Over the past several days, I've been testing the Triumph-LS Plus, Triumph-LS Standard Multi-Constellation, and Triumph-LS Standard GPS + Glonass.
After my extensive tests that included collecting about 20,000 points under canopy, I can provide these observations:
TLS(MSM) 2x Faster than TLS(GG)
In canopy, the Triumph-LS Standard (MSM) is about twice as fast at getting a verified position, compared to the Triumph-LS Standard GPS + Glonass. In one test I collected 377 points with the TLS(MSM) using the 6-Engine firmware and was able to get verified positions in as little as 6 seconds in canopy. About 68% of the 377 points collected required 6 seconds or less to get a verified position. About 95% of the 377 points were verified in 430 seconds. The average time was 69 seconds. Comparing this to the TLS(GG) using the Boundary Profile, I collected 306 points at this same location. About 68% of those 306 points required 227 seconds. About 95% of those 306 points required 570 seconds. In other words, the Triumph-LS with 4-Constellations using the 6-Engine profile was always faster than the Triumph-LS with GPS + Glonass using the 6-Engine profile. Most of the time the difference was dramatic.
The method I used for getting this fast verified result with the Triumph-LS Standard using the 6-Engine profile with 4-Constellation corrections - TLS(MSM) - was to use the Variety score. The variety score increases as engines with significantly different signal used acquire the same fix. Rather than putting all of the signals into one engine, segregating the signals among various engines allows the receiver to verify the fix nearly instantaneously in many cases. Recall that the Boundary profile works by getting a fix now, and then getting another fix that agrees with the first fix at some time >180 seconds. This 180 seconds allows for a slight change in satellite geometry that changes the way the signals bounce through multi-path. With so many satellites available, there is no need to wait, different satellite geometries can be constructed based on assigning some satellites/signals to different engines. The more varied the signals used in the engines, the higher the Variety score. It's as if we waited for a couple of hours to verify the position, but were actually able to make the comparison immediately instead of waiting for 2 hours.
With the Triumph-LS Standard using the 6-Engine firmware with 4-constellation corrections, a Variety of 0.75 produced the correct solution under canopy about 99.96% of the time. A variety of 1.0 increased this to 99.99+% (so far I have seen zero failures, but I hesitate to say 100%). A variety of 0.75 can be produced much faster than 1.0 in the canopy environment I tested in. At 0.75, 68% of the observations only required 1 second, while 95% required less than 10 seconds (compare to 6 seconds and 430 seconds for a Variety of 1.0). Confidence comes at a price. Having said that, it's quite possible that a "Quick Topo" style profile might have a Variety of only 0.75, understanding that the reliability is slightly less, but with an exponential decrease in time required. This might be particularly useful in light to medium canopy.
TLS(MSM) 6-Engine or 2-Engine
I have believed anecdotally that the 2-Engine firmware was better than the 6-Engine firmware, and perhaps the way I was using it, the 2-Engine was better. However, in my recent tests, the results would indicate that the 6-Engine MSM firmware is faster at delivering required Variety scores than the 2-Engine firmware. It's roughly twice as fast, in fact.
Triumph LS Plus is King
The vast majority of my testing was centered on the Triumph-LS Plus, and oh my, what a surprise. I found that with the Triumph-LS Plus, a Variety score of 1.3 has yet to allow a bad fix to be stored. This after collecting 18,000 points under canopy. Lower Variety scores would occasionally allow a bad fix through the gate. For example, in one test using Variety of 0.75, I collected 10,525 points, with three outliers. This gives a reliability under canopy of 99.97%. The three outliers all had Variety scores of less than 1.3. In my final test, I set the required Variety to 1.3. There were zero failures out of the 3031 points collected. The Triumph-LS Plus was able to get to a Variety of 1.3 very quickly in this environment. 68% of points were collected in 1 second, while 95% were collected in 40 seconds. The Triumph-LS Plus was able to get a Variety of 0.75 even faster in this environment. 68% were collected in 1 second, while 95% were collected in 10 seconds. As mentioned above with the Triumph-LS Standard MSM, perhaps a "Quick Topo" style profile might be set to 0.75, understanding that the reliability is again, slightly less, but with a faster observation time. Again, likely useful in light to medium canopy.
Conclusions
For surveyors working in canopy, the getting corrections from all four constellations to the Triumph-LS Standard will make a significant impact on collecting points under trees and around buildings and other obstructions. This means for those using an RTN with GPS + Glonass only corrections or those with a Triumph-2, the economics may make sense to upgrade your base to a Triumph-1M, Triumph-3, or Triumph-LS even, so that you can get corrections for all four constellations. If you have a Triumph-1M base but in only tracks GPS + Glonass, the economics are even easier to justify to upgrade the 1M to track Galileo and Beidou.
For surveyors who are working with a Standard Triumph-LS and a base that is transmitting all four constellations, the difference in performance from the Triumph-LS to Triumph-LS Plus is dramatic. Upgrading your Triumph-LS to the Triumph-LS Plus will deliver reliable results much faster under canopy.
