James Suttles
Active Member
Seems to be working from both LS and LS+ boxes
RTPK Real Time Processed Kinematic
- Thread starter Shawn Billings
- Start date
416 is good. The PLS team noticed a setting was missing that can affect RTK performance. As it turns out the setting was moved to a more logical place.
Darren Clemons
Well-Known Member
Would that be the independent/conventional tracking button that is now not where it was????
Darren Clemons
Well-Known Member
Where has the independent/conventional tracking button gone? That had started to prove to be very, very useful in certain areas....I hadn't tried it in enough areas to "prove" it 100% but I was on a rough farm last week and the independent gave me significantly better results almost instantly when switching to it....
Joe Paulin
Well-Known Member
What is the difference between independent and conventional tracking? What should I be using with a standard LS and T2 base?
Darren Clemons
Well-Known Member
Gotcha.....appears to be hard coded now.
Thanks Adam!
Eugene Aksyonov
Well-Known Member
Darren, default state is Independent and we believe customers should not switch it to different state. But setting is present. In difficult environment it should be preferable as there are no dependency of C/A tracking.
Charles Owens
Active Member
Is there a definitive set of instructions somewhere for implementing the RTKPK on a standard LS (using 2 engines) using a RTN?
My interpretation:
My interpretation:
- Download the latest pre-release J-Field, GNSS & Linux
- Configure LS for connecting to RTN using correct data stream (RTCM 3.2).
- If using 2 engines change profile to only require 1 fix.
- What are the recommended confidence & consistency levels?
Try out the RTPK whitebox. It allows the RTPK to process while the RTK is still running.
Your 3rd item should be only require 1 for Min RTK engines, not 1 fix.
Don't use consistency, set it to 0. Confidence can be any number you like. I use 2. Others use 5 or 10. Its really preference. Fixed time is what matters.
That is the case until release is rolled up to match prerelease.
Your 3rd item should be only require 1 for Min RTK engines, not 1 fix.
Don't use consistency, set it to 0. Confidence can be any number you like. I use 2. Others use 5 or 10. Its really preference. Fixed time is what matters.
That is the case until release is rolled up to match prerelease.
Charles Owens
Active Member
What about pre-release files compatibility with original project files?
We support backward compatibility and upgrade a project database structure when opened. But an older application can't open the upgraded project.
Nate The Surveyor
Well-Known Member
On this "up to date" manual thing.
Some have suggested that we make it a "user made product". Like wiki-pedia.
Just a thought. How about if we do that. And, moderators can highlight stuff, with a color code. Grey is "out of date".
Different colors, so that we can make the manual, but I can see the javad company being concerned about errors.
Just thinking aloud...
N
Some have suggested that we make it a "user made product". Like wiki-pedia.
Just a thought. How about if we do that. And, moderators can highlight stuff, with a color code. Grey is "out of date".
Different colors, so that we can make the manual, but I can see the javad company being concerned about errors.
Just thinking aloud...
N
I don't know how long it will take to put together this new manual strategy. But you have a lot of that functionality here on this message board. It's why we have a lot of these threads. It's also why it's helpful if we keep a thread centered on the topic. (You don't want to be reading a manual only to be constantly interrupted by a sidebar conversation). I realize this isn't quite as good as a sequential, topical manual, but we do have this message board divided into various topics with the ability to share screen captures and video as well as text that can be formatted with fonts, and sizes.
I would encourage you to take advantage of this platform. Perhaps we could use this for raw material to be pasted into a live manual at some point.
I would encourage you to take advantage of this platform. Perhaps we could use this for raw material to be pasted into a live manual at some point.
I moved to J-Field Prerelease 3.0.8.416 on Monday, and I used it yesterday with essentially no problems. The RTPK feature is great!! The only issue I had is that my background maps are no longer functioning. Luckily, JAVAD has implemented a new, more automated background map feature that works extremely well. Although, I'm not sure if the new automated maps will work without cellular service, and I have no idea how much cell data (if any) it uses to have the automated background map turned on. I'm hoping that the problem with my background maps is just user error- maybe there are new settings that I need to use. I create high-resolution custom background maps for every project (a process that only adds a couple of minutes to my standard office workflow), and I find them incredibly useful in the field. I would like to continue using them. Is anyone else having a problem with background maps?
We need somehow to reproduce the issue. The best way if you will send an example of your map for investigation. Or explain your map creation procedure.
I tried to attach a .zip file, but it was too large for the server to process. Please let me know if there is another way I can send you one of my maps. To create them, I export a geospatial pdf from QGIS, then I import that into MAPC2MAPC. From MAPC2MAPC, I save the map for a mobile application (locus) and it creates the .sqliteb file. Then I paste the .sqliteb file into the background maps folder on the SD card of my Triumph LS. The map in my current project was working before I updated to prerelease. I checked some other projects, and their maps aren't working anymore either.