Just A. Surveyor, post: 439150, member: 12855 wrote: "Not sure why the LS is a non-start".
Well quite simply I want one controller for multiple devices and one software to work with. I can't see the benefits of a different software on a GPS Box on a rod and having to switch to a different one with a robot. It doesn't make sense to my primitive brain.
Now in all fairness, I kinda like the idea of the little J-TIP. And I kinda like the testimonials from users of the LS system. I just don't want multiple softwares.
My experience with tools that offer tons of feature packed capabilities are fraught with problems and I'm a bit gun shy with them. Sure you can pack a lot of stuff inside a package and it can do everything except make your coffee but I don't know..........
Tell me where I'm wrong.
I will come hang out with you one day and let you use the LS for yourself. It's like the old saying goes "don't knock it till you try it".
Just A. Surveyor, post: 439150, member: 12855 wrote: "Not sure why the LS is a non-start".
Well quite simply I want one controller for multiple devices and one software to work with. I can't see the benefits of a different software on a GPS Box on a rod and having to switch to a different one with a robot. It doesn't make sense to my primitive brain.
Now in all fairness, I kinda like the idea of the little J-TIP. And I kinda like the testimonials from users of the LS system. I just don't want multiple softwares.
My experience with tools that offer tons of feature packed capabilities are fraught with problems and I'm a bit gun shy with them. Sure you can pack a lot of stuff inside a package and it can do everything except make your coffee but I don't know..........
Tell me where I'm wrong.
You're not necessarily wrong if you get free rtn and you almost always have cell coverage and you have a nice dense network of cors so you have one within 5km or so. The benefit of the LS with base outweighs the drawback of two differing software and collectors if you routinely need GPS in tough GPSing territory. But I get the robot out less often because I have the LS with local base Triumph 2. It may be a luxury for some, but for me it's a necessity. I'm a legal guy and kind of a measurement hack, but maybe because of that I like the documentation and analysis in the LS. I may not care if there's a couple tenths floating around but I damn well want to know that it is, within a reasonable degree of certainty, and have some evidence to back up my knowledge.
As to where do you get support: I did have a problem with the feature packed capabilities two or three times over 3 years or so. Twice the tech guys fixed it within minutes while I was in the field by capturing my screen over cell connection and tweaking settings. Once we couldn't figure it out, but worked fine the next day. If the regular tech guys can't figure it out you leave it on overnight and the scientists in Moscow capture the system and fix it.
Just A. Surveyor, post: 439150, member: 12855 wrote: "Not sure why the LS is a non-start".
Well quite simply I want one controller for multiple devices and one software to work with. I can't see the benefits of a different software on a GPS Box on a rod and having to switch to a different one with a robot. It doesn't make sense to my primitive brain.
Now in all fairness, I kinda like the idea of the little J-TIP. And I kinda like the testimonials from users of the LS system. I just don't want multiple softwares.
My experience with tools that offer tons of feature packed capabilities are fraught with problems and I'm a bit gun shy with them. Sure you can pack a lot of stuff inside a package and it can do everything except make your coffee but I don't know..........
Tell me where I'm wrong.
I won't tell you that you are wrong. You're the best person to make the decision on what is right for your business. But I'll share a few things for you to consider so that you can make an informed decision. (I'll try to keep this short and not write a book).
One Controller Philosophy
To some, this is a deficiency in the LS. We do not have any support for controlling any total stations, that much is true. In some situations this may pose a setback, but in general, a surveyor using RTK and a total station on the same project will do all of his RTK work first and then fill in with the total station after the RTK work is complete. I think it's unlikely (while not being completely unheard of) for the surveyor to switch back and forth between RTK and the total station several times in a day. I believe it's typically going to be all RTK and then all total station. So we're talking about one switch in a day's work. It's a very simple process to export the ascii and dwg of the work done in the LS to a thumb drive and then import that data into the TS data collector to continue work. It might be cumbersome if doing so several times a day, but again, I think it's likely to be once a day at most. We do require you to learn a new interface and our interface isn't like anyone else, so there is a learning curve, but it exists for a reason and not to simply be different (which I will explain in the next section). So you will be using two entirely different softwares, which requires an intellectual investment on the part of our customers. The beauty of this is that the robot can be running at the same time as the RTK because you aren't relying on a single controller for both. In my workflow I just haven't found it to be the issue that I thought it would be when I first started consulting for Javad. I was a big proponent of developing a total station data collector based on my perceptions. Once I started using it, I realized my perceptions didn't match the need.
