Carlson SurveyGNSS

If it is anything like SurvPC, I wouldn't buy it.

I have no experience with SurvPC.

I decided to download the free trial version and do some checking of my own. So far not too bad.

I processed a single static file against CORS stations to compare with an OPUS solution I have on hand. The results agree within 2-3cm of the OPUS solution.

I would also like to compare the results on an L1 network and some RTK observations as well.

There are a lot of things that can go wrong in GNSS post-processing work. Rinex can be a bit of a funny thing, by the way.

I would suggest you demo three (3) products side by side with same datasets within internal network and ties to Opus.

The big thing for me about this type of work is having confidence in results. I would call each company to have a chat with their lead guys, and find out how healthy their software and future outlook is, sort of speech.

Carlson has some very good products, solidified from years of development and investments. However, some of their offerings are more obscure (I am not too sure why they diversify so much) which may have an effect on confidence in a product, results and life expectancy.

On this one, I would personnaly stick with one brand of GNSS, and their proprietary post-processing software. Their own processing software sometimes have to-be-aware glitches, at least its their products so they are not going to give you the "it's the other guy" song and dance.

> On this one, I would ... stick with one brand of GNSS, and their proprietary post-processing software....
The Carlson price of $1800 is half that of it's major rivals, LGO and TGO. Lots of people who get by without any static vector resolution capability at all may find it viable to acquire CarlsonGNSS. Others, like me, work for companies that have equipment of multiple manufacturers deployed on a job. So let us not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And neither Leica nor Trimble, nor any of the others, are perfect.

To me the issue is that other commercially available software is over burdened with unnecessary features (for my purposes). This drives the cost too high. I don't need to process linework or symbology, build alignments, or perform photogrammetry with a baseline processor.

I see great value in a non-proprietary baseline processor. Once L5 hits it really should be the norm.

I agree that prudent testing is in order before any software purchase.

> To me the issue is that other commercially available software is over burdened with unnecessary features (for my purposes). This drives the cost too high. I don't need to process linework or symbology, build alignments, or perform photogrammetry with a baseline processor.
>
> I see great value in a non-proprietary baseline processor. Once L5 hits it really should be the norm.
>
> I agree that prudent testing is in order before any software purchase.

Kevin,

I came off of TGO and picked up a basic license of TBC when Trimble was offering an incentive price for TGO users when the billion second error came into play. Works nice for L1 processing and the annual maintenance is around $100.00. I believe I paid around $600 for the license originally.

However, I would like to be able to process L1/L2 and Glonass data occasionally, so I am looking for a reasonably-price alternative, as the Trimble upgrade and maintenance costs are what I consider significant for what I need the software to do.

I too am playing with SurveyGNSS as well as CHC CGO:

CGO News Release

Trial download from Igage

May be an alternative to consider. So far, I like the interface and the fact that it is not bloated with a whole bunch of features I do not need. May want to give it a look...

Matt

Thanks Matthew!

I will take a look.

How is business in Reedsburg?

I am from WI originally; moved to Oregon in 2005.

Have you tried it?

It would be nice to hear reviews from users, hopefully someone can drop a line.

> Have you tried it?
I have not. I did read through the documentation.

See my response above. I still have more testing I want to do. I will report back.

Check out GNSS Solutions too, you might like it.

I just processed some 4 hour static sessions that I recently collected on the Central Oregon CBL.

I have that same 2-3cm difference with the OPUS solutions, but the baseline data looks pretty good.

Our baseline was last adjusted in 2001 and the Carlson SurveyGNSS processing yields a difference of 0.004m!

I would say that processor works pretty well!

Now to test some RTK and some L1 only data.

So far I am not too thrilled with the online Spatial Reference tool. It is great in theory, but there are several entries with nearly identical names. It also appears that users can upload their own projections. That is probably the reason there appears to be so many duplicates with nearly identical names. I don't trust the projections so I look at the parameters of each one.

For starters they could classify all the state plane zones with the proper SP Zone Number.

I think I would probably just save the handful of projections I work in often on the local machine and never look at the online stuff.

I do like the map interface though.

I hate to revive an old thread. I just purchased Carlson SurveyGNSS for use at our office after doing a demo for a few projects I was happy with it. No bells and whistles. I also did not like the Spacial Reference Tool as someone else here mentioned. There needs to be predefined projections there to choose from. As always, user uploaded data can be unreliable.

The $1800 cost was the biggest factor, being about half of the other options. We are already using other Carlson products so it made sense.

That being said, has anyone else had any problems with it?

I have not done any further testing.

I have seen some comments that seem to allude to the software in question [msg=280564]here[/msg].

I use GNSS Solutions, but I always double check my elevations. I have been bitten more than once with an even 2 meter bust.

There is an occasional error when the software does not import the rod height from the Rinex file.

This was discussed in detail in this thread:
[msg=210077]link[/msg]

Sorry to revive a bit of a zombie thread here, but figured that I would keep all of the info together.

Is there anyone out there that is using Carlson SurveyGNSS for post-processing yet? I Have a mix of receiver types, and the old Topcon Tools is long in teh tooth and should be upgraded. Since I went with Javad for new receivers, I thought I would look around at post processors. Javad's post processor is double the cost, and likely much more complex than I need. Since I am on Carlson Survey I thought this may be a good fit for a small shop like me. I'm going to download the trail towards the end of the year, but reading through the features, It looks like it will import the proprietary format from several manufactures - which is a nice timesaver as I am kind of sick of converting 1/2 my files to rinex.

Any info would be great.