Mark Flora, post: 432910, member: 12401 wrote: Yes, but Rarely. And even then I would always have some type of data collector or CAD to verify my calculations. The older I get, the less I do things the long and slow way and use the technology to my advantage.
Do you use a TI30x calculator in your daily practice?
Yes, it is nicely in my right inside pocket of my vest. And yes I have the up to date technology as well. It is the only way to remain competitive. But, knowing how to use a scientific calculator to proof a plan set or old plat, is a lot quicker than using CAD or data collector.
leegreen, post: 432835, member: 2332 wrote: Mark,
I programmed several HP41, HP33, and HP35 with EasyCogo, Dzign and other online programs. But I used Ted Madson's programmed HP35S in the exam. It is very powerful and works like a data collector as it can store 200 cogo points. But it can be challenging to learn. Ted still teaches a great class that will certainly get you well prepared for the exam.
You are only a few hours from me. Feel free to contact me.
How is EasyCogo different from Ted Madson's programs? Are they similar as far as how the programs are laid out with searchable menu's?
Mark Flora, post: 433260, member: 12401 wrote: How is EasyCogo different from Ted Madson's programs? Are they similar as far as how the programs are laid out with searchable menu's?
No not even close. Ted's programs are very powerful, and complex. Ted has a single program for all triangle functions, EasyCogo breaks into SAS, ASA, SSS routines. Ted's programs and class are specifically designed to prepare you for the FS and PS exams. It is best if you take the exam within a week or so after attending his course.
I think all COGO programs should be banned. I took and passed the FS and PLS without need of using any COGO program. Since I had left over time in the PLS exam, in that I did not finish before the deadline for an early walkout, I checked several problems with the COGO and lo and behold had the same answer as the unplugged way.
The exam is an exam of what you know how to do, not what buttons you know to push, and definitely not how much Ted Madson knows.
Paul in PA
I took the FS exam less than a month ago. I used a heavily programmed HP-35s and would not likely have passed without it. I used the Dzign programming book and a few of my own custom programs.
Ignore the many people who've come here not to answer your question, but to tell you that all you really need is an abacus and set of trig tables. The calculator is a tool and you'd be foolish to not maximize its potential. Just like in the real world, the test does not care how you arrive to the correct answer, so long as it is correct and on time. Why put yourself at any disadvantage?
Based on my experience, programs I think are essential are:
Horizontal Curves Solver
Vertical Curves Solver
Triangle Solver
Intersections
Inverses
Traverse
Unit Conversion (this is one I wrote and would be happy to share)
I also stored many equations that the supplied reference book didn't include; various volumes, several in photogrammetry, some geodesy, some of the financial equations.
tfdoubleyou, post: 433454, member: 12051 wrote: I took the FS exam less than a month ago. I used a heavily programmed HP-35s and would not likely have passed without it.
IF YOU WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE EXAM WITHOUT A PROGRAMMED CALCULATOR, YOU PROBABLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 433497, member: 236 wrote: IF YOU WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE EXAM WITHOUT A PROGRAMMED CALCULATOR, YOU PROBABLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
Paul in PA
I completely disagree. It sounds like he knew exactly where he needed the tool and used it.
My only concern with use of cogo is inability to recognize incorrect results. There is nothing wrong with using it to cut time on repetative tasks.
I passed the FS with my 11c and got an 89. I know guys who took it twice that are are easily better Surveyors than I.
Paul in PA, post: 433497, member: 236 wrote: IF YOU WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE EXAM WITHOUT A PROGRAMMED CALCULATOR, YOU PROBABLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
Paul in PA
Paul,
I'm choosing not to interpret your comment as the personal insult it comes off as, and instead using it to further this discussion and defend my point of view. Perhaps I misspoke when I said that I could not have passed my FS exam without my programmed calculator. What I meant was, had my batteries died moments before taking the test and left me to use a totally manual calculator, I would have likely failed. Had the rules of test never permitted me to program a calculator in the first place, I would have prepared appropriately and persevered until achieving a favorable outcome.
My view is you should make best use of the tools you are allowed to use. As I said before, the test does not care how you arrive at the correct answer, so long as you do so and do so on time. It is still very much a challenging and through exam, as I'm sure anyone who has taken it in the last 12 months will attest. It's only become more difficult now that it's no longer completely multiple choice.
