WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Working on a blog post to add some context to my Traverse (@firmware 1.5.4) videos. Will also add the recorded data in that (you could find the data recorded by the Traverse also on my Movescount page, but not the data recorded by the Ambit3 Peak; that's somewhere else).

In the meantime, though, if you want to play around with comparisons of the tracks recorded on the map, knock yourselves out...

Here's the data around where I live, on flat and open terrain: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z_6nDQqja5m8.kkCImVgKsmlM&usp=sharing

And these are two tracks in mountainous terrain and partly in forest (could be that I can add a track there. Also, please note that I forgot to turn on the recording on the A3P in that one track, for a few minutes... and then people complain about the autostart on the Traverse...): https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z_6nDQqja5m8.kinpJ9J0-bs4&usp=sharing

Have fun. Guess which wrist which device was on (where I don't mention it in the descriptions)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
I looked over the comparative gps tracks (thanks- some great runs). While there were spots where the Ambit3 and Traverse tracks were separated, it's hard to say that the Traverse looked any less accurate, just different in some spots. Unless you came up with significant distance reporting from the two watches after a run? Overall, the GPS accuracy results for the Traverse so far seem to be solid. Which then also bodes well for the A3-Vertical.

I'm presuming that the Vertical will not have the autostart like the Traverse. You'd never be able to use it on race day! (where I stand at the starting line with my finger on the start button)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
I looked over the comparative gps tracks (thanks- some great runs). While there were spots where the Ambit3 and Traverse tracks were separated, it's hard to say that the Traverse looked any less accurate, just different in some spots. ...
I couldn't have said that much better than you Morey ;-) Some places the A3P seems better and other places Traverse seems better. As I see it, they're on par in performance.

What was the distance like Gerald? And also; did you use GLONASS or just GPS? Edit: I just noticed the other link - no answer needed ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Working on a blog post to add some context to my Traverse (@firmware 1.5.4) videos. Will also add the recorded data in that (you could find the data recorded by the Traverse also on my Movescount page, but not the data recorded by the Ambit3 Peak; that's somewhere else).

In the meantime, though, if you want to play around with comparisons of the tracks recorded on the map, knock yourselves out...

Here's the data around where I live, on flat and open terrain: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z_6nDQqja5m8.kkCImVgKsmlM&usp=sharing

And these are two tracks in mountainous terrain and partly in forest (could be that I can add a track there. Also, please note that I forgot to turn on the recording on the A3P in that one track, for a few minutes... and then people complain about the autostart on the Traverse...): https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z_6nDQqja5m8.kinpJ9J0-bs4&usp=sharing

Have fun. Guess which wrist which device was on (where I don't mention it in the descriptions)...
In the forest, the second link, there is considerable difference between the tracks. It would be interesting to also see a comparison in an urban high-rise setting. Open terrain is not very challenging for any watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
View attachment 6696682

MTBing. On opposite wrists. A3sport (yellow) 15.02km vs Traverse (amber) 14.91km
Wauw - that's accurate. This adds in to mu picture of the two watches beeing on par. Also - hard to tell which distance is the right one? But both within 110 m is indeed very accurate.

Thanks for sharing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Well done Gerald. Question- so, I watched your video depicting how the waypoint nav works. On my A2- it gives me "Approaching Waypoint name" and then when I get to the waypoint, it says "Continue to Waypoint 2 name". I often put in waypoint names that give me direction at intersections, like your "Left path". If I ignore the 'approaching' alert, and then get to the intersection and stand there- it gives me the next waypoint name, rather than telling me what to do right now. I want to see the waypoint name that I am AT, not the next one. Does the traverse show any waypoint name while AT the waypoint? I see what it does when approaching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Well done Gerald. Question- so, I watched your video depicting how the waypoint nav works. On my A2- it gives me "Approaching Waypoint name" and then when I get to the waypoint, it says "Continue to Waypoint 2 name". I often put in waypoint names that give me direction at intersections, like your "Left path". If I ignore the 'approaching' alert, and then get to the intersection and stand there- it gives me the next waypoint name, rather than telling me what to do right now. I want to see the waypoint name that I am AT, not the next one. Does the traverse show any waypoint name while AT the waypoint? I see what it does when approaching.
And that's all you see, the "waypoint approaching" notification. (You wouldn't see the screen you're thinking of because it's not an Ambit; there is no screen showing the data for the next waypoint.) Remember: Traverse = simplified.

(And Suunto navigation doesn't mean "turn-by-turn navigation", no matter what GearJunkie says... Saw that in their Vertical "review")
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top