For those surveyors who are not using Javad GNSS and are working in canopy, I would encourage you to take a serious look at what these tests show and call one Javad's sales people soon.
After my extensive tests that included collecting about 20,000 points under canopy, I can provide these observations:
TLS(MSM) 2x Faster than TLS(GG)
In canopy, the Triumph-LS Standard (MSM) is about twice as fast at getting a verified position, compared to the Triumph-LS Standard GPS + Glonass. In one test I collected 377 points with the TLS(MSM) using the 6-Engine firmware and was able to get verified positions in as little as 6 seconds in canopy. About 68% of the 377 points collected required 6 seconds or less to get a verified position. About 95% of the 377 points were verified in 430 seconds. The average time was 69 seconds. Comparing this to the TLS(GG) using the Boundary Profile, I collected 306 points at this same location. About 68% of those 306 points required 227 seconds. About 95% of those 306 points required 570 seconds. In other words, the Triumph-LS with 4-Constellations using the 6-Engine profile was always faster than the Triumph-LS with GPS + Glonass using the 6-Engine profile. Most of the time the difference was dramatic.
The method I used for getting this fast verified result with the Triumph-LS Standard using the 6-Engine profile with 4-Constellation corrections - TLS(MSM) - was to use the Variety score. The variety score increases as engines with significantly different signal used acquire the same fix. Rather than putting all of the signals into one engine, segregating the signals among various engines allows the receiver to verify the fix nearly instantaneously in many cases. Recall that the Boundary profile works by getting a fix now, and then getting another fix that agrees with the first fix at some time >180 seconds. This 180 seconds allows for a slight change in satellite geometry that changes the way the signals bounce through multi-path. With so many satellites available, there is no need to wait, different satellite geometries can be constructed based on assigning some satellites/signals to different engines. The more varied the signals used in the engines, the higher the Variety score. It's as if we waited for a couple of hours to verify the position, but were actually able to make the comparison immediately instead of waiting for 2 hours.
With the Triumph-LS Standard using the 6-Engine firmware with 4-constellation corrections, a Variety of 0.75 produced the correct solution under canopy about 99.96% of the time. A variety of 1.0 increased this to 99.99+% (so far I have seen zero failures, but I hesitate to say 100%). A variety of 0.75 can be produced much faster than 1.0 in the canopy environment I tested in. At 0.75, 68% of the observations only required 1 second, while 95% required less than 10 seconds (compare to 6 seconds and 430 seconds for a Variety of 1.0). Confidence comes at a price. Having said that, it's quite possible that a "Quick Topo" style profile might have a Variety of only 0.75, understanding that the reliability is slightly less, but with an exponential decrease in time required. This might be particularly useful in light to medium canopy.
TLS(MSM) 6-Engine or 2-Engine
I have believed anecdotally that the 2-Engine firmware was better than the 6-Engine firmware, and perhaps the way I was using it, the 2-Engine was better. However, in my recent tests, the results would indicate that the 6-Engine MSM firmware is faster at delivering required Variety scores than the 2-Engine firmware. It's roughly twice as fast, in fact.
Triumph LS Plus is King
The vast majority of my testing was centered on the Triumph-LS Plus, and oh my, what a surprise. I found that with the Triumph-LS Plus, a Variety score of 1.3 has yet to allow a bad fix to be stored. This after collecting 18,000 points under canopy. Lower Variety scores would occasionally allow a bad fix through the gate. For example, in one test using Variety of 0.75, I collected 10,525 points, with three outliers. This gives a reliability under canopy of 99.97%. The three outliers all had Variety scores of less than 1.3. In my final test, I set the required Variety to 1.3. There were zero failures out of the 3031 points collected. The Triumph-LS Plus was able to get to a Variety of 1.3 very quickly in this environment. 68% of points were collected in 1 second, while 95% were collected in 40 seconds. The Triumph-LS Plus was able to get a Variety of 0.75 even faster in this environment. 68% were collected in 1 second, while 95% were collected in 10 seconds. As mentioned above with the Triumph-LS Standard MSM, perhaps a "Quick Topo" style profile might be set to 0.75, understanding that the reliability is again, slightly less, but with a faster observation time. Again, likely useful in light to medium canopy.
Conclusions
For surveyors working in canopy, the getting corrections from all four constellations to the Triumph-LS Standard will make a significant impact on collecting points under trees and around buildings and other obstructions. This means for those using an RTN with GPS + Glonass only corrections or those with a Triumph-2, the economics may make sense to upgrade your base to a Triumph-1M, Triumph-3, or Triumph-LS even, so that you can get corrections for all four constellations. If you have a Triumph-1M base but in only tracks GPS + Glonass, the economics are even easier to justify to upgrade the 1M to track Galileo and Beidou.
For surveyors who are working with a Standard Triumph-LS and a base that is transmitting all four constellations, the difference in performance from the Triumph-LS to Triumph-LS Plus is dramatic. Upgrading your Triumph-LS to the Triumph-LS Plus will deliver reliable results much faster under canopy.
For those surveyors who are not using Javad GNSS and are working in canopy, I would encourage you to take a serious look at what these tests show and call one Javad's sales people soon.
