## 5 Results
### Dynamic Positioning Performance Test in Different Areas  
(1) Pseudolite positioning test used in indoor open areas.  
Figure 4 shows the navigation and positioning accuracy test of the circular pseudolite array. The red dot in the figure is the pseudolite currently selected for positioning, the blue line is the positioning track, and D1-D21 represent the location points where the pseudolite can be installed.  
It can be seen from Figure 4 that in the indoor open area, the pseudolite array has good navigation and positioning accuracy, the positioning trajectory and motion trajectory almost coincide and the average positioning accuracy calculated by postprocessing is better than 0.5 m.  
(2) Positioning performance of Wi-Fi/Bluetooth and inertial sensor combination in indoor narrow and long areas.  
Figure 5 shows the positioning performance of Wi-Fi/Bluetooth and inertial sensor combination in indoor narrow and long areas. The real track is a straight line, as shown by the red line in Figure 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Serial** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Coordinate Point**} & **Test Result 1’s** & **Test Result 2’s** & **Test Result 3’s** & **Test Result 4’s** & **Test Result 5’s** & **Mean Square** \\
**Number** & & **Deviations/m** & **Deviations/m** & **Deviations/m** & **Deviations** & **Deviations** & **Error/m** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1} & X & 4,212,836.16 & 0.17 & \(0.08\) & 0.37 & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.25\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.43} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Y & 538,261.31 & 0.37 & \(-0.14\) & \(-0.14\) & \(-0.56\) & \(0.27\) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2} & X & 4,212,813.36 & 0.36 & 0.19 & \(-0.17\) & 0.09 & \(-0.24\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.47} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Y & 538,258.63 & \(-0.49\) & \(-0.42\) & \(-0.30\) & 0.35 & \(0.5\) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{3} & X & 4,212,817.65 & 0.31 & \(-0.5\) & \(-0.11\) & \(-0.32\) & \(0.07\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.35} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Y & 538,266.43 & \(-0.31\) & 0.08 & 0.13 & 0.16 & \(-0.08\) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{4} & X & 4,212,807.54 & \(-0.43\) & 0.8 & 0.45 & \(-0.81\) & \(-0.01\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.62} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Y & 538,276.63 & \(-0.32\) & \(-0.2\) & 0.22 & \(-0.11\) & \(0.08\) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{5} & X & 4,212,815.32 & 0.32 & 0.43 & 0.24 & 0.11 & \(-0.02\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.69} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Y & 538,278.52 & \(-0.40\) & 0.92 & \(-0.89\) & 0.45 & \(-0.20\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Static test.  
Figure 4: Pseudolite positioning in indoor open area.  
As can be seen from Figure 5, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth and inertial sensor combination positioning are adopted in the indoor strip, as shown by the black + line in Figure 5. The positioning accuracy is worse than that in the indoor open area, and the average positioning accuracy calculated by postprocessing is better than 0.7 m.  
(3) Navigation and positioning performance of outdoor satellite navigation differential enhancement and 5G combination.  
Figure 6 is the navigation and positioning performance test of the combination of outdoor environment differential enhancement and 5G in Figure 3.  
It can be seen from Figure 6 that the positioning accuracy is better than 0.5 m by using the navigation and positioning mode of satellite navigation differential enhancement and 5G combination under the condition of unobstructed outdoors.