This version includes new coseismic earthquake models for Ridgecrest, CA, Kodak, AK and Anchorage, AK.
The user guide has been extensively revised.?ÿ
This version includes the newest version of WGS84 released by NGA on 3 Jan 2021 as WGS84(G2139). It is treated in HTDP as identical to ITRF2014.?ÿ
ALSO transformations involving the original version of WGS84 the so-called ??TRANSIT? realization, are no longer treated as identification to NAD83.
That is great news, I use HTDP all the time, and I thought that we would not see any updates since the main developers are no longer at NGS.?ÿ
?ÿ
I am waiting (hoping) for NGS to include HTDP in NCAT.?ÿ
I agree with John, this is good news for sure. Although most folks don't seem to realize it, if you use OPUS (any flavor), you are using HTDP (behind the curtain) to generate you NAD83 coordinate at your local point.
When the NEW Horizontal and Vertical Datums roll out (hopefully next year), a 3-dimensional velocity model will be required. It's my understanding that work on a 3d model has been ongoing for quite some time.
Loyal
@loyal I noticed in the new user guide, dated 10/18/21, that Richard Snay and Chris Pearson are still listed, along with Michael Dennis and Jarir Saleh. So hopefully that means that the first two are still involved. Richard Snay was the original developer, I believe.?ÿ
The only thing that I find strange about the software is that all of the transformation parameters, including the earthquake induced movements that need to be updated, are "hard-wired" into the executable. My opinion is that it would be better to have all of that data in an external data file that could be updated easily and downloaded.?ÿ
But it works, and it works great.?ÿ
For anyone using RTX post processing, running the ITRF2014 position through HTDP to get NAD83 (2011) is MUCH better than the Trimble transformation that comes in the output.?ÿ
For anyone using RTX post processing, running the ITRF2014 position through HTDP to get NAD83 (2011) is MUCH better than the Trimble transformation that comes in the output.
The website submittal still uses a different tectonic model, but HTDP has been implemented in TBC since v5.40.
If the project has a coordinate system with NAD83(2011) as the reference datum, and an RTX solution XML is imported (either manually or with the automatic processing inside TBC), TBC will disregard the embedded "incorrect" NAD83(2011) solution and instead transform the ITRF2014 position to NAD83(2011)[2010.00] using HTDP.
@rover83 I wonder why Trimble has not implemented HTDP in their RTX post processing solutions? I realize it is a free service, but it might give users a false impression since their transformation is off by several cm's, increasing to the west.?ÿ
I have developed a quick workflow to transform the RTX solutions (either real time RTX or post processed RTX) using HTDP.?ÿ
I posted before the improvement in RTX versus a fully post processed CORS constrained solution covering Montana.
?ÿ
While both Drs. Snay and Pearson left the NGS (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) they remain involved in HTDP and similar modelings work.
You can access many of their papers through Research Gate. Here is the link to Dr Snay??s papers on the site:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Snay
Using the link above as a template, change the researcher name to find their papers.
Dr Snay retired, Dr Pearson left for a position at Otago University in lovely Dunedin, NZ.
?ÿ
RTX is almost certainly maintained by a different development team than TBC (and Access of course). My guess is that they're responding to Access and TBC users who want to align with the industry standard.
When we switched to Trimble we had some serious misinformation floating around our offices about RTX vs OPUS and what goes on under the hood. I get it, it's a bit confusing at first, but there were a lot of folks who were claiming that RTX is "less precise" and "always gives the wrong results". ?????ÿ
Nearly every day I say it: I can't wait until the new datums drop.
