Lewis@IcarusAerials

Moderators
  • Posts

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lewis@IcarusAerials

  1. Lots of great information in the thread, wanted to specifically answer these as they relate to the course. Yes, you can get a rough elevation profile. As others have noted, anything that moves is difficult to model, and not as accurate as lidar. I'd suggest checking out outputs that Drone Deploy offers. You would be able to estimate volumes of soil to move, take rough measurements, and get updated maps based upon changes to your property. You can do all of this with inexpensive equipment. A Phantom 3 Advanced and above from DJI all have this capability (except low end options like the Spark). Great discussion!
  2. Frank, There is an online course, you can find it here: https://learn.uavcoach.com/p/mapping-and-modeling 1) It is related to drone "surveying" and mapping. "Surveying" because it is taking known measurements the way a surveyor typically would. The level of accuracy is not as absolute as these methods. That said, it is still quick, cheap, actionable, and "good enough" for many applications. 2) The course is online! 3) It is NEVER too late to register. The course is self paced and available 24/7. Let me know if you have any more questions! LB
  3. Michael, I'm sitting next to the same setup that you have currently (although I use it more for visual work). You can use it, I'd advise using Drone Deploy or the DJI GS Pro app. The shorter the lens the better. If you put on a 45mm lens, that is a very narrow FOV. I'd go with a standard shorter lens of 12/14/15 or whatever their packages currently are. We discuss parameters that will drive what altitude you want to fly at. With the x5S you could fly 200-400 and still have great outputs, which should be above most obstacles. The course does not cover correction for the Z axis. That starts to go beyond automated processing into using Pix4D or a similar program, which is another can of worms. We've had success not doing corrections and using ground control points and come very close to what surveyors have measured. It ultimately comes down to how accurate you are hoping to me.
  4. A lot of these types of conversations end up going back to just how "accurate" is "accurate". For professional surveyors who need to provide precise measurements, the outputs from Drone Deploy and a P3P aren't going to be very impressive. For someone who just needs to do a quick audit of a stockpile or figure out how many dump trucks they need, they are accurate enough given the cost/speed at which data is available. There is probably variation within Drone Deploy as they provide different processing speeds.
  5. I should know more about the difference between the models, but this looks like the earliest frame w/ that carbor fiber pattern, but the props lock on and don't need the prop nuts? Is that correct?
  6. Zane, Sorry about the delayed response. I thought this forum was getting folded into the other. The coordinate data has two important pieces here: 1) Quality of the data/position. This is what you are referring to w/ the HDOP etc. If those values are good, they will be more precise (but not as good as survey level data). 2) Embedding that data to the JPEG file (or whatever format) so it can be easily read by the processing software. You could/can overcome geotagging issues with the photogrammetry process, but as you have larger data sets, it introduce either a lot more processing power, or the chance for more error. The hit or miss comment probably came from us geotagging early on with a custom built UAV and adding geotags after the flight. If you end up with one picture too few/many, or don't pull the right flight log, etc. In our minds it just adds another step and another spot to potentially screw up. The accuracy will never be constant until the sensors get much better. Without knowing which video, my guess is our advice is aimed at encouraging people who value their time to make sure they don't have to do this unless there is a good reason to do so. I don't feel like I've completely answered your question, just wanted to clarify our position.
  7. No, we didn't cover adding in tags to the 3D models. If you look at the demo we have on sketchfab, that is a skechfab feature.
  8. You'd want to use Pix4D or Agisoft Photoscan. I'm not sure why you'd shy away from web based processing. They give you the models/data, and are a lot faster. If you were concerned about quality/precision at a high level, offline makes sense.
  9. I'm not quite sure what is going on in this thread? Did we resolve the problem? Updates?
  10. @xGk04x You can sign up for a basic version of Drone Deploy for $100/month, or process maps as needed at Maps Made Easy and buy points. You could show them what is possible with a $600 Phantom 3 Advanced and a couple hundred bucks of processing. Skycatch has a $49 package, but at this point your money is better spent with Drone Deploy.
  11. I think it depends on what you are trying to model. For most things, I don't think it is going to provide significantly different results. A few oblique shots will help a lot though.
