Groundspeak Forums: Vista Cx - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Vista Cx what if the coords are off?

#1 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 19 May 2007 - 05:39 PM

When i eventually find someone to compare coordinates with and say my gps is way off how do you fix it? is it something i would have to send back in or could it be caused also by the 2.70 patch?

Just curiouse.

The post reguarding comparing my gps

#2 User is offline   fratermus 

  • prodigal cacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1185
  • Joined: 08-January 05

Posted 19 May 2007 - 05:56 PM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

When i eventually find someone to compare coordinates with and say my gps is way off how do you fix it? is it something i would have to send back in or could it be caused also by the 2.70 patch?


The most common thing is wrong datum.

#3 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 19 May 2007 - 06:03 PM

View Postfratermus, on May 19 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

When i eventually find someone to compare coordinates with and say my gps is way off how do you fix it? is it something i would have to send back in or could it be caused also by the 2.70 patch?


The most common thing is wrong datum.



Yes its set to WGS84 datum

#4 User is offline   fratermus 

  • prodigal cacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1185
  • Joined: 08-January 05

Posted 19 May 2007 - 06:10 PM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Yes its set to WGS84 datum


And it was set that way when the coords were uploaded/entered?

The second most common problem is for the coord to be typoed when entering it. We can assume if it was uploaded from .loc/.gpx that the coord was correct, and the the coord was *intended* to be correct (some caches have fake/altered coords in them for puzzle purposes).

#5 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 19 May 2007 - 06:16 PM

View Postfratermus, on May 19 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Yes its set to WGS84 datum


And it was set that way when the coords were uploaded/entered?

The second most common problem is for the coord to be typoed when entering it. We can assume if it was uploaded from .loc/.gpx that the coord was correct, and the the coord was *intended* to be correct (some caches have fake/altered coords in them for puzzle purposes).



Yea its defaulted that way.

And i use GSAK to upload all coordinates. And a couple of the caches had changed coordinates and i entered them in if needed.


Here are some screenshots.

Posted Image Posted Image

This post has been edited by Kraz3yCacher: 19 May 2007 - 07:35 PM


#6 User is offline   imajeep 

  • Team Veeneman
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 12-May 07

Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:46 AM

It also depends on what you mean by 'way off'. The normal margin of error for even the best consumer units is about 15 - 20 ft. So, if someone is 20 ft in one direction, and you are 20 ft off in another direction, you could be talking about a forty-foot variation.

And unless you have verified the accuracy of your unit, don't trust its accuracy indicator. I started off with an eTrex Vista Cx that regularly showed an accuracy of 6 ft. I tested the unit by plotting waypoints with it at exact positions on landmarks that I knew would show up on Google Earth photos. Measuring with Google Earth, I found a true accuracy of about 15 - 20 ft under good reception conditions.

I recently upgraded to the Garmin 60 Csx. The unit generally reports an accuracy of 15' to 18'. So, if you went just by the units' accuracy indicators, the 60 seems less accurate than the Vista. I re-ran my tests on the 60, and found that true accuracy was in the range of 15 - 18 feet under good reception conditions. The tests show that the 60 is simply much better at reporting its accuracy.

So, run some tests to get an idea of the true accuracy of your unit. If you can, try to run some of them under degraded reception conditions, such as a woods or a canyon. That will give you a better idea of the true accuracy of your unit.

#7 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 20 May 2007 - 08:00 AM

View Postimajeep, on May 20 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

It also depends on what you mean by 'way off'. The normal margin of error for even the best consumer units is about 15 - 20 ft. So, if someone is 20 ft in one direction, and you are 20 ft off in another direction, you could be talking about a forty-foot variation.

And unless you have verified the accuracy of your unit, don't trust its accuracy indicator. I started off with an eTrex Vista Cx that regularly showed an accuracy of 6 ft. I tested the unit by plotting waypoints with it at exact positions on landmarks that I knew would show up on Google Earth photos. Measuring with Google Earth, I found a true accuracy of about 15 - 20 ft under good reception conditions.