Why J-Field over Brand X
We do a lot of cool things in the software in the LS. A friend, who shall remain anonymous, and I spent some time with Javad in the early development of J-Field (the software in the LS). One of the things we did was address the perennial topic of Grid vs Ground. In the LS you can instantly see inverses in Grid or Geodetic/Ground/Ellipsoid. You can enter a direction and distance as Grid/Geodetic/Ground/Ellipsoid too. But what really sets the LS apart more than anything is our verification process for proving a fix to be good, DPOS, the internal post-processing application, and 5 Hz RTK.
Verification
All good surveyors using RTK in difficult environments know that RTK can give false fixes and the only way to proof them is through redundancy. So a surveyor collects a point under the trees, then he resets the engine and collects another. He then inverses between the first and the second to see if they agree to some tolerance. If they do not, he's left to wonder if either one is actually good. So he collects another point and inverses between the third and the first and the third and the second. If he has no agreement he continues, each time inversing manually to see if there is any agreement until he finds agreement or determines the points is unsuited for RTK and comes up with an alternative method to locate the point. The LS does this all automatically, resetting the 6 onboard engines through the first phase of collection until a consensus candidate is determined, setting aside epochs that do not fit with the consensus. After a consensus is formed, the process moves to the second phase in which the engines are left to remain fixed and epochs are added to improve the precision of the position. Once the preset number of epochs have been added, the process moves to the final phase, called validation. Here the engines are reset one last time and once fixed, the fix is compared to the consensus once more to determine if the initial consensus was good. If so, the point is given the thumbs up and the user is able to accept or reject the shot. All of this is done for the user to see, but he is only a passive observer to the process. The LS is doing all of the work. Once the shot is complete the user has tremendous confidence that the point is good, regardless of canopy.
DPOS
You mentioned only being interested in a rover, so this feature may not apply to you, but I'll describe it anyway. When we start the base, the base always records a raw data file (the user cannot opt out of this). The rover can also be set to log raw data while points are being collected. At the end of the session, the user stops the base with the LS and the raw data file on the base is automatically downloaded to the LS. Once the LS has an internet connection (which can be through a hotspot in the field or back at the office), the files can be sent to DPOS, Javad's on processing server. The base is processed to five CORS stations using GPS and Glonass (if the CORS is logging Glonass data). In the LS, the base position and all rover positions from that base are automatically shifted from the autonomous base position to the CORS base position. Secondarily, all rover points with raw data are processed to the base. The comparison of RTK and Post Processed solutions for each point can be quickly evaluated and the user can manually select which solution he prefers. All of this is done on the LS without any PC software. This is a free service to all LS users (no subscription fees). The value of the base-rover processing is two-fold. Any points that were collected beyond communication range can be solved by post processing with cm level accuracy. Post-processed solutions to RTK points add an additional layer of confidence in the result of the RTK solution. It's simple and it's fast, and to be honest I would not want to be without this feature.
5Hz RTK
A lot of debate has swirled around this issue. To cut through the BS and get straight to brass tacks, we started broadcasting corrections at 5Hz. This is different from extrapolated 5Hz positions and is a true 5Hz RTK solution. What we found was a pretty significant improvement in time to fix. In the open, you probably wouldn't notice, but in canopy it made a big difference. RTN users could not take advantage of this, however, because the vast majority of RTN's only broadcast at 1Hz. Over time, Javad had an idea on how to take 1Hz corrections and manipulate them into pseudo-5Hz corrections. Using what he calls "upsampled" data, we saw the same performance improvements using 1Hz corrections. So now, our base-rover users are broadcasting at 1Hz, but see the 5Hz performance and our RTN users are now able to experience the 5Hz improvement from their 1Hz RTN corrections.
