Backcountry GPS Unit

Pocket Quads


Tons of Topos on one SD card!!!



And Bagtagley, what are you some kind of Trimble rep now??? Help a brotha out. :rolleyes:

My companies handheld rugged field computers:

http://www.junipersys.com/products/i...rcher_solo.jpg

http://www.junipersys.com/products/i...allegro_cx.jpg

(blatant spam, not designed for rec. user, unless you are rich)


Back to affordable GPS for the average users like yourselves: If you find a handheld GPS like a Garmin or Magellan,...., and you can get it with the receiver being SIRIII technology. This is a low power consumption, high sensitivity chipset in the GPS receiver that WILL go through 95% canopy. I have tested this myself. WAAS is real time differential correction to put you into a 2-5 meter accuracy range depending on sat. configurations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goggle tan

does anyone know how well the garmin rino 530 handles gullies/deep foliage??

---

Same as the others looking at the specs of the GPS receiver:

Receiver: WAAS-enabled, 12 parallel channel GPS receiver continuously tracks and uses up to 12 satellites to compute and update your position

Acquisition times:

Warm: Approximately 15 seconds
Cold: Approximately 45 seconds
AutoLocate™: Approximately 5 minutes

Update rate: 1/second, continuous

GPS accuracy:

Position: < 15 meters, 95% typical***
Velocity: 0.05 meter/sec steady state
DGPS (USCG) accuracy:

Position: 3-5 meters, 95% typical
Velocity: 0.05 meter/sec steady state
DGPS (WAAS) accuracy:

Position: < 3 meters, 95% typical***
Velocity: 0.05 meter/sec steady state

Here is the deal, the WAAS sats that are going to give you 2-5 real time DGPS ((Differential (corrected already) GPS)) are only about 30 degrees off the horizon to the south. If you are in a deep enough valley, it will be very difficult to gain fixes to these sats. Canopy does the same thing.

So in a deep valley and you have a display saying "2D" instead of "DGPS", you are NOT getting WAAS corrections and are at about a 10 meter accuracy.

As Buzz almost said, the SiRF III chipset is what the cool GPS receivers use now. It's much more sensitive than older chipsets. Garmin's GPSMAP 60Cx and 60CSx use it.

When I'm hiking or hunting I load up the maps of the area and I'm good to go. I have the topo maps for all of Canada which is much cheaper than buying individual maps. I just print out the area I'm visiting for a big picture view and use the GPS for details. Mostly I just let it track and mark the occasional waypoint for a post hike/hunt analysis on my computer.

When the batteries fail out on the woods I reach into my pack and pull out... another set of batteries.

It is handy at night when there are no landmarks.

thanks for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snow Dog

As Buzz almost said, the SiRF III chipset is what the cool GPS receivers use now. It's much more sensitive than older chipsets. Garmin's GPSMAP 60Cx and 60CSx use it.

---

Thanks for the help. I stopped typing in mid thought, what the hell is wrong with me. :rolleyes: :nonono2:


Yes, what Snow Dog said. SIRFIII=Gud stuf!

Holy thread bumpage.

Some reviewers have found the 60 CSX much more sensitive in dense forest canopy then the 60 CX.

Anyone have real-life data to add here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

Holy thread bumpage.

Some reviewers have found the 60 CSX much more sensitive in dense forest canopy then the 60 CX.

Anyone have real-life data to add here?

---

hi, LL-
i've not personally done a comparison of the 60CSx and the 60CS (i think that's what you mean instead of the 60CX), but i have 7 or 8 years of experience in capturing data with consumer-grade GPS devices, and i have used the 60 series.

my go-to device for bc skiing, hiking, MTB is the vista HCx. the "x" in "HCx" indicates that they are now using the SiRFSTAR III chip, which offers faster initial locks and better tracking through canyons and dense coverage vs prior generations of the vista. the "x" in "60CSx" indicates basically the same difference (SiRFSTAR III chip) between it and the lower model.

my side-by-side tests of the vista HCx with other vista models *in the same location* showed the HCx to have a real-world advantage in acquiring a signal.

is the 60CSx better than the Vista HCx? probably, as the prior models of the 60 series have always been better than the comparable models of the Vista.

so...if the 60-series is better, why don't i use one? the slightly better reception (due to the better antenna) and more robust features come at a cost -- both $$ and size/weight.

the vista gives you all you need if you're going fast and light (it's easy to stick in a shorts pocket, even if that's all you're wearing), and it's fine on handlebars. the 60-series is definitely more clunky.

all things considering, if you can deal with the form factor and absolutely must have every last bit of signal strength, go with the 60-series. for most people, i would say save the $ and bit of extra weight and gain some versatility with the vista.

hope that helps.

