Switching from Trimble to Carlson???

Get ready to lose almost every post processing and QC tool you have. As of a few years ago the Carlson data collection and processing was complete fluff. I will be the first to eat my words if they have written some actual software since then...

I appreciate your input but it sounds like you don't have experience in switching from Trimble to Carlson. I don't want my original inquiry to be a sounding board for people to tout their particular brand preference. I have not used Carlson's data collectors, only their survey cad software. I have used Eaglepoint, C3D and a couple other drafting programs. I am using Carlson now and am completely happy with its ease of use, capability and price. Their data collection software is the best selling and most widely used in the world. It has been around for years. I can't see it being complete fluff. My question is aimed more at their robotic and gps hardware which is made by another company to their specifications. Anyone with knowledge of these as compared to Trimble please chime in.

I haven't switched, but have used both. The thing to consider is this: what are you losing in terms of functionality? All total stations have similar specs and are pretty much the same, but can you work with tracking system and field software?

I would get request a test drive of both the Carlson equipment and the Trimble equipment before you make your decision. I went from a Trimble S6 & R10 to Topcon DS & Hiper V... and I miss a lot of the bells and whistles a lot more than I thought I would.

I have switched from Trimble to Carlson (then back to Trimble). Trimble's approach is quite more streamlined (think Apple) because they control every aspect of the product. Carlson has, in quite a few ways, more capability but it's not quite as "slick" (think Google/Android). The Carlson robots are really Geomax equipment, sort of a cousin to Leica - only time will tell if they are actually identical (some say they're not).

For example: Do a survey on a trimble DC, sync your one .job file (unless you performed static GPS observations), edit/process it in TBC, file a report and export the text file for drafting. Pretty slick.

Carlson: Do a Survey on your Carlson/Juniper/or Javad data collector (make sure all the settings matched since it's not single source equipment) using your Geomax/Carlson robot, export the 7-10 data collector files (depending on what you did/how you did it), process it in SurvNET and/or SurvGNSS (SurvNET is actually really good software, SurvGNSS I've not used), print your reports and export the text file for drafting. This process sounds a lot worse, but in reality it isn't. You only have to learn the settings and software once, after that there's no reason you can't be just as proficient.

My main problem with Trimble (and Leica, but they're still not as bad as Trimble) is that they're getting worse and worse about being an "ivory tower". If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. One thing I really like about Carlson is I have the same DC software available, but can pair it with instrumentation of varying capability/cost.

If cost is an issue why not look into a Trimble S3 robot, that way you can still use the data collection software you are used too. Another thing to look at is dealer support, it is more valuable than you might think.

I do have an S3 robot. I have used S6 robots for years but when I had to purchase my own I went with an S3. I can live without an active prism for $10,000 difference in price. Just watch my screen to make sure it is locked on the target and not something else. (I know that is not the only difference between the 2 guns but the differences were not worth the extra cost for what I need to do.) I was just wondering if I equip another survey crew would the Carlson package be worthwhile. I guess a test drive would be required.

By all means schedule a "test drive" to look at the equipment, but remember: you won't get a fair representation of ability/usability in an hour. Hopefully you get a salesmen that knows how to use the product, that makes a big difference.

The S3 is a good robot, is it worth ~$10,000 (based on what I've seen) more than a GeoMax (which is faster/better to use in the field IMO)? Definitely not.

If the Geomax performs indeed as a 1200 series Leica, you got yourself a pretty reliable set-up with a Carlson DC. You will enjoy being able to bring proprietary files directly in the field with no conversion required.

Geomax support would be my main concern, I would go with a used 1200+ myself. Trimble does not play well with Carlson.

I suppose my post was a bit general, and no doubt my disappointment shows through...
The Carlson software is simple to run in the field. It drove our S6 robots fine. The terrestrial processing capabilities were less than impressive. Where it really falls (fell) down is with GPS.
The file gathered in the field does not contain vectors. The points are stored as LLH with covariance matrix data. The relationship to the base is not stored. There is a separate file containing the base position. They are not tied together. There are ways to extract vectors but it's far from practical. I might add there is no way to correct problems with the base or update coordinates, other than to move your points.
Some folks might be OK with that. I for one do too much work that requires me to evaluate the data and express the results in standard notation. Carlson not only won't do that, it doesn't even store the data so it CAN be done. The projects it is best suited for can be done faster with a plat and a good scientific calculator...

My .02, Tom

That could be a deal breaker right there. These are the types of things you wouldn't know until you have had a chance to actually do a few jobs from start to finish. Trimble DC software is pretty intuitive. It does what you expect it to do. Are you telling me if you need to make a base adjustment in your collector that the Carlson software would not correct all observations that are already stored that are related to that base? Sounds kind of primitive if that is the case.

With Carlson you can store the vector data directly in the RW5 file. SurvCE has had the ability to do this since at least version 2.5, maybe earlier.

Also if you edit your base coordinate you run the "Process GPS" command and it will update past observations.

We got excited when they told us that. I opened the file and it did not include vectors. The software inverses between pairs and calls it a vector. Reprocessing would translate or reproject, but it did not actually 'process' as in weighted means or correcting rod busts.
As I said before we abandoned them a few years ago. About when are the improvements you are describing? I am interested as we have been forced to resurrect a copy for additional conventional work...

Here is the vector data from an RW5 file (the G0,G1,G2,G3 info):

G0,2013/10/18 15:40:59,(Average) - Base ID read at rover: 0009
G1,BP9,PNSL1000,DX-1049.41288,DY139.98677,DZ471.18920
G2,VX0.00002063,VY0.00004695,VZ0.00003281
G3,XY-0.00001441,XZ0.00000719,YZ-0.00001949

A vector is pretty much just an "inverse" as you described it, along with the associated covariance matrix data. The "process GPS" on the data collector isn't meant to be a robust processing, no one makes a data collector that does that. Although, I think in the near future it will be somewhat possible with features such as RTX and Javad's DPOS, but will probably still be point positioning and not an analysis of on-site baselines.

That G2 line was not stored previously. Perhaps the screaming paid off...
As for the vector being an inverse, yes and no. When all you have is a series of positions and a base position in a separate file the inverse is not reliable. I told Carlson for years what we needed. Apparently they saw the light after we left.
My desire was not rigorous least squares in the data collector. It was actual vector data that could be post processed in the office. Under the old format it wasn't happening.
I need to crash around in this data collector when it comes in. If the Carlson rw5 imports to StarNet it could be interesting. ..

Checked, right?
M

Correct Mark. I'm pretty sure Carlson has enabled the storage of vectors in a usable format ever since their DC software first worked with RTK equipment...

We worked with it for a few years and disected the files line by line. I had several conversations with them and was told 'they would look at adding it'.
I've been using and processing GPS for over 2 decades. This isn't something I missed or didn't understand. The capability wasn't there...