I recently upgraded to the Garmin 60 Csx. The unit generally reports an accuracy of 15' to 18'. So, if you went just by the units' accuracy indicators, the 60 seems less accurate than the Vista. I re-ran my tests on the 60, and found that true accuracy was in the range of 15 - 18 feet under good reception conditions. The tests show that the 60 is simply much better at reporting its accuracy.

So, run some tests to get an idea of the true accuracy of your unit. If you can, try to run some of them under degraded reception conditions, such as a woods or a canyon. That will give you a better idea of the true accuracy of your unit.




Yea i understand a few feet :D but a few of those caches put me 50 yards away and if it wasnt for the great detailed hints or story on that one lol i wouldnt have found it. So i'm just waiting to see if i can hook up with someone to compare coordinates.

#8 User is offline   hogrod 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 07-October 04

Posted 20 May 2007 - 08:00 AM

Is this the same problem you were having Before?
http://forums.Ground...howtopic=163141

I just recently bought a vista CX and also own a legendC. I too have noticed the unit can be off more in poor signal environments than my legendC ever was. I decided to check my 60cx, legendC, and vista CX at a known GPS observed benchmark.... all were within 10ft or better of the benchmark(large hill, 360degree view of sky).
so seeing my vista CX can be very accurate I decided to see if something else was causing some possition errors....
well after some time playing with marking waypoints, going to waypoints, comparing numbers with my other two garmins.... it seems as though the vista CX doesn't update it position very frequently when stationary.(at least mine doesn't)

overall the vista CX is a great GPS but I would have assumed it would have at least been as good as my legendC for position updates/accuracy, that doesn't seem to be the case. hopefully this is something they can address in a future firmware update.

#9 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 20 May 2007 - 08:39 AM

View Posthogrod, on May 20 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

Is this the same problem you were having Before?
http://forums.Ground...howtopic=163141

I just recently bought a vista CX and also own a legendC. I too have noticed the unit can be off more in poor signal environments than my legendC ever was. I decided to check my 60cx, legendC, and vista CX at a known GPS observed benchmark.... all were within 10ft or better of the benchmark(large hill, 360degree view of sky).
so seeing my vista CX can be very accurate I decided to see if something else was causing some possition errors....
well after some time playing with marking waypoints, going to waypoints, comparing numbers with my other two garmins.... it seems as though the vista CX doesn't update it position very frequently when stationary.(at least mine doesn't)

overall the vista CX is a great GPS but I would have assumed it would have at least been as good as my legendC for position updates/accuracy, that doesn't seem to be the case. hopefully this is something they can address in a future firmware update.



Yea i use to have the magellan sportrak color and it was amazing on finding locations. This is is a lot more expensive and a lot better in options and it doesnt seem to be as good finding coordinates.

And i'm aware of the overhead "trees, bad storms, etc." and like the cache that is close to iphop is in the open :blink:.

I'm just waiting on someone to reply or pm me to go have some fun finding a few caches together :D

Or if someone has an equivelant gps as the vista Cx and tell me exactly what settings they use. such as "Display - Degrees, North reference - True, switch to compass heading when below 25mh for more than 5 secs, and other settings. I did notices that my vista cx is slow on updating where you are as well.

#10 User is offline   Night Stalker 

  • Heavily Traveled Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2009
  • Joined: 24-May 02

Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:13 PM

You need to cache with someone else and see if you both come up with the same results. I have been unlucky enough to hunt caches that were as much as 150 feet off. It may be an issue with the coordinates the hider entered, not what you entered.

