Has any one use rtk data and robotic data with Trimble Access in the field to traverse and locate using both and using Trimble feature store another to adjust in TBC and or Civil 3d least squares. ?ÿWhats your preference between the two. Pros and Cons. ?ÿI know all of this can be done in Starnet but this is what we have.?ÿ
If you have TBC, you shouldn??t be using civil 3D to adjust. That??s a big waste of TBC. I use GNSS static, RTK, and total station data in the network adjustment in TBC. TBC will be using observation data instead of coordinate data if you??d export to other software. There??s probably a network adjustment video on Trimble channel on YouTube and from the learning resource option in TBC.
@robertusa I used TBC when it was first being developed many moons ago. I was basically comparing the GPS and GPS + GLONAS baseline results to NGS Software and TGO and GPSurvey. I am just now getting familiar with it again and the company I am with don??t use it but pay for it and the maintenance. They use civil3d least squares but The had been setting vrs rtk Control on datum. Then bringing those coords over to a ground job without scaling the. Running a conventional traverse. Bringing that into cv3d. ?ÿI am trying to help streamline and such. So I went to a small job rtk control around the job. Then to meet there standards ran a traverse around the job through all the rtk points all on datum. Its been a while so I used the store another command when prompted by Trimble access instead of averaging in the field. ?ÿSo many rounds where turned and multiple gps observed at 4 hr gap in time. I want to throw this into TBC and adjust using all observations and such. I also tied some prop corners from gps rtk and multiple shots round from multiple set ups. Over kill I know. But I am hoping to use this as a teaching tool for how and why least squares works better when you keep in mind strength of figure and more observation. You are doing something similar with static I assume. Have I made a mistake or will it handle all of this.?ÿ
Collect in Access
Process in TBC
Export to 12D or Civil3D
Works for us
That's been the process for me since the GPSurvey/Trimmap days. Star-net for a while, but updated receivers pushed it out of the office.
?ÿI am trying to help streamline and such. So I went to a small job rtk control around the job. Then to meet there standards ran a traverse around the job through all the rtk points all on datum. Its been a while so I used the store another command when prompted by Trimble access instead of averaging in the field. ?ÿSo many rounds where turned and multiple gps observed at 4 hr gap in time. I want to throw this into TBC and adjust using all observations and such. I also tied some prop corners from gps rtk and multiple shots round from multiple set ups. .... Have I made a mistake or will it handle all of this.
TBC is excellent at handling mixed data. On a few occasions I have adjusted static, RTK, PPK, total station, and levelling data all in the same project. If you assign realistic standard errors and modify your adjustment parameters to suit, it works just great.
It would probably help to run through a few tutorials or watch a couple of their excellent Power Hours to get a feel for how TBC handles data vs other programs.
?ÿ
the company I am with don??t use it but pay for it and the maintenance. They use civil3d least squares but The had been setting vrs rtk Control on datum. Then bringing those coords over to a ground job without scaling the. Running a conventional traverse. Bringing that into cv3d.
It's scary how many firms have dedicated processing software programs and never use them, much less know anything about them. Tossing some data into a program and exporting it out again in a different format is not "processing data".
The scenario you describe is precisely what it was designed for - mixing various types of observation, analyzing and adjusting, and providing output in whatever system you desire.?ÿ We use it with a mix of GNSS (VRS, RTK, static) and conventional data every single day.
Like was mentioned, establishing realistic error estimates is key, and I also second the motion to go through the training videos as well.
TBC is excellent at handling mixed data.
"Mixed data" meaning coming only from devices within the Trimble ecosystem, or from non-Trimble devices as well??ÿ When I looked very briefly at bringing SurvCE data into TBC for adjustment I didn't see an obvious path for accomplishing that.?ÿ I didn't spend much time trying to figure it out, as I settled on another solution, but if someone has already figured this out I'd like to hear about it.
@olemanriver TBC is perfectly suited to adjusting your data. I use it exclusively these days. Store another is correct.
I have a StarNet key but haven??t used it in a few years. I had a large project, 8 miles of traversing around and through 2 sections and I started with StarNet but since I had mostly 4 sets sometimes 5 with some needing review and disabling of the odd bad set here and there I found that TBC had vastly superior data review and editing capabilities so I used it instead. No GNSS on that project (deep redwood forest).
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that they actually got the Civil3d package to adjust their data.?ÿ Given those 2 options, TBC would be my preference.
I think it is what they were use to as far as adjusting in civil 3d. ?ÿThey make some fbk file from total station data and bring that in civil 3d. ?ÿBut they have the latest version of TBC. I asked why they just didn??t throw it all i. And qa/qc in tbc adjust then export the control file and do the drafting i. Civil. Although I would like to get f2f going as well atleast most and codes fixed in tbc. ?ÿThe. Final drafting in civil 3d.?ÿ
I've tried C3D for adjustments, I can't say I'm a fan. It is very time-consuming and frustrating from what I remember. Trimble is hands free, no imputing data beyond what's in the collectors, receivers, levels. Probably like Jim mentions it best to be a full on Trimble shop.?ÿ
I just want to make sure I am not just adjusting to adjust. We can make anything close. ?ÿGovt software that I used for large networks was more dos and old school starnet like. You really needed to understand the nubers. I imagine once i mess around and figure out what tbc is telling me i can figure out the best work flow. It should based on what i have read also produce an ALTA relative position tolerance report to give the warm and fuzzy to the ls stamping it. I do like the way i can see all the observations i. TBC from rtk vectors and total station. Makes seeing the geometry very nice for troubleshooting. ?ÿ
It's not ONLY Trimble data.?ÿ You can import some types of Lieca data.?ÿ I can't say how well it works, except for the Level files.?ÿ As long as whoever's using the level in the field knows what they're doing the level files seem to work out well.