UAN,

I just got a 60CSx and intend on taking it out this weekend for some test runs. Just toying around with it, I am very impressed thus far.

I have a legend Cx I wish I had the Vista just for the barometer, feature, my only other gripe is that I wish I had one with an external antennae so I can put the reciever in my pack and not worry about crushing it in a crash while mapping trails on my bike.

That handheld Buzz used to rep is pretty sweet looking though. I sure wish the iPhone had a high quality gps in it. I like the idea of a wi-fi capable HH computer

Magellan eXplorist 210 here. Got the maps with it as a package deal at REI. Does a good job route tracking and reading altitude. My main beef is the computer software, which was designed by a retarded monkey. Very difficult to use.

Thanks for your input UAN,
now I have decided to go for a vista and I hope it's really as good as you say.
Just how useful is the automatic routing feature? It's not going to be very exact and practical, but can it help finding things in foreign terrain? Another rather dumb question, did anyone try their GPS on a plane? I guess the altimeter doesn't work but do you get a signal or is the planes structure blocking anything? Just curious.
Thanks guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upallnight

hi, LL-
i've not personally done a comparison of the 60CSx and the 60CS (i think that's what you mean instead of the 60CX), but i have 7 or 8 years of experience in capturing data with consumer-grade GPS devices, and i have used the 60 series.

my go-to device for bc skiing, hiking, MTB is the vista HCx. the "x" in "HCx" indicates that they are now using the SiRFSTAR III chip, which offers faster initial locks and better tracking through canyons and dense coverage vs prior generations of the vista. the "x" in "60CSx" indicates basically the same difference (SiRFSTAR III chip) between it and the lower model.

my side-by-side tests of the vista HCx with other vista models *in the same location* showed the HCx to have a real-world advantage in acquiring a signal.

is the 60CSx better than the Vista HCx? probably, as the prior models of the 60 series have always been better than the comparable models of the Vista.

so...if the 60-series is better, why don't i use one? the slightly better reception (due to the better antenna) and more robust features come at a cost -- both $$ and size/weight.

the vista gives you all you need if you're going fast and light (it's easy to stick in a shorts pocket, even if that's all you're wearing), and it's fine on handlebars. the 60-series is definitely more clunky.

all things considering, if you can deal with the form factor and absolutely must have every last bit of signal strength, go with the 60-series. for most people, i would say save the $ and bit of extra weight and gain some versatility with the vista.

hope that helps.

---

http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/outdoor/010306b.html - Im confused. There's no indication that the HCX uses the SIRF chipset. I understand that the SIRF chipset gives that incredible reception

http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/us/...il/etrexseries - no mention of SIRF in the HCX?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murph

Magellan eXplorist 210 here. Got the maps with it as a package deal at REI. Does a good job route tracking and reading altitude. My main beef is the computer software, which was designed by a retarded monkey. Very difficult to use.

---

I have the eXplorist 500 and I agree the software sucks. That is the main reason I am thinking about selling my eXplorist and buying a Garmin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rontele

UAN,

I just got a 60CSx and intend on taking it out this weekend for some test runs. Just toying around with it, I am very impressed thus far.

---

congrats, RT -- it's a great unit. the only thing i don't like is the size & shape. whereas a vista seems to fit in on a bike, for instance, the 60-series looks a bit more awkward.

either one will do well in terms of tracking. gps can become a bit of an addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/outdoor/010306b.html - Im confused. There's no indication that the HCX uses the SIRF chipset. I understand that the SIRF chipset gives that incredible reception

---

LL - you're absolutely right, and i owe an apology and clarification. when the vista HCx was first rumored as a prototype, there was talk of it having a SiRF chip. that was stuck in my head.