#11 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:21 PM

View PostNight Stalker, on May 20 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

You need to cache with someone else and see if you both come up with the same results. I have been unlucky enough to hunt caches that were as much as 150 feet off. It may be an issue with the coordinates the hider entered, not what you entered.



yea i hope its just a matter of the placer mixing a few numbers. A c-worker that works in the allen office has a friend that is a geocacher but i dont know his name so i'll have him email him tomorrow. :D

I'll keep an update as well

#12 User is offline   hogrod 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 07-October 04

Posted 24 May 2007 - 03:53 AM

This seems a bit strange but when I bought my vista CX it came with 2.60 software version and it was on par with both my legendC and 60cx. I upgraded the unit software to 2.70 and noticed a greatly reduced ability to give accurate coordinates.
When going to known waypoints(Averaged with numerous GPSr over the years) I was consistently between 20-30FT off, so I decided to test things out.
I marked hundereds of waypoints & averaged waypoints with my 60cx, LegendC, & VistaCX and comparing the numbers on the computer. The vista was always off more than the other two, they gave very close numbers.
So after trying with WAAS, with out WAAS, resetting the unit, I finally decided to try software version 2.60 again..... it seemed to have made the unit more accurate again!!!

I can now get my unit to within 5-20ft of waypoints, something I never could do with 2.70 firmware. Maybe the issue was something else, but at least this seemed to fix my problems. Just remember if you try the older unit software you will loose all your settings/waypoints when you upload it.

#13 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 24 May 2007 - 05:12 AM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 20 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

View PostNight Stalker, on May 20 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

You need to cache with someone else and see if you both come up with the same results. I have been unlucky enough to hunt caches that were as much as 150 feet off. It may be an issue with the coordinates the hider entered, not what you entered.



yea i hope its just a matter of the placer mixing a few numbers. A c-worker that works in the allen office has a friend that is a geocacher but i dont know his name so i'll have him email him tomorrow. ;)

I'll keep an update as well


I have been wanting to go back to 2.60. Wen i bought my vista cx about 2 weeks ago i opened the packaged played with it for about 5 min then upgraded the firmware. And i'm wondering if thats why my coordinates are off too. I just havent had time to go back to 2.60

My plane leaves back tonight at 7 and I will have all weekend to pretty much play with it. I will go to a cache i have been to a few blocks behind my house. Then revert back to 2.60 and see the difference.

I'll update within the next couple of days maybe sat.
Thanks
-Dave

This post has been edited by Kraz3yCacher: 24 May 2007 - 12:43 PM


#14 User is offline   fratermus 

  • prodigal cacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1185
  • Joined: 08-January 05

Posted 24 May 2007 - 08:05 AM

View Posthogrod, on May 20 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

overall the vista CX is a great GPS but I would have assumed it would have at least been as good as my legendC for position updates/accuracy, that doesn't seem to be the case. hopefully this is something they can address in a future firmware update.


My Venture CX is considerably less sensitive than my old b/w Legend. The legend will pull sattelites through the ceiling of my apartments and the CX sees none.

#15 User is offline   Phoenix2001 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 24-July 01

Posted 24 May 2007 - 12:54 PM

I am suspicious of version 2.7 for the Vista Cx. I haven't had it very long yet so there's not much experience with it. It came with 2.6 and I did a day hike while also using a 76S, and 76Cx. They all recorded similar track logs with normal errors.

I upgraded to version 2.7 just after the hike. I did another hike and ended up with a track log recorded by the Vista Cx that was offset from the other two until the end of the day. This happened on a couple other hikes too.
I've run some tests on a south facing window sill and had the Vista Cx give a position about 20 to 30 ft. to the east of positions given by a Venture, 76S, Map76, and 76Cx.

On the other hand, I've also done one hike where the Vista Cx recorded similar track logs to the 76Cx and a 76S. Also I've run one test at a surveyed benchmark with the Vista Cx, 76S, and 76Cx. With about 1500 points recorded, the 76Cx happened to be on the the meter and the other two had one coordinate with a meter off.

So the "error" seems to need a view of the sky that's not optimal and also seems to be intermittent. I thought about going back to version 2.6 before I saw this thread. Eventually I'll probably try the older version after I gather some more test data.

There's also another minor problem where the differential indicators "D" are not removed from the satellite page when WAAS reception is disabled. I don't know if version 2.6 had this small problem.