  12. I'd just in here and also say to get that much detail, you are going to have to pay for the additional processing, etc. At some point the benefits of more detail aren't worth the cost. If you get too close, and all the images show similar things (pine trees), it is hard for the software to give you a clear picture. It could make things worse.
  13. Tim thanks for the question. I personally do not calibrate when I swap batteries as long as the area I'm flying doesn't concern me. If I'm flying somewhere that the margin for error is small, or I'm around items that are likely to increase error, I might be more likely to calibrate. Depending on the software / UAV, it might be the case with the inspire you have to manually take off, upload the flight, and then hit play on the mission.
  14. I personally really like using the Phantom when possible. Less stuff to keep firmware updated on, it draws less attention, easier to travel with, etc.
  15. Anyone jumping on this? http://www.oemcameras.com/uav-drone-components/3dr-gimbal.htm?mc_cid=dac49e8ca2&mc_eid=cbf977becc I think the integration with DJI is still going to be better (even if it is a bit more).
  16. @olesailor You can use the P3P and the P3A (and anything above). The P3S doesn't work (it is pretty limited). We cover everything you need to know about using your Phantom to do models and surveys/maps in our class!
  17. You'll want to look into Canon cameras you can hack and trigger with Pixhawk. @evan.roy
  18. I can't say I'm keeping up with Yuneec on the day to day level. As far as I know they aren't sharing their SDK and officially supporting 3rd party apps in any way. The Phantoms have gotten so cheap/powerful, it is hard not to recommend getting what you can for your Yuneec and switching. Also, as someone who has rooted his Android phone for years, and tries betas, I can't say I'd personally be excited about "rooting" my UAV and hoping for the best.
  19. @Uaviator53 We like to land with 30%, and for the resolution he is looking for, he should be able to do more than 10-12 per battery. I personally think 80% overlap is overkill. What information is missing when you do less? I'm not saying it would be a cake walk to do 9k, you'd need some processing power, do it in chunks, etc, but for someone who is new, doing this once, with the right budget, you could make it happen. With enough flight time on a fixed wing, that is probably the best bet. Going to be way cheaper than a manned flight!
  20. @evan.roy I was just rereading your post. If you are looking for 10inches/pixel, you could fly much higher and cover more ground than I'm used to. I don't know what (if any) height restrictions you have. If you are a novice, and can gain decent access to the area to take off from, I think doing a UAV is the better approach. If you are comfortable flying a fixed wing / learning that, then for a project of this size, I think it is the most efficient route. A good question would be, do you see yourself doing this again in the future? If so, I'd go with the fixed wing and get going with that.
  21. I don't have any good #s on this. If I come across something, I'll let you know. After I upload the files (which appear to be the same file size I have on my pc/mac), I don't know what they do with them. All of the outputs we've gotten appear to be similar in terms of quality of inputs. I think the bigger difference is the settings they process everything at vs at home.
  22. @wbrowning71 I've found we've need to educate a lot of people on what is possible for us to do, and learn to speak their language. For us, there are a lot of old guys ini the construction industry sitting in their trailers who are happy with the way they've done it for the last 30 years. It is also easy to forget what is "common knowledge" for people who visit drone forums is probably 3 steps above what the average person knows.
  23. @RemotelyPossible To (very lately) follow up here. If you don't use GCPs, your results won't be as good as if you do. The last project we checked the difference on (a stockpile), we found our photos only w/o GCPs was 5% different than when we did use GCPs. If you need a high level of accuracy, you are going to want some control points. Depends a lot on the application.
  24. @monsieurpetes You can definitely use the Inspire for mapping. You'll have to be a bit more careful with software choices (some cover only the Phantom), but we love using the inspire. 1 cm/pixel is easily doable. The quality of the maps (depending how how high/fast/when you fly) are great. Way better than your satellite images!
  25. @evan.roy You can get more than 7 acres per battery! I'd think you'd be able to get something more along the lines of 30-100 per battery depending on a few variables. In this circumstance, the Phantom still isn't very practical. One option would be to go with a DJI Matrice, double up on batteries, and see how that goes. The most likely option is to do some sort of plane and use a modified Canon camera with 3DR Pixhawk to run the plane.