OPUS Weirdness anyone?

I'll bite, what exactly is weird?

A poor elevation is a signal to look for other observation anomalies. First resubmit using 3 different CORS. Most definitely get extended output for all submissions. A CORS can be off, a monument can be off, an antenna elevation could be off, the antenna model could be wrong, your observation could be too short, despite what your receiver told you, you could have had bad VDOP, or it could just be a bad day in Bedrock.

Paul in PA

Rankin_File, post: 410223, member: 101 wrote: Sent some stuff to OPUS as single solutions. I got an email back that they were including it in part of an OPUS Projects project from something I was doing at about the same timeframe as the observation was made

Paul, that's good advice for finding out if there is a bad measurement, but I think the question was how the submission got associated with the old project when he didn't think he had selected it as such.

OPUS options can be remembered by OPUS. Early on I learned to make sure I was not getting prior antenna heights, requested CORS or extended output among other setting variables. From time to time OPUS remembers my email, antenna, preferred antenna height, which I learned to keep constant. What bugs me is that it no longer remembers my default file location. I learned way back to clear my options on the first submission of a project.

What happened is not weird, that is the on the submitter.

Paul in PA

So I drilled thru this today.
I thought about it a bit over the weekend and this morning I navigated to the OPUS site via google, thinking that possibly my OPUS favorite may have been saved as part of a project.
here's the input.

Here's the next screen-

As you can see- it still associated with the old project- and yes I did get another project verification email.
So then I thought, well, I'll clear cache and see if there's something in there.....
soooo long story short, same results.
then I went out and talked with the crew and told then what was up and asked if they'd had this happen.
1 guy said that he recalled Mark Armstrong mentioning during the OPUS Projects training that when OPUS starts acting glitchy, to delete your profile.
( I purposely have never set up a profile because I wanted to make sure I was getting exactly what I was putting in at the time, and not getting burned by something that seemed like a good Idea on the last project 3 months ago...)
Anyway I gave that a try and in the immortal words of WALL~E "TaDAHHHH...."
thanks Mark Armstrong and thanks J.B.

Keep a close eye on it. If you have multiple machines, your profile may reappear.

I have had to abandon email addresses because of profiles that are resurrected. I think it may have something to do with Chrome pushing cookies between machines. The thing that makes me crazy is when I enter 0.0001 for an HI and it automatically substitutes 2 Meters.

Yes, I use 0.0001 because if I use 0.0000, OPUS nags me about it.

m

gschrock, post: 410604, member: 556 wrote: But being so cavalier about tenths of millimeters is what is destroying our profession... harumph! Darn button pushers... 😉

Whoa, I had to give up on 0.3 millimeter.

I use antenna slant height on my ProMark 2s on fixed bipods. No matter how many times I measure them I come away with a 6.99' and no matter how many times I enter 6.99' into my ProMark 2 it returns 2.131m in my "D" files. Then my post processing software always converts that back to 6.991' . I now just grit my teeth and enter 6.991' as my slant rod height.

Paul in PA

Mark Silver, post: 410603, member: 1087 wrote: pushing cookies

Firefox, and I expect all browsers, have something under Options that lets you delete cookies. You can selectively remove all that relate to NGS and that should clear your profile. The worst that happens if you delete too many is you have to log in or set a profile for some site you wanted to keep.

gschrock, post: 410604, member: 556 wrote: But being so cavalier about tenths of millimeters is what is destroying our profession... harumph! Darn button pushers... 😉

Well actually I am messing around with a new 1 mm GNSS engine and that 0.1 mm might be a bigger deal to me than it has been in the past. You are right, I really need to clean up my submission tolerance.

I suspect that you (GSchrock) also typically use zero HI's on most of your OPUS submissions. I think 999 out of 1000 of my submissions are zero HI. So why is zero HI a bad thing? Personally, for me, any HI that is not either 0.00000 or 2.0000 is probably an error. Zero is definitely my most common HI.

And while I am complaining about the NGS kids on my (proverbial) lawn: Why can't I enter "0" or "2"? It seems to me that "2" should be pretty dang close to "2.0"; at least close enough to let it slide. I just don't understand why I can't have a 2 meter HI. I have wasted a lot of time typing in "2.0' over and over.

