I've seen that too specifically while tracking Galileo and Beidou. I don't think it is just cosmetic either, although I could be wrong.
Can anyone on the team share any progress or info on the Galileo update?
Interesting, not only Galileo but Beidou as well. Thanks for sharing Greg. Seems, as surprising as it is to say, Javad and the LS are now behind the competition on this area. Sure haven't been able to say that much in the last five years!FYI Just read that Trimble has released on there VRS system the ability to track and use Galileo and BeiDou. I hope we are not far behind. Looking forward to this.
http://gpsworld.com/trimble-adds-galileo-and-beidou-to-vrs-now-service-in-north-america/
Very well said Shawn... I typed in too quick and blunt after reading that article. I should've said It "seems" the competition is ahead in this area, when if fact it's exactly as Shawn says. Javad will NOT release anything to us, the users, until it's solid and ready and that is why we have the best equipment there is for surveyors. If "brand "X"" has signals from 32 sats and takes 40 minutes to get a shot (or never even gets it at all), but the LS still gets a 3 phase 100% accurate shot in heavy canopy with 14 sats in 15 minutes (AND stores you a PPK shot for verification), I'll obviously take my LS all day and twice on Wednesday!I'll believe we're behind when I see evidence that others are outperforming us in the field. I won't go into lengthy apologetics for the delay or for the way specifications from manufacturers can be misunderstood, but I will give this anecdotal experience.
My first RTK base and rover system was a 2008 vintage by brand X. It tracked GPS and Glonass. If you were reading specs alone, you would expect that it would perform similarly to any other system that tracked GPS and Glonass (which everyone did by 2008), however, this brand X system actually only used GPS to fix and then added Glonass satellites after fixing with GPS in order to help maintain the fix. Of course other systems, like the Triumph-LS, can actually fix using Glonass only or any combination of GPS and Glonass satellites, but spec sheets often overlook such details. This limitation of the brand X receiver appeared to me plainly one day when I was attempting to fix in a place with decent overhead clearance by a high mask angle all around due to trees. I was tracking 10 satellites as I recall, but could not get a fix after several minutes of waiting. I eventually understood that the cause of this was that I was only tracking about five or six GPS satellites and the receiver simply couldn't fix with so few satellites in such a compromised environment. Eventually brand X upgraded their boards to allow more processing power. The last time I used a brand X receiver, it was using Glonass to fix, but still required a minimum of two GPS satellites as well. This isn't too limiting in practice, but it does show that just because a manufacturer is using multiple signals, the way those signals are used can vary significantly. Was it ethical for brand X to say that its receiver was a GPS/Glonass RTK system in 2008? Sure. Did that tell the entire story of performance to potential customers? No.
In our conference call this morning, the latest update regarding Galileo is that the team is working on how to implement the processing strategies into the engines. Javad was adamant that he will not release something to you unless he is confident that the release is at the very least benign. Likely the release will allow for switching between the current engine strategy and the new engine strategy so that if the new strategy is not producing results that are as good as the current strategy, you can roll back with a button press. Implementing this process will take a bit more time.
Very well said Shawn... I typed in too quick and blunt after reading that article. I should've said It "seems" the competition is ahead in this area, when if fact it's exactly as Shawn says. Javad will NOT release anything to us, the users, until it's solid and ready and that is why we have the best equipment there is for surveyors. If "brand "X"" has signals from 32 sats and takes 40 minutes to get a shot (or never even gets it at all), but the LS still gets a 3 phase 100% accurate shot in heavy canopy with 14 sats in 15 minutes (AND stores you a PPK shot for verification), I'll obviously take my LS all day and twice on Wednesday!
I apologize for the comment without first thinking through the specifics and circumstances that Shawn pointed out.
I am just so spoiled on how great this equipment is and it's like Greg says, it just makes your mouth water anticipating it improving beyond where it already is!No need to apologize. We're all waiting with anticipation for the release of Galileo and Beidou in our RTK solution. I just wanted to add a little perspective. Unless I'd had that experience years ago, I'd have thought that GPS+Glonass = GPS+Glonass. It does not. I can only guess that GPS+Glonass+Galileo+Beidou is the same. I have no idea to what degree the other manufacturers are using Galileo and Beidou in their RTK solutions.
We have all T-1M systems and bought them specifically because of this (well that and an internal radio for use on smaller jobs). We knew Galileo would be along before too long and maybe other constellations as well. Heck, I've already upgraded one of my bases so I can be ready whenever it gets here - 'cause you know how much I like......waitingYa know, IF you have a T-2 on base, you will need to upgrade your base, to:
T-1M
T-3
Or, perhaps another LS.
I don't know any other options. (3 are enough!)
So, here is my question. What upgrade path do you plan? Some of us already have, and use the T-1M, so it's a simple software upgrade. I have the T-2, so I'll have to upgrade, or be left behind...
Personally, I don't have my mind made up. But, we might discuss it, while waiting.....
For Daren above, that's waiting.....waiting...waiting.....waiting!
N
This is a very viable option. You can work with correct elevations. The work around is very simple so you may think about this option a little more.The LS, for the price would possibly be the best option with it having the ability to be a stand alone rover on the VRS network and such, but there is/was an issue with it reading the base height correctly, so you'd be limited to work that didn't require accurate elevations unless they've fixed that bug.