#16 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 24 May 2007 - 12:58 PM

View PostPhoenix2001, on May 24 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

I am suspicious of version 2.7 for the Vista Cx. I haven't had it very long yet so there's not much experience with it. It came with 2.6 and I did a day hike while also using a 76S, and 76Cx. They all recorded similar track logs with normal errors.

I upgraded to version 2.7 just after the hike. I did another hike and ended up with a track log recorded by the Vista Cx that was offset from the other two until the end of the day. This happened on a couple other hikes too.
I've run some tests on a south facing window sill and had the Vista Cx give a position about 20 to 30 ft. to the east of positions given by a Venture, 76S, Map76, and 76Cx.

On the other hand, I've also done one hike where the Vista Cx recorded similar track logs to the 76Cx and a 76S. Also I've run one test at a surveyed benchmark with the Vista Cx, 76S, and 76Cx. With about 1500 points recorded, the 76Cx happened to be on the the meter and the other two had one coordinate with a meter off.

So the "error" seems to need a view of the sky that's not optimal and also seems to be intermittent. I thought about going back to version 2.6 before I saw this thread. Eventually I'll probably try the older version after I gather some more test data.

There's also another minor problem where the differential indicators "D" are not removed from the satellite page when WAAS reception is disabled. I don't know if version 2.6 had this small problem.



Hmm sounds like 2.70 may have more issues then the locked compass screen.

#17 User is offline   fratermus 

  • prodigal cacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1185
  • Joined: 08-January 05

Posted 24 May 2007 - 03:11 PM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

Posted Image Posted Image


Is that heading setup screen like that only on higher end CX units? I haven't found that "switch to compass" feature on my Venture CX yet. Looks very useful.

#18 User is offline   CenTexDodger 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1125
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 24 May 2007 - 07:27 PM

View Postfratermus, on May 24 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 19 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

Posted Image Posted Image


Is that heading setup screen like that only on higher end CX units? I haven't found that "switch to compass" feature on my Venture CX yet. Looks very useful.


That is because a Venture Cx does not have a compass. That tells the unit when to start using the Earths magnetic field to determine direction rather than heading based on satellites. You have to have a unit with a built in electronic (magnetic) compass. The Vista, the 60CSx, and the 76CSx all have it.

#19 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 25 May 2007 - 06:12 PM

well i just loaded 2.60 and i can already see one good feature. I can actually use the gps in the house. All satelites connect to my gps really great. 2.70 wouldnt let me use it in my house. I'm gonna see how close i can get to some of the caches tomorrow when theres daylight.

Fingers Crossed

This post has been edited by Kraz3yCacher: 25 May 2007 - 06:25 PM


#20 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 26 May 2007 - 11:59 AM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 25 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

well i just loaded 2.60 and i can already see one good feature. I can actually use the gps in the house. All satelites connect to my gps really great. 2.70 wouldnt let me use it in my house. I'm gonna see how close i can get to some of the caches tomorrow when theres daylight.

Fingers Crossed


Well i guess mine is still off. here is a screenshot with version 2.60 and 2.70 and where the cach is.

Posted Image

#21 User is offline   MODU_au 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 27 May 2007 - 03:36 AM

My poor Vista CX is in a sorry state, after trying to put some third party maps on, it told me it wasnt allowed to have maps. I updated the software to version 2.7 to see if that was the problem, now I have no pointer on the compass page, and some of the data fields are missing, which makes it very difficult to find a cache when I dont know which direction it is, and how far it is, unless I go back to the list of caches on the find page where at least I get the bearing and distance. Is it possible to reinstall version 2.6 of the software, and if so where do I get it from I can only find the v2.7 on the Garmin site. If it is not the software does anyone have any other ideas as to what could be wrong with the poor sick vista CX,and what I can do to try and fix it.
Thanks for any input, I am a little lost at the moment.
MODU.

