RTK precision for multiple rovers using just one base

I’m trying to get rtk precision in multiple rovers, at least five. Is it possible to use just one Reach RTK Base, communicating with each rover?
Since it’s radio is LORA, i assume that it can work on a simple mesh, but if it is possible, the rate of communication will be the same?
Other question,
If it not work in multiple rovers, is it possible to improve the accuracy for several rovers using PPK and a single base station?

Thank’s

:+1: Multiple rovers and one base
:+1: Multiple rovers and one base using LoRa

It is no problem :slight_smile:

1 Like

This is something we have tried. It does work, but it was not obvious how to know the difference between the rovers based on the data return. Any suggestions on a solution?

I suppose the the first question is why should it matter to differentiate between the rovers? Is this a land survey application? Or are we talking about vehicle tracking, etc.?

Without a software feature to add an ID component to the log files, I think I would label each rover, and when I download it’s log files, put them in folders with the necessary data, like so:

  • unsorted_logs\Reach_base_2018-04-17
  • Project-XYZ\ReachRS_rover-1_2018-04-17
  • Project-ABC\Reach_base_2018-04-17
  • Project-ABC\ReachRS_rover-65535_2018-04-17

(Also, request a feature if you think RoverID would be useful to be integrated in ReachView log files/log file names.)

Thanks bide for the quick response and ideas! Those are fair questions. The reason is to track multiple air rovers in (semi) real time. Ideally, the GPS message would include a Reach ID, which could be set by configuration.

It’s an interesting feature request. Overall, I would say it’s much easier to track the source of the data than parse something like NMEA. You configure everything, after all. Is there a reason you can not go with this workflow?

1 Like

Thanks for the ideas. Can you clarify what you mean by track the source of the data?

Since the Reach is sending messages that I am logging, is seems easier to have that message include an ID. An alternative (perhaps this is what you refer to?) may be to ID the comms link if that is supported by the radio. My gut feelings is that ID-ing the comms link requires more processing steps later however because it requires a correlation step.

Gents

I am also very interested in learning if the Reach rovers can send their GPS data, but also with a Reach Remote ID tag.

We have built a working system using Javad equipment but it’s far too heavy to be of practical use. We are hoping that the Reach system will be the solution but at present we can only get positional data. We need the ability to track the remote Reach ID to identify the individual players.

I am happy to contribute to costs if there is someone who can assist.

Hey bide, may I know what kind of hardware setup is required for point to multipoint radio configuration? Is it possible with 3DR radios?

There is a point to multipoint firmware for SiK based radios. 3DR is SiK based, but I don’t have any experience to say whether it will work. Althrough, it definitely works with the SiK based RFD900+ radios from RFDesign.

Of course it works with the internal LoRa radio on the Reach RS and RS+ too.

edit: “it works” for LoRa meaning point-to-multipoint ( but doesn’t use SiK firmware)

1 Like

Do you have any idea, what LoRa radio is in the Reach RS? Or can you suggest me some LoRa radio I could use externally for point-to-multipoint communication?

There is talk about a LoRa module coming that will connect specifically to the new Reach M+ and communicate with Reach RS(+).

But! Because the Reach RS’s LoRa firmware is third-party proprietary, I wouldn’t recommend investing any time in trying to make it work with a LoRa module that you might purchase elsewhere. (This was explained a while ago and if I find the link, I’ll post it here). I guess there are several firmwares out there and they are not compatible with each other.

My intention isn’t to communicate between a Reach RS module and multiple Reach modules but it is to communicate between a base and multiple rovers which are all Reach modules(no Reach RS involved). According to what you mentioned earlier I understand that this can be done using RFD900+ radios but because the RFD900+ radios seem a bit costly, I was wondering if you have any suggestions for a LoRa radio which I can use for point to multipoint setup. Thank you.

I’m sorry I haven’t looked into lower cost point-to-multipoint, so I don’t have any recommendations to give you, but maybe there are other users reading this who could recommend something.

Hey bide, I hope you are doing well. Can you help me with some documentation on how I can do the point to multipoint setup using the RFD900+ radios?

Thank you
Pavan

Hmm. I think it is all on the RFDesign website if I remember correctly. If your radios have the old firmare, I know you need to upgrade to the newer firmware to enable that feature. Apart from that, I haven’t been using mine for a while since we LoRa was introduced on the Reach RS units.

If you can’t find the docs of their site, let me know and I’ll see if I can find a link or an copy that I have saved. There may be some info on GitHub. Look for SiK radio in your keywords too.

Have you ever implemented point to multipoint setup using the RFD900+ radios?

Once I upgrade the radios with newer firmware, is it pretty much straight forward to integrate them with the reach modules?

Going by memory here. I think when you upgrade to the v2.x firmware there is no point to point anymore. It is all point to multipoint even if you only have two radios. If that is true then yes, I have implemented it, but just with 2 radios.

There was a relay mode as well, so packets could travel from one radio to another and on to another.

I could be wrong on that as it has been a while. Check the docs.

Here’s hardware setup page in the docs:

https://docs.emlid.com/reachm-plus/hardware-integration/

1 Like

Hey bide, can you send me a link to the docs on the RFdesign site which helps me with upgrading to the newer firmware.

Thanks