heyday 0 #1 February 15, 2005 Hello I've been loaned a Foretrex 201 that I'm gonna test this weekend with my wingsuit.Thinking through the process I'm wondering, based on exiting a Twin Otter and being stuck for most of the climb to altitude near the pilot, what is the best way to pick up the satellites, and what is the best process to start the recording. Useful advice greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance David"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."...Steven Wright Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #2 February 15, 2005 Hey Dave. Try to keep the GPS near a window,easy if your in the co pilot seat, so that you can maintain sattelite contact during the climb. You can trim all that data off afterwards. You usually won't loose the sats completly in the time it takes you to move to the door. If you have time after the last jumper, place the unit so that it can see the sky while near the door and you should be good. Have fun and awesome icon"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heyday 0 #3 February 15, 2005 Ah..Mr Diamond, so we meet again.....any data worth posting ...I'll let you know!! Agreed. Icon leaves one 'in some awe' .....some dude at Eloy took it a couple of years back now Have a great weekend! David"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."...Steven Wright Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFlyZ 0 #4 February 17, 2005 Just an FYI for all ForeTrex 201 owners. Do not upgrade to version 2.40. I upgraded mine and it stopped connecting to the PC. I sent it back to Garmin and they are replacing the unit. It may be a issue with the unit but why take a chance? Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vidiot 0 #5 February 18, 2005 Kris, I'm using my Foretrex 101 (same model except for batteries) without problems on 2.40. KlausMy Logbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFlyZ 0 #6 February 19, 2005 QuoteKris, I'm using my Foretrex 101 (same model except for batteries) without problems on 2.40. Klaus That is what the Garmin Rep told me(that they did not notice that problem in their tests) but I received a new unit from them(and they could confirm the problem) so it may be the unit. However I know of one other person on here that has had the same problem. So who knows..........Kris. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jojo0815 0 #7 February 19, 2005 I am flying a foretrex 101 and love it. it does have problems keeping the sats even if you are sitting near the front windows though, especially in the otter. the caravan is not so bad at all. make sure you have a good lock on the satellites BEFORE you board the aircraft. that way it reaquires it's lock faster after you exit. what's especially awesome about this unit is I have mine mounted on the back of my hand between my index finger and my thumb and you can easily see it in flight. set it to the speed screen, big numbers :-D... makes adjusting pitch/forward speed easier and you get a much better glide this way.... at least I do [solo dives]. long flights... [if the f'in weather ever gets better >:-/] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #8 April 3, 2006 is it MAC friendly ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #9 April 3, 2006 Quoteis it MAC friendly ? Yes, very! Actually the coolest app I have found for plotting and viewing tracks is FlightTrack (http://flighttrack.sf.net), and it is Mac only! You can view your flights in 3D from all angles and it calculates glide ratios between any 2 points. And you can load maps and elevation data in it too. Paralog is Java based, so it will run on Mac too. So will the TrackingDerby software. You will need to get a USB->Serial converter, like the Keyspan USB Serial interface, because there are no serial ports on most current Macs. I highly recommend this GPS unit. Cheers, Costyn.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #10 April 3, 2006 thanks. Now because of you I have to order one edited to correct... I have ordered one... scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leoholanda 0 #11 April 3, 2006 Quoteis it MAC friendly ? Hey! Wait! I depends on your mac! Most (if not all) Macs today, do not come with serial RS232 (DB9) port. They come only with USB and Firewire. My foretrex 201 is not USB! So I could not connect it to my mac, only PC. But, if your Mac has a serial RS232 port, that's all right. Although, if you have already bought the foretrex, you can transfer the data from the unit a PC computer (if you also have one), save the PLT file and then transfer the file for use on your mac...Leo Holanda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leoholanda 0 #12 April 3, 2006 I had the same problem. But I was able to fix by myself (not exactly a fix, but a "workaround" ). QuoteHowever I know of one other person on here that has had the same problem. So who knows..........Kris.Leo Holanda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #13 April 3, 2006 QuoteMy foretrex 201 is not USB! So I could not connect it to my mac, only PC. But, if your Mac has a serial RS232 port, that's all right. You can easily give any computer with no serial but only USB interfaces a serial port with one of these: http://www.keyspan.com/products/usb/usa19hs/ Some newer PC laptops don't have serial interfaces either and you need one of these to connect to your computer. But they work very well.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #14 April 3, 2006 Quotethanks. Now because of you I have to order one edited to correct... I have ordered one... Heh, nice one! I'm sure you'll like it! It is quite tricky being able to use the unit for logging as well as in flight data though. Almost all places where you can mount it so you can see it are facing downwards during normal belly to earth flight or have your body between the unit and the sky (it doesn't take much to block the satellite signal). I can get perfect logging if I mount it on my helmet, but I won't be able to read it inflight (for checking speed or whatever). Or, I can mount it on the webbing of my harnas, but the logging will be spotty (pretty useless for postflight data analysis). Ideally I'd like an external antenna for the unit, or an alternative output such as a tone generator to tell me particular data. Where is everybody else placing theirs? Cheers, Costyn.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #15 April 3, 2006 I was thinking heel mounted, or wrist mounted. Already use the same for sailing, but it's not mine....scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeemax 0 #16 April 3, 2006 Does anyone know what the differences are between the 101 and the 201? Are they any good for wingsuit use, or is there a better choice in the same price bracket? Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeordieSkydiver 0 #17 April 3, 2006 Basically, they are exactly the same, the only difference being that the 201 is rechargable, and the 101 takes AAA batteries. I started with the 201 and 'downgraded' to the 101 as AAA batteries are everywhere, 240v to charge a dead gps isn't.... .Lee _______________________________ In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy? http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeemax 0 #18 April 3, 2006 and it seems considerably cheaper... hmmmmmmPhoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #19 April 4, 2006 QuoteBasically, they are exactly the same, the only difference being that the 201 is rechargable, and the 101 takes AAA batteries. I started with the 201 and 'downgraded' to the 101 as AAA batteries are everywhere, 240v to charge a dead gps isn't.... Hmm... I guess that's annoying if there's no power around. But I really like the fact that it has internal rechargeable batteries. I really hate changing batteries and having to remember to buy them and having to carry extra's around. So, the extra money for the 201 was worth it to me. Is the 101 waterproof as well with the battery compartment? I would imagine it was not. THe 201 is waterproof up to 1 meter for 30 minutes. Not that I plan using it underwater, but it's nice to know it doesn't matter if it gets a bit wet or whatever.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeordieSkydiver 0 #20 April 4, 2006 QuoteHmm... I guess that's annoying if there's no power around. But I really like the fact that it has internal rechargeable batteries. I really hate changing batteries and having to remember to buy them and having to carry extra's around. So, the extra money for the 201 was worth it to me. Is the 101 waterproof as well with the battery compartment? I would imagine it was not. THe 201 is waterproof up to 1 meter for 30 minutes. Not that I plan using it underwater, but it's nice to know it doesn't matter if it gets a bit wet or whatever. The 101 is waterproof except the battery compartment, its recommended that you dry that out before using the 101 again. See how much you like the rechargable battery when you're camping in the US for 2 weeks, with no power outlets and no 110v charger. Suddenly having a couple of AAA's in your gearbag makes sense (much the same as we do for neptune, pro-track, dytter etc). Its personal preference though. I've had both and I know which I prefer. My 201 mainly sat in my gearbag dead. I use my 101 every WS jump.Lee _______________________________ In a world full of people, only some want to fly, is that not crazy? http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
980 0 #21 April 4, 2006 I have a question about the Foretrex 101 and 201 for wingsuit use. According to the Garmin website, neither of these units have a barometric altimeter. So my questions for people who are using the Foretrex 101 and 201: -What kind of accuracy have you been getting from the GPS based altitude? -Does this compare favourably with barometric altimeter data from another source (like your Neptune or Protrack or such)? -Are there any features offered by other GPS units that might make you change to them from the Foretrex? Then for people who are using GPS units with a barometric altimeter (like the Etrex Vista): -Does your unit capture both barometric and GPS altitude data? -If so, how do they compare? The more I research GPS units, the more I think I’m going to get an Etrex Vista… Flock on! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #22 April 4, 2006 Quote According to the Garmin website, neither of these units have a barometric altimeter. Correct. Quote So my questions for people who are using the Foretrex 101 and 201: -What kind of accuracy have you been getting from the GPS based altitude? -Does this compare favourably with barometric altimeter data from another source (like your Neptune or Protrack or such)? -Are there any features offered by other GPS units that might make you change to them from the Foretrex? The accuracy is pretty good, if I compare it to my wrist altimeter in the airplane. I haven't been able to compare graphs on the 201 next to my protrack; I don't have the JumpTrack software. Of course the 201 does report above sea level; ProTrack, Neptune and analog wristmount will show above current ground level. Well, an accurate barometric altimeter might be nice yes, but the main reason I got the 201 was the small size and being able to wear it like a watch (and it was cheap). i'd like a map function and possibility for an external antenna, but a map function means a larger unit as well. Cheers, Costyn.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trackingderby 0 #23 April 4, 2006 The GPS units with barometrics capsules log altitudes recalculated with GPS. Also thoses Baros are not fast enougt for free falling, the verticals speed graph shoows huges differences. I did some testing with a Geko 301, and definetly prefer the fortrex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vidiot 0 #24 April 4, 2006 Quote -What kind of accuracy have you been getting from the GPS based altitude? According to the specs, a GPS with WAAS (USA) or EGNOS (Europe) support like the ForeTrex 101/201 is accurate up to +-3m horizontally. As a rule of thumb, the vertical resolution is half of this, i.e. +-6m. Based on my experience, this is an absolute error, i.e. although your height might be slightly off, it will be off by the same amount for consecutive readings, therefore distances and speeds derived from those readings seem to be quite accurate. Quote -Does this compare favourably with barometric altimeter data from another source (like your Neptune or Protrack or such)? Based on my experiments, altitudes measured by GPS and popular freefall loggers are hardly different (see attached). When you calculate speeds, though, GPS seems to perform better as it is not affected by dynamic pressure changes and picks up subtle changes under canopy better. It is very difficult, though, to make any absolute statements as we are comparing instruments with an unknown accuracy without having a defined accurate reference. HTH, KlausMy Logbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
980 0 #25 April 4, 2006 Thank you for a very useful reply! Now I would like to know which data sets on your graph correspond to which instruments? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
