Who'd like to go compare a R10 to a Javad?

Thank you, Frank. I don't get territorial about much, but reputation and a phone number are probably the most valuable assets a surveyor has. I appreciate your clarification. No worries.

How about comparing JAVAD office software with Trimble Business Center. I stayed with Trimble due to TBC and my 20 years of Trimble files and TBC. My R10 works fine, don't know how it compares with other GPS systems.

gschrock, post: 455918, member: 556 wrote: A ways back, that Dougie guy (or was it that Radar guy?) organized a two-day RTK/RTN training; over 100 attended. We set up test points ahead of time at the zoo, but the event did not turn into a zoo (or circus). Just surveyors, some with 15+ years experience in RTK and RTN, comparing notes and methods, and learning from each other (no brand posturing or comparisons). The community of RTK/RTN users up here get along pretty well, help each other, and the local dealers of all kinds are very helpful and participate in joint training respectfully (all helped build the RTN and provide great support). All gear seemed to perform just as well as any others, with the exception of older GPS-only gear (no surprise).

The best part about that; it wasn't a competition. Just 4 different vendors and 3 different network providers getting together to teach folks how to make things work, together. It was a beautiful day...

Were both units using Galileo & BeiDou in addition to GPS, Glonass, and Sbas for the solutions?
Seems like that would give a definite advantage if one used more constellations than the other.

Will the results be posted in this thread or elsewhere?

Thanks to all of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to perform this testing.

Drum roll please....
🙂

Well here you go. I'm no author, but, it's something. There are still more test we would all like to see when the leaves return and the sap runs uphill. For now, enjoy. We'll answer any questions you have. But remember this wasn't a NGS style, but just a chance to visit and play with expensive toys.?ÿ

Not sure how this will look with the new format, so pics are at the bottom.

Ryan

?ÿ

Javad-LS vs. Trimble R10

Pocahontas, AR

?ÿNovember 20, 2017

Impromptu Rendevous - An Informal Report

What is the best GNSS receiver in todayƒ??s market? Are there really major differences between competing brands? Surveyors across the world are usually frugal, innovative and tight wads. We often question everything, test equipment, read reviews before we commit to making a purchase of new equipment. A few months ago I was at the point where we needed to add another GNSS rover to the fleet. I have been reviewing, following reports and become quite curious about the Javad-LS receiver. It is such a far from norm concept that has the potential to change typical surveying GNSS equipment. There have been numerous product reviews, user testimonies but I wanted to find out more for myself. Is this receiver really that much better than mine?

Javad Ashajee is not a new face in the GPS world, instead he is a founding father of the GNSS technology embraced by nearly every manufacture including Trimble, Topcon and Ashtech. Building upon that resume Javad has set out to make a receiver that is solely adapted and designed for a The Land Surveyor, the Javad- LS.

For my entire surveying career (only 17 years) I have used Trimble brand products. I am a huge fan of Trimble. The company is always on the cutting edge of technology, their equipment plays well together and the office software can provide reports and data for nearly every task I have asked of it. However, this convenience comes with a price tag that many smaller firms simply cannot afford.

So how does one really compare GNSS units when you cannot afford to do so? You log into your account at beerleg.com and start asking questions. Which is what hundreds of us do.

Nate the Surveyor, a fellow Arkansas Surveyor, avid Javad-LS user, and a self proclaimed challenger of all equipment not Javad, posted a question if anyone would want to compare a Javad-LS to a Trimble R10. I immediately responded, YES! A few co-workers and I were already planning on a little weekend camping break where we could hang out and forget about work for a bit why play with some survey equipment as well?

As plans began to fall into place Nate the Surveyor, had a relapse from his Lyme disease struggle and had to back out but Shawn Billings, RPLS and John Evers,PLS fellow Javad-LS users and members of Javad PLS Magnificent 7 stepped up and decided this was an opportunity they couldnƒ??t pass up.

The shootout was planned and I was scared. Would my fancy R10 really compare to a unit designed to destroy it?

Once the event was finalized and a location was selected we all began to exchange ideas on how we could test the R10 against the Javad-LS. Would we set up a survey course where we could observe the same points at the same time? Would we call upon the local NGS representatives for advice? How would we verify the results?

We all exchanged our thoughts, ideas and suggestions and decided that the approach we would take would be simple, realistic and be based on typical encounters found in the field while performing a boundary survey.

