Hi @rftop
I’ve tested it with just GPS and Galileo, and also with all four constellations.
I’m not yet in a position to say if there are significant differences.
We’ll keep investigating.
I am convinced, however, that the Quectel team has taken a very important step forward with this new firmware.
1 Like
Yea 7H of… and pos in not different like before. (GPS&GAL)
$GNGST,061746.900,1.498,0.038,0.005,157.265,0.015,0.035,0.027*7D
$GNGST,070935.500,1.423,0.012,0.002,147.325,0.007,0.010,0.010*70
$GNGST,081416.100,1.741,0.007,0.002,134.314,0.005,0.005,0.008*7C
$GNGST,091136.300,1.923,0.003,0.002,133.504,0.003,0.003,0.007*79
$GNGST,104500.800,1.462,0.004,0.003,44.201,0.004,0.004,0.008*4C
$GNGST,132148.500,1.400,0.006,0.002,167.281,0.002,0.006,0.007*78
but now is cloudly…
2 Likes
Hi everyone.
There’s a bit more dispersion, but it’s much better than with previous firmware.
We’re much closer to having a device that allows us to measure and stake out areas for use in GIS, for example.
Or in surveying rice fields, where +/- 10 cm isn’t a big deal.
Excellent!
Cheers
I agree, that’s the correct direction for an application using HAS.
Marco’s last image (4hr + 7hr) shows ~30cm of confidence across the 2 days.
Assuming that doesn’t go wild and spread out over a longer evaluation period, HAS might be a “sub-foot” solution in the near future.
How repeatable are the elevations with the latest FW ?
These values are truly promising. Thank you for your persistence and feedback. You’re really making progress. We can only hope for a stable version of this firmware with all the features soon. However, given their reluctance to release this version, I’m a little hesitant to ask them for a test version…
1 Like
Yesterday from 303.92 to 304.00 …was sunny
Today from 303.88 to 303.96 the first hour and
from 303.92 to 304.18 the rest…(30cm of spread)…but was cloudy.
It remains to be seen whether the position remains within 20 cm over a longer evaluation period…as GSC- europa claims
3 Likes
LG290P03AANR01A06S_PPP_TEMP1107.txt (2.6 MB)
rename in pkg and be aware of disclaimer…
4 Likes
It’s all very promising.
I’ve managed to recapture the position of the point with the Canada PPP coordinates several times at different times.
This last photo was taken today at midday, with clear skies and a temperature of 26 degrees Celsius.
It consistently remained below the promised 20 cm and in many places below 10 cm.
Circle 0.05, 0.10 y 0.20 m
time greater than 2 hours
and with a small helical antenna
4 constellations
4 Likes
I just giggled at myself. I’m used to working with Metric (meters, grams, mg/L, newtons, watts) in the engineering world…but Celsius still gets me tripped up.
Celsius in my head:
0°C = Cold
20°C = Average
40°C = Hot
Sorry, back to business 
Hi, I understand. When I’ve traveled through the US, I get overwhelmed by the gallons, miles, and all that. Fahrenheit, ufffff 
1 Like
Another successful test.
Points were taken for 6.5 hours between midday and afternoon.
The circles range from 5 cm to 20 cm.
The results speak for themselves.
Never exceeding 20 cm and a significant amount below 10 cm.
Success!
Points every 10 seconds
I still haven’t seen the effects of setting different precisions.
I don’t think changing the precisions, for example, from 0.10, 0.15 to 0.01, 0.01, makes any difference.
But we’re still investigating.
1 Like
Hey,asked for Phase 2 at gsc-europa.eu and replied:
1 Like
That specifically says no Atmospheric corrections for SIS. I have a NTRIP account for HAS…so I wonder if atmospheric is available right now ?
Hi everyone.
I don’t have an image to share today.
I’m a bit disappointed because around midday (UTC-3) I obtained data with good precision but poor accuracy.
The stated precision was less than 10 cm, but the points were between 50 cm and 60 cm from the control point.
