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 read most of the posts here; but, seldom post. I wanted to determine how badly my WiFi drops off, if it in fact does. What follows is the result of my unscientific testing.
My Prime is serial BCOKASxxxxx.
I have a Linksys E4200 Wireless unit on the second floor of my wood framed house in Anchorage, Alaska.
With the prime approximately 4 feet from the router, I downloaded a 37Mb PDF two times and timed the process. One took 43 seconds, the the second took 41 seconds. I quickly went out of the house onto the edge of the street approximately 50 feet from the router and downloaded the same file two more times (from the same server). This time, the downloads took 124 seconds and 132 seconds. Browser used was Dolphin.
That seems to be a significant difference; but, I don't know what the numbers really mean.
I next repeated the test with my Dell XPS Laptop running the latest FireFox with a download accelerator running and obtained 19 seconds, and 23 seconds.
Out to the street (exact same location), and the times were 27 seconds and 32 seconds.
I did some math, and determined that the Prime took 3 times longer to download the same file at 50 feet from the router, than it did at 4 feet.
The Dell took 1.4 times as long.
Of course, there are variables (different browsers and a download accelerator); still, that seems to verify (at least to me) that the WiFi in the Prime is somewhat weaker than other devices (based on only a sample of one).
Jerry in Anchorage
I have a c2oka series prime. Made a comparison downloading a 37 MB file from my providers website (mysql.netvisao.pt) about 10 mts away from my belkin 600 router with my sgs2 and my prime, using Dolphin HD in both cases. The results were very clear! The prime took 1 min 25 secs to complete the download while the sgs2 did the same job in 40 seconds.
There is no doubt that something is very wrong with Prime's wifi.
1) this is a known issue, you could have posted this in the "known issues with prime" thread on the main page
2) time of download is irrelevant for this, why not just use the speedtest app that tells you how much bandwith you are getting in Mb/s? Test it at different distances 3x each distance, average the #s you have a good idea of exactly how much Mb/s bandwidth you lose/foot or w/e you want to do with the math.
There is definitely bug in calories calculation on Gear Fit2.
Example 1: there is no weightlifting or indoor high intensive training (for example les mills bodypump/bodycombat) "program". Had to use "pilates" instead. But seems to be "pilates" calories calculation is not correct (too small - 326 calories, average HR 151, duration 1hr). Other training programs did not matched. 326 cal/Hr.
Example 2: Stationary bicycle "program", 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. 700 cal/Hr
Example 3: Stationary bicycle "program" - 10 minutes just being home (walk from one room to another) with HR 63-105 gave me 115 calories. 700 cal/Hr
Example 4: Hiking (duration 25 min, distance about 2 km, average HR 112) - 130 calories. 280 cal/Hr
Example 5: Indoor walking 17 min, average HR 119 - 155 calories. 600 cal/Hr
pavelbor said:
There is definitely bug in calories calculation on Gear Fit2.
Example 1: there is no weightlifting or indoor high intensive training (for example les mills bodypump/bodycombat) "program". Had to use "pilates" instead. But seems to be "pilates" calories calculation is not correct (too small - 326 calories, average HR 151, duration 1hr). Other training programs did not matched. 326 cal/Hr.
Example 2: Stationary bicycle "program", 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. 700 cal/Hr
Example 3: Stationary bicycle "program" - 10 minutes just being home (walk from one room to another) with HR 63-105 gave me 115 calories. 700 cal/Hr
Example 4: Hiking (duration 25 min, distance about 2 km, average HR 112) - 130 calories. 280 cal/Hr
Example 5: Indoor walking 17 min, average HR 119 - 155 calories. 600 cal/Hr
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can only confirm. I came to same result. It is very disapointing, such a good looking device with many option and such a failture for fitness tracking. Hoping for quick software release, otherways I ll buy other band or watch.
Yes, the calorie algo seems to be buggered.
