Eugene Aksyonov
Well-Known Member
Please participate to the poll.
For Receiver+Controller setup, which configuration for corrections you would like to prefer most?
- Thread starter Eugene Aksyonov
- Start date
I have no opinion for which device receives corrections.
I have no opinion on this either.
Jim Frame
Well-Known Member
I'm a little confused by the poll, as the Triumph-LS integrates receiver and controller. If Javad is developing a separate controller (or reviving Victor-LS, which appeared to have been orphaned), then it becomes a valid question.
If you're going to separate the receiver and controller, then I think it depends on how the separation of functions is going to be addressed. If the receiver just receives and sends its data to the controller for vector calculation, then it makes more sense to send the corrections to the controller. But if the receiver is going to do the vector calculation, then it might make more sense to build the correction hardware into the receiver.
Another consideration is receiver weight, assuming an integrated antenna. If the comms hardware adds any significant weight to the antenna unit, then I'd rather see it go in the controller instead.
In summary, it depends. And I might be totally misunderstanding the situation anyway.
If you're going to separate the receiver and controller, then I think it depends on how the separation of functions is going to be addressed. If the receiver just receives and sends its data to the controller for vector calculation, then it makes more sense to send the corrections to the controller. But if the receiver is going to do the vector calculation, then it might make more sense to build the correction hardware into the receiver.
Another consideration is receiver weight, assuming an integrated antenna. If the comms hardware adds any significant weight to the antenna unit, then I'd rather see it go in the controller instead.
In summary, it depends. And I might be totally misunderstanding the situation anyway.
Eugene Aksyonov
Well-Known Member
The idea was the way corrections reaches the GNSS receiver firmware. I did rephrase a little the question.
If you have an external controller, Everything in the controller, this is in hopes it would allow for a smaller and lighter antenna on the rod while walking through the woods.
Eugene Aksyonov
Well-Known Member
That make sense, as Jim commented, in case if we considering to move RTK calculation into controller.
I think I understood you. For cellular, I think it is best for corrections to go to the controller. This is because users will want cellular access in the controller for other things. For the receiver cellular only matters for corrections and anti-theft. For a rover anti-theft isn't as big of an issue as it is for a base. For UHF, it's better on the receiver because the receiver is higher for a better signal.
Eugene Aksyonov
Well-Known Member
Slightly confusing, Shawn, when you call "base" like just a receiver, but I guess I understood all properly.
Bryan Enfinger
Active Member
I like my Victor LS controller/T2 combo. I keep mine in a pelican case. When I do get to go in the field, it's mostly locating remote property corners. I carry the pelican case with receiver/controller and bipod. When locating a corner, I break open the case and setup receiver/controller. After measuring, I place the receiver/controller back in the case. All I have to carry is the case, bipod and small bushaxe.
I don't have to worry about tearing off a cellular antenna or dropping the receiver or controller on the ground or in a creek.
Victor LS controller/T2 combo works great for me.
I don't have to worry about tearing off a cellular antenna or dropping the receiver or controller on the ground or in a creek.
Victor LS controller/T2 combo works great for me.