Results of Static PPK

I have been playing around with my RS+ a bit doing some PPK while I wait for the M+. I did an overnight log of approximately 8 hours to find out what I might expect in terms of real-world PPK solutions. Utilizing RTKPOST, CORS base within 10km of my test location, Canadian Active Control System broadcast ephemerides, and rapid clocks, I was able to get the following static solution out of RTKPLOT:

Do these RMS values translate to real-world accuracy (my 0.9mm 2D accuracy based around the origin)?

Update:

Here are the CSRS Precise Point Positioning results:

Place your unit on a known point instead, when doing these kinda tests. Then you have an absolute reference. Otherwise it’s more or less anyone’s guess what the precise location really is.

One thing I have found is that RMS can be smaller than the absolute position error. Remember that RMS only expresses the root mean square of the distribution of your points, not potential position deviation as such.

1 Like

The principle is double checking, which can be done by the Rapid Static method.
Can you provide a 10-minute extract from your session (RINEX or raw *.UBX)?

Can you tell us a bit about this method?
Running the same postprocessing job will give the same result, so you must mean by some other method of processing?
Rapid static usually refers to PPP, is this the case here as well ?
Comparing RMS here usally gives a higher RMS using PPP than using static post procesing with a nearby CORS.

RS (Rapid Static) and PPK (Post-Processed Kinematic) are the same rules of RTN.

In the RTN method, the second receiver is not needed. The base is a virtual reference station VRS, stable or moving, walking behind the receiver. VRS is slightly distant, at most a few dozen meters away from our receiver. A second frequency for determining such vector is unnecessary because the ionospheric and tropospheric refraction is the same. VRS is the same class as the receiver on VRS NET system (active geodetic network). But sessions must be longer …

Our receiver has no effect on the accuracy of VRS.
Don’t you think that it is worth using? :medal_military: :slight_smile:

I can only agree that every shortcut to more precise and trustworthy result are worth investigating.
However, VRS’s seem to be notoriously difficult to get working, and have yet to see a tutorial showing inexperienced users how to do this.

Here we have a specific topic (Static PPK).
There is no need for any postprocessing in the RTN method (details here in the manual)

Sorry, but you add more confusion than the opposite.
First you talk about the benefit VRS (which is only good for post processing), then you say post processing isn’t needed (which is of course correct for RTN, but beyond the point).
@DRoscovich never mentioned the use of RTN, but instead use PPS and PPP.
You obviously know a lot about the subject, please your knowledge, so others can learn, not just post to promote your own product solution.

I do not promote products but I want to show solutions on examples. Otherwise, it is difficult to get knowledge on the forum, because it is in the technical literature.
I do not see any illogicality here about VRS.
And PPP is not for L1.
:slight_smile:

Solutions are fine, but only when you are can explain how they were obtained. That what’s a forum is about. Sharing knowledge.
People here are smart and technical. Provide them the necessary guidance, and they’ll get it quick.
I’m still waiting on a tutorial on how to do VRS’.

Now I do not understand you. It finally want ad products? :slight_smile:
Chapter 14


Here next one advertisement. You do not have to generate VRS yourself.

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