I am using STRATOSfied rel 14 | 2.0.32.0 and I'm having the same problem as I had with the original ROM. In long distance races, a certain km altitude has an error. The marking is lost, that is, I am climbing and the marking is as if I had descended and with that even after re-marking right the difference between altitude gets very large.
GiovaniM said:
I am using STRATOSfied rel 14 | 2.0.32.0 and I'm having the same problem as I had with the original ROM. In long distance races, a certain km altitude has an error. The marking is lost, that is, I am climbing and the marking is as if I had descended and with that even after re-marking right the difference between altitude gets very large.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stratos has bad reputation for resulting altitude reporting. Turning on 3D Data in activity setting and syncing to the phone to refresh AGPS might help but I personally don't bother with it anymore. In Strava you can correct altitude after upload or fix it with DEM data on your gpx file before upload (e.g. gpsvisualiser.com).
EDIT: You might try to check following things https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=77315879&postcount=6
I just came back from my holidays. Every morning, I was riding my bicycle and a large part of the course was at sea level. And, every day, I got constantly different altitude readings on my Stratos: from -60 to -10 meters, while at sea level. I also use a Garmin Edge 705 on my bike, which I noticed that it corrects to altitude reading. I suspect that Stratos is just calculating the altitude only using the barometric pressure sensor and not taking into account the GPS data.
keneva said:
I just came back from my holidays. Every morning, I was riding my bicycle and a large part of the course was at sea level. And, every day, I got constantly different altitude readings on my Stratos: from -60 to -10 meters, while at sea level. I also use a Garmin Edge 705 on my bike, which I noticed that it corrects to altitude reading. I suspect that Stratos is just calculating the altitude only using the barometric pressure sensor and not taking into account the GPS data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it depends on the activity: some will use GPS and some will use the barometer. And as you cannot calibrate barometer so far, don't expect a precision lower than -50m/+50m.
Related
So I have been using my phone to record my flights, and I have to say that I am impressed with the capabilities of the Galaxy S2 GPS receiver, it manages to keep tracking during the complete flight!
One problem though, the altitude reported by the GPS "saturates" around 6000m (20000 feet), it doesn't go any higher.
As anyone experienced the same behavior?
Wasca
I guess the altitude is set using setGpsAltitude function in Camera.Parameters Class used by our cam.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/hardware/Camera.Parameters.html
I don't understand your answer, I am not trying to take a photo!
What I am saying is that, when tracking my position during a flight, the altitude reported by applications like GPS test and GPS status never exceeds 6000m!
Hope I made my myself understood.
Wasca
Ok. I don't know why i thought of camera
Afaik, GPS system has an altitude limit of 60,000 feet. Don't know why is it limited to 20,000 feet in your case.
Since GPS system uses a rough spherical model of earth to calculate our position, it works best when we are on the ground. But altitude calculation is a different story, since there is no surface as a base of calculation.
Altitude is calculated by measuring the distance from the centre of the earth and the radius of surface model (spherical model of earth). This way, it calculates distance/altitude from the surface of the earth. This calculation is affected by factors such as density of earth crust (relates to gravity), distance from GPS satellites, (~12,500 miles) etc.
For safety reasons, and to try and make calculation more accurate, GPS system uses an error bias towards the direction of earth. This way, on higher altitudes, GPS will tell you, you're lower than your actual position. That is why it says you are at 6000 m even when your altitude is higher than that.
If you notice the accuracy reading of your location at higher altitudes, error in altitude is roughly 3 times that figure.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for this information, it was also new for me.
I wouldn't say it is an accuracy problem. In this case, measured altitude seems to be ok until the plane reach 20,000 feet, then the altitude just stops increasing.
I think that google has flown the nexus up to 10km altitude, and the GPS kept measuring altitude.
It looks to me it's a bug of the GPS of our phone.
Wasca
Hello,
I have recently used my galaxy SII on several flights. Initially I had a Locus Pro tracking running, switched the Galaxy to flight mode but forgot to turn the power off during start. I noticed this during the cruise at an altitude of >10000m. At this time the GPS was still on, but the track had stopped at 5487m at a speed of 832 km/h.
During the cruise the GPS seemed to be still working, 10 sats were received (could also watch the varying signal strength). However, position and altitude didn't update.
Now turned off the unit completely and starting it up. After some time a plausible (current) position was shown, however, with a wrong altitude (<6000m) This position froze again. I used several other GPS Apps, all with the same result.
