Vertical 2 during 14.5 hour long ultra

2b2bff

@sky-runner good find, but AFAIK mapbox is only used in the app, not on the watch…

pavel.samokha

Suunto watches are using vector maps data ofc

pavel.samokha

And yes, mapbox provides some maps data only for Suunto App, not for watches

sky-runner

If it is vector based it should be relatively easy to make the level of details optional for those users who really need it. The lack of trail visibility at higher zoom levels is something that is likely drive me to a competitor watch if that isn’t addressed soon. I find it bizarre that I can see building outlines at 0.5 mile zoom level, but trails disappear two zoom levels earlier. This is supposed to be an adventure watch so arguably trail visibility is far more important!

Squirrel

@sky-runner said in Vertical 2 during 14.5 hour long ultra:

If it is vector based it should be relatively easy to make the level of details optional for those users who really need it.

Exactly! Someone getting an idea to hide trails at 500m and above is weird enough, but that the idea actually makes it all the way to production firmware, unchallenged, is quite shocking.

Egika

@Squirrel as far as I know all digital maps show less details when you zoom out.
From my basic knowledge about this I would think, that otherwise you would not be able to distinguish individual paths in an area like this

sorinus

@Egika said in Vertical 2 during 14.5 hour long ultra:

@Squirrel as far as I know all digital maps show less details when you zoom out.
From my basic knowledge about this I would think, that otherwise you would not be able to distinguish individual paths in an area like this

Of course it’s less detail when zoomed out, but how much less? The current algorithm is obviously flawed when you zoom out above 200m and suddenly you see nothing but a green background if you’re in the forest, as it happend to me recently.

maszop

@sorinus That someone made the decision to remove such key details as paths from the 500m view is a scandal. And even more so that it went through the entire cycle, from decision, implementation, testing and release.

Stavrogin

@OutdoorMan My complaint with reviewers is the best of them are still only using them for maybe a couple-few weeks and most of the time they are using the device on pre-rollout or gen 1 software on devices that are not Garmin, Apple or Whoop which are their main devices. There are clear biases when a test watch only gets used for a limited amount of time.
To Suunto’s credit a huge amount of work went into the Vertical, Race and eventually Race S software. The Vertical when it came out to where it is now is not comparable. There are so many upgrades and efficiency fixes.
So most reviews are like this: they take the Garmin off for however long they have to do do the testing, do the writing and then go back to Garmin. Arguably using my above logic the pundits have a good understanding of Garmin and how they are progressing through bug fixes and upgrades but little or no clarity when it comes to other watches. If I were to judge each watch on only a couple to few weeks and then it goes in a box or back to the manufacturer then I would have a very jaded view of what is out there and how good the current sw is. Very very few are doing 6 month or 12 month follow ups because I would guess there is no money in it. Its is all about the money.
Also I would argue that it takes time to understand and build a relationship with a UI both on the watch and on the app. I know some of the pundits use TP, but most end-users are only going to use the app that the specific brand puts out with the watch.
The last limitation is silly, but what I don’t see another way around it. If you are one of these pundits that use Apple watches that means one wrist is always taken for that apple watch. You only have one more wrist to test with. Reviews might be a little different if they could commit to 4-6 months with a watch on their wrist, but I think this is impractical from their stand point especially considering the clicks and likes and views come from 1. Apple, 2. Garmin and then it slides very quickly to much much fewer. They are incentivized to only test and use those two watches.
I get it, they want to make Youtube a full time gig and most of them have wives and children so they need to make some kind of money from Youtube and arguably as quickly as possible. That means Garmin and Apple in the English speaking world is the easiest fastest way to monetize and we will never get a super clear view of how the “current” state of tech. The rewards of putting out a ton of reviews (ie money) will always disincentivize the pundit class from having a clear global understanding of the global sport watch ecosystem because the can are only long time users of the ones that make money.

You may think I am being harsh, but I remember for the longest time on DC’s sale blogs there were only links to items that were affiliate links, Suunto would never get on the list regardless of how good the discount was. I am sure he would have a comeback to this comment, but I think we all do things that are sometimes subconsciously motivated by finance.

sky-runner

@Stavrogin People like DC Rainmaker have no initiative to be fully objective and unbiased. They do rely on receiving preproduction devices for reviews, which allows them to publish reviews on the release day, which drives a lot of traffic to their reviews and their videos. But if they were too critical of the devices and pointed out to flaws, they’d no longer receive preproduction devices in the future. So they I are incentivized to be promoters rather than unbiased reviewers.

Stavrogin

@sky-runner Totally agree.

I like Coros, but it has been even more obvious with some of the folks they pay to review their watches.