 |
|
|
|
John Miller wrote: Mark:You may remember that those of use with LG tablets and phones had a "No GPS lock" issue after LG had sent a software uograde. IFLY quickly wrote a patch to correct this issue since we all knew LG most likely wouldn't put this on their priority list. My LG G Pad works now, but I get an occasional "Weak GPS signal" indication. However, it still works well enough to show my position which is what matters to me. It is a bit bothersome to see the warning popping up though. Using GPS Test I get 23 satellites with 17 in use with accuracy of 9 feet as I sit here next to my computer in my house. John, thank you for posting! I just checked our logic for "Weak GPS Signal", and this occurs anytime the GPS signal from the device tells us that accuracy is > 20 meters, or that it "doesn't know". With the latest beta version of 10.0, I've enabled a secret code to enable Verbose GPS logging. You just do "Menu => Text Search => ZGPS => Cancel", and the status bar should say "Verbose GPS Logging Enabled" for a few seconds, to let you know that you did it right. Then wait for about 10 minutes, and let the Weak Signal events happen, and then do "menu => About => Send Bug Report => Default log" so that I can see the log file, to confirm what is happening.
Brian Knox,
Sr Software Engineer
|
|
|
|
 | |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 9/12/2010
Posts: 644
|
|
|
Roger. WILCO. However, using GPS test my LG tablet shows an accuracy of 9 feet at present and that is inside my house. When I get the weak signal message on IFLY I'll switch over and see what the accuracy is on GPS Test.
John
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 1/25/2015
Posts: 66
|
|
|
OK, so I bought a new Huawei M3 tablet because I really like the screen size and aspect ratio of my reliable but old Motorola tablet, and it is a near match on both. Unfortunately, the GPS issues when using iFly are still present, even with the M3 tablet fully updated. The Motorola has always had excellent GPS performance in the plane, the car, etc., so it is my baseline.
Like Mark, I find the M3 to basically be pretty decent. Display is bright, it's fast, modern hardware, seems to be made well, etc. So I ran some side by side comparisons between the M3 and the Motorola. I used the latest version of "GPS Status & Toolbox" as an analysis tool. The M3 consistently reported seeing more satellites than the Moto, and didn't use as many of those as you might think it would, BUT, the M3 also consistently used the same number or more satellites than the Moto, usually 1 or 2 more. The speeds, heading, etc. tracked each other extremely well during an hour long ride in the car on very rural, twisty, tree-canopied roads. So from all of those measures, the M3 is keeping up with the Moto just fine. HOWEVER, the M3 never reported an accuracy lower than 16 ft. Ever. As in, that's the best accuracy their software reports. The M3 also never reported DOP whereas the Moto did. The Moto often reported values in the 11-15 ft range, but the M3 kept reporting 16. But on some of the more densly covered stretches of road, the Moto reported accuracy numbers in the 19-21ft range, and briefly as high as 35ft. At those times, the M3 was reporting 17-19. So, when challenged, the M3 (which was typically using more satellites), reported slightly better accuracy. But in favorable conditions, the M3 never reported below 16, even though the speed, heading, etc. tracked the Moto spot on. In fact, while sitting still at traffic lights, etc., the Moto would occationally report a non-zero speed, while the M3 remained at zero.
So my conclusion, (at least for the moment), is that the M3's GPS is actually doing an acceptable job, but the figures-of-merit that it reports to iFly don't pass iFly's criteria for "good" and so iFly cries foul and we get 1 bar on the GPS status indicator, the "Weak GPS" message and the occational "No GPS Position" message. But the bottom line is that I'm NOT going to start using a remote bluetooth GPS, and I'm also not going to fly along with iFly convinced that I have a weak GPS signal. I noticed that while driving with iFly running on both tablets, the M3 would not display a green track line. I double checked that it's turned on, but I wonder if the "Weak GPS signal" message is supressing the track?