I used the watch for a 55min skate last night. Usually get 650-750cals during that. It reported an average of 138bpm. Total calories burned, 36.
36.
I think the calorie burning algo in general is just messed up. Looking at my logs since I got the watch, I'm barely 100 calories above my estimated BMR for every day. That would imply I'm sedentary and not moving.
I've noticed a few other bugs, I assume they're trying to iron them out as the watch has been getting daily updates .. unfortunately they don't install. Very "beta" feel to it software wise.
So far the bugs and odd decisions I've seen:
- Incorrect cal calculation for workouts
- Doesn't track floors. Some days I get credit, others I do not (I don't wear it in the shower as that can throw off the barometer). Might be tied to speed of movement?
- Missing a weightlifting / interval option on the band, even though it's in the S Health app.
- App doesn't update the band like it's supposed to.
- No option to change the flip-to-wake to be inverted (for wearing on the inside of the watch)
- No option to have the 24hr log list in 12hr AM/PM format.
- Inactive notifications on the band don't seem to work (?).
- Power Save mode is a nice touch. But it'd be better if you could toggle it to be automatic at a certain % (like 15% of battery).
- Goals do not automatically adjust based on your progress. This is standard for many trackers these days.
Now for those reading this, they may be thinking this device sucks. It can be fixed if they give it proper software support. I switched from a Band 2 to this. It has a great build quality, great screen, very comfortable, and great graphic presentation of the data right on the band. Magnetic charging is nice and it charges at about 1.32%/min. So full charge in just over an hour. Battery life is around 60hrs for me.
Today I recieved answer from local Samsung Customer Care Line, to my questions about missing calculation counting during indoor/gym excercise and calculation of burned calories without HR consideration. Here it is, translated from Slovak language:
"Continuous monitoring of calories burned is only by 4 basic exercises. For other exercises you can see the calories burned after completion of exercise. This is a feature of the watch.
Regarding the calories burned with consideration to heart rate, the situation is exactly as you describe. However, it is a new product and software is constantly evolving and improving. So it is possible that there will be repaired and improvements in a future version of firmware."
Samsung Customer Care Line
74Marek said:
Today I recieved answer from local Samsung Customer Care Line, to my questions about missing calculation counting during indoor/gym excercise and calculation of burned calories without HR consideration. Here it is, translated from Slovak language:
"Continuous monitoring of calories burned is only by 4 basic exercises. For other exercises you can see the calories burned after completion of exercise. This is a feature of the watch.
Regarding the calories burned with consideration to heart rate, the situation is exactly as you describe. However, it is a new product and software is constantly evolving and improving. So it is possible that there will be repaired and improvements in a future version of firmware."
Samsung Customer Care Line
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I take that second part to mean that they are aware of the calorie counting bug?
I really wish Samsung would take a page out of Fitbit/Microsoft's book and get a user voice forum. It really helps them get valuable feedback. From what I can tell, there's not even a way to submit a bug report within the apps.
KyleK29 said:
I take that second part to mean that they are aware of the calorie counting bug?
I really wish Samsung would take a page out of Fitbit/Microsoft's book and get a user voice forum. It really helps them get valuable feedback. From what I can tell, there's not even a way to submit a bug report within the apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi. Now they know in Samsung, there is a way to do Calorie counting more precise, but if they update their SW? I really do not know. From their mail I feel only unclear promisses. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think, If they get more claims like mine, they start to think about, otherways I rather go back to Polar, or similar device, even if by Samsung, HW is perfect, I like music player, GPS and beutiful display.
Yeah something is definitely up. I just got my gear fit 2 yesterday. Right out of the box as soon as it was set up it said I had burned 1500 calories. I figured it was just a glitch and would reset in the morning to an accurate count. Woke up after the device was charged all night and it said I had already burned 500 calories. Any way to calibrate this?
These are calories burned while you're resting. Even when you sleep. Base metabolism calculated by your watch.
