Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TWG_TECH8]

Hello Geoffrey,

Almost finished my holliday , I did some testing with the watch GH625 and GH561, in both  cases I have a wish that could be implemented. If you follow a track and there is a y junction or even a road above or underneath you, it would be helpful if the next trackpoint shows the altitude as well and the actual altitude. For example [alt ...M] and [H...] under the arrow, alt for actual and H for next trackpoint. The advantage of this is that you know if you have to get up or down to the next point, so there is now mistake witch route you have to follow. This applies to hill tracks and most in hiking or walking in woods with rocks. But for cycling it is useful as well.  If this info can be done in the right side just above the distance to go to next point, you than almost don't need a map any more. Maybe something for the TX version as well. 

Best regards,

Albert

it look like a navigation guide. i will discuss with geoffrey about it. thanks for comment.
btw,the next version is GH625 XT 

patt
 

[albert]

Hello Patt,

I forgot to tell that there is a problem with the GH625 calculating the Calories with hart BPM  calculation . Two examples: on the 12 June I did a tour 2 hours 15 min, avr HRM 126, cal burnt 1563.
On 22 June I did a tour 3 hours 52 min, avr HRM 133, cal burnt 1100. I did not change anything in the mean time. First I thought it was me stopping the watch with a pause, but in this two chases I did drive the hole time through until the end. Do you know what I could check more?

Regards,

Albert

[TWG_TECH8]

Hello Patt,

I forgot to tell that there is a problem with the GH625 calculating the Calories with hart BPM  calculation . Two examples: on the 12 June I did a tour 2 hours 15 min, avr HRM 126, cal burnt 1563.
On 22 June I did a tour 3 hours 52 min, avr HRM 133, cal burnt 1100. I did not change anything in the mean time. First I thought it was me stopping the watch with a pause, but in this two chases I did drive the hole time through until the end. Do you know what I could check more?

Regards,

Albert

Hi Albert,
first of all , i would like to say sorry for my late response.
we take altitude change into the calories algorithm. it could be a factor that cause the result.
another possibility is standard error of the HR mean.Maybe former is more dynamic than later one.

we appreciate that if you can send me the training file to analysis.

Regards,
patt

[albert]

Hello Patt,

I can sent you the files if you give me an email address to sent to.
Maybe the calories can be higher with altitude changes. but if the average is higher then the other and almost twice as long in time, I personally don't believe that.

Regards,

Albert 

[Phil]

Hi Albert,
first of all , i would like to say sorry for my late response.
we take altitude change into the calories algorithm. it could be a factor that cause the result.
another possibility is standard error of the HR mean.Maybe former is more dynamic than later one.

we appreciate that if you can send me the training file to analysis.

Regards,
patt

Hi Patt,

Do you really need to use the altitude on calories calculation?
As we all know, the altitude on GPS devices is not very accurate, and also if you're climbing an hill you're making more effort and your heart rate will already be higher, so the altitude change is implicit on heart rate.

Take a look at this website and check the formulas, they seem accurate and not hard to implement:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Regards,
-Phil

[TWG_TECH8]

Hi Albert,
first of all , i would like to say sorry for my late response.
we take altitude change into the calories algorithm. it could be a factor that cause the result.
another possibility is standard error of the HR mean.Maybe former is more dynamic than later one.

we appreciate that if you can send me the training file to analysis.

Regards,
patt

Hi Patt,

Do you really need to use the altitude on calories calculation?
As we all know, the altitude on GPS devices is not very accurate, and also if you're climbing an hill you're making more effort and your heart rate will already be higher, so the altitude change is implicit on heart rate.

Take a look at this website and check the formulas, they seem accurate and not hard to implement:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Regards,
-Phil

Hi Phil, Albert,

I tried to generate a simulated tool base on our alogrithm, you can simulate and compare.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yyxvztdginm
The correction factor is through asc speed which is according to altitude. Obviously, it will just impact
little.

Regards,

Geoffrey

[albert]

Hello Geoffrey and Phil

Hi Patt,

Do you really need to use the altitude on calories calculation?
As we all know, the altitude on GPS devices is not very accurate, and also if you're climbing an hill you're making more effort and your heart rate will already be higher, so the altitude change is implicit on heart rate.

Take a look at this website and check the formulas, they seem accurate and not hard to implement:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Regards,
-Phil

Hi Phil, Albert,

I tried to generate a simulated tool base on our alogrithm, you can simulate and compare.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yyxvztdginm
The correction factor is through asc speed which is according to altitude. Obviously, it will just impact
little.

Regards,

Geoffrey

With your tool I still have sometimes a big difference between the tool and my outcome form the trainings.  the results from the tool is, weight [80 kg], age [55], height [181], HR [126], asc

• , sport type [Biking], training [high] = 727 Kcal/hr.

the tour I did was hilly but even on a flat it gives (with your tool) 3 5/6 * 727= 2787 (rounded up) and not the 1100 I got from the watch.

