I'm seeing ads for it.?ÿ It is advertising 4 RTK engines.?ÿ The OG had the "6 Pack", why does the new one have less?
More satellites. Less engines. Higher speed.
My take is: Since the Javad has 864 channels, that number had to be re-allocated. To keep the groups large enough.?ÿ
So, more satellites, less engines, more speed. Less search engines.
N
?ÿ
?ÿ
I can't tell you the reasons behind it but I am a Javad guy, using the best of what was available last year and getting shots in unbelievable places.?ÿ I test drove the LS Plus and it works faster.?ÿ I was very impressed.?ÿ They came up with a better chip and new software that only the new chip could operate and it is the cat's meow.
I can send in my one year old rover, get some of the innards replaced for a nominal fee and I will have the latest and greatest.?ÿ That is like sending in an R8 and having it turned into an R12.?ÿ Nobody does that.?ÿ There are updates all the time (sometimes weekly) that make it work better.?ÿ The software is being updated and improved so often that there is no way that a users manual could keep up with the changes.?ÿ I digress from the original post but the new chip and 4 "Super Engines" in the LS PLus and T3 base is absolutely better than what was previously the best on the market.?ÿ Shots happen about twice as fast in cover.
Does it have to do with it having 864 channels? Can't the data from one channel be used multiple times? I see 35 SVs right now, and it looks like most SVs have about 6 signals - which would mean I only need 210 channels to make full use.
Is redundant processing why we need so many channels? I know my R10s have 440 channels and dual Maxwell chips. They've been performing like beasts with these new signals for sure!
I would guess improved processing algorithms = more reliable RTK engines = less redundancy needed to ensure quality final result. And probably faster, too. Pretty impressive.
I can send in my one year old rover, get some of the innards replaced for a nominal fee and I will have the latest and greatest.?ÿ That is like sending in an R8 and having it turned into an R12.
More like sending in an R10-2, which is about two years old, and getting it upgraded to an R12, which is being done. Retrofitting an R8 (many of which are end-of-life and 10+ years old) with R12 tech would be quite the feat.
I don't know.
My thoughts, are partially from reading about what is going on, and trying to determine value vs dollars. Ie, should I do the upgrade?
What I'm gathering is that every satellite that goes up, adds to the efficiency. Adding a whole constellation, changes things dramatically. It changes things exponentially. Multipath, makes EACH satellite generate many wrong signals, like a steel tape, that is not in a straight line. This is what multiple channels are for. So, gain 10 fixes, with USA satellites, that vary by some feet. Then add one fix from some other constelations, and it agrees with one of the USA sat fixes, and you have developed a higher degree of certainty, than the old way.
Many things different due to number of sats and signals.?ÿ One of the reasons for so many channels is to deal with interference.?ÿ Recent thread about Ligado approval, and that shouldn't be a problem for LS.
?ÿ
The Triumph LS Plus has 4 engines because the new GNSS chip in it has 4 cores.?ÿ Each core is allocated to one of the engines.?ÿ In GNSS data processing, the amount of resources (CPU power and RAM) needed to process the data increases exponentially which each satellite and signal that is utilized so RTK with 4 constellations and many satellites requires a lot of processing power.?ÿ The simplest and most efficient way to handle the demand is to devote each core to a single engine.?ÿ?ÿ
Matt, who's likely to take the helm now that Javad is gone??ÿ Was he still as intimately involved in R&D as it seemed from his posts, or had he largely turned the operation over to others?
Not just my one year old LS is eligible for the upgrade. All LS units out there I believe are compatible and upgradeable.
