Will there be any potential trade-in offers? My receivers are in mint condition and I’ve only had them for about six months. We’ve been discussing all these improvements that are in the RS2 on the forum since then, but there was no indication that a multi-band receiver was coming.
Should have a reduced price for all us loyal reach users.
I guess you wouldn’t have bought the RS if you had known that the RS2 was coming?! I think Emlid could not afford to have all the RS aging in the shelf. At least there is a significant price difference so that you don’t have to think that you could have had the RS2 for the same money.
I hope hat Emlid will bring the long promised features for all receivers. If that is the case I’m ok about having the first generation stuff for now. I will probably go for a base with dual frequency and will be very happy to get an Reach M^2 device if Emlid will offer it for a competitive price and in near future.
I actually think that the idea is: if you need an RS2 you will be able to afford it and “throw away” the RS because the additional speed and reliability will earn back the money very fast.
But Emlid might also consider a trade in program or something similar because the marked of lowcost dual frequency receivers is very crowded nowadays. But the advantage of Emlid is its software. I have not seen a competitor which offeres a similar well designed software, even if some features are still missing. That brings me back to: those who need it will probably not think too much about the price.
I could offer you a private trade in, but unfortunately there is a pont between us, otherwise I would have offered you 250$ for your used RS ;-). Sorry for the sarcasm.
Actually it’s the proper fair cost of their high quality products as well, if not foremost. The software does one no good if they cannot afford the product to use it?
Guys, it’s technology and it’s business. Now if you owned the prior version less than a month (or within a standard reasonable return policy), then maybe could send back for refund towards new version. But really, at these price points, quality etc they offer, one should be totally fine with it.
At $800 a piece for a RS, and having the need for a RS2, and i am definitely doing business with them, the cost will be recouped quickly. Just the cost of doing business.
At least you don’t have to drop $5000 on just 1 ultra name brand receiver? And then another $5000?
Emlid has really disrupted the industry now with the RS2. Was a pleasant surprise! Good luck and prosperity to them!! : )
I think there’s a reduced price on right now which ends tomorrow night!
Probably you’ve already seen this.
Note: this is
@tobias-dahms Yep, there is no doubt that this is the nature of technology. I really don’t have any expectations, but it was a question worth answering. You would be better served using the multi-band as a rover. The RS+ model will be good base station for a long time. I’ll probably just turn my rover into a base for one of our other drones. I most definitely would not have purchased the RS+ base and rover if I knew the RS2 was coming out.
@timd1971 I agree on the cost, but we don’t want to give anyone too big of a head. I will be buying a set either way and it will be interesting to see if I can get one to work as a rover with a Topcon base.
@Brent_W Thanks for the link. Posted just hours after I posted, funny…
I think that depends, I would be interested to get a very accurate position of the base in cases I cannot use a known point. I think a dual frequency receiver would provide benefits.
@timd1971 Yes, its the proper price and it is very interesting to see how they evolved from the original Reach to the new RS2. Anyhow it would be great if there was a version with a competitive pricing for those people who do not care about the casing but only want the software (which might not be necessary for the base anyhow because the ZED-F9P can can calculate the correction itself and does that very successfully).
I think the thing is that the original Reach was a really low cost product comparable to all the other low cost ZED-F9P implementations available on the marked nowadays. So next to the real target group of the RS2 there are still some people around here (or only me?) who are fascinated by the fact that you can get this performance for 300€ and at <100 g and who do not bother for the casing. I bother for the software and of course that needs additional hardware compared to the other offers.
Unfortunately Emlid did not reveal the Reach M^2 together with the RS2, so we will see whether it is time for those people like me to move on and come probably back when I have reached the surveyors league . If I would do ground surveys regularly I would not bother to buy some RS2.
The trade in price of this Canadian guy (refreshingly 90ties style website instead of all this boring Wordpress designs ) may inspire some Europeans to open a shop for used RS devices. It was actually a similar price I did offer. So if someone wants to send units (also the original Reach and M devices) to Germany I would be interested to buy them
Emlid has made this (RS2) a very pleasant surprise… they may surprise again with a M2? I would think so, once they are ready. I am sure they wouldn’t want to wait to much longer than they have to since people know about the RS2 now, and may hold off buying the M+?
I agree with @chascoadmin about the RS2 would be better sense as a rover where the RS+, RS typically have trouble. I.e. trees, tall buildings, faster fix etc.
If you already know the position of the base or you only need relative data that is true and using the RS2 rover will safe a lot of time. But if you do not know the position of the base I do not agree. Is it wrong???
Of course the RS2 will report much faster, but the rest of this post confuses me.
Saying a rover without a base?
Does he mean using a RS2 autonomously in order to get a best position possible if a known point isn’t available? And probably a M+ on a drone i guess.
We’ll, then everything beyond that would be relative to what the base comes up with.
For rover surveying purposes still, the RS2 would be advantageous.
Tobias said, “do not know the position of the base”. To me, that means you don’t have a known point and so then you would be using an averaged base coordinate.
Out of context though so that was the part that confused me. We were talking about the fact that the RS2, if you only had one of them, would be better as a rover. He said in the instance that you do not know the base point he doesn’t agree, which doesn’t make any sense to me.
My point was that any of these receivers will produce the same results if they sit there for long enough. The RS2 will do in about 5 minutes what the Reach will in 15. That being said, the benefits of using the RS2 as a rover and the RS or RS+ as a base will be a ton more effective.
sorry for continuing OT,
I suspect he means to bring coordinates to the job by way of PPP service, or PP, or RTK. In which case the RS2 would do a much better/accurate job. And you’ll be able to use services like AUSPOS to bring cm level coordinates to a job site, which you can’t with RS+.
if you are talking about an RS+/RS2 base/rover pair, then it shouldn’t make any difference as you can only use common satellite signals. With this pair, you are L1-only, no matter which way around you use them.
Not quite. Both the base and the rover in this type of setup still use their own satellites and the base issues the correction. An RS2 will track allot better and re-fix way faster than L1, but this has nothing to do with the receiver to receiver LoRa. The multi-band just maintains a more accurate coordinate more quickly.
I’m not sure if we are talking about the same thing? I’m only talking about a differential, base to rover use case: post-process or RTK. In this case, shared signals are all you have, everything else is wasted.
I’m not 100% here, but maybe what @chascoadmin is getting at is that the RS2 rover can use the multiple frequencies to reject it’s own multipath. Think of an L1 base in the clear sky and your L1/L2 rover in the forest. You can’t use L2 to obtain an RTK fix, but you should be able to use L2 for multipath rejection of any bad L1 signals.
Does that make any sense?
Ok, I did not know there were multipath rejection techniques based on L1/L2 signal comparison. I will look this up and update my knowledge.
I also need to update my multi-frequency knowledge. I’m just supposing myself.
Isn’t it where two of the same transmissions come from the satellite on separate frequencies. If one is reflected, then it will be the later of the two and it will be ignored. Then the signal that travels most directly from the satellite will be the one that is kept and processed.
A correction stream should not be needed for that kind of technique.