Conclusion:
I get that the box on a stick approach is unconventional. I'm a surveyor and all of the questions you and other surveyors are asking, believe me, I asked them too. After a couple of weeks of use, I found myself never wanting to return to a 2-meter pole with a data collector hanging of the side getting tangled on every effing vine, briar and limb in the effing woods (trying to keep it PG here). I also never want to go back to RTK without DPOS. The post processing is just that good. And I never want to go back to a data collector that makes me manually prove out my points in difficult places by trial and error.
Shawn Billings, post: 439186, member: 6521 wrote: I won't tell you that you are wrong. You're the best person to make the decision on what is right for your business. But I'll share a few things for you to consider so that you can make an informed decision. (I'll try to keep this short and not write a book).
One Controller Philosophy
To some, this is a deficiency in the LS. We do not have any support for controlling any total stations, that much is true. In some situations this may pose a setback, but in general, a surveyor using RTK and a total station on the same project will do all of his RTK work first and then fill in with the total station after the RTK work is complete. I think it's unlikely (while not being completely unheard of) for the surveyor to switch back and forth between RTK and the total station several times in a day. I believe it's typically going to be all RTK and then all total station. So we're talking about one switch in a day's work. It's a very simple process to export the ascii and dwg of the work done in the LS to a thumb drive and then import that data into the TS data collector to continue work. It might be cumbersome if doing so several times a day, but again, I think it's likely to be once a day at most. We do require you to learn a new interface and our interface isn't like anyone else, so there is a learning curve, but it exists for a reason and not to simply be different (which I will explain in the next section). So you will be using two entirely different softwares, which requires an intellectual investment on the part of our customers. The beauty of this is that the robot can be running at the same time as the RTK because you aren't relying on a single controller for both. In my workflow I just haven't found it to be the issue that I thought it would be when I first started consulting for Javad. I was a big proponent of developing a total station data collector based on my perceptions. Once I started using it, I realized my perceptions didn't match the need.Why J-Field over Brand X
We do a lot of cool things in the software in the LS. A friend, who shall remain anonymous, and I spent some time with Javad in the early development of J-Field (the software in the LS). One of the things we did was address the perennial topic of Grid vs Ground. In the LS you can instantly see inverses in Grid or Geodetic/Ground/Ellipsoid. You can enter a direction and distance as Grid/Geodetic/Ground/Ellipsoid too. But what really sets the LS apart more than anything is our verification process for proving a fix to be good, DPOS, the internal post-processing application, and 5 Hz RTK.Verification
All good surveyors using RTK in difficult environments know that RTK can give false fixes and the only way to proof them is through redundancy. So a surveyor collects a point under the trees, then he resets the engine and collects another. He then inverses between the first and the second to see if they agree to some tolerance. If they do not, he's left to wonder if either one is actually good. So he collects another point and inverses between the third and the first and the third and the second. If he has no agreement he continues, each time inversing manually to see if there is any agreement until he finds agreement or determines the points is unsuited for RTK and comes up with an alternative method to locate the point. The LS does this all automatically, resetting the 6 onboard engines through the first phase of collection until a consensus candidate is determined, setting aside epochs that do not fit with the consensus. After a consensus is formed, the process moves to the second phase in which the engines are left to remain fixed and epochs are added to improve the precision of the position. Once the preset number of epochs have been added, the process moves to the final phase, called validation. Here the engines are reset one last time and once fixed, the fix is compared to the consensus once more to determine if the initial consensus was good. If so, the point is given the thumbs up and the user is able to accept or reject the shot. All of this is done for the user to see, but he is only a passive observer to the process. The LS is doing all of the work. Once the shot is complete the user has tremendous confidence that the point is good, regardless of canopy.DPOS