My conclusion from this is:
The Sirf GPS chip seems to works well at this altitude and speed.
Either the Android 4.0.3 and/or the Samsung SW must have a setting to limit the use above 6000m .
I have contacted Samsung several times to get information about the maximum Height and Speed spec. of the Galaxy SII. The answer was always that they will contact the specialists - but never came back.
What I would like to do is to find this limiting setting, modify it to be able to track the flight with my Galaxy.
Any similar experiences?
Same problem with other smartphones?
Any suggestion?
Thanks
Dietrich
I bought the Fit 2 band to replace my Polar band. It is comfortable and looks great. But I found a problem: According manual, it should have an information about burnt calories during training. Band has it, but only by activities like run, walk, cycling (first 4 activities). By eliptical, rotoped, joga and other Home/Gym activities it shows only time and heart rate. Does anybody have the same problem? Or could you check it at your bands that it is a SW bug? Thanks
"Pilates" mode has HR tracking. But "Other workout" does not
There is no weightlifting or indoor high intensive training (for example les mills bodypump/bodycombat) "program". Had to use "pilates". But seems to be "pilates" calories calculation is not correct (too small - 326 calories, average HR 151, duration 1hr, 100kg body weight). Other training programs not matched.
Probably calories calculation algorithm in pilates "knows" that pilates activity is slow and smooth, and therefore calories count is less than in high intensive training.
pavelbor said:
"Pilates" mode has HR tracking. But "Other workout" does not
There is no weightlifting or indoor high intensive training (for example les mills bodypump/bodycombat) "program". Had to use "pilates". But seems to be "pilates" calories calculation is not correct (too small - 326 calories, average HR 151, duration 1hr, 100kg body weight). Other training programs not matched.
Probably calories calculation algorithm in pilates "knows" that pilates activity is slow and smooth, and therefore calories count is less than in high intensive training.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HR tracking is there by each activity , I think. But I am not shure, if HR tracking affect result of burnt calories calculated by band. By my previous Polar were bigger differences of burnt calories, wenn I excercise in lower and higher HR zones, but I have it only second day, I have to test it more preciselly. Mostly I use stationary bike and I miss now showing of calories, probably I will try to use excercise "bicycle" instead of "stationary bicycle" at band to see calories during excercise.
74Marek said:
HR tracking is there by each activity , I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, not in every activity. "Other workout" does not track HR.
74Marek said:
But I am not shure, if HR tracking affect result of burnt calories calculated by band.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, same question
pavelbor said:
No, not in every activity. "Other workout" does not track HR.
You are correct. I didn´t tryied "Other workout" till yet
Still remains the question... It is a bug, or what? Why is calories and other counters missing? I wrote to Samsung support , but no answer yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pavelbor said:
.
Yep, same question
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I checked now also this. I tryied stationary bicycle, first 10 minutes with relaxed warming tempo (with HR 95-105). result:burned 110 calories. Next 10 minutes with higher tempo (HR 115-125): result, burned 109 calories. Definitelly Samsung SW doesn´t consider heart rate, so you can excercise easily, or hard burn your fat, for Gear Fit 2 the result of burnt calories is the same. It is really frustrating. After 20 minutes I could know, what will be shown at Fit 2 band.
Result: till Samsung do not update their SW, I cannot recommend Gear Fit 2 for Fitness purpose
74Marek said:
I checked now also this. I tryied stationary bicycle, first 10 minutes with relaxed warming tempo (with HR 95-105). result:burned 110 calories.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can confirm, "stationary bicycle" program - exactly same result. 10 minutes just being home (walk from one room to another) with HR 63-105 gave me 125 calories.
Hiking (duration 25 min, distance about 2km, average HR 112) - 130 calories.
I have read in another forum, that if you do running as a workout, the GF2 considers the heart rate.
But I didn't try that out yet.
Bautschx said:
I have read in another forum, that if you do running as a workout, the GF2 considers the heart rate.
But I didn't try that out yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Definitelly doesnt consider HR nowhere. Samsung customer care line had confitmed it.
74Marek said:
Definitelly doesnt consider HR nowhere. Samsung customer care line had confitmed it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did two 15-minute runs today.
First: Average HR: 118, burned calories: 209
Second: Average HR: 152, burned calories: 279
So I think it does consider HR. At least when you run.
Bautschx said:
I did two 15-minute runs today.
First: Average HR: 118, burned calories: 209
Second: Average HR: 152, burned calories: 279
So I think it does consider HR. At least when you run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So maybe Samsung dosnt know, or is in algorytm other parameter by running, like distance. I' ve tested only indoor excercise, stationary bike.