#22 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 27 May 2007 - 09:08 AM

View PostMODU_au, on May 27 2007, 03:36 AM, said:

My poor Vista CX is in a sorry state, after trying to put some third party maps on, it told me it wasnt allowed to have maps. I updated the software to version 2.7 to see if that was the problem, now I have no pointer on the compass page, and some of the data fields are missing, which makes it very difficult to find a cache when I dont know which direction it is, and how far it is, unless I go back to the list of caches on the find page where at least I get the bearing and distance. Is it possible to reinstall version 2.6 of the software, and if so where do I get it from I can only find the v2.7 on the Garmin site. If it is not the software does anyone have any other ideas as to what could be wrong with the poor sick vista CX,and what I can do to try and fix it.
Thanks for any input, I am a little lost at the moment.
MODU.


Check your PM

#23 User is offline   hogrod 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 07-October 04

Posted 27 May 2007 - 04:08 PM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 26 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 25 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

well i just loaded 2.60 and i can already see one good feature. I can actually use the gps in the house. All satelites connect to my gps really great. 2.70 wouldnt let me use it in my house. I'm gonna see how close i can get to some of the caches tomorrow when theres daylight.

Fingers Crossed


Well i guess mine is still off. here is a screenshot with version 2.60 and 2.70 and where the cach is.

Posted Image


Looks like your map scale is about 20ft in that image, and each waypoint you have marked 2.70 & 2.60 are about 20ft off from the caches posted coordinates. This is probably due to two things, the cacher hiders accuracy when taking coordinates, and your units accuracty.

I used my vistaCX side by side with my 60cx for the last couple days of caches and have had no issues at all.

#24 User is offline   MODU_au 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 28 May 2007 - 12:36 AM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 27 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

View PostMODU_au, on May 27 2007, 03:36 AM, said:

My poor Vista CX is in a sorry state, after trying to put some third party maps on, it told me it wasnt allowed to have maps. I updated the software to version 2.7 to see if that was the problem, now I have no pointer on the compass page, and some of the data fields are missing, which makes it very difficult to find a cache when I dont know which direction it is, and how far it is, unless I go back to the list of caches on the find page where at least I get the bearing and distance. Is it possible to reinstall version 2.6 of the software, and if so where do I get it from I can only find the v2.7 on the Garmin site. If it is not the software does anyone have any other ideas as to what could be wrong with the poor sick vista CX,and what I can do to try and fix it.
Thanks for any input, I am a little lost at the moment.
MODU.


Check your PM

Thanks heaps Kraz3yCacher I have now loaded up version 2.6 and my pointer is back along with all of the other data. Since I can only Assume that since it doesnt look like anyone else is having the same problems with V2.7 it must have been a problem with when I did the update, and maybe if I tried again it would be ok ... nah maybe not I think I will stick with v2.6.

#25 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 28 May 2007 - 03:51 AM

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 26 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 25 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

well i just loaded 2.60 and i can already see one good feature. I can actually use the gps in the house. All satelites connect to my gps really great. 2.70 wouldnt let me use it in my house. I'm gonna see how close i can get to some of the caches tomorrow when theres daylight.

Fingers Crossed


Well i guess mine is still off. here is a screenshot with version 2.60 and 2.70 and where the cach is.

Posted Image



That looks pretty normal to me.

#26 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 28 May 2007 - 07:52 AM

View Postbriansnat, on May 28 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 26 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

View PostKraz3yCacher, on May 25 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

well i just loaded 2.60 and i can already see one good feature. I can actually use the gps in the house. All satelites connect to my gps really great. 2.70 wouldnt let me use it in my house. I'm gonna see how close i can get to some of the caches tomorrow when theres daylight.

Fingers Crossed


Well i guess mine is still off. here is a screenshot with version 2.60 and 2.70 and where the cach is.

Posted Image



That looks pretty normal to me.


Well its close they are all 30 feet apart.

A 30 foot radiouse is pretty big when looking for a needle in a haystack ;) "micro"

I guess i just really miss my sportrack color ;) But anyway how is it that different Vista Cx's have different readings. <- i'm guessing thats probably due to many different things.

