SOFTWARE UPDATE 2.35.34 Q2
-
@Александр-Даниленко You dont have to! just use it normally.
I am not sure why all this fuzz.
-
Discharging to zero isn’t about memory effect, its for battery managment calibration, modern battery system use “fuel gauge” method to estimate remaining capacity, so, they don’t necessarly look at voltage, because lithium voltage is very stable for most of the discharge cycle, so hard to estimate remaining capacity:
instead they look at the capacity in/capacity out, , but this method allows drift (you look at rate of charge and discharge, coulomb counting), so discharging /charging fully (or almost fully) allows to reset the gauge to its “true 0”.
And, moreover, if the gauge value is reset during a firmware update, which would make sense, the battery is estimated using voltage thus not as precise until the gauge is reset.
If you are interested in it, there is this paper from Texas Instrument for a Battery managment system for wearables (not the one for our watches, but the system is most probably very similar :
https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidub09/tidub09.pdf?ts=1721210050652&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F -
@Elipsus exactly
-
Moreover it’s just a “do it once” not a “do it always”
Charge estimation it’s not black magic
-
It’s not black magic
Or is it magic? A few days ago, a guy rolled back to a previous firmware and instantly got normal battery life. How can such cases be explained?
Moreover it’s just a “do it once” not a “do it always”
I think it’s more like “do it every time after an update.” This is based on my observations of the number of complaints about battery life after each update here. Moreover, it didn’t help in my case, and I still have around 2/3 of the battery life I used to have before one of the previous updates. By the way, I was using my watch for around 10 months without any “calibration stuff” with fantastic battery efficiency. Then I got 2.30.32, and boom, out of nowhere – battery drainage. It hasn’t been fixed for 8 months now.
-
@false
My very personal opinion about FW downgrade. It is not just a FW update at inverse. It is (not experienced with new Ota FWs, but quite a lot with old zips) a very deep hard reset and a full FW installation, like full wipe and clean install).
Thus, my theory about “downgrading has solved issue, thus new FW is faulty” is that, if its the case, maybe the new firmware in itself is not the root issue, but maybe the update process or restoring settings, or… which may cause issues to some and not others.
Shortly, I don’t know really
, but, for those who downgraded and feel better with old FW, it could be worth trying (assuming you are willing to test) : downgrade, do not set up too much things, and just re-update and see.
Hey, it is just one of my theories.
I have not issue, so nothing to validate on my own side, I would have tested myself. -
@Mff73 a FW change does not wipe all settings. Some are reset like the autopause, but everything else is kept.
You are completely right in saying that some effects are independent of the FW and some things just seem to be.
-
@false the battery drainage actually has been fixed in the latest firmware. Just do a full circle charge as discussed.
-
I still have some HR Sensor issues. When leaving the watch on a table for a few hours, sometimes it stops the sensor. Putting the watch on charger re-activates it, a reboot too.
-
has been fixed
Do you know if it was the first fix of that type?
Anyway, I’ve just sold my 9pp and I hope my next watch won’t have such problems. Deciding between race and 265/955
-
@false yeah I know. It was related to the map / navigation screen.
-
@darxmurf I had the same problem with my 9PP. I had to restart it every time. The downgrade finally helped. But maybe not a solution for everyone
-
During exercise (running), only the map interface beeps when the guide message display ends. Can this beep be removed or can it be set by itself? A great feature has been added to automatically center my location on the map with settings after what time it should happen. Is there an idea to create a personal setting for the time the guide displays during the exercise?
-
@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Nice, thanks for the info
-
I noticed that synchronization of pool swimming is not correct. Watch vs. application: 450 vs. 400 m and 1000 vs 975 m. In both cases I stopped during swimming. Yesterday I did 1050 without break and synchronization is correct. Before update I never noticed issue.
-
I’ll gently leave it here and, immediately after posting, dash away like a madman
-
Thank you, @Elipsus, for your informative elaborations. They allow, based on reasonable grounds, to better understand thoughts and decisions behind the further development of the firmware.
Am I right to assume that all your explanation is informed by the actual design considerations of the SUUNTO development (not just good hypothetical explanations), and that they - in that clarity - have not been documented for users to reconstruct elsewhere? If the latter is wrong, I’d appreciate if you could let me know where users like me can inform themselves on such matters.
I understand and fully agree with you that the conversion of the UX between watches makes sense from a SD POV (and from a manufacturer’s budget perspective), and that choices have to be made, i.e., compromises on performance, functionality, usability, warranty level of functionalities, “costs” etc.
Re scrolling: as long as the Vertical has no wheel, the design conversion with the race might be thankful for the devs but with no value per se for Vertical users, or even outrightly irritating.
Re “full vertical”/“full horizontal” and doing whatever with any cake: there might be some middle-way… Maybe even a middle way with more than one widget pinned. But in that case particularly, I understand that memory, battery-life, and smoothness argument etc. weight heavy on what’s possible at all.
Re “do as the others”: I largely follow your argument, with some limitations. Yes, transitioning to the SUUNTO platform form another one should be intuitive from a UX perspective. However, that is, transitioning away from SUUNTO becomes easier too. Also, a watch manufacturer certainly wants to be well-aligned with the established dominant design of a certain device/platform. However, going too far there means risking originality, copying bad design decisions from others, and not making use of (hard-/software) design idiosyncrasies of ones own platform. Yet, this certainly is a strategic decision. Accordingly, it would not surprise if the recent design decisions are also informed by the changes in ownership of the brand…
Your explanations simultaneously imply, as reasonable as they are, that quite some design decisions by SUUNTO making for more or less constructive controversies here in the forum
a) would originate in the (over-)weighing of the developers perspective over the users perspective, and/or
b) have been poorly understood by quite some users (or have been poorly communicated by SUUNTO?).Both, (a) and (b), could be addressed by some transparency on the decisions and the evidence behind them. That is: “If I (at least could) know that I’m the only user who likes a certain feature, who am I to complain if it’s stripped away…?”.
As a side note, with your elaborations (to a large extent) being a good counterexample: My impression is that quite often in discussions on new developments in this forum the tone tends to tilt towards a not very constructive direction. As answer to legitimate requests on firmware design decisions after the fact (like: what just happened to my watch in the update last night?!), rather than good evidence and reasonable explanations (maybe even offered preventively, as announcements?), mockery and an “I like the new better, basta”-attitude even by informed users prevail…
-
@alschmid please remember - this is a user forum. That means an exchange between Suunto users.
There are some exceptions, where Suunto devs chime in for certain aspects like S+ development.That means it is totally fine to speculate what is going on behind the scene in Suunto product management. Still I don’t know what results a discussion based on speculation could yield…
You can be assured that we will never know the technical or dev resources or any other constraints that drive decisions.
t6, S6, Elementum Terra, Ambit 3 Sapphire, Spartan Ultra Copper, Traverse Alpha, S7 Graphite LE, S9B Ambassador, S9P Granite Blue Titanium, S9PP Titanium Sand, Vertical All Black, Race Titanium Charcoal,
Race S All Black - TI Canary - Titanium Courtney -
Hi @Matúš , I get that same phenomenon with the distorted pixels on my Vertical Solar Titanium on quite some of the screens, too. Any idea what’s the problem here, display vs. software?!
-
Hi @Egika. No worries, I’m aware of the limitations of a user exchange. Which is also why I was asking about the degree of speculation or knoweldge…
At the same time, one could assume that its in the interest of the brand product management, running a forum with early-adopters and engaged users (under the official brand domain), to “harvest” the power of the community… That would include providing “sneak peeks” as well as announcements, and using feedback to manage the development roadmaps.
