gpsd-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gpsrinex and Trimble


From: John Ackermann N8UR
Subject: Re: gpsrinex and Trimble
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 19:20:36 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

Well, annoyingly OPUS seems to be having a hissy fit:

1.  It processed the NetRS file (BNX converted to RINEX by teqc) but
with a lot of bad epochs.

2.  It accepted the f9p file generated by gpsrinex but after thinking
about it for a while aborted with one of five possible errors including
timetag or interval problems and insufficient CORS data (which shouldn't
be the case since the data's going on 2 days old.

3.  It wouldn't even accept the f9p file generated by convbin, claiming
it didn't recognize the internal format.

These, of course, are the same files that NRCan dealt happily with, and
the Trimble begrudgingly processed one of.

And a couple of days ago, it *did* accept f9p files generated with I
think both gpsrinex and convbin.

Gotta love it...

John
----

On 5/5/20 4:22 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> Yo John!
> 
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 16:15:06 -0400
> John Ackermann N8UR <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Well, I was actually able to get TrimbleRTX to accept my F9P RINEX
>> file created by gpsrinex.
> 
> 
> Good.  Someone reported otherwise this week.
> 
>> It would *not* accept the one created by
>> rtklib's convbin tool -- no useful explanation what was wrong, just
>> unrecognized file format.
> 
> Those are called "Lassie Errors".  Content free.
> 
> Does anyone here have Timb;e contacts?
> 
>> The bad news is that the results were pretty awful.  Since the results
>> are just a single-page PDF, I've attached it here.  But in summary:
>>
>> Out of 2873 total observations, 100% were usable, but only 207 (7%)
>> were used.  That raises a lot more questions than it answers...
> 
> No thanks.  We already have enough unanswetred questions here.  :-)
>  
>> The sigmas (not clear if 1 or 2 stdevs) are 0.185m, 0.131m, and 0.066m
>> for XYZ, and 0.062m, 0.195m, and 0.130m for lat/lon/height.  The
>> report came with this warning:
> 
> Which are about 10x worse than NRCan.
> 
>> Of course, those numbers don't actually appear in the report itself.
> 
> Typical Trimble.
> 
> RGDS
> GARY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
>       address@hidden  Tel:+1 541 382 8588
> 
>           Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
>     "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]