Anyone know the prices yet? Will it include all the options? Or, will you have to ante up for each bell and whistle?
ubenhavin?
How many SV's you planning on tracking.?ÿ Even if it takes 4 per SV you're at something over 150!
?ÿ
About the most SV's I've seen on a current model R10 is maybe 30.
How many SV's you planning on tracking.?ÿ Even if it takes 4 per SV you're at something over 150!
?ÿ
About the most SV's I've seen on a current model R10 is maybe 30.
It's hard for me not to believe the channel thing is mostly marketing. We run a couple R10's (440 channel), and a Leica GS18t (555 channel), but the majority of our GNSS are Leica GS15s (120 channel) tracking GPS, L5, GLONASS and Galileo. The GS15s can hold their own with anything I have seen so far. But, I am still interested in knowing more about the R10-2.?ÿ
Only 192 short
?ÿYawn!
Tha knowest, that the surveyors are the winners!
N
I believe it will be more important if you chose to use multiple antennae. 4 antennae in a woodland environment and you have good odds that 2 or 3 antennae may get a signal that only 1 would miss.?ÿThen there is the possibility of a 1/2 wavelength antenna, inside a full wavelength antenna over the same center under the same dome. Also the possibility of a receiver using multiple algorithms to resolve the position, sets of channels being resolved by different algorithms then positions are compared. Or, all of the above.
Paul in PA
Paul,
Are you suggesting a bracket, that holds 4 antenna, and collecting simultaneously, and they are at known positions, relative to each other? Post processed?
Have you tried this?
N
No, but Javad sells such a setup, 4 antennae on one pole.
Paul in PA
That came to mind... But I was thinking maybe you'd tried something similar.
?ÿTracking Galileo yet?Javad has been able to track Galileo since 2009:?ÿ http://www.javad.com/jgnss/javad/news/pr20090819_spirent_ifen.html?ÿThe relevant question isn??t really rather a manufacturer can track Galileo, rather it is how effectively can they utilize?ÿtriple constellation (GPS + GLONASS + Galileo) positioning and how much benefit does this provide over just?ÿGPS + GLONASS. ?ÿSo far I have yet to see any manufacturer release test results on this subject.?ÿI have been using Galileo (yes, tracking and utilizing in both post-processed and real-time solutions) for over a year. As have some users of our RTN (using multiple types of rovers). Our RTN has been providing RTCM3.2-MSM corrections for quite some time. I guess I never thought to look for papers on the subject to prove it, as we were already using it 🙂
Just did a quick Google and there appears to be quite a bit out there on the subject. Seek and ye shall find 😉
?ÿ
Example:?ÿ ?ÿ http://gpsworld.com/how-galileo-benefits-high-precision-rtk/
Hey, thanks for posting the link.?ÿ
For about a year I too have been using Galileo without any research to tell me if it was helping. I just assumed it was (helping) because my GS15's were locking in places they would not have locked prior, and time to fix was faster. Actually, I would just as soon my competitors hold off a while just to be sure. I have somewhat of a selfish streak, and would enjoy being the only one using the European system. So, in that spirit I would recommend everyone hold off until more is known. You really do need to be sure.
ubenhavin?
My take is how much Galileo will benefit is tied to how good current systems deal with GPS/GLONASS.?ÿ The JAVAD system doesn't seem to need it as it currently performs just as well (or better) as anything on the market from what I've read and seen.?ÿ But I look forward to trying it, mainly I expect a 20 minute solution might go down to 5 or 10 minutes under the thickest canopy or side hills.?ÿ I'm glad others have been able to catch up by utilizing Galileo, but I suspect they will be surpassed again shortly.
Yes, I'm sales associate for JAVAD.?ÿ But mainly just a surveyor using the stuff and looking at other systems as well to see how they all develop.?ÿ I'm a Leica fan too; they have some amazing stuff.
There was a shootout, between the r10, and Javad LS, held in NE Arkansas, last fall. I was supposed to go, but was unable. This shootout showed the Javad, and Trimble to be equal. (Field test) however, there was not a very challenging enough place found at the test site, to completely wring them out.
Here is my question: Which R10 was used at the Arkansas test? Was the 672 channel one, or the other (older, less channels)?ÿ one?
Staying current with survey gear is relevant to all of us. It's a challenge, no matter what brand you use. Javad has a new Triumph 3, due out before Christmas, that will track Galileo,. It's intended use is on base.?ÿ
I have bought into the Javad brand. But, I'm not a rep.
Good side of Javad is it's power, and versatility, and price.
Downside is the same... You have to learn more, to use it.
Trimble, you don't have to understand as much, (field gear is simpler) but, it is less versatile.
My opinions...
Nate
There was a shootout, between the r10, and Javad LS, held in NE Arkansas, last fall. I was supposed to go, but was unable. This shootout showed the Javad, and Trimble to be equal. (Field test) however, there was not a very challenging enough place found at the test site, to completely wring them out.
Here is my question: Which R10 was used at the Arkansas test? Was the 672 channel one, or the other (older, less channels)?ÿ one?
Staying current with survey gear is relevant to all of us. It's a challenge, no matter what brand you use. Javad has a new Triumph 3, due out before Christmas, that will track Galileo,. It's intended use is on base.?ÿ
I have bought into the Javad brand. But, I'm not a rep.
Good side of Javad is it's power, and versatility, and price.
