You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm using a GPS tracker with u-blox and Quectel GPS modules, sending NMEA data with 4Hz = 250ms rate decoded with TinyGPS++
However, the Quectel data time stamp has always "00" centisecond, whereas the u-blox delivers the expected 00, 25, 50, 75 centiseconds.
The data sheet and practical test shows, that u-blox sends time as HHMMSS.xx and Quectel as HHMMSS.xxx
TinyGPS++ truncates the Quectel centiseconds.
Regardless of standards compliance, would be great to read both formats ;-)
The BN220 (running with the default settings) does send the NMEA sentences in bulk at the start of a second. Well at least when it has a fix.
So when receiving the messages, the offset in centiseconds (when present) doesn't really make sense.
What I do in my project is to keep track of the first bit I receive from such a bulk and consider that to be the exact start of the second.
This does work pretty well.
As soon as I fetch the sentence from the serial buffer, I also check how many bytes are there in the buffer and then I know when the first byte of that sentence was transferred.
I'm using a GPS tracker with u-blox and Quectel GPS modules, sending NMEA data with 4Hz = 250ms rate decoded with TinyGPS++
However, the Quectel data time stamp has always "00" centisecond, whereas the u-blox delivers the expected 00, 25, 50, 75 centiseconds.
The data sheet and practical test shows, that u-blox sends time as HHMMSS.xx and Quectel as HHMMSS.xxx
TinyGPS++ truncates the Quectel centiseconds.
Regardless of standards compliance, would be great to read both formats ;-)
here some sample data strings from the chips
BN220 = u-blox
Quectel L86 = Mediatek
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: