I had some early technical difficulties with my attempt to test Adam's theory and went back to testing the same way I did yesterday. I continued to have some strange issue into the beginning of this new test. I started at 13:48 and collected point 1, which took 1455 seconds. Which seemed a bit too long, but I figured it would eventually sort itself out and left it. I returned an hour later and found it still had not completed point 2. I poked around and managed to lock it up attempting to look at the satellite screen. At that point I forced a hard reset (powered it off and then on again). Once rebooted I started again at 15:39. Point 2 was the first point collected and required 3580 seconds (still way too long). Then point 3 and the subsequent points collected more as I would expect. Point 3 required 251 seconds. Averaging the times required for the 18 points I collected, including the hour for point 2 results in an average time per point of: 744 seconds or 12 minutes 24 seconds. Half the observations were five minutes or less. Nine of the 18 points post processed in DPOS correctly. There doesn't seem to be an obvious correlation to time on point and good post processed results. One point with only 181 seconds processed correctly, while one point with 2612 seconds did not process correctly. I'm sure that extremely long sets (perhaps > one hour) would prove to be more reliable than extremely short sets (perhaps < five minutes), but I can't make any real determination from this data.
For the environment, I would still submit that these results are very impressive. All RTK points collected in this test were good with no outliers and showed consistent accuracy to yesterday's data:
Average of 18 points:
Spread:
N: 0.146 ft
E: 0.119 ft
U: 0.258 ft
Even with three very long observations (1455 seconds, 3580 seconds, and 2612 seconds) the average time per point was just a shade over 12 minutes. Taking these three out of the average and leaving the fifteen others would give an average of only 6 minutes 23 seconds!! Depending on the canopy you find yourself working in, you may find the addition of GAL and BDU to your base corrections to make a significant improvement to your production. If working in generally open conditions the addition may not represent a significant difference in production gains although I'm anxious to test how GAL and BDU will improve (if at all) the range of single baseline observations.
For the environment, I would still submit that these results are very impressive. All RTK points collected in this test were good with no outliers and showed consistent accuracy to yesterday's data:
Average of 18 points:
Spread:
N: 0.146 ft
E: 0.119 ft
U: 0.258 ft
Even with three very long observations (1455 seconds, 3580 seconds, and 2612 seconds) the average time per point was just a shade over 12 minutes. Taking these three out of the average and leaving the fifteen others would give an average of only 6 minutes 23 seconds!! Depending on the canopy you find yourself working in, you may find the addition of GAL and BDU to your base corrections to make a significant improvement to your production. If working in generally open conditions the addition may not represent a significant difference in production gains although I'm anxious to test how GAL and BDU will improve (if at all) the range of single baseline observations.