Your advise ? :-/ mostly your advice has be anti-helpful. Thanks for trying.
You might as well have a look at this paper,
I guess it's the presentation 'party chef' is mentioning but then in pdf format.
GNSS & TPS for high rise buildings
it's a pdf of 1Mb for download at Mediafire.
Core Wall Control Survey - The State of Art
Joël van CRANENBROECK, Belgium
Doug HAYES, United Arab Emirates
Soang Hun OH, Kuwait
Mohammed HAIDER, United Arab Emirates
Key words: GNSS, TPS, precision inclinometer, core wall, high rise building, climbing
formwork
presented at
7th FIG Regional Conference
Spatial Data Serving People: Land Governance and the Environment – Building the Capacity
Hanoi, Vietnam, 19-22 October 2009
Chr.
Thank Christ lambrecht :good: Looks like I'm not going to bed after all, a coffee is in order!
Maybe you can explain to us how you get better accuracy (0.5mm) outdoors, up in the air, on a vibrating platform with a cheap tripod, than the manufacturer gets in a climate controlled test facility (2.0mm).
Sometimes the best advice is to simply STOP what you are doing. You are exemplifying the role of a lowballer; accepting work you are not equipped, qualified, experienced or educated to perform.
The entire pipe rack system would need to deflect and vibrate in unison for the "turning off" the compensator idea can yield statistically consistant results.
Understand your equipment and deliverable. I have seen "Surveyors" try what you are describing while set up on the ground. Their results are significantly worse than laser scanning.
Think "random errors"!
The "accuracy" that is beyond specs is an interesting topic. But we all need to remember those specs.
I have always experienced real world repeatability that exceeds the published specs, but that doesn't change the accuracy of my instrument.
But, we have to remember that comparing two shots from the gun, and being close, doesn't mean that your instrument exceeds the specs.
And I don't think we need to give float a hard time, he just said he matched to 0.005 of design, which he regards as a good check.
I see people publish measurements by total stations to 0.01', so there is a lot of ignoring significant digits. We probably should not publish anything closer than 0.1' in most cases.
I find it amusing to see plats with calls to 0.01'. We all do it, we are required to by the county our city....
Read Floats statement again. .5mm = 0.020in = .0017ft
His totals station might SHOW that many decimals.
"...We all do it, we are required to by the county our city..."
Not all of us do it because we are required. There is value in knowing how to prove results. I guess that is why education is important. Evidently some "experience" is teaching some of us to do the wrong thing.
> Maybe you can explain to us how you get better accuracy (0.5mm) outdoors, up in the air, on a vibrating platform with a cheap tripod, than the manufacturer gets in a climate controlled test facility (2.0mm).
>
> Sometimes the best advice is to simply STOP what you are doing. You are exemplifying the role of a lowballer; accepting work you are not equipped, qualified, experienced or educated to perform.
>
> The entire pipe rack system would need to deflect and vibrate in unison for the "turning off" the compensator idea can yield statistically consistant results.
>
> Understand your equipment and deliverable. I have seen "Surveyors" try what you are describing while set up on the ground. Their results are significantly worse than laser scanning.
>
> Think "random errors"!
:good: :good: :good:
