How to interface M+ with RS+

I have gone through the docs and could not find any specific help to interface the M+(as rover) with RS+ (as base station).

Does the page setting up base and rover answer this ?


Yes, that should get you what you need. They are essentially the same chipset and are the same Reachview interface and will both work as a base or rover. You mihgt even think of the opposite configuration. The M+ would probably be safer as a base…

The size of the M+ make is more suitable for being mounted on a mobile robot/car… Hence, I wish to make it as the rover.

I plan to get real-time values on my computer (also mounted on the mobile robot). Where should I look for more info on this ? Also, is the LoRa antenna necessary in this case ?

1 Like

Yes, the additional LoRa module for the M+ would be required for RTK corrections. What kind of data are you hoping to be retrieving?

Is there an option to avoid the LoRa module ?

My application requires the self-driving robot to observe its movement in a 2D local map (that we create) using the GPS. Hopefully, XYZ ECEF may fit our needs. I may not be very sure about it. I need to find the displacement of the robot/rover in X and Y direction (in meters).
What method would you suggest to get such displacement values ?

Also, why should I make the RS+ as the rover instead ? Any reasons behind it ?

It really depends on your accuracy needs, but without RTK in a live scenario you will basically be working on the rover alone and a base does you no good. Depending on the satellites you have available at the time I would think your at 1m accuracy at best which from what I gather probably isn’t accurate enough for your needs.

When you say displacement do you mean the variance from an established course? If that is the case then you would need software that can stake to linework. Some would allow you to see the variance in a N/E offset or Azimuth/Distance format and some are capable of giving you a station (distance from point of origin) and the offset (distance from the line itself), but you would need a baseline in the software to stake from.

At the time not knowing your intent I made the suggestion under the assumption that is was a typical surveying scenario. The RS+ would be better in that scenario because of the ability to have a more precise mounting for moving around, is a more durable piece of equipment and is self-contained which means it doesn’t require an external battery or cabling. It would be much easier to create an accurate mounting for the M+ on a static tripod or similar. Not to say it can’t be done, but the M+ would need more protection and would require some very careful measuring.

Hi Pradan,

Welcome to our community!

Generally, I agree with Michael. However, I want to add some comments on your last questions:

Is there an option to avoid the LoRa module ?

To work in RTK, you can also transmit the corrections to Reach M+ via NTRIP or Serial radio.

In case you use NTRIP, Reach RS+ will transmit the corrections to Reach M+ via the Internet. So, you should provide the units with a constant Internet connection. For example, you can attach an LTE modem to Reach M+ and connect Reach RS+ to the Wi-Fi network.

You can attach Serial radio to Reach M+ via UART and to Reach RS+ via the bottom connector.

What method would you suggest to get such displacement values ?

You can check XYZ ECEF coordinates in the ReachView 2 Status tab. ReachView can record the Position log in XYZ ECEF as well. However, you can’t get the robot position track in real-time.

I suppose if you use some autopilot to control your robot, maybe you can follow its track in a Ground control station software. You can probably integrate Reach with the autopilot to provide it with centimeter-accurate coordinates.

If you want to get the displacement and know a 3-rd party Android app that supports the option, you can get the Reach coordinates there using the Mock Location feature.

Also, why should I make the RS+ as the rover instead ? Any reasons behind it ?

I would add that Reach RS+ is dust- and water-proof on the IP67 standard. So, as the unit can handle bad weather conditions, it may be more reliable to use it outdoors instead of Reach M+.

1 Like

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