#27 User is offline   frosin 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 13-September 06

Posted 28 May 2007 - 06:36 PM

I've had my Venture CX since December and have marveled at how close it hasa taken me to the caches. Then I installed 2.70 and found myself lost. When I would find caches, they would be 30-40 feet from ground zero.

I deleted 2.70 and reverted back to 2.60 and my problems appear to be solved. I'm once again finding caches at ground zero.

Fred

#28 User is offline   Jeff in Pa 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 27-March 07

Posted 29 May 2007 - 01:07 AM

View Postfrosin, on May 28 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

I've had my Venture CX since December and have marveled at how close it hasa taken me to the caches. Then I installed 2.70 and found myself lost. When I would find caches, they would be 30-40 feet from ground zero.

I deleted 2.70 and reverted back to 2.60 and my problems appear to be solved. I'm once again finding caches at ground zero.

Fred


Ok now several of you have commented on the old version 2.60 being a better version of software, I have the new (2.70) in my Vista CX but am wondering if my SAT reception would be better with 2.60. My CX seems to do very good on 2.70 but I never gave it a chance on 2.60, can someone give me a link to 2.60?

It would be greatly appreciated..


Thanks,

Jeff

#29 User is offline   allory 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 31-August 01

Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:09 AM

http://gpsinformatio...ry/etrex/vista/

#30 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 29 May 2007 - 05:29 AM

View PostJeff in Pa, on May 29 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

View Postfrosin, on May 28 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

I've had my Venture CX since December and have marveled at how close it hasa taken me to the caches. Then I installed 2.70 and found myself lost. When I would find caches, they would be 30-40 feet from ground zero.

I deleted 2.70 and reverted back to 2.60 and my problems appear to be solved. I'm once again finding caches at ground zero.

Fred


Ok now several of you have commented on the old version 2.60 being a better version of software, I have the new (2.70) in my Vista CX but am wondering if my SAT reception would be better with 2.60. My CX seems to do very good on 2.70 but I never gave it a chance on 2.60, can someone give me a link to 2.60?

It would be greatly appreciated..


Thanks,

Jeff



I think the main issue is the reception. And the locked compass page when you use "Go To" on version 2.70

I like the software really handy but its the 30 foot radiouse around a cache that i dont care for.
DGPS (WAAS) accuracy:
Position: < 3 meters, 95% typical
Velocity: 0.05 meter/sec steady state

Thats 10 feet. So yea mine is definately off. I dont really know what else to try. :)

#31 User is offline   Jeff in Pa 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 27-March 07

Posted 29 May 2007 - 01:28 PM

View Postallory, on May 29 2007, 07:09 AM, said:




Thank you allory!!

#32 User is offline   Kraz3yCacher 

  • Actually a member since: 20-May 05 "aka Dave1980"
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 16-May 07

Posted 31 May 2007 - 09:37 AM

View PostJeff in Pa, on May 29 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

View Postallory, on May 29 2007, 07:09 AM, said:




Thank you allory!!



I wonder when they are going to update the compass issue for v2.70.

#33 User is offline   paulmc 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 01-July 02

Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:46 AM

Re:
"And unless you have verified the accuracy of your unit, don't trust its accuracy indicator. I started off with an eTrex Vista Cx that regularly showed an accuracy of 6 ft. I tested the unit by plotting waypoints with it at exact positions on landmarks that I knew would show up on Google Earth photos. Measuring with Google Earth, I found a true accuracy of about 15 - 20 ft under good reception conditions."

Google Earth isn't accurate to 15-20 feet, or even 15-20 metres in most of the world.

Find a survey benchmark, look up its coordinates online (maybe a surveyor would help you with this), and place the gps on the point for a few minutes. See how close it comes, since the benchmark will be with a few millimetres. If you test against another gps you're just comparing your inaccuracy to their inaccuracy.

This post has been edited by paulmc: 01 June 2007 - 11:53 AM


#34 User is offline   imajeep 

  • Team Veeneman
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 12-May 07

Posted 01 June 2007 - 01:04 PM

View Postpaulmc, on Jun 1 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Google Earth isn't accurate to 15-20 feet, or even 15-20 metres in most of the world.

