5. The Tests
- Tests Day One
We tested the Haicom 406BT-C with the Dell Axim X50v. We recorded all produced data for a pre-selected route with VisualGPSce (free edition) and later analyzed it with GPSLog. In order to measure the TTFF ("Time to First Fix" which is the time it takes for a GPS to determine its current position), we used GPSInfo "Cold Start" function. All tests ran continuously, under the same environmental conditions (night, clear sky, 15° C ) and installed in an Audi A4, 2004.
|Globalsat BT-338||Haicom HI-406BT-C|
|Time to First Fix (TTFF)||Secs||36.66 sec||33.66 sec|
|Satellites||Average (in view)||8||11.01|
|Average (in use)||5.90||6.79|
|Average Signal Level (in dB)||Maximum per Satellite||46.67||46.29|
|Average per Satellite||38.93||36.56|
The Globalsat BT-338 had slightly better performance than the HI-406BT-C in terms of Average Signal Level (max/average) per satellite. On the other hand, the HI-406BT-C can "view" and "use" more satellites than the BT-338. The TTFF times are very close, under 45 secs, which is very good. The reported altitudes are very different however...
- Tests Day Two
Again we used our Dell Axim X50v, VisualGPSce, GPSLog and GPSInfo. All tests ran continuously, with the same environmental conditions (day, cloudy weather, 4° C) installed in an Audi A4, 2004. This time we also used an external antenna to see if there would be any difference.
|Haicom 406BT-C||Haicom 406BT-C + antenna|
|Time to First Fix (TTFF)||Secs||33.66 sec||32.15 sec|
|Satellites||Average (in view)||9.11||9.77|
|Average (in use)||5.95||5.86|
|Average Signal Level (in dB)||Maximum per Satellite||43.67||45.17|
|Average per Satellite||35.51||37.88|
Using an external antenna seemed to improve the performance of the 406BT-C since it returned lower TTFF times, more satellites "in view" and higher Average Signal Levels (max/average) per satellite, compared with the antenna-less results.