OPUS question

Mapman,

I generally either submit a rinex file, or a *.tps file.

My receivers are two Topcon Hiper Lites, and a CHC X90D-OPUS receiver.

Pretty good results with both, and pretty simple to submit.

I hope this helps.

Jimmy

I don't know about .t01, but it will work with .dat files (use runpkr00). That said I prefer to send rinex.

> ... I prefer to send rinex.

The service said it ran native formats. I figured Trimbles .t01 file should be considered native. But like you, rinex seems to work fine.

I was looking for a little more processing info. Which might come from another format. Other than picking the stations it bonds to there doesn't seem to be any other way to recheck results.

OPUS-RS Is An Excellent Check, Heck It Is Better All Around

Just divy up your long files.

Then request extended data and see how small the residuals are to all 9 CORS.

You cannot get much better than checking into 9 CORS.

I can get better if I am so inclined because we have so many CORS in this area, I can resubmit my OPUS-RS to another 9 more.

Paul in PA

The "native" Trimble format (as far as OPUS is concerned) is the DAT files even though the Txx files have been the Trimble binary format for a number of years now. Unless this has changed recently, I believe this to be the case still, I think it is whatever TEQC supports and that is only the DAT file from survey receivers although a couple of other Trimble formats are supported in TEQC which I don't think they are ones in common use on survey units, no Txx files however.

SHG

Not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but if you are looking for an easy way to check your initial results, you can try resubmitting and tell OPUS to exclude some or all of the stations used in the last solution. Mixing up the stations will give you a good idea of how robust your initial solution was.

Paul's suggestion is a good idea too, as long as you have a sufficient number/density of CORS around.

> The service said it ran native formats. I figured Trimbles .t01 file should be considered native.
When OPUS was new I believe they intended to accept native formats. And they did for most of the common ones at that time. After a while I guess they realized that there were just too many to support, with more being developed, so they eventually they dropped that commitment. But it will still accept some older formats, such as Trimbles .dat.

I recall speaking to Ron Sawyer, of StarNet fame, on one occasion, and he told me that maintaining the data converters took up most of his time and caused him the most headaches. He complained that the software developers where constantly tweaking things, for purposes that were often not clear, and were not very cooperative.

> I was looking for a little more processing info. Which might come from another format. Other than picking the stations it bonds to there doesn't seem to be any other way to recheck results.
Nothing beats redundant observations.

>...if you are looking for an easy way to check your initial results, you can try resubmitting and tell OPUS to exclude some or all of the stations used in the last solution. Mixing up the stations will give you a good idea of how robust your initial solution was.
>
> Paul's suggestion is a good idea too, as long as you have a sufficient number/density of CORS around.

Thanks for the input on this guys.

When I use TBC I get the residuals and other tests that help to see the quality of the data. In the OPUS report it indicates 1-sigma minimum and then a few mm's of error and the # of observations used. Other than that it doesn't have much in terms of diagnostics.

The option to pick different CORs is helpful to verify. Just isn't something to verify/diagnose inconsistencies.

Which is why I was hoping that a different format like a .dat file might provide more indicators.

> When I use TBC I get the residuals and other tests that help to see the quality of the data. ...
IN OPUS, Under OPTIONS, specify the "Extended" report. You will get loads of data on residuals, etc.

May be wrong, but I think that is for 2 or more hours of occupation, right?

I use it mostly for RS.

> May be wrong, but I think that is for 2 or more hours of occupation, right?
The extended report is available for OPUS-RS as well.

Thanks Norm. I'll try that today.

Is it available when ultra-rapid ephemeris is running. Or do you have to wait for the precise orbits?

Nothing beats redundant observations.

:good: :good:

And by redundant I'm pretty sure you don't mean resubmitting the same data in a different format:-X

They used to take native formats years ago, but quit probably around 2005 or so??

Rinex is the only way that I'm aware you can process by, at least with Trimble gear.

Rinex is the only way that I'm aware you can process by, at least with Trimble gear.

I've never converted to Rinex but they take them anyway

> ...
> Rinex is the only way that I'm aware you can process by, at least with Trimble gear.

That is my experience too.

The .t01 files were around in early 2000's which made me think that should have been considered a native format. It is a proprietary binary format where Rinex is a text based generic format. Much easier to edit and tweek if needed.

> Is it available when ultra-rapid ephemeris is running. Or do you have to wait for the precise orbits?
I'm pretty sure you will find it always available. Naturally, the residuals will be smaller with the better ephemeri.

Word of warning - the extended reports run several pages long.