You mentioned only being interested in a rover, so this feature may not apply to you, but I'll describe it anyway. When we start the base, the base always records a raw data file (the user cannot opt out of this). The rover can also be set to log raw data while points are being collected. At the end of the session, the user stops the base with the LS and the raw data file on the base is automatically downloaded to the LS. Once the LS has an internet connection (which can be through a hotspot in the field or back at the office), the files can be sent to DPOS, Javad's on processing server. The base is processed to five CORS stations using GPS and Glonass (if the CORS is logging Glonass data). In the LS, the base position and all rover positions from that base are automatically shifted from the autonomous base position to the CORS base position. Secondarily, all rover points with raw data are processed to the base. The comparison of RTK and Post Processed solutions for each point can be quickly evaluated and the user can manually select which solution he prefers. All of this is done on the LS without any PC software. This is a free service to all LS users (no subscription fees). The value of the base-rover processing is two-fold. Any points that were collected beyond communication range can be solved by post processing with cm level accuracy. Post-processed solutions to RTK points add an additional layer of confidence in the result of the RTK solution. It's simple and it's fast, and to be honest I would not want to be without this feature.5Hz RTK
A lot of debate has swirled around this issue. To cut through the BS and get straight to brass tacks, we started broadcasting corrections at 5Hz. This is different from extrapolated 5Hz positions and is a true 5Hz RTK solution. What we found was a pretty significant improvement in time to fix. In the open, you probably wouldn't notice, but in canopy it made a big difference. RTN users could not take advantage of this, however, because the vast majority of RTN's only broadcast at 1Hz. Over time, Javad had an idea on how to take 1Hz corrections and manipulate them into pseudo-5Hz corrections. Using what he calls "upsampled" data, we saw the same performance improvements using 1Hz corrections. So now, our base-rover users are broadcasting at 1Hz, but see the 5Hz performance and our RTN users are now able to experience the 5Hz improvement from their 1Hz RTN corrections.Conclusion:
I get that the box on a stick approach is unconventional. I'm a surveyor and all of the questions you and other surveyors are asking, believe me, I asked them too. After a couple of weeks of use, I found myself never wanting to return to a 2-meter pole with a data collector hanging of the side getting tangled on every effing vine, briar and limb in the effing woods (trying to keep it PG here). I also never want to go back to RTK without DPOS. The post processing is just that good. And I never want to go back to a data collector that makes me manually prove out my points in difficult places by trial and error.
So......you have not jumped on the cell phone network corrected gps bandwagon where you just have a single rover and you are able to jump out of your truck and go to work. Why did you not opt for that? Is anyone offering that service in your area of Texas? I realize there is the whole issue of a subscriber fee but still.....no post processing, single rover, instant corrections.
Is the capability of the LS so good that you can survey where others dare not tread? Incidentally the 1Hz and 5Hz stuff is beyond my primitive mind. I know what your talking about but being able to see it in real time and seeing a difference is something I have not witnessed.
Just A. Surveyor, post: 439209, member: 12855 wrote: So......you have not jumped on the cell phone network corrected gps bandwagon where you just have a single rover and you are able to jump out of your truck and go to work. Why did you not opt for that? Is anyone offering that service in your area of Texas? I realize there is the whole issue of a subscriber fee but still.....no post processing, single rover, instant corrections.
Is the capability of the LS so good that you can survey where others dare not tread? Incidentally the 1Hz and 5Hz stuff is beyond my primitive mind. I know what your talking about but being able to see it in real time and seeing a difference is something I have not witnessed.
RTN performance is good. Very good, even. But it is not as good as a local base, provided that you have a secure place free from obstructions in proximity to your project. In some areas the difference in performance may be very small or imperceptible. In other environments the performance difference could be substantial. Relative accuracy will be better with a good local base and time to fix (particularly in canopy) will be better with a good local base.
