RINEX or .DAT

The rinex conversion tool is a separate tool from TGO. We still convert to rinex and edit the rinex file before processing in TBC or OPUS.

Still Rinex. OPUS used to handle the dat files, but then quit. So I rinex. I can't find the way to do it in TBC, but I still use TGO to rinex out.

TBC is very clunky. However, I've gotten much more comfortable with processing them in TBC versus OPUS. In fact, I feel like the answers are just as good, plus I get the ties to the 6 or so CORS stations to my static points thereby giving extra strength to the survey.

TGO would do it, I just never did.

> With OPUS' ability to process .dat files now, are people bothering to convert their files to RINEX any more?

The only time I've submitted RINEX files to OPUS instead of the native Trimble DAT files was when I needed to decimate the observations or shorten the session so that OPUS-RS would process it. RINEX was the natural medium for doing that. Otherwise, I've submitted DAT files and have encountered no problems.

> .......but I still use TGO to rinex out.

That's what I did. The scope of this particular project requires an OPUS derived solution. I haven't tried the processing inside TBC yet with the CORS sites. It sounds like it is yielding some good results.

Kent, are you using TEQC?

There have been several people on here that have linked to the TEQC site but I can't figure out which link gives me the download to the program or how to run it for that matter.

I would like to learn how to edit and decimate my own files, but there are no real good reads or examples that I have found.

Loyal has always been the one to "fix" my files for me when I have a problem with OPUS, but I don't want to keep on bothering him. I'm not sure how many beverages or cigars I owe him now, but I know he's been more than helpful to me.

Rob

It's just badass is all I can say. 🙂

Howdy,

The following links are to the UNAVCO site relevant to teqc:

The tutorial file is:

http://facility.unavco.org/software/teqc/tutorial.html#sec_18

The executables for various OS are here (scroll to find Windoze):

http://facility.unavco.org/software/teqc/teqc.html#executables

It is always useful to review the frequently asked questions:

http://facility.unavco.org/software/teqc/faqs.html

HTH,

DMM

Thanks Mike, I happen to stumble across some of those links just a few minutes ago. Maybe I should get the sleepies out of my eyes:-$

On a similar but side note....Why is OPUS spitting out slightly different values between a RINEX file and a .DAT file?

Not much, (6mm) in ortho but non the less.

> On a similar but side note....Why is OPUS spitting out slightly different values between a RINEX file and a .DAT file?

Have you double-checked the usual suspects, i.e.
- HARP,
- Antenna type,
- CORS sites used in solution,
- Ephemeris, and
- Geoid model?

Howdy,

I received a similar report a few months ago. I sent the following message to the OPUS contact email address:

---------
A colleague submitted two versions of the same file to OPUS.  One was a raw Javad receiver file; the other a RINEX file converted using the Javad utility.  The RINEX file created includes both GPS and GLONASS.

The two solutions show different numbers of observed and used observations.  Curious.  Why should that be?

I thought there might be an issue with the Javad translator.  I used teqc to create a RINEX file from the jps file using command "teqc -javad jps" on the Javad file.  I then submitted this file to OPUS-RS. My solution showed nearly identical numbers of observed and used observations when compared to the Javad software created RINEX file.  

The raw Javad file had 14220 observations with 12204 used.  The two RINEX files showed 10287 observations with 8559 used.

Any explanation for the discrepancy in the number of observations?

Obviously, if converting files results in poorer results then users should be encouraged to submit the raw files.  

Thanks in advance for any explanation.  I can provide the raw file if you are interested.

---------

I did not receive a reply. The OPUS FAQ does not address the issue.

My initial guess was that different switches were used in the translation from proprietary binary to RINEX. It is possible to perform smoothing and other operations on raw data files.

As noted in my message, I converted the Javad file using teqc and got comparable results from the RINEX file converted using the Javad translator. Why the difference? I never got a reply from NGS.

I do not have the computer with processing results of processing handy. IF the same antenna model and antenna heights were used for both submissions, I would expect the same results would be obtained.

OPUS uses my .DAT files just fine. I usually don't convert to RINEX.

I do view the file in the Convert to RINEX utility to see if it checks with my other notes for Ant Ht, name and other things input in the field. I get the Ht to ARP from this utility needed to submit to OPUS. Also check the antenna used to make sure that is correct in my OPUS submission. If edits are needed then I convert to RINEX.

get your convert to rinex utility here http://www.trimble.com/trimblerinex_ts.asp