@Aaron S I've never done that!
Seriously, I've been watching this subject for a long time.
From L1 only, with 8 channels,
To Topcon/Javad, Legacy E.
To the T-2 LS combo.
And, always, I'm not as interested in how it does it, but I ALWAYS want is the coordinate that is as close to the actual as possible.
So, when you go to the woods, this argument (RMS, vs Time) sort of goes out the window.
Short time observations, that yield low rms values.
Long time observations, that yield high rms values.
Long time observation, that yield low rms values.
Which one is closest to the actual value?
My general "truth", is that the longer observation, (I mean ridiculously long ones, like 4 or more hours) generates:
The most accurate coords. That the equipment is capable of.
And
The most accurate error estimates.
So, by doing 3, 4 HR observations, and averaging it, you start to get a very HONEST look at the numbers.
If you did 10, 4 HR observations, then you start to see that you practically had all you needed with 3 HR. Observations.
Then, you start to try 3 15 minute observations, and compare that to 5 15 minute ones.
What I'm seeing is:
The more challenging a site is, then the more time, and observations are needed, for an accurate (closer to actual) that both numbers are. (Error estimates, and close to actual, and error potential).
It's those obstructions (multipath) that pushes you to need more time.
The javad system drastically reduced the amount of time needed, to get both numbers.
That was a long sermon, on how I do it, AND how I became a Javad fan.
Nate