Feature request: FIX+

Regarding Solution status on the Status page of ReachView, a new status of “FIX+” is requested in addition to the existing: single, float, fix.

The requirements of FIX+ would be such that it can give the user a higher level of confidence in the quality of the solution. The qualifications of FIX+ may be the same/similar/or tied to those used in point collection, but with the addition of maximum age of differential and any other useful constraints.

The reason behind making a differentiation between fix and FIX+ is so that some users can enjoy an extended fix if they loose the correction stream for a while, while other users want tight constraints on what quantifies a ‘fix’ and could benefit from an all-in-one indicator, such as FIX+.

The discussion was In this topic:


One thing to consider is that many users use NMEA output feeding into third-party hardware/software. If additional statuses are not well supported by comsumers of NMEA data, then maybe there is a better way to accomplish the goal.


+1 and this may or may not apply, but using the RMS and a user-entered tolerance would help mitigate false fixes. Ours are currently set to a horizontal/vertical tolerance of 3cm for standard topo and GIS collection and 1.5cm for control points and boundary corners. If the RMS is not inside of these tolerances then the software will not let you collect.


Hey there,

There is no need in providing FIX+ solution status as Reach RS2 maintains a robust and reliable fix even losing the correction stream for a while. As long as the solution is fixed, the accuracy will be centimeter precise.

1 Like

What is your correction loss tolerance? Most professional systems claim around 2 minutes and I have proven this incorrect. When you a running LORA RTK and logging at the same time you can see the obvious float conditions and unreliable data that comes from that. There are too many possible causes of a loss of fix like ionospheric, tropospheric and ground obstructions that in order to ensure complete accuracy, the data must be analyzed and quite often corrected. We all understand that the RS2 is an exponential improvement over the RS+ series, but this is the nature of GNSS and a statement like that is dangerous. All I am saying is that users need to understand complications that can occur with RTK and not become complacent because…

We need a visible way to differentiate from a weak and a strong fix.


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