M2 RTK solution: ReachView LLH vs RTKNAVI DEMO5 data analisys

[svetlana.nikolenko]

Hi Fabio,

First of all, thank you for continuing your tests and posting the reports.

Yes, please share the link to the logs. It seems there is a lot of data, and it might take a while, but I’m interested in analyzing them.

is the M2 and RS2 RTK solution based on RTKLIB or on internal solution, provided by the ublox chip (F9T or F9P)?

They use an RTK solution provided by u-blox chip.

[fabio_lobo]

Hello everyone.

Continuing with the tests, I did 8 occupations in my window landmark - occlused satelite sky.

I evaluated only the GRADE antenna - for the best resoults on the overall study (Navspark model GRADE ANTENNA - http://navspark.mybigcommerce.com/survey-grade-antenna ) 8 occupations, each lasting about 1 hour with a baseline of 18km.

The receiver used was the M2 with version 2.22.7 of reachview, tabulated as “M2_7” so as not to be confused with the measurements I had made with the previous reachview - tabulated as M2 and “M2_5” .

The figure above is without filtering outliers … here is a figure without the outliers data:

From the figure you can see that the LLH and NAVI results of the MP receiver are very similar to each other (the BLUE and ORANGE bars are the same size) … for the M2, M2_5 results the trend is that the ORANGE bars are smaller - regardless of the quality of satellite reception (WINDOW - JANELA, or ROOF - TELHADO) and regardless of the type of antenna.

For the M2_7 (highlighted in yellow), based on the exclusion of the outliers data, the LLH data seems to work as well as the NAVI one!

There is a strange issue: the NAVI average RMS values of the M2 and M2_5 tests are very similar (M2 = 0,654 and M2_5 = 0,683) and for the M2_7 is a litle bit bigger (0,838).
I will do more tests to see if this is some kind of outlier.

Any way, this is the first time, in my tests, that REACHVIEW solution shows as acurate as the RTKNAVI DEMO5!

But… the isue with the outliers is still a problem! Let’s see what comes…

I keep my hope that my evaluation effort will serve as an inspiration for other colleagues in the community to test the equipment and, thus, we can assess whether we are getting the best RTK result that the product can generate!