AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

THIS IS WHY WE STILL NEED TGO!!!!

6 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
620 Views
john-hamilton
(@john-hamilton)
Posts: 3438
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I had a last minute job come up last Monday. I was going to drive to Corbin Monday evening for the Opus Projects class, but instead flew early Monday to do a quick job, and then flew to Richmond that night (via Detroit-where it was snowing).

I had 6 Lidar points to do. Setup a base on the same point the client used at a local airport for their airborne. Picked up the six points (fast static) and some control, and then went back to my base. Dead. Downloaded it, and it had only run for 45 minutes. Bad battery. So, it only covered one of the six points. I usually process the data in the field before leaving, but I had a 90 drive to catch a flight, and no base data. I knew there was a local DOT CORS nearby, but could not access the data ( alogin was needed). So I figured I could get that data, all would be OK. I got a login from the DOT a couple of days later, downloaded the CORS, and processed in TBC. One point would not process, said "not enough overlap" or something like that. I converted to rinex, and the data looked fine to me. Loaded the rinex instead, still would not process.

I was thinking I would have to go back there (not a cheap place to fly to-small southern city).

On a whim, I ran the dat files through FixDatTGO, and loaded them into TGO. Converted the rinex to the same date (2005), and all of the data processed just fine. I still don't know why TBC doesn't like that file, but as I said TGO did just fine. No slips, no problems at all.

So, being able to go back and use TGO saved me a trip back.


 
Posted : December 11, 2011 9:23 pm
jhframe
(@jim-frame)
Posts: 7465
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

> On a whim, I ran the dat files through FixDatTGO, and loaded them into TGO. Converted the rinex to the same date (2005), and all of the data processed just fine. I still don't know why TBC doesn't like that file, but as I said TGO did just fine. No slips, no problems at all.

I've had the same experience.

I did notice that TBC won't process vectors when the processing style (I forget what TBC calls styles) specifies precise orbits and the precise orbit file is missing. No warning, just a failed vector. But that's a separate issue.

I also noticed -- after the fact, to my chagrin -- that TBC will use an unknown antenna model when NGS absolute models are specified in the processing style. No warning, just a substitute antenna model. But that's also a separate issue.

I'm told that Trimble is working on the NGS absolute model implementation, but there's been no announced release date for it.

TBC is still pretty rough around the edges compared to TGO.


 
Posted : December 11, 2011 10:00 pm
true-corner
(@true-corner)
Posts: 592
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Shoot, I couldn't even get TBC to load onto my computer. Went back to TGO with the Rinex date fix. Saved my bacon.


 
Posted : December 11, 2011 10:05 pm
The Pseudo Ranger
(@the-pseudo-ranger)
Posts: 2367
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Having switched between Ashtech, Sokkia, and Topcon equipment, I have noticed that often times data that won't process or give good results in one program will process fine in the other. I found Sokkia's software to be the worst about failing vectors and giving unexplainable bad results.


 
Posted : December 12, 2011 7:50 am
wildt2
(@wildt2)
Posts: 206
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

John,

I don't know if the TBC folks monitor this valuable message board, but, I know for certain that things like this get their attention on the TBC fasebook page. I am just wondering if you made them aware of this and if you had any response.

Jesse


 
Posted : December 12, 2011 12:20 pm

john-hamilton
(@john-hamilton)
Posts: 3438
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

When I am back in the office tomorrow, I will put together a detailed post to that page. Hopefully they will "fix" the problem.

Thanks for the suggestion Jesse.


 
Posted : December 12, 2011 12:54 pm