Compare Reach RS+ and RS2


Is there a sheet available where I can see the differences between Reach RS+ and RS2, that I can compare them?


Any specific detail you are interested in?
I am not aware of such a sheet, but we are few beta-testers that should be able to answer most of your questions.

1 Like



FYI: you’ll notice the new RS2 doesn’t support SBAS for some reason “yet”.

For the money and no hassle, best to just look at the RS2 now.


In practical use there is no comparison. :grin:

Thanks for your answers.

I have this questions:

  • How long does it take for the devices to be ready for operation?
  • Are there any differences in the accuracy of the devices?
  • Which functions does the RS2 have which the RS+ does not? So far I have discovered the following: 3.5G modem, but I’m sure there are more?
  • Are both devices suitable for drones with RTK (Reach M+)? Or is one better then the other one?
  • Is it correct that one RS and one Reach M+ are sufficient for operation and that they communicate with each other via LoRa and that a laptop is not always needed in additional?

Boot-up time is roughly the same. Time-to-fix is muuuch much quicker on the RS2 because of multifrequency and more satellites being concurrently tracked.

Yes, depending on your baseline.
For normal operation baselines (~100 meters to 1-2 km) with good skyview, you won’t see much difference in precision.
For very long baselines (10+ km) the RS2 will be much better
For very short baselines (few centimeters to 2-3 meters) RS+ will be slightly better. (but here you could simply disable L2/l5 during post processing of the RS2-data, and you would get better results than RS+, as the antenna on the RS2 is slightly more sensitive).
All of the above are based on excellent skyview. If you don’t have that, hands-down the RS2 is better.

  • Multi-frequency - this is by far the biggest
  • Mobile connection capability built-in
  • Longer LoRa range
  • More sturdy built, truly industrial grade build-quality.
  • Much larger internal memory
  • Native 5/8" threading (also used for heat-transfer, basically used as a heatsink, so cooler operation)

Yep, but the RS2 will be better/faster at placing a new known point, if you are to return to the spot.

Correct. Just remember to by the seperate LoRa module for the M+. Access to the interface (Reachview) can be done from a phone, tablet, or a webbrowser.


I would personally never run RTK by itself on a drone for the safety of the data consistency. That said the rs2 is definitely a better option if you want to run rtk otherwise if you do PPK then either will work just fine.


Thanks a lot, that helps me.:+1:

Hi chascoadmin

Thanks a lot. Could you please tell me more what do you exactly mean with “data consistency”?

If you are relying solely on the RTK and don’t have the ability to log data at the same time you there is a real possibility that RTK is lost or a false (weak) RTK fix is present. I think with the RS2 that should be negligible, but even with Topcon/Trimble/Leica you can briefly lose RTK in clear sky and ground. Not to mention metal buildings and power lines. Post-processing takes this out of the scenario. Below is a great post by another. Not my work, but I endorse it 99%.

Why to use PPK over RTK

Both these technologies are very similar, however, PPK has a decisive advantage — because of its robustness and consistency.

Let’s analyze this more:

Firstly, PPK drones offers more flexibility in terms of the actual flight of the survey drone meaning you have more freedom of how and where the drone is deployed.

In contrast, RTK drones requires a very specific base station and other pieces of equipment that work together in order to process data in real-time.

Secondly, a with PPK drone can refer to previous and future data relative to the current flight, which creates greater dependability. Having this ability ensures the drone is always on track with the flight.

RTK drone has a higher chance of malfunctioning because it cannot retain old or new data to keep the current flight in check. The accountability simply isn’t there, which puts accuracy into question.

Think of it like this:

You’re on a road trip using GPS on your mobile device. You might lose signal a couple times but gain it back quickly.

PPK operates the same on the job site — if there is an issue with its ‘signal’ backup data is there to keep the flight on track.

RTK does not have this ability; if your mobile device worked with an RTK-equivalent GPS, you’d be lost!


This topic was automatically closed 100 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.