And why do I have to keep choosing the antenna type and the HI anyway? They are always correct in my RINEX file headers. (If they are not correct, I fix them.) This is a pet peeve of mine. Manufactures should build RINEX files that have the correct antenna name and HI in them. OPUS should at least nag if the antenna and HI described in the RINEX header don't match what you choose to submit. A manufacturer who has a RINEX process that results in a RINEX file with an incorrect antenna type or HI should be embarrassed. Shameful. It is like [ unsigned code ]; a previous rant.

This won't be a big deal for me going forward 🙂 the OPUS-BORG's "OPUS-Upload" tool was finished yesterday.

I will start another thread on this in a week or so, but my new BORG "OPUS-Upload" tool allows me to just drop a bunch (like hundreds or more) of observation files (ascii or zipped) on a desktop icon. The BORG engine then submits them one at a time after pulling the Antenna name and HI from the RINEX. Then I just drop the Outlook result messages into a folder and process with the OPUS-Accumulator and I have my 6-month average plus a spreadsheet of daily's so I can plot trends.

Mark Silver, post: 410619, member: 1087 wrote: ... Why can't I enter "0" or "2"? It seems to me that "2" should be pretty dang close to "2.0"; at least close enough to let it slide. I just don't understand why I can't have a 2 meter HI. I have wasted a lot of time typing in "2.0' over and over.

I should probably explain this "2" thing better because it might be too much of an inside joke.

For years if you entered "2":

opus would reject the submission and say something like it only took numeric HI's. So I would have to resubmit with "2.0". I think that it wanted a floating point number, not an integer. (Although I never tried "2.0E0" so I am not positive.)

I think that this behavior was recently relaxed and it is now possible to enter just "2" without triggering an error. And I am grateful for this. Because it makes my life a lot easier. If I was not a jerk, I would send a Thank You card and let them know.

Gavin is correct. OPUS is spectacular! And I don't think that the interface is clunky. It is actually pretty cool.

Paul in PA, post: 410608, member: 236 wrote: Whoa, I had to give up on 0.3 millimeter. ... just grit my teeth and enter 6.991' as my slant rod height.
Paul in PA

Not to mention the i vs. s foot thing:

6.99 * 0.3048 = 2.130552
6.99 * 1200 / 3937 = 2.130556

I can send you a metric tape. Then you won't have to worry about which. Phil Stevenson always told me to measure in feeters and then use the M, it was good advice.

(This post is totally sarcastic, I don't know how to make the sarcasm font. Too easy to be taken seriously if you are a smart ass.)
M

Mark Silver, post: 410652, member: 1087 wrote: (This post is totally sarcastic, I don't know how to make the sarcasm font. Too easy to be taken seriously if you are a smart ass.)

[SARCASM]highlight the text and then click on the spiral-looking button in the tool bar...[/SARCASM]

Mark Silver, post: 410652, member: 1087 wrote: Not to mention the i vs. s foot thing:
M

US Survey Foot:

6.99/3.28083 = 2.130558
Rounded to 2.131 in the "D" file
2.131*3.28083 = 6.991

I have three metric tapes, one in each PM 2 bag, which get used to check my setups occasionally.
[SARCASM]But I don't worry much about either, (Sarcasm font).[/SARCASM]

I use fixed height 2 meter rods, but added the 3" antenna spacer between the bottom of the rod and the rod tip. That allows me to leave my three legged bipod clamped to the top of the bottom section, with the bubble sticking out the side. When the legs are collapsed and velcroed the space gives a little extra room for the washers above the triped tips to be closer to the rod. That is less important than that the rod point can be set on my observation point and the triped tips are high enough to clear the ground as I swing out the legs. When I am doing multiple setups, I simply unscrew the top half of he rod, with antenna, cable, PM2 and bracket all intact and place the two rod parts in the back of the Jeep. I have been able to break down, move, set up, enter point number and record in under 5 minutes.

Paul in PA

Paul in PA, post: 410687, member: 236 wrote: but added the 3" antenna spacer between the bottom of the rod and the rod tip

[SARCASM]Wait a minute; now your adding inches (") into the equation!? You're really asking for trouble; aren't you?[/SARCASM]

gschrock, post: 410642, member: 556 wrote: I hope folks realize (as you do) that I was kidding (got some odd emails).

Other people are strange.