Rankin_File, post: 423070, member: 101 wrote: I was a bit fictitious. You get a .pdf and an .xml - I didn't digest the .xml at all- i just wanted a quick result from a half -baked observation OPUS - RS aborted out on - so I did get my rough lat and Long. ( I recovered a Bench under a BIG Bull pine while I had a bunch of receivers out burning statics, so I put an Epoch50 on it for a few minutes while I was waiting. )
Rankin,
I'm curious about the contents of both the .pdf AND .xml files.
Loyal
Loyal, post: 423073, member: 228 wrote: Rankin,
I'm curious about the contents of both the .pdf AND .xml files.
Loyal
I know where the .xml files are stored for RTX, I've never seen the .pdf files, I can send a .xml file if you wish, however they are more put together for view in the actual job, they are hard to look at in their native file format.
If you use the Trimble RTX website for processing you will receive an email with the xml and a basic PDF report.
I sent the .xml and .pdf from one of my sessions to Loyal at the AOL email address he used in 2012.
The XML does have more detail than the PDF, but I didn't see any trail through the conversions.
andrewm, post: 423114, member: 10888 wrote: If you use the Trimble RTX website for processing you will receive an email with the xml and a basic PDF report.
Ahh, that may be why I don't get a report, I don't use the website
Bill93, post: 423124, member: 87 wrote: I sent the .xml and .pdf from one of my sessions to Loyal at the AOL email address he used in 2012.
The XML does have more detail than the PDF, but I didn't see any trail through the conversions.
Thanks Bill
Bill93, post: 423124, member: 87 wrote: I sent the .xml and .pdf from one of my sessions to Loyal at the AOL email address he used in 2012.
The XML does have more detail than the PDF, but I didn't see any trail through the conversions.
Bill,
I agree, the only additions to the data returned in the .pdf file, is a covariance matrix for [both] the Horizontal and Vertical position estimate.
If you want to do a quick Red-Neck Science Project to get a feel for things in your area, I would suggest downloading 6-8 hours of data from NLIB (North Liberty), and running it through both OPUS_S and RTX-PP.
NLIB is a NGS CORS, an IGS Tracking Network Station, AND has an ITRF2014 position published by the ITRF/IERS.
I see that HTDP does not yet support IGS2014/ITRF2014 to NAD83 conversions, so this might be a good way to real world results to verify the NAD83 solution.
Loyal
BTW Bill...
IF you decide to play with NLIB, I would suggest selecting the following CORS in the OPUS Solution:
PIE1
GODE
AMC2
These three CORS are also IGS Tracking Stations, AND have ITRF2014 positions published.
This would give you additional analysis options (NAD83, IGS08, ITRF2014)
Loyal
Had a few minutes for lunch and I sent one of the new RTX-PP files to OPUS to let them calc it
RTX-PP
Lat-57.35391"
Long-45.49050"
Height-3941.718
OPUS
Lat-57.35360"
LONG-45.49090"
Height-3941.751'
can't complain about that;)
MightyMoe, post: 423179, member: 700 wrote: Had a few minutes for lunch and I sent one of the new RTX-PP files to OPUS to let them calc it
RTX-PP
Lat-57.35391"
Long-45.49050"
Height-3941.718OPUS
Lat-57.35360"
LONG-45.49090"
Height-3941.751'can't complain about that;)
Nope...that looks pretty good.
Very happy that all three agree within .07' for height, although the new OPUS elevation is .3' higher than my older realization. Basically the elevation difference is all in the two Geoid Models, 2009 and 2012.
