Spectra has sent out a note warning that the listed devices are suffering from a GLONASS ephemeris related issue.?ÿ
A fix is currently available for the SP80. Here is a link [ V3.45 ]
A fix is planned for the remaining devices.
More information if it becomes available.
hi mark, do you know if the promark 700 is affected?
?ÿ
thanks,
tim
Our 700's were fine but needed to do the fix on our SP80's. Trimble R8's and R6's were also good.
Mark: any word or idea on what the problem is and why it only affected certain receivers? I sort can understand if it was one manufacturer (Spectra), but apparently some Leica Spider networks were affected as well? And why now?
For promark500 any update firmiwire??ÿ
@john-hamilton?ÿ : bad GLONASS ephemeris, bad SV marked as good. Some firmware/software had range checking that figured it out. Others did not. I have heard conspiracy theories (political in nature, not repeated here); but remember that only one brand of receiver had issues. All the others sailed through: Trimble, Novatel, Hemisphere/UniStrong, ComNav, UniCorecomm, Septentrio ... no other receivers had any issue. Leica Spider network software had issues but was fixed and deployed very, very quickly.
The Spectra receivers that failed are all descendants of Ashtech technology, I think. That they failed this week is not that surprising. They also failed on WNRO and earlier with an errant Galileo SV.?ÿ
Clearly it is in my best interest to say nothing more about this. Especially here.
@johnymal : I have heard nothing new as of 9:22 am MST 4 October 2019 (Friday Morning).?ÿ
I was using my PM500 this morning from about 9am-11am CST, northern Wisconsin, went to use it again around 2pm and received the 215 error.
Hope a fix is coming soon.
Do you know what Glonass satellite is bad ? Finding that, we could use mission planning to avoid the error.?ÿ
My Promark800 is affected by this and it appears to be GLONASS 5 (KOSMOS 2527) from my limited testing so far. I verified that my device was giving the error at a time where that satellite was above the horizon and I tested again 20 minutes after it was supposed to be below the horizon and I was able to get a fix.
Hopefully this is helpful
From the manufacturer:
Legacy Spectra Geospatial GNSS Receiver Firmware Upgrades
Recently, there have received reports of positioning issues with the ProMark 500 encountering an inability to report a position. This is caused by the GLONASS almanac providing out-of-tolerance data for one of the GLONASS satellites. The positioning engine in the receiver treats the almanac as accurate.
This issue has been resolved with the firmware fix which you can download through the link below. This should be distributed immediately to all affected users, as it will resolve the issue with the GLONASS almanac.
I have had numerous calls from users having installation problems with the new firmware over the past week.
I believe this has been due to partial downloads.?ÿIf you have issues, please use the .ZIP mirrored downloads that I have placed in this web location:
?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ https://ashgps.com/2/2019GloUpdates/index.htm ?ÿ
After downloading the ZIP file, unzip to obtain the factory binary file. That mirror location is also handy because each of the new firmware are available in a single location
Good luck!
From my limited understanding of this stuff, the biggest problem integrating GLONASS for the manufactures over the years was inaccurate / not up to date/ and delayed almanics - compounded by no decently spaced ground stations in our hemisphere resulting in orbit error over our area.
Please correct me, but the almanics for each GNSS system are calculated by observation of ground stations through the world, then uploaded to the GNSS system which contains the entire almanac for that GNSS system on each satellite. Politics aside, would it not be possible for one system so 'steal' use of other systems, and use its own ground stations to receive the signals from all satellites in orbit, then calculate a combined almanac for all GNSS satellites and systems, and broadcast that data on their own system, effectively adding in other constellations without launching the satellites? If another system is difficult to integrate and/or not compatible or not up to your orbit calculation standards would this not be a huge benefit?
Sorry, I don't know much about the back ends of the GNSS systems. I just know how to use them to make money. I am the least qualified person in this industry to have that discussion with.
I do acknowledge that the systems that we sell have reached a peak complexity:
o the space segment is complicated (ref: lost satellite launches)
o the ground segment is complicated (ref: Galileo and GLO ephemeris failures)
o the equipment is complicated (ref: all the firmware and hardware updates)
o the radios used for correction backhauls are complicated (ref: all the calls we get)
o the GNSS networks are complicated (ask GavinS)
o the cell networks are complicated and spotty
The entire web of technology makes for peak complexity. It is a modern wonder that it works at all, most of the time.
In this case, there was an issue with one linage of receivers and one server software. Everything else apparently had no issues. I think that because the 'system' is so complicated we are wise to not point fingers at the devices that failed. We all live in glass houses.
