Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Volumes - No GCP Vs GCP

Vantage

New Member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Website
vantagedrones.co.uk
Does anyone have any solid comparisons of results (stockpiles for example), from having a typical fly over with no gcp vs RTK/PPK gcps?

I've seen a lot of discussions but cannot seem to find any side by side results to show the level of difference between.

Obviously we know sites like DD say no GCPs are necessary for relative accuracy, and in my experience they are right to a degree. I've had ~2cm accuracy on 2D objects I've measured in real life vs using DD or P4D (the latter being more accurate). So I'm curious what kind of level of accuracy you can get from 3D volumes without GCPs?
 

svct

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
10
Reaction score
6
Age
67
The answer is read within Pix4D guides. The GCPs provide elevation accuracy. When the interlacing is accomplished and point clouds generated, the GCPs are then used to calculate relatve elevations to the final product(s).
 

UAV_Mapper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
52
Reaction score
32
Age
41
any solid comparisons of results
I've got a spreadsheet of compiled data that compares a 3,500cy pile with and without GCPs, and flown at 2 different altitudes. I drew the piles 3 times using the TIN model and 3 times using a ground plane for each test, resulting in 24 different data points. Everything was within 5% of each other and 20 were within 2.5% of each other. For small piles, I don't think you're going to see much of a change, but I could see more error being introduced as you get larger piles, especially depending on the method you're using to draw the bottom of the pile. I can post the information, if you're interested in greater detail.
 

jimmymac

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Location
Manitoba, Canada
I just recently did a stockpile with out ground control points. Processed the flight in 3 different progams and the volume from all 3 came out within a few cubic meters. But the comparison to what the contractor tells me is in the pile is not even close. Unfortunately the base of the pile is not very level around the perimeter so this maybe affecting the outcome, also as they are removing the material it looks as though the center of the pile is also dished out. Hoping to get another stockpile and make sure of what the base really is before the pile.
 

UAV_Mapper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
52
Reaction score
32
Age
41
what the contractor tells me
How much of a difference? 10% 50% 3,000%? Were they calculating using in-situ volumes prior to moving dirt? There are a ton of different variables that can go into throwing a comparison off, but at least you have three consistent readings.
 

jimmymac

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Location
Manitoba, Canada
Yes I realize there are many factors involved. I think probably the difference is the weight used by them to calculate their volume. i think they are using a lighter weight per m3 than normally used in our area of the country.
 

R Martin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
456
Reaction score
289
Location
Denton, Texas
How much of a difference? 10% 50% 3,000%? Were they calculating using in-situ volumes prior to moving dirt? There are a ton of different variables that can go into throwing a comparison off, but at least you have three consistent readings.
A lot of volume measurements are based upon weight. The rub is, there is hydration in the material when it is first removed and loaded, and then that water evaporates as it sits in the sun and is exposed to the atmosphere. Water evaporates and the added weight dissipates. So you pay for more material than you actually get. Just my observation.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
2,129
Messages
20,233
Members
3,364
Latest member
GStuart