So I will load the beta version onto the M3 tonight, and try to log some verbose GPS data for the good folks at iFly. I will also check with Huawei, but I suspect that will be a dead end. If the issue does not pan out in the next week or two though, I will return the M3, and buy a new, more expensive, but three years older Samsung Tab S.
I will keep you posted if I learn more, but Mark specifically requested a PIREP on the Huawei if I tried it, so here it is.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joined: 1/1/0001
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Why not purchase a Stratux ADS-B receiver with it's own GPS?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jim_in_nh wrote:
OK, so I bought a new Huawei M3 tablet because I really like the screen size and aspect ratio of my reliable but old Motorola tablet, and it is a near match on both. Unfortunately, the GPS issues when using iFly are still present, even with the M3 tablet fully updated. The Motorola has always had excellent GPS performance in the plane, the car, etc., so it is my baseline.
Like Mark, I find the M3 to basically be pretty decent. Display is bright, it's fast, modern hardware, seems to be made well, etc. So I ran some side by side comparisons between the M3 and the Motorola. I used the latest version of "GPS Status & Toolbox" as an analysis tool. The M3 consistently reported seeing more satellites than the Moto, and didn't use as many of those as you might think it would, BUT, the M3 also consistently used the same number or more satellites than the Moto, usually 1 or 2 more. The speeds, heading, etc. tracked each other extremely well during an hour long ride in the car on very rural, twisty, tree-canopied roads. So from all of those measures, the M3 is keeping up with the Moto just fine. HOWEVER, the M3 never reported an accuracy lower than 16 ft. Ever. As in, that's the best accuracy their software reports. The M3 also never reported DOP whereas the Moto did. The Moto often reported values in the 11-15 ft range, but the M3 kept reporting 16. But on some of the more densly covered stretches of road, the Moto reported accuracy numbers in the 19-21ft range, and briefly as high as 35ft. At those times, the M3 was reporting 17-19. So, when challenged, the M3 (which was typically using more satellites), reported slightly better accuracy. But in favorable conditions, the M3 never reported below 16, even though the speed, heading, etc. tracked the Moto spot on. In fact, while sitting still at traffic lights, etc., the Moto would occationally report a non-zero speed, while the M3 remained at zero.
So my conclusion, (at least for the moment), is that the M3's GPS is actually doing an acceptable job, but the figures-of-merit that it reports to iFly don't pass iFly's criteria for "good" and so iFly cries foul and we get 1 bar on the GPS status indicator, the "Weak GPS" message and the occational "No GPS Position" message. But the bottom line is that I'm NOT going to start using a remote bluetooth GPS, and I'm also not going to fly along with iFly convinced that I have a weak GPS signal. I noticed that while driving with iFly running on both tablets, the M3 would not display a green track line. I double checked that it's turned on, but I wonder if the "Weak GPS signal" message is supressing the track?
So I will load the beta version onto the M3 tonight, and try to log some verbose GPS data for the good folks at iFly. I will also check with Huawei, but I suspect that will be a dead end. If the issue does not pan out in the next week or two though, I will return the M3, and buy a new, more expensive, but three years older Samsung Tab S.
I will keep you posted if I learn more, but Mark specifically requested a PIREP on the Huawei if I tried it, so here it is.
When version 10 is released, we have a backdoor method for turning on verbose GPS logging, which can help me to determine exactly what's going on, and why iFly is considering it a weak signal. From there, we might be able to work around it. On Version 10.0, you'll be able to turn on this verbose logging by going to "Menu => Text Search => type "ZGPS" => Cancel", then a status msg will show saying "Verbose Logging Enabled". After that, let it run for a few minutes of reporting weak signal, adn then do "Menu => About => Send Bug Report => Default Log", and this'll send me the log with verbose GPS logs that I can analyze.
Version 10.0 should be released by the end of April.
Brian Knox,
Sr Software Engineer
|
|
|
|
| |