I did some test with the calculations the link from Phil has a lot of potential, because it takes VO2max in to the calculation and is more accurate with the real burned calories I got from the tacx trainer based on VO2max and used watt. Witch is taking the HRM in rest and max in a count. Only pound should be in kg. but for the rest excellent to use, because it looks like everybody is going over to calculate in watt as more accurate measurement.


Regards,

Albert

[TWG_TECH8]

Hello Geoffrey and Phil

Hi Patt,

Do you really need to use the altitude on calories calculation?
As we all know, the altitude on GPS devices is not very accurate, and also if you're climbing an hill you're making more effort and your heart rate will already be higher, so the altitude change is implicit on heart rate.

Take a look at this website and check the formulas, they seem accurate and not hard to implement:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Regards,
-Phil

Hi Phil, Albert,

I tried to generate a simulated tool base on our alogrithm, you can simulate and compare.
http://www.mediafire.com/?yyxvztdginm
The correction factor is through asc speed which is according to altitude. Obviously, it will just impact
little.

Regards,

Geoffrey

With your tool I still have sometimes a big difference between the tool and my outcome form the trainings.  the results from the tool is, weight [80 kg], age [55], height [181], HR [126], asc

• , sport type [Biking], training [high] = 727 Kcal/hr.

the tour I did was hilly but even on a flat it gives (with your tool) 3 5/6 * 727= 2787 (rounded up) and not the 1100 I got from the watch.

I did some test with the calculations the link from Phil has a lot of potential, because it takes VO2max in to the calculation and is more accurate with the real burned calories I got from the tacx trainer based on VO2max and used watt. Witch is taking the HRM in rest and max in a count. Only pound should be in kg. but for the rest excellent to use, because it looks like everybody is going over to calculate in watt as more accurate measurement.


Regards,

Albert

Hi Albert,

Thanks for your information.
The total calories burn is the acculumative instant value of each second. The unit (Kcal/hr) comes out base on the constant HR, asc speed. Maybe it causes different.
Anyway, we need to double check to find out the reason.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey

[pmst]

Hello
The language of my GH-625M is Portuguese, if i upgrade i lost the language?

Regards

[TWG_TECH8]

Hello
The language of my GH-625M is Portuguese, if i upgrade i lost the language?

Regards

Yes, the standard version only supports English, France, Detush, Spanish, Italian.

Regards,

Geoffrey

[goater]

Hi i'm looking to download the latest version of software of my GH-625M. currently it's on version 1.12. also my heart rate monitor has never worked, i tried everthing to no avail. also if i upgrade my version will i lose the mile function. i.e watch stays recording in feet as appose to switching after 1 mile and staying in miles, as i would like to keep this function or have a sole mile function. 

[TWG_TECH8]

Hi i'm looking to download the latest version of software of my GH-625M. currently it's on version 1.12. also my heart rate monitor has never worked, i tried everthing to no avail. also if i upgrade my version will i lose the mile function. i.e watch stays recording in feet as appose to switching after 1 mile and staying in miles, as i would like to keep this function or have a sole mile function.

Hi,

I am wondering how doesn't worrk on your heart rate belt? You may try a new battery.
If you want to keep feet in height calculation, we have released new firmware today, please try it. http://www.usglobalsat.com/forum/index.php?topic=1400.0

Regards,

Geoffrey

[goater]

Hi Geoffrey,

I've swapped out the battery already and it's made no diffference. i've tried wetting the sensors and it either reads some crazy value such as 180 when i'm sitting down or nothing at all.

As regards the new software, I would like to install this but I do not want my watch to record distance in feet.

at the moment my watch records everything up to a mile in feet, after this it switchs to mile. So when i'm doing a run i can see i've run 10 mile as appose to thousands of feet. can I upgrade my watch WITHOUT losing the mile function.

[TWG_TECH8]

Hi Geoffrey,

I've swapped out the battery already and it's made no diffference. i've tried wetting the sensors and it either reads some crazy value such as 180 when i'm sitting down or nothing at all.

As regards the new software, I would like to install this but I do not want my watch to record distance in feet.

at the moment my watch records everything up to a mile in feet, after this it switchs to mile. So when i'm doing a run i can see i've run 10 mile as appose to thousands of feet. can I upgrade my watch WITHOUT losing the mile function.

Dear customer,

The heart rate belt seems damaged. Anyway, can you show me the photo of belt for check?
I am not quite understanding "mile function", if I know, you can set the feet/mile on [Configuration]\[Unit]

Regards,

Geoffrey

[AndersBrontosaurus]

I think it's about time to remove this outdated firmware as sticky.

BR
Anders