I saw the informative post below on Facebook and thought I would repost it here for more visibility to educate people who maybe didn't already know.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/94762302...8494018269

Marc HoffMann Wrote:Why most M10 GPS are not actual M10 GPS.

Over the last year many Manufacturers have thrown "M10" GPS modules on the market. Foxeer, Walksnail and HGLRC, just to name a few.
What many don't know: these are NOT actual M10 GPS like the ones from Matek or Radiolink for example!

Real M10 GPS use the complete MAX-M10 Module from UBLOX (1st picture). You can see these modules with their own PCB on Matek M10Q modules for example, sandwitched between the Antenna and the Regulator/Compass PCB that comes from Matek itself (Picture 2).

Most other so called M10 GPS use complete custom PCBs and only use the UBX-M10050-KB GNSS chip (Picture 3 and 4) but build their own PCB around it. This is the same chip as genuine M10 Modules use but the actual reception quality, noise resistance and sensitivity can be different. So calling it an M10 GPS is actually misleading and the same accuracy, fix speed and sensitivity is not guaranteed compared to a genuine one.

This does not mean that these non-genuine M10 GPS are all bad but I want to raise awareness that you can't rely on the naming of these modules to expect the same good quality.

Thanks Snow,  I can comment that I just replaced a disappointing "NameLessRC Tiny GPS" with one of the new "GOKU M10 Nano" modules from Flywoo.  It is remarkably better...it works on the quad, while the former only worked on the bench.  I may be partly to blame for not shielding or mounting on a printed tail but the new GOKU M10 works well out of the package.  Besides M8 vs M10, in my particular case, UBLOX vs NEMA is probably another reason for the improvement.  
(Build is a 3" Gecko; GPS is mounted above a Caddx Nebula Pro with servo tape and a zip tie.

Now on to replacing all the old TBS M8's on my other quads...these seemed to work for a while then struggle to acquire if at all.

FWIW the "NameLessRC Tiny GPS" was poorly reviewed by Oscar Liang.

I'm eating my words now...I bought the larger Flywoo M10 MINI V3 and had less luck.  Seems like it should work as well or better with the larger antenna...maybe I got a dud.  It did manage to acquire a fix last week ago after 10ish min powered on near a window, then once again (if slowly?) later after going out into an open field, but couldnt get it to find any sats at all today. 

I'm going to play with it a bit more and maybe swap with a new one.  Don't really want to mess with U center if I dont have to...seems like it should work?

More soon...

*Update*

I couldn't get my M10 Mini to acquire Satelites even after letting it sit out for some 20+ min on a clear day... I replaced it with a brand new M10 Nano spare and it worked immediately.

FWIW,

i bought the HGLRC M100 mini gps and had very good results after setting it up with the infamous BF4.4.X. on a clear day its typically quick to lock on 10 satellites which is my personal minimum per YT tutorial from ivan efimov. successive hot starts usually lock 25-30 satellites.

i bought a second unit for a new build. hopefully this one will yield the same results. will update this post.

gps rescue works consistently after tweaking the setup parameters. the only quirk being the rough flight behavior when quad starts the trip to home point. i believe this is more to critique BF4.4.X than the M100 gps module itself.

cheers!

(05-Jan-2024, 08:51 PM)Green_Weedle Wrote:   Besides M8 vs M10, in my particular case, UBLOX vs NEMA is probably another reason for the improvement.  

Why would the protocol matter (everything else being equal)? I don't quite understand why Betaflight is so keen on pushing UBLOX on people, a proprietary protocol supported by one manufacturer instead of NMEA, an open protocol that is supported by every GNSS manufacturer.

All I found in terms of justification is that "NMEA modules sometimes update as infrequently as 1hz" and "too frequently sent updates jam uart buffers" (so they are too slow, mhm.. Ok, but they are also too fast? What? What they mean is probably they send the same position over and over, but really update at only at 1hz), so some, perhaps many, NMEA modules are crap, should this be the reason for going with a proprietary protocol instead of an open one?

Yes, m10 modules are cheap and available now, what happens in 5 years? The wording about the "minimal NMEA support" is similar to saying, "there may be no NMEA support in 4.6".

So if anyone knows anything about the above, please do let me know. I realise UBLOX is a binary and NMEA a text protocol so UBLOX is more efficient when transferring data, but we're not running 2400baud uarts anymore. My GPS modules run on 57600 which means that it can send 80 updates per second if we assume a typical nmea message is 80 bytes.

I thought the preference for UBLOX came from the fact there is no need to do text parsing when receiving it and some messages were smaller. The latter is not the case, allegedly, typical UBLOX position update message is about 100 bytes (92B payload).

I'm looking to get the Speedybee BZGNSS BZ-251 GPS with 5883 Compass

I've not seen a teardown on youtube, but is there a way I can find if the MAX-M10 Module in real in this unit?

If not can someone recommend a GPS with compass?

(03-Mar-2024, 09:00 AM)Luk5569 Wrote: The wording about the "minimal NMEA support" is similar to saying, "there may be no NMEA support in 4.6".

You could be right....INAV 7.0 did just as you said...no more NEMA support