?ÿ As long as whoever's using the level in the field knows what they're doing the level files seem to work out well.
Isn't that a requirement for ALL fieldwork?
@olemanriver TBC will handle it all, though one important thing is to not do a point average in TA when anticipating a network adjustment in TBC. This is because TBC handles multiple instances of a point and that data with hierarchy. TBC sees a TA average point as a ??calculation ?? where that won??t get adjusted, unless that average point data is deleted.?ÿ
in the project explorer, expand ??points? and show the data listed with a point with multiple observations. I typically delete some of the coordinate entries inside a point that are unnecessary (if points disappear when you recalculate, just do undo) so only the raw data entries are being used instead of collector-used coordinates and /or GNSS coordinate data entry.?ÿ
And you can put leveled elevations on points to be used as ??control ?? in the adjustment. And unless you have a regulatory need for a traverse adjustment, network adjustment is recommended.?ÿ
I think it is what they were use to as far as adjusting in civil 3d. ?ÿThey make some fbk file from total station data and bring that in civil 3d. ?ÿBut they have the latest version of TBC. I asked why they just didn??t throw it all i. And qa/qc in tbc adjust then export the control file and do the drafting i. Civil. Although I would like to get f2f going as well atleast most and codes fixed in tbc. ?ÿThe. Final drafting in civil 3d.?ÿ
This is exactly what we were doing and how I was trained for F2F at my last place.
I'm new, and will be trying to figure out a way to imbue my new employer with this workflow. We also use Microstation, so it's like neopolitan ice cream.?ÿ Will be interesting to be indoctrinated to yet another platform.
@jitterboogie yes i have always loved learning. But I also watch and see what ?ÿcan be improved upon. So far from doing and watching. I can??t help but think that collecting with Trimble access in the field. Bring it in to TBC rtk and robot data. ?ÿCheck for blunders and systematic errors adjust. Process line work then i guess off to civil 3d. I did the same data found more blunders adjusted rough adjusting mind you. I got to the office about 35 minutes before we were supposed to. Made fresh coffee. Adjusted the rtk and robot traverse data and published the alta report. ?ÿBefore anyone arrived. Now they spent a couple hours in civil. My rough newbie first time ending values were well very close to theres. Except for a couple points. And one of those was a rod hight bust by 1/2 foot I found they didn??t. Now maybe i can do everything in civil 3d but why when its so easy in tbc. For an old man that has not ran it at all since it was in beta test mode. Thats why i asked here who has done it both ways. So if i make the recommendation to change the current process. If civil 3d is better and more productive by all means i will learn it for sure. Seems the consensus is that tbc is better for handling the qa qc and adjusting. Now my question is f2f before going to cad or just straight to civil 3d cad. ?ÿAnd do f2f there. On my farm i have many tools. Some are better at different things. T post driver hammer pliers etc. sometimes i use the wrong tool but get the job done but the right tool in the right application makes work and my finished product much better. Tbc cad are all tools. Like rtk gps and total station and steel tapes. Getting them all placed in the right application is what i am after. And every one on this forum has been a great wealth of knowledge to learn from. ?ÿIts awesome learning and bouncing ideas off each other. We all learn from each other. Even bicker one in a while. But we are all better for it as we grow ourselves and those around us. Everyone has something to offer.?ÿ
Now my question is f2f before going to cad or just straight to civil 3d cad. ?ÿAnd do f2f there.
I've run it both ways. Both have their pros and cons.
C3D will do elevated curves, which I really like. There is an "on curve" line command that will automatically find the PC/PT and entry/exit tangents; I really wish TBC had the equivalent.
But setting up the survey database and linework processing can be a major pain, and if you have to fix codes or line commands, reloading the points and redrawing the lines is way more annoying than TBC. Sometimes it doesn't redraw correctly. In the end, most engineers/clients don't like survey figures, so those nice 3D curves are getting exploded or LISP'd into polylines, which is a whole 'nother step that can throw a wrench into surfaces and foul up deliverables.
The FXL feature code library you use in Access is designed to work with TBC; it's also more flexible if you need to modify your codelist.
If you're doing your QC in TBC, I would recommend processing linework there as well. Modify a code or line command, and just hit F4 to recompute and watch the lines redraw. Modifying in TBC is much easier than doing it in a CSV.
Using attributes and the optional free entry fields (Description1 and Description2) allows for three extra fields to be exported out of TBC and put into C3D to be displayed as additional labels for the Cogo Points. I add lots of notes and extra info during post processing so I barely have to refer back to the field notes during drafting. We have just about dialed in the attributes for our various codes so that monuments, vaults, signs, etc. have descriptive dynamic labels on import. Cuts way down on copy/pasting dozens of multileaders and manually typing in labels.