The teams arrived on site on a Friday a little after noon. We both set up our bases, fired up their internal radios, and set them to log static data. We decided that this would be a good comparison to add to the shoot out since Trimble offers a post processing feature RTX, and likewise Javadƒ??s DPOS. The resultant base station locations, as determined by their respective processor would be the basis for measured coordinates.

The State Park, Davidisonville Historic Park, where the test was happening is separated by a nice lake making two areas one to the North and one to the South. The North is old growth oak and hickory and the South, being next to the Black River, is canopy with more pine and cypress present.

https://www.arkansasstateparks.com/davidsonville/

The two teams decided that we would set a hand full of nails in the woods that would represent?ÿ points comparable to those found in the field.?ÿ Neither team was the decider of where the nails would be set, but instead we both walked around found challenging spots and all agreed to set the nails where we did. The amount of canopy would vary and get increasingly difficult and perhaps offer up a spot where neither receiver would get a fix solution.

We decided that each team would use the typical configuration used on a daily basis. After all we wanted this to be a realistic comparison.

Myself, representing the Trimble R10 unit with the base / rover RTK configuration broadcasting on CMRx corrections and I was tracking L1, L2, L5, GLONASS, and Galileo. I had my point tolerances set to 0.049ƒ?? horizontal and 0.060ƒ?? for vertical for the software to accept the stored shot. I typically observe my boundary points?ÿ 30 epochs, reset the RTK fix, re-observe the point and average the shots in the data collector. When using this process the data collector will tell me the differences between the two shots, the amount the coordinates will move when averaged, and basically gives me a warm fuzzy that the shot wasnƒ??t bogus. And from what I found out talking with other Trimble users this procedure is quite common.

The Javad-LS is completely customizable to set-up user profiles John and Shawn used two different methodologies in their survey of the points. Shawn used the manufacturer's recommended action profile "Boundary". This profile has a three phase process. In the first phase, Verification, the six RTK engines acquire a fix and reset 10 or more times. The process moves to the next phase once 10 fixes are found within a small tolerance of each other, while fixes that are out of tolerance are rejected. In the second phase (smoothing) the engines are no longer reset by the software and are allowed to remain fixed. During this time epochs are logged and the position is averaged for a minimum of 100 epochs, and a minimum of 180 seconds from the first fix from the Verification phase. Once this phase is complete, the process moves to the third and final phase, Validation. In the Validation phase the engines are reset one final time. Once a minimum of two of the six engines are fixed, the fix is compared to the average position, if the new fix is found to be in tolerance to the average, the observation is moved to an Accept or Reject prompt for the user. If not, the Validate phase is repeated until the observation is confirmed to be good or restarted from the beginning. Throughout this observation, raw data is logged. At the end of the session, the user downloads the base data to the rover. Then, with an internet connection, the raw data for the base can be processed to the CORS, and the raw data between the base and rover is also processed. The software then automatically shifts the base and all rover points from the base to the CORS derived position. The user can also select between the RTK and post-processed solutions for each of the rover points. The RTK and Post-Processed solutions are presented in the points screen and points with solutions that do not agree within a set tolerance are flagged for the user to investigate. In this case, Shawn connected his Triumph-LS to his smart phone and performed this post-processing and analysis while sitting around the camp fire, all on the Triumph-LS (no need for a laptop or external software).?ÿ

Each team set up on the nails we set in the woods and begin collecting data and the test began. The North area consisted of 4 points some of which had a pretty think canopy and large diameter trees next to the points - just like the Old Pipe next to the 18ƒ? Oak frequently found in the field. Both the R10 and the Javad-LS were able to obtain a fix and record data for all four nails the teams set on the North end of the park. Here are the resultant values:

Javad-LS ( From John Evers)

JE1, 665938.982, 1590076.746, 292.475, LN

JE2, 665890.765, 1590197.397, 287.555, LN

JE3, 665933.410, 1590251.576, 288.583, LN

JE4, 665779.353,1590170.088, 298.649, LN

Trimble R10

JE1, 665939.021, 1590076.698, 292.099, LN

JE2, 665890.752, 1590197.290, 287.282, LN

JE3, 665933.484, 1590251.554, 288.104, LN

JE4, 665779.476, 1590170.045, 298.211, LN

In a similar fashion we set 3 nails in the canopy on the South end and two points in the parking lot . Point number JE7 was directly under a 36ƒ? Cypress with leaf coverage and points JE5-6 would be used as a baseline for the total station to compare the values of point JE9, which was in the middle of two very large trees and under moderate canopy. To further complicate the situation for point JE9, we were approximately 3500 feet from our base stations which push both of our radio units to the max. Nonetheless, like the North area, both units were able to obtain a fix solution and store a value for all the nails we set except for one. The R10 could not received base data radio link at point JE8. The rover was tracking 13 SVs at the point but the 2 watt radio just couldnƒ??t go the distance. The Javad-LS was able to maintain radio link at JE8, with the addition of the LS external antenna. Another factor about point JE9, that I would like to point out is that both receivers had to observe to the point for an extended period of time to obtain an acceptable measurement which took both units 13 minutes.

