I've been using it some, it really does work, there is barely any difference between it and CORS/OPUS, mainly in the elevation, it actually is closer to NAVD88, from the few I've done, haven't used it much however.
What are others seeing that use it
Seeing the same results - horizontal is usually right there with OPUS, vertical might be different by 0.10' give or take. They seem to do a little better with 2 - 3 hour files than OPUS; I see better results with OPUS when we go at least four.
Its a very hands off process, kinda makes me nervous
I agree, they don't tell you anything about how they're doing it and they don't give you a whole lot of information about the solution. But I've ran enough of them on data that was also processed through OPUS and using CORS data in TBC to have a decent feel for it; I wouldn't have a problem with using it if for whatever reason it was the only thing available.
I walked a client of mine through it (not that there's much to do) and he was so excited,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't think OPUS is in his future, all he has to do is download the base, sit for a minute or two and it's over..........
His comment was, this is so simple why should I spend the time with OPUS.....
I have to say however, there isn't much of anything xy between CORS and RTX, I've been seeing it in the verticals, and trimble matches NAVD88 better......so far........
But I have a small sample at this point.
I definitely get different results in the V between OPUS, CORS (TBC), and RTX-PP. With our subsidence issues here there really is no good NAVD88 monumentation, so it's usually just a judgement call as to which one to use.
I have a more stable bench situation, I'm seeing the trimble solution closer to the bench's here. But my sample is way too small to give any kinda recommendation.
