## 3 Results and Discussion
### Results
#### 3.1.2 Step 2  
The timespans from (warm) start of the differential GNSS measurement until ambiguities were fixed are given in the right hand side of Table 7. The mean time to fix integer ambiguities was below 1.2 s for method \(A\) in all conditions and for method \(B\) and \(C\) in the 10\({}^{\circ}\) condition. Method \(C\) required less time (mean) to fix the integer ambiguities than method \(B\). Method \(D\) was slowest to fix integer ambiguities and was unable to do so in the 40\({}^{\circ}\) condition. Tables 8-11 and Figure 5 indicate that the spatial differences of the combination of integer fixed ambiguity and real number float ambiguity solutions for method \(A\)-\(D\) (Table 9, Figure 5), the code solution of (method \(E\)) and the separate differences for integer fixed ambiguity (Table 10) and real number float ambiguity solutions (Table 11) in Step 2 were comparable to the results of study 1 (Tables 4-6), where the analysis was based on a specific section only. Considering the entire run, a larger number of trajectories managed to compute a fixed integer ambiguities solution at least once  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean XYZ [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean XY [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean Z [m]**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Elev. Angle** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline Method \(A\) & - & - & 0.25 & - & - & 0.08 & - & - & 0.23 \\ Method \(B\) & - & 0.33 & 2.64 & - & 0.12 & 0.69 & - & 0.30 & 2.50 \\ Method \(C\) & - & - & 0.78 & - & - & 0.26 & - & - & 0.73 \\ Method \(D\) & - & 0.64 & - & - & 0.33 & - & - & 0.51 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Median XYZ [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Median XY [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Median Z [m]**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Elev. Angle** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline Method \(A\) & - & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 \\ Method \(B\) & - & 0.00 & 1.56 & - & 0.00 & 0.63 & - & 0.00 & 1.36 \\ Method \(C\) & - & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 \\ Method \(D\) & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 & - & - & 0.00 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**SD XYZ [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SD XY [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SD Z [m]**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Elev. Angle** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline Method \(A\) & - & - & 1.28 & - & - & 0.36 & - & - & 1.23 \\ Method \(B\) & - & 1.14 & 3.62 & - & 0.39 & 0.70 & - & 1.07 & 3.59 \\ Method \(C\) & - & - & 1.39 & - & - & 0.45 & - & - & 1.32 \\ Method \(D\) & - & 0.88 & - & - & 0.42 & - & - & 0.80 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Maximal XYZ [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Maximal XY [m]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Maximal Z [m]**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Elev. Angle** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **40\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline Method \(A\) & - & - & 16.81 & - & - & 4.46 & - & - & 16.21 \\ Method \(B\) & - & 7.88 & 26.90 & - & 2.72 & 5.04 & - & 7.50 & 26.48 \\ Method \(C\) & - & - & 5.84 & - & - & 1.68 & - & - & 5.60 \\ Method \(D\) & - & 3.49 & - & - & 1.78 during the run (Table 7, left side) but the fraction of time during which integer fixed ambiguity could be computed were in general slightly reduced.