Here are the resultant values:

Javad-LS (From John Evers)

JE5, 663638.492, 1591554.374, 255.758, LN

JE6, 663508.824, 1591368.476, 253.620, LN

JE7, 663692.853, 1591573.845, 256.887, LN

JE9, 663288.605, 1591285.277, 250.038,?ÿ LN

Trimble R10

JE5, 663638.487, 1591554.309, 255.483, LN

JE6, 663508.882, 1591368.414, 253,281, LN

JE7, 663692.840, 1591573.806, 256.577, LN

JE9, 663288.74, 1591285.222, 249.728, LN

?ÿ

Total Station values of JE7, JE9:

JE7, 663692.822,1591573.848, 256.861, LN

JE9, 663288.734, 1591285.176, 249.980, LN

In summary, we had a great time. We got to see each unit perform at a level that many people still have a hard time to accept. Both units proved to be nearly identical in the resultant values, ability to obtain a fix and overall performance. I had the opportunity to hear how Surveying found two other surveyors, one from Texas and the other from Ohio. An event like this was simply a wonderful experience and reminded me yet again, why I love what I do.

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

North Area

thanks

Very nice report St. Louis!

I do have one question about the data provided. It appears as though the R10 was consistently 0.25' lower than the LS. It also appears as though the R10 was also 0.25' lower than the total station values as well. Was there an HI blunder or a rod height blunder? It seems constistant and I'm just wondering why.

I'm glad that everyone had a good time. I wish I could have been there. I would still like to see an R10 in action. I hope I can make the next outing with leaves on.

Thanks, I believe that Shawn's values were more consistent with mine. But, since we are all in different parts of the country I will let them reply, as I don't want to make any wrong assumptions.

An event like this was simply a wonderful experience and reminded me yet again, why I love what I do.

Amen...
Thanks for your work...and letting me ( and Elvis) tag along...
DDSM

DDSM, you're an inspiration to all us youngins. Anytime, you're always invited.

Is there going to be a "round 2"???

I hope we get a GPS users group going here in Arkansas.
I hope we all will get proficient with all things GPS.
It's the "tool of the future", for many things.
We can do things with it today, that had never been thought of, in the 1970's.
Yesterday's blunders were 10' chaining error, or a blowed angle, or data entry.
Today's blunders are accidently rotating something, we should not, or a bad init.
Progress means taking unto ourselves a knowledge of things, that were before now a part of geodesy, and comupter programming.
But now, they must become a part of our every day thoughts, and actions.
Nate

I'm curious about this consistent height difference, too.

Were the total station baseline coordinates for JE5 and JE6 determined by the Javad-LS or the R10?

Thanks for sharing your results!

The coordinates for the Total Station work were from?ÿ Shawn's csv file. I have his coordinates on a thumb drive at the office. I'll post them later.?ÿ

Yes I did a two point resection form the two point in the parking lot and shot in the point under the big cypress tree and the other point between to two large trees.

Here are the points from Shawn's Javad:

JE1,665938.967,1590076.722,292.382, LN
JE2,665890.746,1590197.387,287.284, LN
LE3,665933.513,1590251.637,288.021, LN
JE4,665779.407,1590170.063,298.329, LN

JE5,663638.522,1591554.332,255.524, LN
JE6,663508.851,1591368.430,253.457, LN
JE7,663692.890,1591573.820,256.733, LN
JE9,663288.675,1591285.308,250.088, LN

It seems that during this test, the

r10 and the Javad were equal... but finding a challenging enough spot was hard.

Another item is it also seems that the R10 was USING the Galileo Sats, and the Javad was not. In a few months, when the Javad IS tracking and using Galileo, it will be great.

Of course, the R10 may be improve then too.

But, the winners of this race is... the surveyors!

N

I didn't see a lot of statistical analysis in this thread, so tried to build a spreadsheet and Google Earth file.?ÿ The forum won't let me upload a kml so you have to save the "txt" file and change it to kml.

?ÿ