I am planning to buy a set of GPS units and am Looking at either a Carlson bx5s or CHC X900+. I am currently using a Topcon hiper lite+ base a 2 rovers with rangers using surveypro. I don't plan on continuing with Topcon due to price. Any advise would be appreciated.
billvhill, post: 399075, member: 8398 wrote: I am planning to buy a set of GPS units and am Looking at either a Carlson bx5s or CHC X900+. I am currently using a Topcon hiper lite+ base a 2 rovers with rangers using surveypro. I don't plan on continuing with Topcon due to price. Any advise would be appreciated.
The CHC X91+ is the best bang for the buck on the market as far as rebranded Trimble OEM boards go. You can get them from Mark Silver at iGage.
There are "better" systems, as in more cutting edge - but you'd be paying double the cost (and sometimes quite a bit more) for an unquantifiable amount of benefit. I'm not saying the R10s, SP80s, LSs of the world aren't better, they are, but you'd really have to demo each system to see what meets your needs. Since you're moving away from Topcon due to price, though, I'm assuming you'd already ruled those out.
How cheap are they? I use a Geomax receiever (Zenith 25 Pro), but I only have the one. I run it as a network rover. They have a newer model now (35). It looks a little smaller in diameter so it would be easier to balance on the rod. I think the 25 cost about $6-7k brand new when I bought it.
I have the X-91s, they work great and I got a pair for what 1 Topcon Unit would have cost. They actually out perform my friends older Hyper Units in under the canopy of the East Texas Thicket. I got mine from Mark Silver, his support has been outstanding.
It seems that you HAVE to go with a Carlson Data collector, to go with the Chinese GPS systems. So, if you want to STAY with TDS (now trimble) then, you have to stay with products that support it. Unless, somebody has a work around. Just a FYI. For some that is a boon, and for others, it means learning a new system.
Now, here's a little jingle, I wrote:
I can sing it note for note,
Coordinates, coordinates, falling from the sky,
Click Click, Buzz Buzz, O how I wonder why!
Are they true and correct?
That's why I use VERIFY!
Always verify your coordinates, when working in obstructed areas. And, sometimes when in the clear. Reminds me of an old Indian proverb. "GPS lie sometimes".
Happy Surveying to all.
N
Hiper Lites are okay units. So I've got to wonder why you feel the need to replace them given that low cost, rather than functionality, seems to be the feature you seek.
Nevertheless, if you like Survey Pro (I don't like it much, but it is ubiquitous) then Spectra Precision SP80s might work for you. They have a low purchase price.
P
Dan Patterson, post: 399086, member: 1179 wrote: How cheap are they? I use a Geomax receiever (Zenith 25 Pro), but I only have the one. I run it as a network rover. They have a newer model now (35). It looks a little smaller in diameter so it would be easier to balance on the rod. I think the 25 cost about $6-7k brand new when I bought it.
Prices here:
So are x900+ and x91+ different units?
billvhill, post: 399190, member: 8398 wrote: So are x900+ and x91+ different units?
Yes, the 900+ are based on the Novatel OEM board and the 91+ is based on the Trimble OEM board. With more Galileo being deployed it makes the 91+ the better option. If they're going to be used on the great plains, though, the difference is nil.
Mark Mayer, post: 399098, member: 424 wrote: Hiper Lites are okay units. So I've got to wonder why you feel the need to replace them given that low cost, rather than functionality, seems to be the feature you seek.
Nevertheless, if you like Survey Pro (I don't like it much, but it is ubiquitous) then Spectra Precision SP80s might work for you. They have a low purchase price.
