Most of the work I??ve done only required a reading to the nearest .005??. Only a couple of times I had to read to the nearest .0025?? but it was rare. Just a normal auto bench level and 25ft level rod in .01?? seemed to work fine.?ÿ
Besides the precision part there is the speed part and the reading blunder elimination part. I've soldiered on with a common optical level at times, too. But I don't recommend it.?ÿ
@norman-oklahoma I always recommend if reading an auto level manually just do three wires it solves that blunder of a reading of just a single wire. It really doesn??t take that much time and prevents that wrong reading plus allows for an adjustment to be performed correctly because you now have the distance associated with the readings.
You still have a bunch of data handling which takes time. With a digital you get all the benefits of 3-wire at the touch of a button. The only reason to not use a digital is the cost - which isn't all that great if you are doing serious levelling and fully cost the benefits.?ÿ
The paradox here is that if you are doing something that you think demands 3-wire procedures you have crossed the line and should be running digital. I get it that sometimes little one-time things come up and you do what you have to. But 3-wire can't match digital for speed and efficiency. If you have more than an emergency situation at hand you should invest in technology. Digitals can be had in the $2k range.
One more thought - you and I could handle a 3-wire levelling if called on to. How many of your field staff could? How many would even know WTF you were talking about if you asked them to? How many, indeed, can even be trusted to reliably read a Philly rod to the hundreth??ÿ?ÿ
@norman-oklahoma I agree 100%. ?ÿBut there was no digital levels when i first started and as a marine we had digital levels with invar rods but at that time ngs and others had not proved them for geodetic leveling. ?ÿI got out of the USMC in 2005. He is retired now but i told him of my findings of running digital levels overseas compared to auto levels. Accuracy wise. Had many discussions with ngs about it the issues and such we discovered. They are great
I got out of the USMC in 2005.
You complete the mission with whatever you have on hand. (Rifles? We don't need rifles -the enemy will have plenty that we can use.) I'm talking to the guys that do the planning and supply. Get your guys the stuff they need to do the job accurately and efficiently.
@norman-oklahoma LOL...?ÿ Yeah we just purchased some new equipment and my direct boss ordered a auto level. I said get the dini we use all trimble mostly. He was pinching pennies. Last week he sent me a text saying I was told by the higher ups to order a dini we don't need not auto level anymore. I asked when so i will be getting quotes after the new year to have a set up they cannot decide yet on invar vs 2 piece rods. I said well we do a lot of DOT work better get both use invar for long runs and two piece for others. FYI I believe we will hear it soon but with the new datums coming there should be some new guidance on running levels for sites that need better relative vertical control. Remember the new datums are not separated in North east elevation like we have now. Geopotential vs geocentric etc.. I did not need a rifle I had a plumb bob rod and machete a pocket full of mag nails and enough flagging to strangle the enemy. LOL
@norman-oklahoma I might have to disagree on speed and accuracy. of digital vs auto. A good level crew that knows what they are doing will give a good crew with a digital level a run for there money. That is a paraphrase from one of the last field guys on a level crew from NGS. A good crew averages 5 miles a day. The digital yes is quicker on the shot but it is not always as they can be finicky with the whole sun light and angle of the sun moisture in the air and such. Now I was running in Africa in 2004 I did more in less time with nak2 than the dini would in that environment. We ran test over and over and truly never saw any accuracy differences. Now for those who do not run levels everyday yeah that dini or any digital level will out perform easily. It is an art to reading three wires quickly and accurately and a rhythm that comes from crews doing it every day for miles and miles. Had a guy call me once and he wanted to run about 12 miles of levels in Georgia. asked me how long it would take I said it all depends on crew he wanted two man crew I said nope not going to work. two rods two sets of turtles i man note keeper. He busted his budget but bought me a drink so I could tell him I told you so. Once a crew gets the rhythm they can move. it is better than watching a play when you see that dance take place.
Let us not base our opinions on 20 y.o. tech. The digitals of today are far less finicky than the earliest models where. I've been using them since the late '90s. The NA2002 of my first experience needed a lot of sweet talking on certain days. The DNA03/10 that I had by 2005 was far more forgiving. And those models are ancient now.?ÿ ?ÿI think that you may find these new DINIs a very different experience from what you have seen in the past.
@norman-oklahoma wow. So what dini is the best in your opinion. I have always wondered why Trimble never ever made it possible to hook up the data collector to run the levels. Is the dini still all onboard. Like i said i will be ordering one. As of now they want the most accurate one for some jobs coming up. I have not even looked at the new specs. I think in the 2000 to 2005 in usmc we had dini 12 or something like that. I achieved. .7 mm on average for a lot of runs misclosures TGO would not per our guidelines at the time do a correct geodetic adjustment. So i used tgo as a quick ck tool and had macros in excel to bring the data into to do the geodetic comps and adjustments. Ii did in private sector before my usmc time use a Wild digital level. We did 7 mile run in Colorado and had great results 3000 plus feet of vertical change on that run. Used a sokkia once for a mile run. I did better with reading manualy with nak2. We never could get very consistent results on that sokkia. A legal issue arose on a mile leg once and it was an issue from a different company on one of the first topcon ones. But could have been user error. Two companies battling we came in as independent ran three wires and i had field book and a three wire routine in a hp48gx I wrote. Got to the end and guy asked what??s your elevation i told him he picked the topcon level up and busted it right there. I said what he said this thing has been garbage from day one. I c checked begining and end on all level runs for tight work daily. I look forward to hearing about your dini ideas. I will be needing one and then have to re learn how to use it so i can teach my field crews.
Maybe someday I might have a need for one but for now I seem to get along fine with an auto level. But I suppose like everything else, as the equipment gets more precise, then so do the project tolerances. Then I??ll have to get one. ?????ÿ
So what dini is the best in your opinion.
No opinion, except a certainty that a 2023 technogadget will be much higher performing than a 2005 technogadget.?ÿ
@norman-oklahoma well I will have to agree. I do have to say it has been a while and technology has improved a lot over the years. I often forget that. I have been blown away at the changes from 5800 r8 rtk receivers to using the now R12i. It is just a game changer. Got to see a javad in action as well man the gnss constellation and the ability of firmware to use and crunching the numbers is amazing. ?ÿMaybe someone here has a newer dini and ran it and has an opinion. They look the same on outside as they did in the 2000-2005 time frame but I believe you they have probably improved them for sure.
After reading the saga I lost track of the topic.?ÿ The accuracies required amount to roughly 0.10':600'.
Even with moderate care, with state of the art equipment, these tolerances are easily achievable.
?ÿ
?ÿ
@rj-schneider With an auto level, I can layout elevations tighter than the contractor can build it. Usually they??re using a laser level and relying on sound which gets them within .02?? if they??re careful(that??s what I usually see when I??m doing checks/asbuilts).