Hi all,
Just putting this out to see if I could get other user opinions about the calorie counting of the Amazfit Pace.
In my experience it seems like the Pace only counts calories from activities.
If I look back at my activities from the past day, week, month in the app or on the watch itself I'm seeing extremely low calorie counts. For example, the average calorie burned figure from the last week is showing 459 kCal at the moment on the watch. The weekly total kCal burned for the 10th - 16th of December is showing 2970 kCal.
Can anyone confirm this, or let me know what watch / firmware they're if they are seeing normal calorie burn i.e. BMR + activity to give a total figure.
For what it's worth, my fitbit and garmin have both placed me at around 2000 - 2700 calories a day and as far as I can tell both of these devices have added BMR and activity calories together to form a total.
The pace doesn't count calories, it tries to calculate them.
Sure, the use of the word count probably wasn't spot on at the time of writing. But the sentiment remains.
Other devices I've used in the past for example, calculate / estimate / count, calories as a total of BMR + active calories. In my experience I'd see figures range from 1800 - 3000 calories burned per day depending on activity. Over the month I'd expect to see an estimate of about 60,000 - 80,000.
My Pace however, if I'm lucky shows 600 - 700 calories per day, typically lower, and over the last month has seen less than 10,000 calories burned.
I've attached screenshots from Amazfit, Fitbit, Garmin to show the kind of discrepancy I'm talking about. I'm just wondering if this calorie estimate I'm seeing is normal.
some problem in the mi fit app with amazfit bip. for reference, you also can type in data (steps, distances, time, elevation, ...) from activities into your runtastic account, and see it translated.
the mi fit app (if not crashing, as for 3.3.0, algo 1.1.09, as of 2018-03-27) seems far behind everything. e.g. i keeps calorie totals from steps separate from calories burned in each individual bicycle activity. no way of accumulating calories burned. while the sensor data seems accurate (steps, pace, gps) the app only shines with sleep and regular step data, the calculation and views on calories are rather catastrophic. pity
hello i have been using the amazfit bip for a couple weeks now the first week i it recorded 18.19 miles walked 8 hours 57 mins time spend walking but it says i only burned 1388 calories im a 324lb male most of the calorie trackers says i burned close to 4100 calories does anyone have a fix for this
Hello,
I'm wondering why the calories burned during an elliptical session monitered by the Pace vary so much. It's crazy. I did the exact same program for all these sessions, a 30-minute with 30-35 seconds at high intensity every 2 minutes, with maximum incline.
Heart rate was pretty much the same every time, but the calories count make no sense. My Schwinn 470 is way too optimistic I think, giving me always 420-440 calories burned for 30 minutes, but the Pace values are out of this world (from 68 to 316)... I'm thinking a realistic value would be around 250 so the Pace was right only once out of 6 sessions?
Anyone noticed these variations while doing elliptical?
See attached pic:
https://imgur.com/a/F53Qy03
Check the HR graph, it's where the problem is. Calories burned calculation is heavily based on HR, but optical PPG used in Pace/Stratos (only one sensor) isn't reliable when you move your arm a lot, for better results use a chest or arm strap.
Ok, but how can you explain then that there is a session where the HR was higher and still showed way less calories burned than an another one with a lower HR?
Average value doesn't matter, without the graphs I can't say anything about the results...
Well, it seems that the last software upgrade changed things a lot. My last 2 elliptical sessions, same routine as before when my Schwinn machine always gave me around 420-430 calories burned while my Pace gave only around 100-130, now, the Pace gives almost the same as the Schwinn, around 420-450 calories burned. Anyone noticed that much of a change in other activities? I read that the last upgrade improved the heart rate detection. Must be the explanation.
Both were improved: HR algorithm (more stable when recording activities) and calories burned estimation (finally they are not underestimated anymore, they are now closer to the values from other sources).
As per title. When I use the watch in GPS mode (not connected to a phone) to measure distance in a workout it is fairly accurate. However, the total daily distance doesn't match. For example I went on a 5km run as measured as a workout but my daily total distance is only 4.18km? It seems like only part of the workout is counted in my total daily distance. The wrong daily value is shown on the watch, mifit and notify and fitness.
I have seen elsewhere on the forum issues with distance during workouts calculated from steps but not when using GPS. As above I'm sure it is the daily total that is wrong because the workout distances match my phone.
Anyone else have this issue or a solution? cheers