PPM

I may have the dummy hat on, but can't you just scale everything by 1.000127?

Sergeant Schultz, post: 397923, member: 315 wrote: I may have the dummy hat on, but can't you just scale everything by 1.000127?

Indeed but the rub is how to do that within the raw data before processing so that every distance gets scaled from the instrument point that the location comes from.

Maybe spreadsheet it?

You could convert every raw data measurement line by hand. Or hire a programmer (assuming you don't have someone with the requisite skills on staff) to whip out a little utility.

A skilled perl programmer could make the conversion with just a few lines of code. The same task can be done in just about any programming language, but perl is especially well suited to manipulating text files.

Jim Frame, post: 398037, member: 10 wrote: You could convert every raw data measurement line by hand. Or hire a programmer (assuming you don't have someone with the requisite skills on staff) to whip out a little utility.

A skilled perl programmer could make the conversion with just a few lines of code. The same task can be done in just about any programming language, but perl is especially well suited to manipulating text files.

Ahh, perl the duct tape that hold the internet together.

You should be able to scale everything about the first occupy, and get the correct results.

We ended up spread sheeting the scaling and are in the process of hand editing the raw data in topcon tools. David that won't work all side shots have to be scaled from the point being occupied when they were located. Could have done it with star-net it has the ability to scale all distance measurements by a given scale factor but we'll probably be done before the license key gets here.

So, if I understand it correctly, EVERY shot on the traverse was set to -117. So, in theory, whether you correct this or not the traverse would close the same. So, why not adjust it the way it is, THEN scale the points. Should be the same output in the final analysis and saves lots of time.

I see, you have side ties that are a problem. You are correct those need to be scaled about the occupied point. I'd just fix it all in AutoCAD, Scale everything about the points they need to be scaled about, and you can see what you are doing as you go.

Correcting myself: upon further reflection I revert to my original statement: scale everything about the initial occupy and it will all be right. All distances between points will wind up as the correct distance. It's no different than converting between grid & ground distances.

Randy Rain, post: 398069, member: 35 wrote: We ended up spread sheeting the scaling and are in the process of hand editing the raw data in topcon tools. David that won't work all side shots have to be scaled from the point being occupied when they were located. Could have done it with star-net it has the ability to scale all distance measurements by a given scale factor but we'll probably be done before the license key gets here.

Carlson allows this in the raw data editor and via scaling points, if you have it.....

Kris Morgan, post: 398106, member: 29 wrote: Carlson allows this in the raw data editor and via scaling points, if you have it.....

No such luck Kris C3D all the way.

[USER=11919]@David Baalman[/USER] not the same as grid to ground where everything scales from the same centroid.

Well 'I' would want to "correct" ALL of the SLOPE DISTANCES for/by/to the CORRECT "ppm values" BEFORE I did anything with the data set.

If you don't, then even the "elevations" are going to be whacky (to some extent or another).

As Jim Frame mentioned above, this should be pretty easy IF you have an ASCII (text) raw file to work with.

Loyal

Why don't you export it to a standard RW5 format or something like it and then have someone with Carlson process it. Do you have Carlson field software on any collectors? You can process the raw file on there as well. How about the old TDS foresight DXM? I think that had the ability to process an RW5 and give you an Ascii output.

If you are processing in the FBK format, there's a scale factor parameter you can set at the top of the data file. Worked fine with LDD to correct for this issue.
UNIT FOOT DMS
HORIZ ANGLE RIGHT
PRISM CONSTANT 0
PRISM OFFSET 0
EDM OFFSET 0
CR OFF
ATMOS OFF
COLLIMATION OFF
JOB 21308SK1
SCALE FACTOR 1.000000
!NOTE KAG/JTD SOUTHBORO STK PROP 1/02/02
KAG/JTD SOUTHBORO STK PROP 1/02/02
!NOTE NB TOPCON 2003

In Carlson you can scale all points, horizontally, plus the option of scaling vertically at the same time. I would do it with raw data if possible, then annotate that my raw data file was edited, by how much, by whom and why.

Paul in PA

Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 398119, member: 4512 wrote: there's a scale factor parameter you can set at the top of the data file

That would work if all distances need scaling, but if, for example, the sideshots were taken from control that had been measured with the correct PPM settings, a global scalar wouldn't work. A much better approach is to allow the insertion of a control code in the raw data file that turns on and off a particular slope distance scale factor.

Definitely the best way is to edit the raw file and process it. I would try to find a way to do that first. I think scaling is a last resort.

Jim Frame, post: 398148, member: 10 wrote: That would work if all distances need scaling, but if, for example, the sideshots were taken from control that had been measured with the correct PPM settings, a global scalar wouldn't work. A much better approach is to allow the insertion of a control code in the raw data file that turns on and off a particular slope distance scale factor.

I believe that the SCALE parameter can be used anywhere within the FBK file, as you described. I can't test that belief, as I don't have access to C3D, but it would be easy to check by using ridiculously large and small SCALE settings at different points within an FBK file, and processing it.