I originally purchased 2 units from another surveyor, the 3rd one I got from GEO Shack. The two original units came with the ranger and Survey Pro. I had purchased another ranger with survey pro from eBay to use with my total my total station. It had the GPS module also, so I was able to use it with the third unit. It was not really a choice, just happened that way. I was however familiar with surveypro from the old TDS 200 and HP41GX. I do plan to go with Carlson for data collection, I am using the OEM Carlson Survey right now. I am currently working with Civil 3D but will probably let the subscription go once I'm done with a big project I'm working on. I have had no issues with the hiper lite+ units but looking at the price of the GR-5 vs the bx5 or bx6, there is a big difference. I don't plan on retiring the hiper lites until the dealer won't work on them anymore, but they are getting old and want/need something new for the future.
Is there something the hiper lites can do that the bx5 or x900+ won't do? The hiper lites are tough and have withstood some rough conditions and a few falls and still working.
First I would like to thank the posters for the overly kind things said about me above. My ears are burning and I am embarrassed to chime in at this point. Also, like Shawn, I guess I need to disclose that I have a pony in this race, but that really should be self evident.
The X900 is a great receiver. However they do not track Galileo satellites. (So they are GPS + GLONASS + BDU, and SBAS/WAAS.) Many other NovAtel based receivers (like the GeoMax) are GPS+GLONASS only. Actually, it is a little deeper than this. The X900+ uses a NovAtel engine that can track GPS + GLONASS + Galileo + BeiDou. But, it can only track three constellations at a time. And you need to chose which three you want when you provision the engine. So it is not technically correct to claim they can't track Galileo. They can, but I can't provision them to track Galileo when I purchase them.
On January 1st 2016 there was a 'bad ephemeris event' (detailed [ here ] ) loaded into the GLONASS system. For 24 hours, many receivers were not tracking GLONASS (and I have doubts about those that were.) Anyway, as I was investigating this with network operators in the USA, Ireland, Czech Rep and Russia, I noticed that both of my CORS stations were tracking 6 Galileo SV's. I had an 'awakening' that as more Galileo SV's are launched they are going to be more valuable and at some point I was going to have to answer for selling receivers that did not or could not use them.
Around this same time, one of my European buddies started sending me screen shots of Galileo only fixes, Galileo + BDU fixes, GLONASS only fixes using Trimble engines with beta 5.05 firmware. The difference being that the new 5.x firmware was GNSS centric. At this time there was a bid specification in China that required the ability to get BDU only fixes, which I believe was a primary driving force behind this release. (China consumes a crazy number of USA sourced GNSS engines every year. So it is worth chasing these things for the GNSS manufacturers.)
The SP80's (and the PM800's prior) which I had been selling for years had spoiled me with this type of GNSS centric solution that did not require a GPS fix first and then add in GLONASS SV's. The PM800 was the first receiver that I knew of that definitely would fix with compromised constellations. But if you remember, we charged extra (quite a bit) for Galileo back in those days, and there were not that many Galileo SV's.
Anyway, a few weeks later there was a price adjustment and the price of X91+ receivers sold in the USA ended up being exactly the same as the X900+. And then over a month period, I think 4 additional Galileo SV's were enabled.
So I made a 'command decision' that I was not going to sell receivers that were not fully GPS+GLO+GAL+BDU enabled which simplified our offerings. I further consolidated the line by including the Satel Tx/Rx radio in all of the receivers. So we went from stocking more than 5 models to 2 models. This drove the quantity of X91+'s high enough that we could get even better pricing on them.
So we don't push X900+ receivers anymore (however we do still stock them.) The main board, firmware, GNSS antenna, batteries are identical in the X900+ and X91+. Only the outside case style and GNSS engines are different. I know of several users who LOVE the X900+ receivers who have tried both. And I know others who love the X91+ receivers who have tried both. (DaveH who is probably lurking here has piles of both, perhaps he will chime in with a comparison.)
I don't think you can go wrong with either. And the SP80/SP60's are great receivers too (there is a killer EOY special with trade-in on them now too.)
After visiting all the manufacturers at InterGEO, I can assure you that the next 2 years are going to be a roller coaster for RTK GNSS receivers in the United States. There are going to be a lot of new manufacturers, sub-brands and there are some strong possibilities for quantum changes.
