RTKCONV regression

[rtklibexplorer]

RTKCONV regression

[rtklibexplorer]

This should be OK. My original change from L1X to L1C in ublox.c made Galileo work but was not really correct since the code type was not actually L1C. A couple changes back I added L1X to the list of valid codes in convrnx.c for ublox so the original version of ublox.c should now work. I just tested it again with RTKCONV and it looks OK. Is it possible you did not have Galileo selected in the options menu when you ran RTKCONV?

[GPSFan]

That must have been the problem, I could have sworn that I verified that it was checked before I posted this issue. Sorry for the noise. I just re-ran my .ubx through rtkconv and it produced the expected Galileo data. I've been trying to track down an issue I'm seeing with the same data & corrections producing results that differ by 5cm or so depending on variations in parameters. I could understand 20cm or larger being due false AR fix. Unfortunately I don't have a benchmark anywhere close, and my nearest CORS is 25+ km away. Sitting on a point I get +/- 1cm variations, but run the same data again with slightly different parameters and the whole dataset is off by 2-7 cm. Maybe it's just toooo long a baseline. Anyway thanks for the help.

[GPSFan]

That must have been the problem, I could have sworn that I verified that it was checked before I posted this issue. Sorry for the noise. I just re-ran my .ubx through rtkconv and it produced the expected Galileo data. I've been trying to track down an issue I'm seeing with the same data & corrections producing results that differ by 5cm or so depending on variations in parameters. I could understand 20cm or larger being due false AR fix. Unfortunately I don't have a benchmark anywhere close, and my nearest CORS is 25+ km away. Sitting on a point I get +/- 1cm variations, but run the same data again with slightly different parameters and the whole dataset is off by 2-7 cm. Maybe it's just toooo long a baseline. Anyway thanks for the help.

[rtklibexplorer]

Errors will increase with baseline, 25+ km is a relatively long baseline and your errors may not be that unreasonable given that distance. You can reduce errors in long baseline solutions somewhat by using precise ephemeris and ionoospheric data. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

…

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Ken McGuire ***@***.***> wrote: That must have been the problem, I could have sworn that I verified that it was checked before I posted this issue. Sorry for the noise. I just re-ran my .ubx through rtkconv and it produced the expected Galileo data. I've been trying to track down an issue I'm seeing with the same data & corrections producing results that differ by 5cm or so depending on variations in parameters. I could understand 20cm or larger being due false AR fix. Unfortunately I don't have a benchmark anywhere close, and my nearest CORS is 25+ km away. Sitting on a point I get +/- 1cm variations, but run the same data again with slightly different parameters and the whole dataset is off by 2-7 cm. Maybe it's just toooo long a baseline. Anyway thanks for the help. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#14 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALeFumokXF_cK7ixV_FD-pS04VZoXR7kks5sewsMgaJpZM4PK6-L> .