LS use of galileo, etc.

Duane Frymire

Active Member
Can the LS use signals in solutions from all the constellations it tracks when using the Triumph 2 as base? Or do you have to use a base that also tracks those constellations? I didn't think it was needed at the base, but I'm showing the setup next week and the question has come up. How about when using an RTN?
 

Javad

Administrator
Staff member
JAVAD GNSS
5PLS
RTK is differential positioning. Only signals that are common between base and rover can be used.
 

Matthew D. Sibole

Well-Known Member
5PLS
You would need a 1M base in order for the other constilations to be useful. This is only true once Jfield is capable of using those signals.
 

Duane Frymire

Active Member
RTK is differential positioning. Only signals that are common between base and rover can be used.
Thanks Javad, that makes sense. Mark Silver had posted something on a different site that suggested there was some other method.
However, that being the case, do you have plans to enable L5 and Galileo on the triumph 2? From what I've read, this could substantially improve performance in the northeastern part of the U.S. in the near future. And I see Matthew Sibole says Jfield can't use the signals anyway. What combination should I recommend for someone who wants to be able to utilize L5 and Galileo as a base/rover solution? Or, do you think there will be no worthwhile gain in using such a combination in northern latitudes of the U.S. or elsewhere? And why advertise the ability to track, if they can't be used? Not criticizing, just trying to get more educated on this.
 

Javad

Administrator
Staff member
JAVAD GNSS
5PLS
Anywhere in the world, having more than 20 signals has almost no additional benefits. It means more than 10 dual frequency satellites. or 7 triple frequency satellites.
It is best to pre-filter and use the best 20 signals rather than mixing good and bad together. By bad, I mean multipath infected or weak signals. Galileo at this point has almost no effect, because their effect comparing with 8 or more GPS signals will be thrown away. They may pretend that they use Galileo signals of 3 satellites, but it has no effect, until you get comparable amount with GPS and GLONASS. We wait to see reliable operation of Galileo and then release Galileo usage in J-Field in a month or so.
Triumph-2 sues Galileo L1 along with all GPS and GLONASS signals. Use of Galileo is more political at this point that anything practical. See for yourself.
 

Nate The Surveyor

Well-Known Member
I have sat for an hour, waiting for a fix, with all the bells, whistles, and general goodies, contained within the t-2 (on base) and LS on rover.
On nearly any given field work day, there are 2 things that collide:
1.) Poor satellite geometry.
2.) Loads of multipath.
These 2 things, make for delays.
My big questions are:
a.) Will the other constelations help this now?
b.) If not now, then when will they "fill in" these "holes"?
Thanks!
Nate
 

Duane Frymire

Active Member
I have sat for an hour, waiting for a fix, with all the bells, whistles, and general goodies, contained within the t-2 (on base) and LS on rover.
On nearly any given field work day, there are 2 things that collide:
1.) Poor satellite geometry.
2.) Loads of multipath.
These 2 things, make for delays.
My big questions are:
a.) Will the other constelations help this now?
b.) If not now, then when will they "fill in" these "holes"?
Thanks!
Nate
That's what I'm wondering as well Nate. I would add 3) Much of the time I have high interference warning on both GPS and Glonass
I have read claims that Northern latitudes especially might benefit from improved geometry because of the Galileo flight paths, and that both L5 and Galileo are supposed to be less susceptible to interference and multipath. Third or fourth quarter 2017 Galileo might be fully operational (but I've seen that claim other years). Guess we have to wait and see. For now, I'll recommend the Triumph 2/LS combo unless there's reasons other than L5/Galileo that one wants another configuration. I continue to be impressed with the combo and think it's really the best choice (functionality and cost) for those working in tough GPS territory.
 

Nate The Surveyor

Well-Known Member
We "learned" 20 yrs ago, +- that adding glonass would help getting the integers right, in the bad places.
And
We take that little lesson, and ASSUME it will help to have other constelations again today.
We also know that if Mr Javad says it... Well we should give it alot of consideration.
We also, "hear the noise" about other systems, using the other constelations, and it piques our interest.
We are absolute fans of "the verify process". We don't want to be without that.
Anyway, thanks and keep up the good work!
 
Top