I have used my own base broadcasting over the internet with great success within a short range from my office. I typically see no performance difference within 7 miles of the base. Most of my work lately has been much further than that, so I've been using the more conventional base-rover over UHF.
There is an RTN available in my area (only one) and the cost for the subscription is prohibitive. So much of my work is in difficult places, where I need all of the advantages I can get to be able to work.
I'm not against RTN's. If my work area was a little different or the subscription cost was less, I'd be very inclined to use one. In fact, the network administrator mentioned recently that they are looking into a pay per use system. For my occasional use, this would likely be very appealing.
Here in North Carolina we have a very robust network with dense CORs. I use the network to survey my first point on state plane then I set up my base for the remainder of the work. I payed a one time $500 fee for two logins here about 7 years ago. No subscription but I still opt to use my own base for performance and the ability to process rover static files after the fact.
RE: rtn subscription fees
I'm no tax attorney, but I believe that RTN subscriptions can be treated as normal operating expenses and therefore are 100% tax deductible in the current year, as opposed to depreciating a capital expense. Same with subscription based software versus purchasing a permanent license.
Even though I'm not paying taxes on the $3,500 per year cost of a subscription, I still need to justify the cost of $3,500 per year. Looking at how an RTN would improve my efficiency, I don't think I can make that work out.
My opinion is formed by where I live.
In Ohio, we have an excellent and free RTN run by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT).
In the open my experience is:
When my LS is connected to the ODOT network, I expect a shot of 5 or 10 seconds to be within 0.07' 90% of the time horizontal and vertical. If I observe for 10 minutes and average, I will be within 0.03' 90% of the time.
If I use my own Javad T2 base and the LS rover, I achieve the 0.03' accuracy in 2 seconds 90% of the time, and obtain better than 0.015' 90% of the time in 15 seconds.
There is a very clear accuracy difference over the several mile span that my jobs might range.
Regarding what happens when you get into the woods, the difference is even more favorable for the base/rover combination, regardless of brand.
I must also add that I am on the Javad support team.
I use the KY RTN when I am in Louisville and see good results. If there are any trees at all I break out my LS and T2. The time to obtain a good solution is significantly faster with my base. Not to mention the ability to use DPOS if I don't get a good RTK solution. For 90% of my work I am too far from the nearest CORS stations to use the RTN on a regular basis.
Just A. Surveyor, post: 439096, member: 12855 wrote: How do you get support or repairs?
The box on a stick (Triumph LS) seems to be a data collector, GPS unit, and it appears maybe a magnetic locator in one unit, is that correct?
I want a rover to use my own data collector with a cell phone network corrected signal so which unit is capable of that?
I do not want a base & rover combination.
OK, one at a time.
1.) Repairs? My LS sound card, or speaker went out, in the first few months. I called them, and they send me another one. The sound card did not PREVENT it from working, but it was not something I wanted to be without, long term. I called Michael Gluting, in CA. He or his folks sent me one.
For support, I call the guy I bought it through. But, I have called the others, when Shawn Billings was not available.
There is a good rapport between the members of the LS team, and that's good. There are differences in environment, between team members.
Adam works mountains alot.
Billings, E Texas, and whatever is there.
Evers, in Ohio, and in places where metal slag was used for fill. (byproducts of steel mills). Wide open places.. small trees, etc.
So, there are mildly adapted philosophical differences, in the team members.
2.) Box on a stick When I first began investigating the whole of it, I spoke with John Evers. He told me to definitely check out the LS, before I went with a Triumph pkg, with the Carlson data collector.
I did. I do not regret it.
3.) The J-tip is integrated with the LS. It also is more complex than a shonstedt. It ALSO requires that the LS be in "J-tip mode". So, I often have the LS RUNNING on a point, while I search with one of my other Metal detectors. (I prefer a SEPARATE detector, so I can improve the use of my time).