The results were excellent on previous days. Due to work, I couldn’t experiment for very long, but it’s left me worried.
Is it possible that the Galileo HAS corrections fail at certain times of day?
How can we tell if we have a differential age of between 5 and 15 seconds but poor accuracy?
Regards, Angel
@amlago , if the PDOP looks good, the upset could have been caused by space weather (solar activity/storm), etc.
1 Like
Yes it seems Quectel has improved their HAS performance. The image shows 24 hours of 0.2 Hz data at a OK - not great - GNSS site. Plenty good enough for fixed-integer work.
Longterm the horizontal 95% accuracy figure is in the low 20 cm range. Do note that at about the mid point the position filter restarted. Only the NMEA GGA sentence was recorded and this showed that corrections dropped out for a few minutes. They likely didn’t really quit, but the receiver thought they did for some reason. I see the same behavior with a Unicore UM980 receiver perhaps every half a dozen days or so. I’ve got more than 70 days worth of data with that receiver.
3 Likes
Hi @jpb ,
How is horizontal Δ~cm of confidence across the days?
For all
After requesting GSC, I went over some details about the sweetened “atmospheric correction”; the IGS atmospheric correction messages products for Rapid solution have 24-hour of latency but
in SSR and in QZS-6 CSSR there is broadcasted atmospheric corrections…
for now HAS includes MT1-orb & MT1-clk: mask, orbit, clock, code bias, phase bias, and User Range Accuracy (URA) also called Signal in Space Accuracy (SISA).
Atmospheric corrections are divided in ionospheric delay, and tropospheric delay and both for igs/ionex: vertical ionosphere(VTEC) & ionospheric slant (STEC) and for
igs/zpd: zenith tropospheric delay [ZTD] (ZHD+ZWD) respectively.
IMHO these products are necessary to give the system a confidence to hold the position during a long period.
Hi @bamarcant.
What you’re saying is true. Without atmospheric corrections, I’m afraid repeatability becomes more difficult.
I’m referring to obtaining the same or very similar data over time or on different days.
We’ll keep waiting.
Hello everyone.
The data from @jpb is very good.
I’ve found that the GST messages report very good accuracy, but the deviations from the true coordinates are much higher on several occasions.
For example, right now the controller is reporting a horizontal accuracy of 0.13 m and the deviation is 0.45 m.
Sometimes it’s worse.
But I emphasize “sometimes.”
Today, November 19th, at 7:00 AM (UTC-3), the Postcard RTK started very well; the points surrounded the true coordinates with a radius of less than 20 cm, and then after 10 minutes they shifted to 40 cm.
This behavior shouldn’t be expected.
After 20 or 25 minutes, the deviation settled below 20 cm,
and after 45 minutes, it returned to around 10 cm.
I will report the measurements later in a few hours.
It’s still somewhat unstable, and I remain concerned about the accuracy information from the Landstar 8 controller program and the true deviation from the known position.
In short: while we’ve improved, I still don’t trust the isolated point survey, as we do when working in RTK. It shouldn’t have a reported accuracy of 10 cm and actually be off by 40 cm.
Although I’m very enthusiastic and have obtained excellent results, I’ve been a bit frustrated again since yesterday.
I think it’s important to report both the very good and the not-so-good results.
I’ll add the Landstar 8 image later.
Regards, Angel
PD.
I have some bad news.
After an hour of data collection, I stopped receiving corrections and switched to single-axis mode, with the accuracy dropping to meters.
My station is completely clear, and I don’t know why the corrections stopped.
It’s been two minutes, and I still haven’t received any corrections. The postcard service continues to report positions without delay, but in single mode.
My question is this: How does the LG290p decide when to switch from DGPS mode to floating mode (convergence)? It doesn’t seem to depend on the precision setting we configured in the initial command.
For example, I have it set to 2,1,90,0.01,0.01, and it switches to floating mode between 0.10 and 0.20 m.
If anyone understands this, please let me know.
Thanks