Find a survey benchmark, look up its coordinates online (maybe a surveyor would help you with this), and place the gps on the point for a few minutes. See how close it comes, since the benchmark will be with a few millimetres. If you test against another gps you're just comparing your inaccuracy to their inaccuracy.

Yeah, I discovered that later about Google Earth. Far less accurate that I initially thought. The suggestion about the survey benchmark is a good one.

I passed someone with a big honkin' commercial GPS unit doing some surveying today. I almost stopped and asked if I could compare my reading to the reading on the commercial unit. Then I decided that would be about the geekiest thing I had ever done in my life! :D

#35 User is offline   Mach2003 

  • Addicted Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 07 June 2007 - 03:36 PM

I have an interesting story to tell here: I have the Legend CX, same firmware as the Vista.

I used Webupdater to update to 2.70, then the unit was most often in "Week GPS signal mode", and had no or poor coverage and bad position.

I reverted back to 2.60 using the file downloaded from the link above. Reception was still bad.

Went back to 2.70 using Webupdater, but this time, when presented with the second option, that seemed to be the same update, I did not check it off.

2.70 works great now, except the compass page sticks, when goto geocache, off road. I have to menu, menu or click STOP to get it to allow page switches. EPE are as good or better than before the upgrade, and compare position accuracy to another unit is right on.

I HAVE sent this info off to Garmin.

#36 User is offline   Team JNLE4 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 07-September 03

Posted 22 June 2007 - 05:11 PM

I just purchased a VistaCX after much research and debate upon reading all the problems with accuracy. I previously had a B&W Vista and loved it. However, I dropped it and cracked the screen. After reading everything I decided I wanted to stay with a Garmin Vista b/c of the electronic compass and I would just upload the 2.6 firmware to deal with the accuracy problem. However, I thought I would at least test and see if the accuracy problem existed with my unit. I went caching with a friend who owns a Legend C and I took my old Vista along as well. My Vista worked the same as my previous one and at times more accurately than my friends Legend C. We were caching in dense tree cover and up and down hills and valleys. No problems. I've decided to keep the 2.7 firmware, until I see problems, but so far so good.

#37 User is offline   jackrock 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 18-September 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 03:44 AM

View Postfrosin, on May 28 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

I've had my Venture CX since December and have marveled at how close it hasa taken me to the caches. Then I installed 2.70 and found myself lost. When I would find caches, they would be 30-40 feet from ground zero.

I deleted 2.70 and reverted back to 2.60 and my problems appear to be solved. I'm once again finding caches at ground zero.

Fred



How did you delete 2.7 and go back to 2.6?

#38 User is offline   Mach2003 

  • Addicted Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 06:14 AM

just install 2.60, it will remove the newer version, and all your settings!

#39 User is offline   hyflyt 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 08 July 2007 - 08:05 AM

For what it's worth...I recently bought a Vista Cx. I fly for the Army Guard and have taken the Vista with me on some flights. If I program in some lat/long waypoints, the unit will cross the same waypoint as the aircraft nav always within .1 nautical mile, if not at the exact same time. I've also programed some lat/long waypoints that coincide with a runway and it's been right on. I would also note that we can set up our airplane unit to track military GPS which is "supposedly" more accurate...Vista is right on the mark.

#40 User is offline   Jamesonsdad 

  • urushiol sponge
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 19-May 07

Posted 08 July 2007 - 06:34 PM

I have the etrex venture Cx and also upgraded it right out of the box to 2.7. I'm a noob so I thought it was just my ability at first, but soon I realized that the coordinates were off on my unit more often than not. They are almost always off about 20' due east. To hunt a cache I find "ground zero" according to the venture and then move due west about 20' and start my search in earnest. As you can imagine, this makes hunting some caches a real pain.
I just loaded the 2.6 firmware back in and will revisit some of my earlier finds to see if this issue has been resolved.
Got my firmware here: eTrex Vista Cx Firmware

