MightyMoe, post: 456042, member: 700 wrote: If the inverses are returning different results in the DC, CAD, and TBC there is something very wrong. That shouldn't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the calibration.
The puzzling part was each system was using the same coordinates. What else would affect the calculations. The calibration is creating the coordinates, so unless the DC Cogo routine has a data file other than what the calibration routine routine is using the results should be the same. I can't see where the calibration is in the path of inverse calculations, but I could be surprised. It could be using the vertical component where LDD and the HP41 aren't.
Skeeter1996, post: 455909, member: 9224 wrote: I wonder about that. It seems to usually come up with the same point as porportioning does.
If you hold 3 points or what ever amount of points, the software does a best fit to all the points held, that is not the same as adjusting or prorating between 2 points. If you had to set a calculated point between two localization points after a localization to 3 points, that point would not be on line due to the residuals. If fact if you were to stake out the coordinates you used for localization you would not be on the recovered monument.
If you only localized to 2 points it would work but thats like doing a resection where the distances are affected not the angle.
billvhill, post: 456063, member: 8398 wrote: If you hold 3 points or what ever amount of points, the software does a best fit to all the points held, that is not the same as adjusting or prorating between 2 points. If you had to set a calculated point between two localization points after a localization to 3 points, that point would not be on line due to the residuals. If fact if you were to stake out the coordinates you used for localization you would not be on the recovered monument.
If you only localized to 2 points it would work but thats like doing a resection where the distances are affected not the angle.
You think that would be the case if the residuals we're really small?
It will always be the case and yes the smaller the residuals the less affect over all. Your localization is simply an average location, scale and rotation of however many points you use.
billvhill, post: 456072, member: 8398 wrote: It will always be the case and yes the smaller the residuals the less affect over all. Your localization is simply an average location, scale and rotation of however many points you use.
When Calibration first came out. Trimble said it rubber sheeted after 4 points. Now they deny there is any rubber sheeting at all. I'm going to a seminar in December which touches on calibrations. I've always been Leary of them with more than a 2 point callibration. I don't want it adjusting my good coordinates to bad coordinates. Plus no one has ever explained to me how it physically works. Lots of theory, but never a flow chart of exactly what going on.
Trimble Power hour is having a presentation on Site Calibrations and Local Setting November 29.
Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 455874, member: 4512 wrote: Yeah, but I'm glad the discussion did not deteriorate to the point of sending someone to Banned Camp.
Banned Camp. That's hilarious!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Shawn Billings, post: 456367, member: 6521 wrote: Banned Camp. That's hilarious!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
We're both respectful gentlemen. Loyal is a very knowledgeable person. Sometimes it's hard to get the information out of him. If you have any problems with OPUS he's your man.
Shawn Billings, post: 456367, member: 6521 wrote: Banned Camp. That's hilarious!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
I picked that one up on another forum whereon I lurk. If you are into fishing / boating there's a lot of good info at TheHullTruth.com