it has a high-sensitivity chip (that's really what the "x" stands for), but it's technically not a SiRF chip. this chip it has actually delivered SiRF-level performance...using LESS power -- and, not coincidentally, lower cost for garmin. i've not done the direct 60CSx - HCx comparison, but a friend who runs a GPS-related company now owned by garmin (and other folks online) commented favorably on the 60CSx w/ SiRF v. 60.

if you believe them, the reported stats for the HCx's "MediaTek" chip are:
MediaTek3: 32 channels / SiRF III: 20
MT3 sensitivity: -158dBm / SiRF III: -159dBm
MT3 position accuracy: 3 m / SiRF III: 10 m, 2D RMS
MT3 WAAS Accuracy is < 2.4 m / SiRF III: 7 m, 2D RMS.

in practice, they're comparable.

i took a few shortcuts in my earlier post as i didn't think we'd get that far into the technical discussion - i'm sorry for that.

Edit to add these 2 replies:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChief

I have a legend Cx I wish I had the Vista just for the barometer, feature, my only other gripe is that I wish I had one with an external antennae so I can put the reciever in my pack and not worry about crushing it in a crash while mapping trails on my bike.

---

agreed - the barometric altimeter-equipped units are definitely the way to go for anyone in the mountains.

i've heard stories of people rigging external antenna. i always thought a backpack-top (or even helmet-top) flat panel antenna/charger would be cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by choad

Just how useful is the automatic routing feature? It's not going to be very exact and practical, but can it help finding things in foreign terrain? Another rather dumb question, did anyone try their GPS on a plane? I guess the altimeter doesn't work but do you get a signal or is the planes structure blocking anything? Just curious.

---

i've used the gps in a plane. older units don't work as well, but newer units like the HCx work very well if you acquire a signal before take-off. after that, they are good at picking up reflected signals...so you can put the device in the seat-pocket and still get a good track out of it. that wasn't the case just a few years ago.

that feature is also why the newer devices work better in canyons.

the baro altimeter, though, is always going to be useful for calibration and for occasions when you can't get a lock but need to know where you are in the mountains.

automatic routing? don't really know, don't use it. i'm using the unit to either record where i'm going for later analysis, or uploading some way points that will help me if i need to find some points along the trip...but i never use a route that i program in, per se. (it could be a very good feature, i simply don't need it.)

Ok then you've partially answered my question which was going to be - The Legend HCX is supposed to be just as good under canopy and smaller which I like for hiking/biking etc/ Thoughts?

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&pID=8701

I'm going to look at both the 60 CX and CSX vs the Legend HCX to how they compare

mostly directed to superchief -

wrap your gps in a shirt or something and strap it on your pack. it should be fine even in the event of a crash. the wrap will keep it from getting to beat up and the pack will cushion a hard blow - all bets are off with a sharp rock impact.
we use those (or similar) units all the time and have dropped them in repeatedly - have lost them in the Arctic Ocean - to find them an hour later - basically we beat the crap out of them and they are still working fine.

although the 76cx is a great and way more powerful unit - we use them for aerial surveys - i prefer those legends for carry around jut to find waypoints and sometimes the way home.


oh nRoute software can be pretty cool too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

Ok then you've partially answered my question which was going to be - The Legend HCX is supposed to be just as good under canopy and smaller which I like for hiking/biking etc/ Thoughts?

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&pID=8701

I'm going to look at both the 60 CX and CSX vs the Legend HCX to how they compare

---

Lee: Spent the extra $$ and get the Vista over the Legend. It's worth it for the barometric altimeter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChief

my only other gripe is that I wish I had one with an external antennae so I can put the reciever in my pack and not worry about crushing it in a crash while mapping trails on my bike.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendigo

wrap your gps in a shirt or something and strap it on your pack. it should be fine even in the event of a crash. the wrap will keep it from getting to beat up and the pack will cushion a hard blow - all bets are off with a sharp rock impact.

---

for what it's worth, i used a Vista on my MTB for a long time, and I had plenty of crashes. over the years, i broke 2 of the handlebar mounts beyond repair ($10). of course, the right crash could take out your gps...i just never had it happen.

i did drop the device *plenty* of times on all sorts of surfaces. i used one regular Vista for recording over 1,400 events over a 6-year period before retiring it because the seals broke down & it got water-logged. (i did have an early Vista fail, but it was a fluke + a warranty repair.)

by storing it in your pack (with or without a t-shirt), you lose the ability actually see stats as you're riding. something to consider.