For example, if the RTK algorithm in the Swift Nav engine is good enough, it will be possible to build a $1500 RTK rover. DYI in your basement.
Self driving semi trucks and automobiles are going to deploy more RTK rovers than we can imagine and this will drive a requirement for nationwide CORS networks. The players in this segment (Tesla, Apple, Google, UBER and others) have enough money to just deploy a nationwide CORS network in a few months and pay cash for it. The number of self driving and assisted car applications will dwarf survey/engineering applications.
All of this is going to make for a really fast RTK ride over the next few years. We are all going to have work hard to keep up.
M
Plumb Bill, post: 399207, member: 226 wrote: Yes, the 900+ are based on the Novatel OEM board and the 91+ is based on the Trimble OEM board. With more Galileo being deployed it makes the 91+ the better option. If they're going to be used on the great plains, though, the difference is nil.
I am in Colorado and have work in the valley and in the mountains. The mountains range from pinon to tall pines and aspens. Areas in the valley near creeks and along fence lines can be very thick and the units take a beating there. The bx5, bx6 and even the R10 loof a little fragile.
billvhill, post: 399223, member: 8398 wrote: I am in Colorado and have work in the valley and in the mountains. The mountains range from pinon to tall pines and aspens. Areas in the valley near creeks and along fence lines can be very thick and the units take a beating there. The bx5, bx6 and even the R10 loof a little fragile.
They are all built quite a bit more sturdily than they "look". I've seen some of the rubber covers come off of an R10, but pretty sure it was from more-than-average rough use.
I want to say "Thanks Mark" for the above information.
The end user of GPS is often in the dark about what they are actually getting.
The more the end users know, the more informed decision they make. Knowledge is power. More knowledge, is more power. Keep it rolling.
Although I am a Javad FAN and USER, I do not actually "KNOW" what is the best unit out there.
I like information. Thanks Mark for bringing more info to the table.
N
GS, I want to go and test it.
I'm in! Who has a GPS system, that they want to test against my stuff? One thing for sure, we BOTH will learn. (That's the goal, anyway)
That's the way it should be.
Also, I was wrong above, about Carlson being the only data collector .. Microsurvey appears to be supporting the Chinese GPS gear. I'm not familiar with their lineup.
I'm not at all convinced that the future of GNSS is going to be in DIY $1500 systems. At least not within the next decade. I'm not suggesting that such systems will be unavailable, but that there is more to developing a reliable system than the sum of the components.
I've peaked behind the curtain a bit more than most. Developing software and algorithms that allow the components to work well in harsh environments is quite a bit different than getting something that works in pristine ideal conditions.
Having said that, prices are certainly much less than they used to be and capabilities have increased exponentially. Many believe that RTK is limited to a certain environment. If your preconceived notion of these limitations is based on experience with equipment from even just a couple of years ago or more, then you may be surprised to see what modern equipment can achieve.
Mark Silver, post: 399222, member: 1087 wrote: First I would like to thank the posters for the overly kind things said about me above. My ears are burning and I am embarrassed to chime in at this point. Also, like Shawn, I guess I need to disclose that I have a pony in this race, but that really should be self evident.
The X900 is a great receiver. However they do not track Galileo satellites. (So they are GPS + GLONASS + BDU, and SBAS/WAAS.) Many other NovAtel based receivers (like the GeoMax) are GPS+GLONASS only. Actually, it is a little deeper than this. The X900+ uses a NovAtel engine that can track GPS + GLONASS + Galileo + BeiDou. But, it can only track three constellations at a time. And you need to chose which three you want when you provision the engine. So it is not technically correct to claim they can't track Galileo. They can, but I can't provision them to track Galileo when I purchase them.