As I'm sure any recent taker would attest, the FS exam has more than enough integrity to thoroughly vet those who use a programmed calculator. If you disagree, I'm grieved because I know that you hold no respect for any SIT or LSIT who's worked hard to earn their title.
First off, the test should care about how you arrived at the correct answer.
Had you batteries died, you should have had a back up. I took 2 HP 11Cs, and HP 48, which stayed in the box till the end and a sliderule. I am not against you using a programmable, especially if you programmed it yourself. Much, much more against those who try to buy their way in, with purchased technology instead of learned or purchased education. It was my understanding that the plan was to provide a standard basic calculator to all test takers.
Paul in PA
Really? I took it in 2011, and I used a pencil and a TI 36x solar with no programs. I didn't think programmable devices were allowed.
I think I have to agree with Paul. There's nothing on there that's so complicated you should need a programmed device. There was no resection question or full Polaris shot problem. Even if there are questions like that, It would only be one or two questions. Just pick C and do the rest of the test.
I took it two years ago (FS) CBT and passed the second time. This is no easy test and doesn't compare to the ones before the switch to CBT version, and let me tell you, those older ones were easy in comparison (don't ask how I know). I used a simple TI-30Xa to pass it and I regret it. If you can program it yourself that means you know the ins and out of the math exercises and just only want to save time. Also the exam is designed to not blindly use formulas! Especially with those horizontal curve exercises where your wit has to be quick before applying formulas.
Obviously there is a strong division here, and obviously I fall on the side against the use of programmable calculators. But all I hear by the proponents of using programmable calculators is how hard the exam is, if you are surprised by anything that shows up on the exam, you haven't prepared yourself very well. Especially when you can get practice exams and they give you a break down of the content.
I passed both exams on the first attempt in 1994 using a HP41. It contained a few programs I wrote myself for everyday use in the field.
I can't imagine the test being any harder as some have stated. How could it be? Basic math, geometry, trig, and the principles of surveying have not changed. We have better equipment that makes it easier to do the same job. But in the end you still have to understand the basics of math and surveying.
My beat advice to the OP, figure out what you don't know or don't know well. Study and practice that. It will not only help you with the exam, but it will serve you well in your professional career.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I recently passed the FS and PS with Madson's programs. The difference of using a programmed calculator is time savings of 1-3 hours per exam. This gives you piece of mind, with the ability to comfortably check your work without worry of time limit. Calculations such as area, traverse, curves, etc. are much more efficient. I attended class with [USER=11027]@cordgrass[/USER] whom also passed his exams with Madson calc.
I used a programmed hp35 in 2012. I entered programs that I found online. It was a very easy but time consuming process. I would recommend buying a preprogrammed calculator if you have the money and time is an issue.
I found that I tackled each question in the same way as in college (by hand) but used the programs to solve portions of the problem. The triangle solution programs were extremely helpful to me, as were polar to rectangular and inverse programs.
Gregg
I passed the FS exam with a TI-30xa. I had a HP35 programmed for the PS exam didn't use it.
There you go, like Cordgrass who had option of either type, it's your choice. Use what ever calculator is most comfortable for you.
If the intent was for the test taker to do all the calculations without access to programs on calculators, then the testing administrators should ban the HP33 & 35. Since they allow programmable calculators, they are, in effect, stating that using programs is both acceptable and contemplated in the construction and scoring of the exams. All else is preference and opinion
Now for my preference and opinion; ban Casio and Ti.... give me RPN or give me death 😉
vplayer, post: 433620, member: 9292 wrote: I took it two years ago (FS) CBT and passed the second time. This is no easy test and doesn't compare to the ones before the switch to CBT version, and let me tell you, those older ones were easy in comparison (don't ask how I know). I used a simple TI-30Xa to pass it and I regret it. If you can program it yourself that means you know the ins and out of the math exercises and just only want to save time. Also the exam is designed to not blindly use formulas! Especially with those horizontal curve exercises where your wit has to be quick before applying formulas.
I got to ask, how do you know?!
I took it in the test in '99, so I have no idea what it's like today. I remember a few math problems that required a calculator, but not necessarily a programmable one.
One problem in particular, where we were given a few points and their coordinates, and you needed to determine the bearings, and then the stake-out angles. I'd been doing that in the field with my simple Casio calculator, so it wasn't a problem for me. But I can see it being an issue today, where everyone's using data collection functions, and they're not in the habit of doing it long-hand, or never really knew how.