I've had mine for a few days and mine is doing the samend thing. Taking it out of the box and setting it up I burned 1000 calories, lol. Was camping over the weekend and walked a lot. Got in 14,436 steps and my watch says I burned 2214 calories. Even with the 500 I woke up with (sleeping 6h 36m) I do not think I've burned that many calories. The first watch did this too and I returned it after a day. Wondering if it isn't from a setting in my phone. Have you figured out how to fix it yet?
Some fitness tracked include the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), some others do not. Samsung Gear Fit2 does, which means that the shown value raises automatically even without any aditonal moving.
I have for example a BMR of 1845 kcal, which means, that in 6 hours, my BMR is around 461 kcal. When I wake up in the morning, the 500 kcal is fine for me. As long as you know how to thread it.
There is no option to change this and there is also no option to divide BMR and additonal burned calories.
Concerning the calculation of burned calories I totally agree: The Gear Fit2 calculates very very temperate. For me this is better than if id would show me more burned calories. But definitely has to be improved.
Thought I'd hop on this train too. Purchased a Fit2 yesterday and will be returning it this evening. I have done two work outs and the estimated calories burned is ludicrously low. In an hour long work out this morning, my Polar H7 said I burned 712 calories while the Fit2 said 378. Whats really sad, is that the heart rate data is totally usable, which was my concern before purchasing.
tnhoneypot21 said:
Taking it out of the box and setting it up I burned 1000 calories, lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the same exact thing. The calorie count is over 1000, even after multiple factory resets and trying to setup without a phone. :-/
I am reading new firmware rolled out this weekend for Gear Fit 2 - Can anyone confirm this issue is fixed?
Also, being able to track heart rate/correct calories for 'other work out'.
kgorczyn said:
I am reading new firmware rolled out this weekend for Gear Fit 2 - Can anyone confirm this issue is fixed?
Also, being able to track heart rate/correct calories for 'other work out'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is current SW version on yours?
I've just bought it yesterday, version BPG3, and still looking for the best forum for gear fit 2...
Really don't understand why 1 got it, and 2 doesn't have it, here on XDA...
Mi MAX
djurkash said:
What is current SW version on yours?
I've just bought it yesterday, and still looking for the best forum for gear fit 2...
Really don't understand why 1 got it, and 2 doesn't have it, here on XDA...
Mi MAX
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea - I returned mine a few months ago. I loved the device (bought 2 actually) but it was so inaccuracy I had to return them to the store. If they fixed the 'fitness accuracy' issues I will buy them again in a heart beat. So much nicer than Fitbit.
kgorczyn said:
I have no idea - I returned mine a few months ago. I loved the device (bought 2 actually) but it was so inaccuracy I had to return them to the store. If they fixed the 'fitness accuracy' issues I will buy them again in a heart beat. So much nicer than Fitbit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd recommend Garmin prior to Fitbit, but if you have lots of data on fitbit ecosystem, and you can not export it to Garmin, than ok...I'll update you once I get this new SW version if the calorie counter is better now...
Mi MAX
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).
Hi All,
I just replaced my stratos 2 with a strstos3 (the old one died). The watch is what I expected but my surprise is that with the strstos2 the vo2 data was correct but with this one I always see the same value 27 and performance very poor. In addition, the heart rate was ok but when I check my activities and the breakdown for the heart zone, I don't have any time on V2 max or anaerobic. The weird thing is that I do see these values on the watch screen when I'm running or cycling and when I check the heart rate in the app, the values seem to be correct. Anyone facing the same issue and with a solution?
Thank you very much for your help
I use a bluetooth belt since all devices (no exception) do not deliver accurate optical sensor HR data - If you do the same you will have more accurate resutls - My Stratos is giving 54 Vo2 which is almost accurate (my best when I was an athlete was 69
Thanks for your response but I always get the same constant value which is incorrect... On top of it, I have updated the watch to the next version of the firmware and now after 2 min recording the activity it crashes.... A disaster.... Very unhappy about it