Done more digging and am going to post this here for added info

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare....areProduct=310

The newer eTrex Legends and Vista HCX - (note the HCX) has quad-helix antennas. They use the Mediatek chipset. The 60CSX and 60CX also have quad-helix antennas but use the SIRFIII chipsets.

It's my understanding that the quad-helix antennas and the newer improved chipsets are what set these units apart from older Garmin units in sensitivity and reception. This is a priority for me

Both the Etrek Legend and Vista HCX and 60CX and 60CSX use Micro-SD cards and downloadable maps. Another key feature for me

See geek talk but very thorough here http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/ind...c=168173&st=50

I'm going to take a look at them to see how the user interfaces compare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

The newer eTrex Legends and Vista HCX - (note the HCX) has quad-helix antennas. They use the Mediatek chipset. The 60CSX and 60CX also have quad-helix antennas but use the SIRFIII chipsets.

It's my understanding that the quad-helix antennas and the newer improved chipsets are what set these units apart from older Garmin units in sensitivity and reception. This is a priority for me

Both the Etrek Legend and Vista HCX and 60CX and 60CSX use Micro-SD cards and downloadable maps. Another key feature for me

See geek talk but very thorough here http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/ind...c=168173&st=50

I'm going to take a look at them to see how the user interfaces compare

---

the interfaces on all these devices are, ahem, not good....but you get used to them. the Legend & Vista share the same interface.

it sounds like you confirmed what i was saying above...get an "x" unit, for sure...but whether you choose the Legend HCx, Vista HCx, or 60CSx is your call. i'd humbly suggest that skimping and not getting the barometric altimeter would be a mistake.

in open terrain, my (original) Vista performed just as well as the Vista HCx. if you're talking canyons and tree cover (as you probably are given your location), then the HCx would have more of an advantage. we have alot of deep canyons here, but i haven't yet had the chance to give the HCx the hardcore test in them...yet.

the "x" units seem to hold a signal better once locked (and they lock faster) -- so you can get the lock then put it in your pack/pocket and not worry as much as with the older units. if you don't get a lock or lose it, then the new units seem just as bad as trying to reacquire a lock from a poor position.

all the devices have been capable of using downloadable maps, although the newer devices now using removable storage. does it matter? in my experience, not really. if you travel far, wide & often, then i can see how it might.

this is not a new feature.

on my old vista (non-removable memory), i was able to detailed topos for all of NW wyoming + eastern idaho and a few other random spots (eg yosemite) -- basically all the terrain i spend the most time in. with a 1gb micro SD card and the newer device, i have topos for the entire western 1/2 of the US. will i use oklahoma, texas, etc? probably not.

for those kinds of trips, it would be easy to just selectively load them to my device.

in other words, i don't see it as that much of an advantage. also, i believe garmin made a mistake in not increasing the buffer for track storage. let's say you go on a 2-week trip. i *believe* the newer devices will NOT take advantage of that 1gb card for storing current tracks -- you have the same 10,000 point limit as the old devices. if you *save* the tracks, you can store them to a card....but when you save them, garmin tosses out all of the time data and just retains position. in other words, the save is "lossy". i haven't played around with this that much on the newer device, but i was disappointed in my preliminary checks that they didn't allow a track log to use up all available space. dumb.

I just checked again and

The newer eTrex Legends and Vista HCX - (note the HCX) have patch antennas. They use the Mediatek chipset. The 60CSX and 60CX also have quad-helix antennas but use the SIRFIII chipsets. All the units seem to have good sensitivity

You all seem to have learned a lot. I like what I see since I chimed in last with my previous company's handheld and other stuff. SIRFIII is still what you want for this type of use.


Airplanes are fun with GPS!! :the_finge
Done it plenty using Arcpad just to get elevation, SOG (or the air in this case) and one time I mapped the route on an hour and a half ride. However, with a few hundred dollar Bluetooth GPS receiver, elevation readings suck.

I do miss my access to my old equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

I just checked again and

...

All the units seem to have good sensitivity

---

so you arrived at the conclusion from a few hours ago, LL? :D :D

j/k

No - sorry. I was correcting an older statement which said the HCX had quad-helix antennas . They have patch antennas.

All the tech mumbo jumbo aside the important question is whether they have good sensitivity