rbeisaw

3DR site scan/support

Recommended Posts

i was looking to get some references or any information on 3DR and the service they offer in getting companies drone programs up and running. Anyone using their tech support or site scan software? Any good or bad vibes? 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use Site Scan. We have been using it since July of 2018 for four months. They had a very comprehensive on-boarding process which allowed us to do real projects for our use and provide results for our customers. They are very responsive to questions and are very helpful with the use of the software. We have done a dozen projects in this time period including a rock quarry, two landfills, a high school under construction, and others. We have been able to produce not only elevation data and orthoimagery but also have been able to help plan out resource production and inventory of stockpiles. 

It should be noted that this does need GCPs for higher levels of accuracy. We use Trimble equipment tied to a static base station for sub centimeter accuracy of our control. 

Hope this helps, even though you asked six months ago! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Curtis said:

It should be noted that this does need GCPs for higher levels of accuracy. We use Trimble equipment tied to a static base station for sub centimeter accuracy of our control.

What Trimble equipment, on what drone?

We have been getting around 1.2 centimeters of accuracy but would like better detail.

This is a photogrammetry only, no LiDAR or GCPs.  There are what appear to be GCP's but they weren't surveyed we just use them for tie points.

http://aerialalchemy.com/home5/Models/LADWP_Sub1/#%2F  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are using the Trimble receivers with TerraFlex for our placed GCPs. We then use those in the imagery to rectify the imagery through Site Scan. Nothing is carried on the sUAS. Sorry if there was confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are very responsive. If you subscribe to their service, they provide contacts for help. In fact, if you're completely new, they offer an on-boarding program called something like success services to help you through each step of the process.

They also will sell you a drone, but you can use any drone that's supported. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are doing work for rock quarries, land fills, etc., what has been your experience with regards to the systematic Structure-from-Motion doming/dishing (elevation) error?  I have switched to gently curved, convergent, non-traditional (non-linear/non-parallel) flight lines to mitigate this well known error.  Oblique photos help as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doming can be mitigated by a few things. First, the use of ground control points that have known coordinates helps processing applications rectify or adjust the composite output. Second, the image quality can still aggravate the output. GoPro lenses are known for this. Most drones use a lens that does not create the fish-eye issue. But some lenses use a rolling shutter. This will capture pixels that can be warp the image. Mechanical shutters capture all pixels at once. 

In addition, i typically fly a planar pattern with nadir camera shots for the image capture. This generally suits topo as an end product. But if i need to capture a building or quarry with steeper slopes, then I will do a planar flight with the camera at an oblique angle.

Does any of this make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin:  I agree with your experience on all counts.  Also, I have found that the addition of oblique (off nadir) images definitely helps; and adding overview obliques helps more.  The impetus for using curved flight lines has to do with the SfM processing propensity to accumulate the lens calibration error over image blocks when traditional (linear/parallel) flight lines are used to collect the imagery (several researchers have verified this).  It's just too easy to use curved flight lines to eliminate the accumulation of lens calibration error.  If linear/parallel flight lines are being used; then why not curved (non-linear/non-parallel) flight lines?  There are other benefits of using curved flight lines, especially when fixed-wing drones or piloted aircraft are deployed - like minimizing turnout loops (time, fuel/battery, costs).  For quadcopters, there's no need to pause, rotate, and proceed down a short leg only to pause, rotate, and proceed down the next parallel flight line - just keep on flying around the curved loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin:  For examples of curved flight lines, take a look at my website at (http://www.immersivegeomatissolutions.com).  Look at "How we work / FODAR / Curved Flight Lines".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Welcome to UCCF.

    The UAV Coach Community Forum is actively moderated by the UAV Coach team and offered to help serve those in the UAV industry. Use this space to meet and greet, to ask and answer questions, to share what you're working on, etc. Have fun, play nice, and fly safe! :)

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      3,852
    • Total Posts
      18,617