#41 User is offline   jackrock 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 18-September 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 05:16 PM

View PostJamesonsdad, on Jul 8 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

I have the etrex venture Cx and also upgraded it right out of the box to 2.7. I'm a noob so I thought it was just my ability at first, but soon I realized that the coordinates were off on my unit more often than not. They are almost always off about 20' due east. To hunt a cache I find "ground zero" according to the venture and then move due west about 20' and start my search in earnest. As you can imagine, this makes hunting some caches a real pain.
I just loaded the 2.6 firmware back in and will revisit some of my earlier finds to see if this issue has been resolved.
Got my firmware here: eTrex Vista Cx Firmware



So the etrex vista cx firmware is the same for the venture cx? Yours working any better now?

#42 User is offline   Jamesonsdad 

  • urushiol sponge
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 19-May 07

Posted 10 July 2007 - 03:58 AM

Yes the Vista Cx and Venture Cx are enough the same that they take the same firmware.
Here's the weird part, with 2.70 the deviation was 20' to the east. With 2.60 loaded the one cache I visited yesterday was 20' due south of the Venture's ground zero. :P E-W coordinates were now dead on.
I need to do some more testing to see if it's consistent and then I'll go from there. Really not sure what my options would be-maybe an exchange from Garmin?

#43 User is offline   passdump 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 12-April 07

Posted 10 July 2007 - 06:09 AM

I got a VentureCx a few weeks ago and upgraded to 2.70 without using it with 2.60 first. I have to say so far with regard to geocaching I have found it very good. Brings me to within 2-3 meters each time.

Here is a little test I did trying to gauge the accuracy of my receiver. It basically tests the receiver against itself. There is a fixed wooden post in a field near by with a great view of the sky. I set the unit on the post and let it average a waypoint for 30mins or more each day over a week or so.

What I noticed was the results varied a bit more than I thought they would have. For example (the worst deviation of one waypoint from another) one waypoint had an Estimated Accuracy (EA) of 0.7meters and another had an EA of 0.3 meters. Now if you double each EA and add the result you get
0.7x2=1.4
0.3x2=0.6

1.4+0.6= 2 meters

So the combined maximum margin of error for the EA of the two waypoints should have been in or around 2 meters. So if the EA was correct the two waypoints should have been within 2 meters of each other. Yet the two waypoints are set 11 meters apart on the GPSr screen map !

I'm not sure what those results mean. Perhaps it shows varying atmospheric conditions can add quite a bit of error to a receiver's measurements.
An interesting thing is there was minimal error north/south. The waypoints mainly differed east/west.

This post has been edited by passdump: 10 July 2007 - 06:11 AM


#44 User is offline   Mach2003 

  • Addicted Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 12 July 2007 - 02:51 PM

I have 2.70 in my Legend. I also have a Gps10X (Sirf3 chip). I have used both at the same time a number of times since the 2.70 upgrade (as I mentioned above and in another thread). Other than the obvoius tree cover and canyon issues, the two units are both resonably the same, within a few meters. In open sky conditions, the two units are ALWAYS within a meter of each other (0.001 mins).

#45 User is offline   Marcus Vitruvius 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 09-June 07

Posted 13 July 2007 - 06:47 PM

I've just fixed my accuracy problem on my Garmin 60CSx by making sure it set to WGS84 and then I re programed all my waypoints. Secondly I turned off "Lock On Road". Also, I think by altering map datum settings with waypoints already set confused the coords. Once I changed these settings my GPS got me within 2 metres of three different locations.

#46 User is offline   Jamesonsdad 

  • urushiol sponge
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 19-May 07

Posted 13 July 2007 - 07:11 PM

Just a follow up to my earlier post. The 2.60 software seems to have fixed the problem I had. The coordinates being off 20' N-S the first time I tried it seems to have been a coincidence. Since then any inaccuracy has been random and well within what I would call 'normal' based on terrain, signal strength, etc...

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic