is lost at zoom level 0.2 miles and is no longer viewable until zoomed out to 0.3 miles.

 

Another problem I've encountered is on one of my Custom Maps that has a custom dashed & dotted polyline (typ file) that particular custom poly line is not viewable in Blue Charts when Setup > Marine > Marine Chart Mode is set to either Nautical or Fishing. When set to Off the custom poly line is viewable. All other standard polylines in the Typ file are not affected, appearing in their proper colors.

 

Anyone have any suggestions or can replicate this problem before I call Garmin or revert back to software v2.85?. I have searched the Oregon wiki but did not see this particular problem addressed. Thanks.

 

edit: Downgraded to software v2.85 beta and still get same results as above with maps not viewing properly. I can disable Blue Charts (base map) and I can veiw street detail all the way down to 20 ft. zoom level but then you can't zoom out beyond zoom level 50 miles as noted in the wiki and screen redraws are very slow.

edit: 3-8-09 Downgraded to v2.80 and still get same results; beginning to wonder if problem is with the layering of Blue Charts base map in association with other maps, since I haven't heard of any similiar problems with the 400t or 440i?

Edited by eaparks

Share this post


Link to post

I am really starting to a confidence about the idea that DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE...your Oregon will have different reactions. The comparison above with the 60 and the 400t is obviously not user wide. That is an anomoly on your unit...or your location. I am in Michigan USA. Mine gets single digit accurracy 8/10 times...outside that. low teens. I do not have drift issues in my tracklogs..nor does it ever lock up. there is a 2 second delay when changing profiles that was not present in 2.80...but who cares...I see the hourgass..then I don't, and my profile is changed. If people who updated and ha d positive experience would post on here more..the negatives would be less magnified. I do not think the negatives should be overlooked...just not made into any kind of standard, as they seem to be on occasion.

 

-WHO-DEY

Share this post


Link to post

I have a Oregon 400t of Taiwan version, The latest software of Taiwan GARMIN is v2.80

I encountered about the GPS accuracy problem two times, you can see the problem from the following picture.

001ssm.jpg

I stay here over 10 minutes ... Oregon 400t keep error ...

 

Oregon 400t coords : N23 12.296 E120 39.992 (Over 100 meters)

60CSx coords : N23 12.235 E120 40.035 (correct)

 

Oregon 400t GPS Elevation : -77m (Over 500 meters)

60CSx GPS Elevation : 479m (correct)

 

:(:):D

 

Saw this one time on my Oregon400t(v2.86)...oddly enough it was this weekend. A few minutes after start up the GPSr was showing -1100 ft on the satellite page. A power cycle took care of the problem.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post

I have a Oregon 400t of Taiwan version, The latest software of Taiwan GARMIN is v2.80

I encountered about the GPS accuracy problem two times, you can see the problem from the following picture.

I stay here over 10 minutes ... Oregon 400t keep error ...

 

Oregon 400t coords : N23 12.296 E120 39.992 (Over 100 meters)

60CSx coords : N23 12.235 E120 40.035 (correct)

 

Oregon 400t GPS Elevation : -77m (Over 500 meters)

60CSx GPS Elevation : 479m (correct)

 

:(:):D

 

Given the satellites available on both units and their locations I'm not surprised (probably explains the 12m EPE on both units as well). The OR screen is a little out of focus but it looks like you had three satellites up quite high and maybe one/two more out on the horizon. Also looks like you were inside. The occasional drift problems I've been seeing on 2.86 happen outside under tree cover but I still see 7-9 satellites.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm beginning to wonder if Garmin got the battery gauge profiles reversed for NiMH and alkaline. When using NiMH batteries the gauge shows less bars in the NiMH profile than when I set the profile to alkaline. Shouldn't the gauge show more bars on the NiMH profile when using NiMH batteries since NiMH cells are typically 1.2v and alkaline cells 1.5v? It's the same for beta 2.85 and 2.86. I'm currently using beta 2.86 on an Oregon 300, and now using the alkaline profile for NiMH batteries as it seems to be more accurate.

 

I'm using 2700mAh NiMH batteries with the battery type set to NiMH and I've seen decent results. The meter is pretty linear in terms of how long it takes to burn through each bar. I have not tried any Alkalines so I can't comment there.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using 2700mAh NiMH batteries with the battery type set to NiMH and I've seen decent results. The meter is pretty linear in terms of how long it takes to burn through each bar. I have not tried any Alkalines so I can't comment there.

 

I am using Energizer Alkalines for now in my Oregon 400t. I had a ton on hand. depending on what I am doing, and how often the backlight is requested to be on...it cna burn kind of quickly, all things being relative. I can cache all day, and i am alright with a pair.

 

MY QUESTIONS IS THIS: WHAT RECHARGEABLES ARE RECCOMENDED, BRAND ETC? AND HOW LONG IS THE LIFE, FROM WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED?

 

I would like to buy some..looking for a reference.

Share this post


Link to post

2700mAh NiMH batteries will last me about 10-12 with heavy backlight use, compass off. I use PowerEx (Maha) NiMH batteries and recommend the Maha C-9000 or LaCrosse BC-900 chargers.

 

Some test results with these batteries on the Oregon can be found here:

 

http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=199

Share this post


Link to post

HEY, I use the exact same setup - PowerEx 2700 mAh batteries and a C-9000 charger: Awesome combo! awesome Batteries!

 

2700mAh NiMH batteries will last me about 10-12 with heavy backlight use, compass off. I use PowerEx (Maha) NiMH batteries and recommend the Maha C-9000 or LaCrosse BC-900 chargers.

 

Some test results with these batteries on the Oregon can be found here:

 

http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=199

Share this post


Link to post

I'm beginning to wonder if Garmin got the battery gauge profiles reversed for NiMH and alkaline. When using NiMH batteries the gauge shows less bars in the NiMH profile than when I set the profile to alkaline. Shouldn't the gauge show more bars on the NiMH profile when using NiMH batteries since NiMH cells are typically 1.2v and alkaline cells 1.5v? It's the same for beta 2.85 and 2.86. I'm currently using beta 2.86 on an Oregon 300, and now using the alkaline profile for NiMH batteries as it seems to be more accurate.

 

I've noticed the same thing using Rayovac Hybrid batteries...just wondering, any ill effects (lasting or otherwise) that could result from not matching the battery type in the menu with what is actually installed in the GPS unit?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using Duracell 2650mAh NiMH cells, but that's irrelevant. Whatever battery you're using, the profile for NiMH should always read more bars than the alkaline profile. Why, because NiMH AA cells are 1.2 volts whereas alkaline AA cells are 1.5 volts. The profile for two NiMH cells should read full at 2.4 volts, and two alkaline cells should read full at 3 volts.

 

For example: say my two NiMH cells are partly depleted and putting out 2 volts total, and say the battery power meter shows this as 2 out of 4 bars. If I leave the NiMH cells in place and merely change the setting to the alkaline profile, the battery meter should show a decrease as it now thinks the cells are capable of putting out more voltage. Instead the battery meter shows an extra power bar (3 out of 4).

Edited by Low Bat

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like version 2.93 has been relesed. have a look at this linky

 

looking at the following resonce from Garmin it might sort out the tack log issue.

 

Thank you for testing Oregon Beta Software 2.86. We have released

Oregon Beta 2.93. This software has some changes to GPS performance. You

can download it here: http://www8.garmin.com/support/blosp.jsp

 

Please let us know if this improves the issues you have been having with

GPS reception.

 

I have yet to test, but I hope it sorts out some other issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...