Star*net quandary

See what happens if you put a '#' in front of 'A 100-2-500 90 *' to blank it out for a second. Then run it for fun.

It appears that you have actually held the bearing of 100-2 with the first, 2 C-Records.

Or, just hold 100 and an assumed bearing to 2...

C 2 428317.2010 1618591.5090 999.0000 ! ! !
B 100-2 N45-00-00E !
#A 100-2-500 90

Hopefully others with more knowledge will chime in.

JBrinkworth, post: 349720, member: 6179 wrote: See what happens if you put a '#' in front of 'A 100-2-500 90 *' to blank it out for a second. Then run it for fun.

It appears that you have actually held the bearing of 100-2 with the first, 2 C-Records.

Or, just hold 100 and an assumed bearing to 2...

C 2 428317.2010 1618591.5090 999.0000 ! ! !
B 100-2 N45-00-00E !
#A 100-2-500 90

Hopefully others with more knowledge will chime in.

I get "Could not compute approximate coordinates" for 500, 700 and 100, or "station incorrectly connected to network".
I've tried a bunch of combinations. I'm missing something simple, I'm sure.

maybe remove the bearing line, as 100 and 2 are already held with the "!!!". should work

Moe Shetty, post: 349726, member: 138 wrote: maybe remove the bearing line, as 100 and 2 are already held with the "!!!". should work

That removes the Azimuth error factors. It still looks like all the errors are in Elevation.

rfc, post: 349723, member: 8882 wrote: I get "Could not compute approximate coordinates" for 500, 700 and 100, or "station incorrectly connected to network".
I've tried a bunch of combinations. I'm missing something simple, I'm sure.

Whoops. Of course that wouldn't work. You were occupying 100, not 2. :-/

Try This.

#C 2 428317.2010 1618591.5090 999.0000 ! ! !
C 100 428377.9830 1618500.0690 1000.0000 ! ! !
B 100-2 N45-00-00E !
#A 100-2-500 90

JBrinkworth, post: 349738, member: 6179 wrote: Whoops. Of course that wouldn't work. You were occupying 100, not 2. :-/

Try This.

#C 2 428317.2010 1618591.5090 999.0000 ! ! !
C 100 428377.9830 1618500.0690 1000.0000 ! ! !
B 100-2 N45-00-00E !
#A 100-2-500 90

ERROR Station Incorrectly Connected to Network: 2
ERROR Station Incorrectly Connected to Network (Vertical): 2

It appears that you are observing elevation differences, rather than zenith angle observations. To accommodate this, you will want to add the inline option of

.DELTA ON

Whereby .DELTA OFF is set for zenith angle observations.

I'm going to fart with it a bit. I am not used to seeing the D & V records, however.

JBrinkworth, post: 349767, member: 6179 wrote: It appears that you are observing elevation differences, rather than zenith angle observations. To accommodate this, you will want to add the inline option of

.DELTA ON

Whereby .DELTA OFF is set for zenith angle observations.

I'm going to fart with it a bit. I am not used to seeing the D & V records, however.

I can go back to the raw data and come up with the zenith angles. That might actually be better anyway, because my software has calculated the HD's and VD's and I'm trying to vet its math. Still don't understand why I can't get Starnet to either pass the Chi Squared, or tell me where the blunder is.

The points 2 and 100 are fixed, and the bearing 2-100 is also fixed. Need to free up at least one of the points or the bearing.

Norman Oklahoma, post: 349769, member: 9981 wrote: The points 2 and 100 are fixed, and the bearing 2-100 is also fixed. Need to free up at least one of the points or the bearing.

Yes I've tried that. For example:

When it does run, though, it's giving me whacko Elev Diffs:

I got it to run by keeping the two points' coordinates, and taking out the bearing which is then redundant. However, the angle 100-2-500 needs to be artificially tight or the whole figure wobbles around point 100 and gives large error ellipses at the far side of the network.

I used the check box in Options to take care of the vertical distance vs vertical angle issue. However, the report indicates an approximately 5 ft residual (+ or - sign) on all vertical measurements, so I suspect there is a prism pole height missing.

Bill93, post: 349775, member: 87 wrote: I got it to run by keeping the two points' coordinates, and taking out the bearing which is then redundant. However, the angle 100-2-500 needs to be artificially tight or the whole figure wobbles around point 100 and gives large error ellipses at the far side of the network.

I used the check box in Options to take care of the vertical distance vs vertical angle issue. However, the report indicates an approximately 5 ft residual (+ or - sign) on all vertical measurements, so I suspect there is a prism pole height missing.

That would explain the Vertical error factor. I'll hunt that down in the raw data. Thanks for the sleuthing.

Good point, Bill.

If you have the HI/HT info you could consolidate everything into a DV Record.

DV FROM-TO HZ DIST ELEV DIFF [STD ERRORS] [HI/HT]

There is no measure up data in the set. That will play havoc with elevation closures. Also, the elevation of both 100 and 2 are fixed and shouldn't be.

carrying vertical with no measure up's....... [sarcasm]you're going to have to rely on common core math, not Star*net for your miracle....[/sarcasm]

Rankin_File, post: 349789, member: 101 wrote: carrying vertical with no measure up's....... [sarcasm]you're going to have to rely on common core math, not Star*net for your miracle....[/sarcasm]

The software I'm using accounts for the measure ups (but it clearly doesn't highlight screwups...like forgetting one). No problem. I'll start with the raw data, but use Zenith angles.

JBrinkworth, post: 349778, member: 6179 wrote: Good point, Bill.

If you have the HI/HT info you could consolidate everything into a DV Record.

DV FROM-TO HZ DIST ELEV DIFF [STD ERRORS] [HI/HT]

Bill93 was correct about the missing HI. It was at 100...the first setup. I entered all the HR's/HI's this time, directly from the field book.
I must have missed something in SurvCE during the setup. Using DV records, and a standard V height error of .05', I get a pretty good Chi Square result, but it's clear to me the whole Vertical thing (I.E. measure ups), is still my achilles heel.

C 2 428317.2010 1618591.5090 999.0000 ! ! !
C 100 428377.9830 1618500.0690 1000.0000 ! ! !
A 100-2-500 90
B 100-2 123.2313 *
A 100-500-700 31.1323
A 700-100-500 42.5428
A 500-700-100 105.5206
DV 100-500 275.10 83.0704 5.12/5.23
DV 100-700 388.03 83.5721 5.12/5.23
DV 700-100 388.02 96.0221 4.99/5.12
DV 700-500 208.10 92.1025 4.99/5.23
DV 500-700 208.10 87.4948 5.23/5.23
DV 500-100 275.09 96.5228 5.23/5.12

Thanks for everyone's input.

Well, you still have some issues in the chi squared results.
Your error factors, assuming you estimate your errors correctly, should, ideally, all be 1.0.
Tinker with the angular and distance tolerances, tightening them up and loosening the zenith tolerances until you see 1.0s.
It's not good practice but it will give you a simulation of what your field errors were during this data collection.

Scott Zelenak, post: 349835, member: 327 wrote: Well, you still have some issues in the chi squared results.
Your error factors, assuming you estimate your errors correctly, should, ideally, all be 1.0.
Tinker with the angular and distance tolerances, tightening them up and loosening the zenith tolerances until you see 1.0s.
It's not good practice but it will give you a simulation of what your field errors were during this data collection.

Thanks for that note. I remember in the days when I was concerned primarily with angles, Kent mentioned that.
But now that I'm juggling all three, (angles, distances, zeniths, etc.), I'm not getting much rhyme or reason to the adjustments.
Here's my current settings: