Yesterday I received an e-mail from MicroSurvey that they are close to releasing Star*Net version 9. Looks like there are some decent enhancements, one being able to edit columns that are similar in format. This will be really handy to change errant HI's, etc. in my opinion.
Now if they would only add the feature that plots the angles, distances, etc. like they show in their Star*Net advertisements! (if it's actually there somewhere, I haven't found it)
SellmanA, post: 445297, member: 8564 wrote: Now if they would only add the feature that plots the angles, distances, etc. like they show in their Star*Net advertisements!
Do you mean this one?
There is a graphic plot output, but it isn't detailed just like this.
Mark Mayer, post: 445300, member: 424 wrote: Do you mean this one?
There is a graphic plot output, but it isn't detailed just like this.
Yes, that's the one. I use the graphic plot all the time for showing error ellipses and so forth, but it would be nice on occasion to have Star*Net plot it out per your attached graphic.
SellmanA, post: 445307, member: 8564 wrote: Yes, that's the one. I use the graphic plot all the time for showing error ellipses and so forth, but it would be nice on occasion to have Star*Net plot it out per your attached graphic.
One does have the option of exporting the plot as a dxf file. If the plot were important, it should be possible to add the distance and angle annotations in CAD. On most network plots I generate, the annotations would be too graphically "busy" to be helpful.
SellmanA, post: 445297, member: 8564 wrote: Yesterday I received an e-mail from MicroSurvey that they are close to releasing Star*Net version 9. Looks like there are some decent enhancements, one being able to edit columns that are similar in format. This will be really handy to change errant HI's, etc. in my opinion.
Now if they would only add the feature that plots the angles, distances, etc. like they show in their Star*Net advertisements! (if it's actually there somewhere, I haven't found it)
What do you think is the selling point with the latest release? Is it worth to take the upgrade? I am not a fan of the converter. I always ended up manually doing it to suit my needs.
For me, there are two: the help tips that appear whilst typing the data, and the column edit feature. For me it's worth it, but your mileage may vary.
MicroSurvey has a series of videos WRT v9 on their YouTube page.
amdomag, post: 445344, member: 1683 wrote: What do you think is the selling point with the latest release? Is it worth to take the upgrade? I am not a fan of the converter. I always ended up manually doing it to suit my needs.
Using V8 now. Not going to upgrade to V9.. Why are you not a fan of the converter? It saves me a ton of time, especially when I have multiple rounds of measurement in a traverse
sireath, post: 445407, member: 9370 wrote: Using V8 now. Not going to upgrade to V9.. Why are you not a fan of the converter? It saves me a ton of time, especially when I have multiple rounds of measurement in a traverse
I find the converter not robust converting SurvCE files. I don't get clean conversion of the resection routine. I don't see any option that could provide me traverse block result. I always wish that the converter could provide these routines wherein reverse and direct observations are clean independent entries.
SellmanA, post: 445369, member: 8564 wrote: For me, there are two: the help tips that appear whilst typing the data, and the column edit feature. For me it's worth it, but your mileage may vary.
MicroSurvey has a series of videos WRT v9 on their YouTube page.
What do you mean by column edit feature? Can you please enlighten me on that? Thank you.
An example would be:
M 55-60-56 246-44-50 169.50 90-34-10 5.24/4.99
M 55-60-56 246-44-48 169.50 90-34-13 5.24/4.99
where I would want to change the measure-up from 5.24 to 5.34... I'd highlight the 5.24 and hold down the ALT key, then drag the cursor down to highlight the rest of them. Then I'd change it to 5.34 and the other highlighted ones would follow suit. Apparently it can only be applied to columns of similar formatting.
amdomag, post: 445422, member: 1683 wrote: I find the converter not robust converting SurvCE files. I don't get clean conversion of the resection routine. I don't see any option that could provide me traverse block result. I always wish that the converter could provide these routines wherein reverse and direct observations are clean independent entries.
I agree, the SurvCE import coughs on resections although it does seem to me they've improved it in the past year or so. There's always some significant editing required to make these resections work in Star*Net. Still, the converter saves us a great deal of time- sometimes a few hours of manual entry versus just a couple minutes of click-and-go.
SellmanA, post: 445485, member: 8564 wrote: I agree, the SurvCE import coughs on resections although it does seem to me they've improved it in the past year or so. There's always some significant editing required to make these resections work in Star*Net. Still, the converter saves us a great deal of time- sometimes a few hours of manual entry versus just a couple minutes of click-and-go.
Can SurvCe export the observations to XML?
That's the method I use if the leica/Trimble converter is not getting all the data.
I will write an XSLT (XML to text) program one day to do it exactly how I want.
We're running Version 4 of SurvCE and neither myself nor my excellent co-worker are aware of any XML export feature, but it may be buried there... somewhere.
amdomag, post: 445422, member: 1683 wrote: I find the converter not robust converting SurvCE files. I don't get clean conversion of the resection routine. I don't see any option that could provide me traverse block result. I always wish that the converter could provide these routines wherein reverse and direct observations are clean independent entries.
I do not use resection in my controls for starnet.
sireath, post: 445683, member: 9370 wrote: I do not use resection in my controls for starnet.
Why would one? Is the advantage to choose the location of an additional station (control or otherwise)? Why not just shoot the point from an established point?
rfc, post: 445696, member: 8882 wrote: Why would one? Is the advantage to choose the location of an additional station (control or otherwise)? Why not just shoot the point from an established point?
1. Sometimes there is no established station in a suitable position. (construction zone)
2. Its all extra data. Why wouldn't you? Multiple observations is what its about.
3. Some actually prefer setting on unmarked temporary stations as you lose the centring error. I like a mixture for a dense network.
4. The way Starnet works with multiple observations everything can become like a resection depending on your settings.
I often have projects where the majority of the useful control cannot be occupied. Eg prisms mounted to a wall.
The feature that most interests me in the new version is the inline errors and hyperlinking of stations to input and output files. This could help with debugging and identifying poor observations.
Just upgraded to Star*Net 9. Hoping for the best..
How I wish linework feature comes with Star*Net.
amdomag, post: 448296, member: 1683 wrote: How I wish linework feature comes with Star*Net.
I like the fact that it does one thing very well and doesn't try to do anything else.
