In a base/rover setup, would one lose or degrade the capabilities of the R12i if an R10 model 1 was used as the base and the R12i as the rover? I??m kicking the tires on upgrading and have been told that I would experience the same performance/features of the R12i if I continued using an R10 as my base and only replaced my rovers with new.?ÿ
Thanks
R10 as?ÿ base is fine. Not sure why people are wondering about this other than sales pitch BS.
R8gen 3 would work too.
Now if you use the 12i in the base I'll know you're "taking the p!ss" as Gordon Ramsay would say....
When I talked to the local Trimble guys a couple weeks ago they said an r8s makes for a perfectly fine base for a 12i and that the only reason you would want to use an r10 for a base is if you needed to track Trimble's geosynchronus satellites (which apparently the r8 can't do).
R10 as?ÿ base is fine. Not sure why people are wondering about this other than sales pitch BS.
R10-1 vs R10-2/R12 has different signal tracking and channel availability, so there is definitely a difference.
Whether that difference is enough to justify upgrading your bases....depends on what you're doing. My two cents is you probably won't notice enough of a difference to make it worthwhile.
Just make sure all the constellations are turned on at the base.
And use that IMU tilt function too - it's pretty amazing once you get the hang of it. We upgraded recently and far too many of our surveyors are afraid of it, to the point of telling crews not to even use it. ?????ÿ
And "Future proofing for your investment"....
I'd like to see the sales pitch people actually do a difficult GNSS based Survey.
?ÿ
Those guys you see In the Trimble R12 videos?
I used to work with them. They are excluded.?ÿ ???? ?????ÿ
Thank you all for the replies.?ÿ
I use this exact setup. The R10-1 can only receive Beidou B1 and B2 satellites, so you??ll have L1 signals from C11-30 in your RTK solution. While R12i will be receiving 4 signals from all the Beidou satellites. And there??s usually 7-9 of them visible. Beidou are the best satellites these days (most signals), though US sometimes have 11 visible but have 2-3 signals.
Are you happy with the setup? Pleased with its performance in challenging RTK environments? I??m a solo shop, so its all about efficiency.?ÿ
Thanks
In woods with a lot of branches around, it??s been awesome and quite repeatable. I??ve been floored to intentionally go inside a tall spruce tree??s low hanging branches to test its ability to fix. Spruce where it??s a lot of obstruction unlike just leaves. It??d fix in 30 to 2 minutes, then reset satellite tracking and fix again within 30 seconds within an inch of first stored position.?ÿ
in the times we??ve checked R12i RTK again total station from RTK observed control point, elevations of points have been within 0.02??. I recommend the 12i over the 12 if your about efficiency. Tilted observations will get you locations where you just can??t get a plumb rod over. Ditches, pipe ends, pavement keeping you a little further from traffic. I even located a property pipe that was slightly overgrown by a large tree where a plumb rod was a no. I would have had to set a point where I could see right down to use total station and mini prism. Saved an hour right there.You??ll use tilted observations more than you initially think.
if you have money to spend, I??ve seen R8S used for $9000 that could be a base and likely have Beidou B3 tracking that might enable use of all C satellites and their 4 signals helping more when there??s obstructions.
Yeah, when I did the demo the other week it's a whole different tech in the receiver.?ÿ They went away from some sort of magnet design that most receivers use.?ÿ I think a lot of guys think it's just some sort of software magic that's supposed to out-smart the canopy but my understanding is it's actually, mechanically, a whole different animal.
I think a lot of guys think it's just some sort of software magic that's supposed to out-smart the canopy but my understanding is it's actually, mechanically, a whole different animal.
For tilt functions, they went from magnetometer (R10) to IMU (R12). Credit where it's due, Leica beat Trimble to the punch with the GS18T. (although I see a lot more of the R12s than I do GS18s)
With a solid GNSS solution and good procedures to dial in the headings, tilt-compensated repeatability is extremely good. Personally, I would trust it for boundary observations with enough redundant observations including a few under different constellations. Depending on the monument itself, it might actually be easier and more precise to observe with a GNSS+IMU tilted pole than trying to pull offsets from a conventional setup that we had to traverse in to.
Its indeed cool technology. It will also need to be monitored for the expected IMU drift, just like the cool airborne gimbal stabilized LiDAR and Orthophoto systems, and the training etc that goes with that.?ÿ Longevity will be the thing I'm interested in, because the IMUs will degrade over their lifetime, and dont like being dropped, ever, so buying used is an interesting prospect.
@rover83 Those surveyors need to get straightened out; a good, effective training session would probably do the trick for the majority. It would be insane to have that technology available and not use it. I'm the R&D/training guy for a mid sized firm and if any of our surveyors told a crew not to use the IMU we'd be having a talk.
One thing to mention on the R12i...?ÿ You may see the precisions jump and get a little fatter when you start the measurement.?ÿ The RTK enging is only giving a half-a**ed guess until then.?ÿ The real number crunching doesn't begin until you hit start.?ÿ I had something that stated this in a more formal manner, but I have no idea where it went.
Oh I absolutely agree. I'm the training guy at my firm, and as soon as our gear arrived I spent a lot of time with the crews running through all the various workflows.
The real problem is that most of our PLS/PMs are technology-averse, have difficulty taking in and understanding new information, and haven't worked in the field for years and years. As a result they tend to just make up stuff about what the gear can and cannot do, and what the "ideal" field procedures should be.
Complicating the problem is that the bar for hiring crew members is "see lightning/hear thunder", and as a result we get a fair amount of bad data when crews turn both the IMU and the tilt warnings off and proceed to measure with a tilted rod.
That then feeds back into the PM's perception that measuring with a tilted rod is always "not precise" and "not good practice", starting the cycle again. Now neither the crew nor the PM is happy because both of them screwed up, but due to ego neither of them want to admit it.
Cue the finger-pointing at the equipment as somehow being the problem.
