I've run a number of things through OPUS now and I'm puzzling at the seeming lack of correlation between OPUS's error estimates for the X/Y/Z solution and the Lat/Long solution. I can see why they wouldn't be exactly the same, but they appear way off. It seems to me they should be at least in similar ballparks.
As an example, here are the OPUS error estimates for something I just ran (it's a backyard test next to the side of the house and trees so relatively high errors):
X: 0.062 m
Y: 0.089 m
Z: 0.067 m
Lat: 0.010 m
Long: 0.029 m
EL HGT: 0.126 m
I do see that their RMS values work out to be 0.073 and 0.075, respectively, so in that respect they're close.
If there's a simple explanation that I'm not seeing or pointers to an explanation, I'd greatly appreciate hearing it. I have the sense I'm missing something profoundly fundamental (i.e., stupid).
Tom
do a transformation.
Put in the X, Y, and Z error estimates and the lat/long and solve it. You should get to the N, E, and Up values listed (lat, long, and ellip H)
Make sure to put west longitude in as a negative number!
X Y Z are in different directions than LLH. Most of the error is in the vertical which gets spread around more in XYZ.
Bah! Thought it was something simple.....Cartesian versus sorta spherical coords. I shoulda known that....Never mind......(but thanks, especially for the transformation pic!). Explains why my RMS values were similar.
Tom
