I imagine that could be a possibility.
But the receivers were performing well - until earlier this year.
So what could cause them to change?
I have been looking at my calendar
I started noticing significantly reduced range around March 20, perhaps a few days/weeks prior to that
Here is a yardstick that may help to get LORA range expectations into perspective.
Trimble typically transmit their 900 Mhz at 1.0 Watt, which is 10 x the power of Emlidâs battery saving output of 0.1 Watt.
And Trimble advise their customers to expect a typical range of 2 â 5 km (1.2 â 3 miles) .
Draw your own conclusions and your milage will certainly vary but the technology and basic laws of physics are the same.
Maybe the takeaway for EMLID is to likewise lead with publishing a more realistic typical range, followed by a (theoretical maximum in ideal line of sight conditions) to reset expectations and reduce noise factor,
Thatâs nice info for comparison, but the users were having longer ideal results they were accustomed to, but notice the distance has been greatly reduced in those same or better conditions?
Almost seems maybe a lose internal antenna connection or something of the receivers? But @erro.alfaro88 are new RS3âs?
Who knows.
Yes, agree there appear to be separate issues at play through this thread. Itâs a general response intended to set a realistic metric for LORA range expectation which has been a common issue in a number of threads now including here.
Hey Tim,
I should have mentioned that I was using the same set of antenna for my use case - thus eliminating that as a culprit.
So Iâm getting good range using LoRa with:
M2 as base RS2 as rover
M2 as base RS2+ as rover
RS2 as base M2 as rover
RS2+ as base M2 as rover
BUT poor range with
RS2 as base RS2+ as rover
RS2+ as base RS2 as rover
The problem definitely lies with radio comms between the RS2 & the RS2+.
I also note good results when using the RS2 & RS2+ when roving from a 3rd party NTRIP caster.
Also note - adjusting data rates & frequencies did not improve the range
But that obviously doesnât involve the LoRa radios.
I think @erro.alfaro88 said he had 2 old RS units. Could prob test between the RS3 and old RS units LoRaâs too.
Hi Adrian,
Itâs a curious case, and we would like to investigate further. We havenât made any changes in the firmware regarding LoRa in the recent updates. Also, if you can use RS2/RS2+ as both a base and a rover in different setups, it doesnât look like an internal LoRa radio hardware issue, as it would also be visible in the setup with M2.
Can you elaborate on how you perform the tests? Do I understand correctly that you put RS2+ as a base and RS2 as a rover, checked the baseline, and then, in the same place, put M2 as a base and got a longer baseline? Were the tests performed in the open field or another area? Please share the photos of the environment.
@olesia.riman
The RS2 when used as a base transmits well to the M2 (300m baseline fix achieved)
The RS2+ also when used as a base transmits well to the M2 (300m baseline fix achieved)
The M2 when used as a base gets up to 500m baseline fix using RS2 & RS2+ as rover
When either RS2 or RS2+ is used as base-rover the range will barely exceed 100m.
So if the RS2 is set as base, the RS2+ will get a range of 100m and the M2 will get a range of 300m.
I have tried swapping antennas, radio frequencies & radio data rates nothing seems to impact these results.
The RS2 & RS2+ were working fine up until early March.
Why do they work well with the M2 but not with each other?
Million dollar question.
Anyone else having similar issues?
