ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey there,

thanks for your feedback. Let me try to provide some detail regarding your
questions:

(1.) Whether you are using a mid-to-high-end or a budget phone does hardly
have any impact on the positioning performance in general. GPS just is
quite slow.
(2.) Assisted GPS, relying on network-based positioning taking into account
wifi hotspots and cell towers is enabled for all production images.
(3.) 30 seconds - 2 minutes for a position estimate with GPS accuracy is
pretty good, actually. Some more details on the timing here:
  * ~15 seconds are required to obtain an initial position estimate based
on visible wifi networks and cell towers. The accuracy for this estimate is
typically around ~100m, but
    can be as low as ~30m (in typical cases).
  * This initial position estimate is fed into the GPS chipset which is
already active, and it takes ~20 seconds - multiple minutes for the chipset
to come back with a
    a position estimate.

That being said, we are working on improving the overall user experience by
caching the last known position estimates and handing those out right after
an
application has requested location services to become active. The algorithm
requires some careful tuning, as with every other caching approach, though.

Please note that it is very unlikely that we will provide an option to keep
the gps chipset on all the time. Battery life would be a disaster, as the
GPS chipset
is draining a *lot* of power. We would be talking a few hours for the
battery to discharge, if we kept the chipset active.

Feel free to file a bug against location services if you think that there
is any specific optimization for minimizing time-to-first-fix that we are
missing:

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/location-service

HTH,

  Thomas



On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Krzysztof Tataradziński <
ktatar156@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello,
> ​​
>
> We all know that on MX4 getting GPS fix takes really long time (30 sec - 2
> min), making scopes like NearBy useless in most of cases. I have a look at
> budget LG L Fino with Android and compared it to MX4.
> In both phones test was the same: at start mobile data and WiFi turned
> off. Next step - turning mobile data on, opening GPS app (Google Maps and
> uNav) and waiting for proper location.
> MX4 time - as mentioned above. LG L Fino - I didn't notice when it find
> location - it was that fast (simply when Maps finished opening, I saw
> correct location). Could anyone explain why budget phone can find location
> in 1-2 sec and mid-to-high-end MX4 can't? Is there hardware problem or
> software? Maybe in LG L Fino, system is asking for location all the time
> keeping GPS fix all the time it can? Is there anything we can do with
> data, even at the cost of battery usage? (for now, I can use MX4 even 4-5
> days without charging - but I would prefer to charge it even 1,5 days if
> that could improve location services)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof Tataradziński
> https://launchpad.net/~ktatar156
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Ten
> e-mail został wysłany z komputera wolnego od wirusów chronionego przez
> Avast.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#1520751ab53dee75_DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>