On January 1st 2016 there was a 'bad ephemeris event' (detailed [ here ] ) loaded into the GLONASS system. For 24 hours, many receivers were not tracking GLONASS (and I have doubts about those that were.) Anyway, as I was investigating this with network operators in the USA, Ireland, Czech Rep and Russia, I noticed that both of my CORS stations were tracking 6 Galileo SV's. I had an 'awakening' that as more Galileo SV's are launched they are going to be more valuable and at some point I was going to have to answer for selling receivers that did not or could not use them.
Around this same time, one of my European buddies started sending me screen shots of Galileo only fixes, Galileo + BDU fixes, GLONASS only fixes using Trimble engines with beta 5.05 firmware. The difference being that the new 5.x firmware was GNSS centric. At this time there was a bid specification in China that required the ability to get BDU only fixes, which I believe was a primary driving force behind this release. (China consumes a crazy number of USA sourced GNSS engines every year. So it is worth chasing these things for the GNSS manufacturers.)
The SP80's (and the PM800's prior) which I had been selling for years had spoiled me with this type of GNSS centric solution that did not require a GPS fix first and then add in GLONASS SV's. The PM800 was the first receiver that I knew of that definitely would fix with compromised constellations. But if you remember, we charged extra (quite a bit) for Galileo back in those days, and there were not that many Galileo SV's.
Anyway, a few weeks later there was a price adjustment and the price of X91+ receivers sold in the USA ended up being exactly the same as the X900+. And then over a month period, I think 4 additional Galileo SV's were enabled.
So I made a 'command decision' that I was not going to sell receivers that were not fully GPS+GLO+GAL+BDU enabled which simplified our offerings. I further consolidated the line by including the Satel Tx/Rx radio in all of the receivers. So we went from stocking more than 5 models to 2 models. This drove the quantity of X91+'s high enough that we could get even better pricing on them.
So we don't push X900+ receivers anymore (however we do still stock them.) The main board, firmware, GNSS antenna, batteries are identical in the X900+ and X91+. Only the outside case style and GNSS engines are different. I know of several users who LOVE the X900+ receivers who have tried both. And I know others who love the X91+ receivers who have tried both. (DaveH who is probably lurking here has piles of both, perhaps he will chime in with a comparison.)
I don't think you can go wrong with either. And the SP80/SP60's are great receivers too (there is a killer EOY special with trade-in on them now too.)
After visiting all the manufacturers at InterGEO, I can assure you that the next 2 years are going to be a roller coaster for RTK GNSS receivers in the United States. There are going to be a lot of new manufacturers, sub-brands and there are some strong possibilities for quantum changes.
For example, if the RTK algorithm in the Swift Nav engine is good enough, it will be possible to build a $1500 RTK rover. DYI in your basement.
Self driving semi trucks and automobiles are going to deploy more RTK rovers than we can imagine and this will drive a requirement for nationwide CORS networks. The players in this segment (Tesla, Apple, Google, UBER and others) have enough money to just deploy a nationwide CORS network in a few months and pay cash for it. The number of self driving and assisted car applications will dwarf survey/engineering applications.
All of this is going to make for a really fast RTK ride over the next few years. We are all going to have work hard to keep up.
M
If by Dave H you me mean Dave Hamilton he = Bushwhacker
I recently purchased a CHC i80. I am using it with a Carlson Surveyor 2 and SurvCE. I have had very good results using it as a network rover. I plan to purchase another rover and base station for a complete 2-man i80 RTK setup.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bushwhacker, post: 399471, member: 10727 wrote: Dave Hamilton he = Bushwhacker
I should have known that or at least figured it out from the 'Swamp' location. (How is that going BTW :)! I think/worry about you every time it rains.
But actually, there is another DaveH out there (by chance in Texas) who has 3 pairs of X900+'s, a X91+ and a i80 too. I will ask him to write a comparison of the T vs. N engine paradigm when I talk to him next.
There are times that Bushwhacker and his neighbors need pontoons and an anchor.
:satellite:
