and 
SimpleRTK3B vs SimpleRTK2B capabilities
geowang asked 1 year ago
Hi,
I had a couple questions about the simpleRTK3b line.
First off, does the simpleRTK3b Pro require a base station capable of receiving an L5 signal to achieve full potential? How will performance (accuracy, precision, lock time) of the rover compare in the following configurations?
I had a couple questions about the simpleRTK3b line.
First off, does the simpleRTK3b Pro require a base station capable of receiving an L5 signal to achieve full potential? How will performance (accuracy, precision, lock time) of the rover compare in the following configurations?
- 3b Pro base + 3b Pro rover
- 2b base + 3b Pro rover
- 3b Pro base + 2b rover
- 2b base + 2b rover
Secondly, can the simpleRTK3b Pro be used with the simpleRTK2blite (or even the simpleRTK2b-F9H) to get the benefits of the L5 band (and other features of the mosaic-X5) but also get heading? I understand that the simpleRTK3b heading is supposed to fill this role, but it doesn’t get the triband benefits. If this configuration does work, how does performance compare to the 3b heading, two 3b pro and the 2b + heading configuration?
Thanks in advance!
2 Answers
Ardusimple Staff answered 1 year ago
Hi geowang,
- Yes 3B Pro require a base station receiving L5 to get full potential. 3B Heading is L1/L2 only.
- Regarding the different options:
- Only with 3B base + 3B rover you can achieve the 7mm accuracy, but together also with 3B calibrated survey antennas
- 2B base and 3B rover works worse than 2B base and 2B rover
- 3B base + 2B rover and 2B base + 2B rover work the same
- About your last question of combining 3B Pro with an F9P to get heading unfortunately it doesn\’t work. u-blox uses propietary messages to get this configuration while Septentrio uses standard RTCM messages for this configuration. If you want 3B + heading you will need to get 2x 3B Pro boards.
clive1 answered 1 year ago
The ZED-F9H is only going to pair with an ZED-F9P, but the F9P can take RTCM3 data from a static base station from a third-party vendor.
Also I think some of the specification numbers tend to reflect extremely idealized situations, where a lot of time/money has been invested in the system as a whole, and the performance and placement of the antennas. One needs to think systemically about just where to invest money to get the biggest benefit. ie does the implementation handle the time domain properly? can the mechanical linkages and control loops keep the cross-track error in check. Not to mention the terrain or conditions a vehicle may be traversing.
Be careful how boldly you paint a target on your back when explaining what the engineering team can deliver to the bosses and marketing team.
Also I think some of the specification numbers tend to reflect extremely idealized situations, where a lot of time/money has been invested in the system as a whole, and the performance and placement of the antennas. One needs to think systemically about just where to invest money to get the biggest benefit. ie does the implementation handle the time domain properly? can the mechanical linkages and control loops keep the cross-track error in check. Not to mention the terrain or conditions a vehicle may be traversing.
Be careful how boldly you paint a target on your back when explaining what the engineering team can deliver to the bosses and marketing team.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