4.) I don't want a Base/Rover combo.
Well, many of us are in the woods. It's either that, or nothing. So, for us, that question is not on the table.
Anyway, to repeat the advice of another surveyor, "Before you get your survey license, you should work for at least 3 different surveyors".
And, (repeating the above principal), before you buy anything, you should INVESTIGATE what is BEST for you, and your kind of work. Check em all out. Trimble, Topcon, Leica, Mark Silver's stuff, and whatever.
There is the BEST gear, and there is the "Best gear for your needs". Don't buy before you shop... and KNOW what is best for your needs.
Surveyor First.
N
Shawn Billings, post: 439186, member: 6521 wrote: I was a big proponent of developing a total station data collector
Does this mean that the J-Field total station controller project has been shelved?
Sometimes it's an advantage to the have the standard rover + bluetooth DC setup. In the photo below we are marking the proposed installation position of offshore mooring components, in this case 5 tonne anchors. I'm standing next to the guy with the rope that has a 20kg weight on it, ready to drop when we pass over the mark as identified on the DC. Being detachable allows me to get someone else to hold the rover next to the rope man, while I can take the DC to the helm and use it to steer to the mark.
That's true. Using RAMS, you can see and control a receiver from anywhere in the world over the Internet. With a mobile router you can do it over intranet.
https://www.javad.com/jgnss/javad/news/pr20150521.html
Richard Imrie, post: 439234, member: 11256 wrote: Sometimes it's an advantage to the have the standard rover + bluetooth DC setup. In the photo below we are marking the proposed installation position of offshore mooring components, in this case 5 tonne anchors. I'm standing next to the guy with the rope that has a 20kg weight on it, ready to drop when we pass over the mark as identified on the DC. Being detachable allows me to get someone else to hold the rover next to the rope man, while I can take the DC to the helm and use it to steer to the mark.
Just curious, why not mount the receiver to the railing? I have no experience with anything offshore.
Richard Imrie, post: 439234, member: 11256 wrote: Sometimes it's an advantage to the have the standard rover + bluetooth DC setup. In the photo below we are marking the proposed installation position of offshore mooring components, in this case 5 tonne anchors. I'm standing next to the guy with the rope that has a 20kg weight on it, ready to drop when we pass over the mark as identified on the DC. Being detachable allows me to get someone else to hold the rover next to the rope man, while I can take the DC to the helm and use it to steer to the mark.
How do you mark it?
Adam, post: 439240, member: 8900 wrote: Just curious, why not mount the receiver to the railing? I have no experience with anything offshore.
We can do, and do so when doing soundings so that the receiver is over the transducer, but in this case the drop position may move so we would need to move the receiver, but the main reason is so that the receiver wont get caught by a rope or something else that could rip it off.
Adam, post: 439241, member: 8900 wrote: How do you mark it?
When we pass over the mark, drop the weight, it is still attached to the rope and a float is attached to that. Divers can then follow the rope to the seabed and hence the mark, and in this case the 5 tonne anchors will be suspended underwater with lift bags (depth is only 18m) and taken to the mark on the seabed.
Richard Imrie, post: 439244, member: 11256 wrote: We can do, and do so when doing soundings so that the receiver is over the transducer, but in this case the drop position may move so we would need to move the receiver, but the main reason is so that the receiver wont get caught by a rope or something else that could rip it off.
I see! Round her we call that dallying up thumb. I've known a few cowboys in my life and some of em don't have a thumb. Makes perfect sense!
Jim Frame, post: 439230, member: 10 wrote: Does this mean that the J-Field total station controller project has been shelved?
Nope.
The migration to Linux simply took priority.
We DO NOT have free RTN here in Georgia.
Duncan Parnell (Trimble Dealer) offers it for $1650 a year and eGPS is around $1800 a year & Earl Dudley is in that range as well.
So 3 competing networks for under 2k a year..........would the Triumph LS still make sense?