Downside is the same... You have to learn more, to use it.
Trimble, you don't have to understand as much, (field gear is simpler) but, it is less versatile.
My opinions...
Nate
I used a R10 set-up purchased in 2017, both base and rover. I don't know the "model" though, sorry. You are correct that the the LS and R10 stayed with each other. Since that shoot out we purchased a LS/T1 set up when our R8 received the business end of a machete.
However, I can still say with confidence that the LS rarely if ever does anything that the R10 will not do. I just really like the LS because of the configuration and the ability to customize the work flow. But Trimble gear is top notch, worth the money and performs as to be expected.
Say whatever you want - anyone - but both units are fantastic. There is no need for Javad fans to keep "proving" it's capabilities. I think it's safe to say that we all know it is good stuff.?ÿ
N10,000, E7,000, Z100.00
PLS - IL, MO, AR, KS, MN, KY
Topcon, Leica, Trimble, Hemisphere, Septentrio, and several other lesser-known brands have already implemented not only tracking of Galileo but inclusion in RTK solutions. If that were not true then they would be lying in their literature, user manuals, webinars, and advertising materials.?ÿ
When I look at datasheets and marketing material from these manufactures all I see stated is that they track?ÿGalileo and no information about what constellations are actually used in RTK solutions.?ÿ This is part of the reason for my skepticism.?ÿ The other reason I am still very?ÿskeptical is that?ÿGalileo is very new and it takes time for all the bugs of the system to be resolved.?ÿ GNSS receiver manufacturers need to verify that the satellites are providing good and reliable data.?ÿ I have very recently heard claims that there is one particular?ÿGalileo satellite that causes problems when it is used in an RTK solution.
I still very curious and interested to see the results of a scientific test (like Mark Silver does or with an external antenna split to 2 receivers) that compares the performance of GPS + GLONASS to?ÿGPS + GLONASS +?ÿGalileo.
?ÿ
Have respect for that poor deceased horse!?ÿ 😉
Wow. I am not sure how hard you are looking for mention of Galileo in RTK solutions (current brands and models) but here are just the first few that show up:
https://leica-geosystems.com/en-US/about-us/news-room/news-overview/2017/06/2017-06-16-spider-v7
That aside, let me ask you a direct yes or no question:
Am I lying when I say that I have used Galileo in RTK and NRTK solutions on multiple brands/models?
How about we put the burden of proof (or should saw "dis-proof) on the skeptics. Go to a dealer of a brand that does offer Galileo in RTK and ask for a demo. Or come over here and I'll show you any day of the week.?ÿ Is it a good marketing strategy to beat the dead horses trying to sew just enough doubt in the minds of potential customers about other brands and expect them top come running? How about your folks doing the scientific tests; like ISO 17123-8 and/or anechoic chamber testing to do true head-to-head comparisons... or is more convenient to tout "the best" subjectively? Not many in the GNSS and survey gear market try to get ahead by casting doubts on their competitors, instead they just forge ahead and promote their own gear on its own merits.?ÿ
On and on and on. Maybe it is time to be forthright gracious and magnanimous and admit that sometimes, just sometimes, the "other guys" can?ÿ leap ahead and that no single outfit or development team has a monopoly on innovation.
But I guess if a shop does not yet have hammers for sale then there might be a temptation to doubt the value of nails.
I like lots of different brands of hammers, and the many constellations of nails they use.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Hey,
If you keep this up it just might happen that a competitor will see this. Jeeze
I run a R10 soemtimes on the Utah RTN sometimes with an IG8 base.?ÿ The Utah RTN is only GPS and GLONASS.?ÿ When I use the IG8 base I get use of all the SV's and the L5 signals that the RTN doesn't provide at this time.?ÿ So it's not a contest between equipment brands but rather the number of SV's and signals available.?ÿ The R10 works A LOT better when using the RTK base and the extra SV's and signals.
Anyone know the prices yet? Will it include all the options? Or, will you have to ante up for each bell and whistle?
ubenhavin?
To answer my own initial question, I am told the R10-2 is simply a way to get the R10 (although with 672 channels) down in price by selling it stripped of many features that did come standard with the R10. Also, apparently the price of the fully featured R10-2 is $25,500 the same as the 440 channel original R10 (not R10LT, which is a different model)?ÿ which only came with everything turned on. So, you can start out with a cheaper R10-2, and start paying as you go to have other features turned on. This is how Leica sells its GS18t.?ÿ You can get the GS18t (Leica calls this the "Ultimate") with everything turned, but my Leica dealer only wants to market the GS18t that starts out with very little turned on (like the new R10-2). I usually end up paying a higher price in the end because I eventually keep coming back and paying for all the features to be activated.?ÿ?ÿ
ubenhavin?
Are you saying that when you buy the r10-2 at the base $25,500 price it DOESN??T have all the constellations and features turned on like the r10-1 did?
I got the answer to my question - the base price of $25,500 comes with everything.
BTW I used the r10-2 today and...oh boy is it nice!
I think I saw on the model 2 data sheet it makes use of one Beidou signal that the model 1 does not...would be interesting to know the impact to performance that would imply.
Model 2 datasheet: Beidou: B1, B2, B3
Model 1 datasheet: Beidou (Compass): B1, B2
I can track 5 Beidou B1 (the most I have seen on the East coast) and only 3 B2's. I see 3 B3'3 but no data.
Just curious what Beidou's others are tracking