You have a mixed-type RINEX. I'm not sure how each PPP implementation treats SBAS, Glonass, etc. So I'd discard non-GPS observations, using RINEX.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Anders Wallin <anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I posted the PPP solutions I got so far on my blog: > http://www.anderswallin.net/2013/12/comparing-gps-ppp-solutions/ > > If anyone knows how to reproduce the CSRS-PPP results with either gLAB or > RTKLib, let me know. I also posted my RINEX data-file if anyone wants to > try it. > The gLAB solution is already very close to the CSRS-PPP solution, but by > default gLAB produces data at 300s intervals (not 30s as CSRS-PPP) so I > haven't directly compared the time-series yet. > The RTKLib solution is off by ~4ns which is alarmingly much - although I > tried to feed RTKLib with the same input as gLAB, and tweak a number of > settings - but the 4 ns offset was always there :( > > I could not get the other online PPP services to work: > AUSPOS works but I do not get a time-series of position/clock-offset as > output > OPUS works but I do not get a time-series of position/clock-offset as > output > GAPS and magicGNSS rejected my RINEX file and gave an error message. > > > Anders > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Felipe G. Nievinski < > fgnievin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Might want to try http://gaps.gge.unb.ca/ >> And the multi-solution comparison centre: >> http://gge.unb.ca/Resources/PPP/Purpose.html >> >> Another comparison: >> >> http://gpsworld.com/a-comparison-of-free-gps-online-post-processing-services/ >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Anders Wallin < >> anders.e.e.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks for the tip! >>> By extracting the receiver clock bias from the status-file, and playing >>> around with the RTKPOST settings I now get better results: >>> http://imagebin.org/283266 >>> >>> There's still a 4 ns offset between the CSRS and RTKLib solutions - I >>> don't know where it comes from?? >>> >>> ESA gLAB arrives at the same result as CSRS, so maybe I will look >>> closely at the gLAB settings next. >>> >>> Thanks for your help - I will try to write a blog post about my findings >>> if/when I get at least three methods to agree on the results (CSRS, gLAB, >>> and RTKLIB) >>> >>> Anders >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Felipe G. Nievinski < >>> fgnievin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think you should use the time tag in the .pos file. >>>> I'd use instead the CLK records in the .stat file. >>>> See Appendix B.3 in the docs, "Solution Status File": >>>> >>>> *Receiver Clockâbias States* >>>> *Estimated receiver clock bias parameters. The format of a record is as >>>> follows.* >>>> *$CLK,week,tow,stat,rcv,clk1,clk2,clk3,clk4* >>>> *week/tow : gps week no/time of week (s)* >>>> *stat : solution status* >>>> *rcv : receiver (1:rover,2:base station)* >>>> *clk1 : receiver clock bias GPS (ns)* >>>> *clk2 : receiver clock bias GLONASS (ns)* >>>> *clk3 : reserved* >>>> *clk4 : reserved* >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ This message is sent to you from FOSS-GPS@lists.osgeo.org mailing list. Visit http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss-gps to manage your subscription For more information, check http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS-GPS