## 3 Results
### Overall Analysis  
Using the individual results for all stations, such as the MAS100 ESP example presented in the previous section, the mean values of the parameters discussed therein were determined. The following section presents the results for the obtained accuracies, convergence times, consistency of the obtained ZPD with the IGS solutions and ISB. In the examples analyzed, the average number of observed GPS satellites was on mean two more than the number of Galileo satellites, 7.6 and 9.5, respectively, and 17 satellites for both systems together. An accuracy assessment for the East, North and Up components and for the horizontal (2D) and spatial (3D) errors was presented in Figure 8. The smallest errors were obtained for the North component. They did not exceed 3 mm for all solutions and weighting functions, with the exception of Function_1 and Function_5 for the G, where the results were consistent at all stations. The standard deviation was within 5 mm. For the two mentioned functions for the G, the standard deviation was 18 mm and 12 mm, respectively. The SUTM00 ZAF station had an influence on the obtained results, for which significantly greater errors were obtained at \(-\)33 mm and \(-\)22 mm, respectively. No significant differences were observed on the northern component between the solutions (G, E, GE and GE1) and the weighting functions used. Figure 7: Time series of estimated ISB for GE (**left**) and GE1 (**right**) for the MAS100 ESP station for the 39 DoY for all weighting functions. Slightly larger errors were obtained for the East component, which strongly depends on the estimated ambiguities [77]. In general, they did not exceed 5 mm for all solutions and weighting functions. The exceptions are the Function_5 and Function_8 for the G. Their errors were 7 mm and 8 mm, respectively. The standard deviations of the mean errors are larger and range from 3 mm to 14 mm. Similarly, the largest deviations are for Function_1 and Function_5 for the G, and are 18 mm and 20 mm, respectively. For solutions based on the GPS+Galileo, the best results were obtained with an average value of 1 mm, with standard deviations ranging from 2 mm to 5 mm. The worst results were obtained for Function_2, in which the standard deviation amounted to 6 mm for both the GE and GE1. Reducing the precision of observations for Galileo (GE1) did not improve the results. Better statistics were obtained for the GE than for the GE1. The differences in results on the horizontal components are small. One could accept that the functions themselves do not really matter here, and if they do, it is only slightly for the GPS-only and Galileo-only solutions. Significantly larger errors were obtained for the Up component. The positive values were always obtained for the E, whereas only the negative were for the G. A bias between the E and G was noted for all weighting functions. As shown in [69], using GPS receiver antenna phase center corrections for Galileo observations causes a bias of almost \(-\)8 mm for the Up component. In our solutions, the bias depends on the function used and varies from 7 mm for Function_1 to 38 mm for Function_6. A significant difference was also spotted for Function_8, at a value of 33 mm. For the remaining functions, they ranged between 10 and 20 mm. The standard deviation amounts were 10 mm for both the G and E. The best results, i.e., \(\pm\)4 mm and \(\pm\)8 mm for the G and E respectively, were obtained for Function_2 and Function_7. Much greater standard deviation was obtained for Function_4 for the G, which was \(\pm\)16 mm. For the GE and GE1, better results were obtained than for the G and E, where the mean values were less than 7 mm, except for Function_6 and Function_8, for which the error values of \(-\)13 mm and \(-\)11 mm were obtained for the GE1. Standard deviation for the GE and GE1 was less than 5 mm for all functions.