The Triumph-2 is listed as a "GIS field mapping receiver", I would go with the Triumph-1M.

I use the Triumph 2 as my base. It is only GPS and Glonass. You will never be able to use Gallileo with it. With that said it has worked very well for me. I bought it about 4 years ago. If I were purchasing today I would go with the T1M so I could use the other constellations.?ÿ

?ÿ

There is another option which is using the LS as a base and a rover. You get all constellations that way without an upgrade fee.

Right now that is a fairly simple to answer.

Do you want to use Gallileo or Compass??ÿ If so, T1M.

Do you want an internal radio? If so, T1M

Do you want a cheaper, and smaller form factor??ÿ If so T2.

?ÿ

Can you wait 30-60 days??ÿ If so T3 is rumored to be out.?ÿ Specs supposed to be similar to T1M, in a chopped LS form factor.?ÿ (not clear on internal radio though)

?ÿ

Hop over the Javad forum.?ÿ Lots of answers over there.

I would recommend the Triumph-1M over Triumph-2 for a base. Like Adam I use the Triumph-2 as a base and it works very well. I like the internal radio of the Triumph-1M, which the Triumph-2 does not have (requiring an external radio). The Triumph-1M also is capable of tracking Galileo and Beidou, which the Triumph-2 is not.?ÿ

The internal radio allows you to have a simple setup for small sites. An external radio can be added for larger sites. An external radio can also be configured as a repeater to extend the range even further.

The main advantage of the Triumph-2 over the Triumph-1M is cost. Both work well, but the Triumph-1M has additional flexibility.

Thanks for the replies.

I've been going through the Javad forum.?ÿ

Some say the addition of Galileo will not improve performance and others claim its a game changer.

Some say the addition of Galileo will not improve performance and others claim its a game changer.

I think the latter group are referring to extreme circumstances under which the availability of more SVs increases the chance of getting enough clean data to provide a reliable position in a reasonable amount of time.?ÿ You'll have to weigh the higher cost of the T1M against your need to use the equipment in those conditions in order to evaluate the benefit.

I use a T2 base, but I don't usually push the envelope when it comes to sky view obstructions.?ÿ It's a great little receiver.

I based my comment off of this post by Javad on the Javad Forum in January of 2017. The addition of more Galileo satellites may have changed his mind.?ÿ

"Anywhere in the world, having more than 20 signals has almost no additional benefits. It means more than 10 dual frequency satellites. or 7 triple frequency satellites.?ÿ
It is best to pre-filter and use the best 20 signals rather than mixing good and bad together. By bad, I mean multipath infected or weak signals. Galileo at this point has almost no effect, because their effect comparing with 8 or more GPS signals will be thrown away. They may pretend that they use Galileo signals of 3 satellites, but it has no effect, until you get comparable amount with GPS and GLONASS. We wait to see reliable operation of Galileo and then release Galileo usage in J-Field in a month or so.?ÿ
Triumph-2 sues Galileo L1 along with all GPS and GLONASS signals. Use of Galileo is more political at this point that anything practical. See for yourself."

I don't think it's changed his mind, rather Galileo reliable operation is starting to happen, which is what he was waiting for.?ÿ

My understanding is that there needs to be more new signals in total than old ones in order to get significantly better results, or at least enough of them for some redundancy (the signals are supposed to be better at multipath mitigation).?ÿ

That means not only Galileo, but also GPS L5, Glonass new signal, Beidou, etc.. in order to mix and match and use a true combined solution from the modernized signals.?ÿ That's why they all settled on newer signal type that would allow better interoperability.?ÿ Although, Glonass newer signal will still be of a slightly differing type than the others, it is supposed to be able to work with the others better as well.?ÿ More and more L5's have been going up, Galileo has made a lot of progress, Beidou some progress, Glonass lagging behind a little (i read somewhere this is in part due to U.S. sanctions of some sort that made something for their new satellites hard to get).

I could be wrong, but I trust Javad knows what he's doing in any event.