> You keep talking in the past, would it not at least be prudent to check out what is available today from Leica and Star Net?
Actually, the Star*Net "converter" that Leica offers on their website is the exact same NSFW software I tested a couple of years ago. Same version, same 2007 release date. So, nothing's changed there.
As I mentioned, there now apparently is a Leica converter available from Star*Net. It will be interesting to discover whether it works as well as it should.
Before I plunk down a couple of hundred for the Leica > Star*Net converter, I'll probably look at the data collection options to see if there are any standouts among them.
> > You keep talking in the past, would it not at least be prudent to check out what is available today from Leica and Star Net?
>
> Actually, the Star*Net "converter" that Leica offers on their website is the exact same NSFW software I tested a couple of years ago. Same version, same 2007 release date. So, nothing's changed there.
>
> As I mentioned, there now apparently is a Leica converter available from Star*Net. It will be interesting to discover whether it works as well as it should.
>
> Before I plunk down a couple of hundred for the Leica > Star*Net converter, I'll probably look at the data collection options to see if there are any standouts among them.
Kent, the star*net converter is version 1.2.0, dated september 20, 2010.
you aren't trying hard enough, or you've already decided not to buy a leica.
Kent, following up on my earlier remarks, I appreciate your frustration with the available offerings, but I think you're going to find that much -- maybe most -- of the problem is attributable to changes in the industry rather than idiocy on the part of one manufacturer. By all means test-drive the Trimble S3 or S6 along with a comparable Leica, but in addition to out-of-the-box workflow, pay close attention to after-the-sale considerations. Not just dealer response, but also manufacturer policies. The after-sale costs might vary considerably due to maintenance contract realities, making that smoother workflow darned expensive in the long run.
Note that I'm not trashing Trimble in this regard. I do have some annoying experience with their software maintenance agreements, but I've not done a side-by-side comparison between Trimble and Leica on the hardware side.
Another industry trend is making it increasingly difficult effectively to mix-n-match gun, data collector and processing software. The hardware guys are driving everyone toward vertical solutions, both as a means of corralling the market and as a way of minimizing the kind of major workflow roadblocks that can result from trying to accommodate "foreign" software. I get it, but I still don't like it.
I speak as one who has steadfastly resisted committing to one brand, mostly due to a penchant for low-cost solutions and a willingness to stay several steps (sometimes several miles) behind the bleeding edge. I also like to customize my workflow more than most, and am willing (and sometimes able!) to get under the hood of both hardware and software. I don't recommend this approach to anyone who does production surveying, but Kent doesn't fall into that category.
> The convertor from Leica is F-R-E-E... free.
Is it not that the convertor if free if your subscription on Lieca Myworld is all paid up and current? If so, is that really free?
Downloads marked with a lock () are only available for Contract Customers, Dealers and Internal users.
> As I mentioned, there now apparently is a Leica converter available from Star*Net. It will be interesting to discover whether it works as well as it should.
It's a sure bet that you could get a 10 day demo on that convertor from MS for the asking. I look forward to learning your impressions.
In spite of of the criticism I made of Lieca at the top of this thread I am a big fan of the hardware. The software, less so. But it has it's charms.
I don't care much about the layout of knobs because I don't use them much. It's the performance of the autotracking that will sell me.
> Kent, the star*net converter is version 1.2.0, dated september 20, 2010.
Well, the software that was available on the Leica site today (meaning five hours ago or so) was labeled as Version 1.0.1 with the 2007 release date. I'll check it to see whether the pumpkin has turned into a carriage during the last five hours.
Edit: Nope, still a pumpkin:
Leica Star*Net Converter "Tool" Ver. 1.0.1
well, who'd have thought australia would have a later version? if you need to try it out i'd tell leica USA that them aussies have version 1.2.0 for download through the local distributor. actually if you want to try it i will personally email it to you. (the program has no agreement regarding distribution or even copyright, so it seems i could give it to you direct).
> By all means test-drive the Trimble S3 or S6 along with a comparable Leica, but in addition to out-of-the-box workflow, pay close attention to after-the-sale considerations. Not just dealer response, but also manufacturer policies. The after-sale costs might vary considerably due to maintenance contract realities, making that smoother workflow darned expensive in the long run.
>[...]
> Another industry trend is making it increasingly difficult effectively to mix-n-match gun, data collector and processing software. The hardware guys are driving everyone toward vertical solutions, both as a means of corralling the market and as a way of minimizing the kind of major workflow roadblocks that can result from trying to accommodate "foreign" software.
I think I describe the behavior of the large surveying equipment manufacturers as increasingly tending toward rent seeking. They aren't really making a product so much as offering an arrangement whereby they can collect rents on some piece of something that requires their ministrations, such as collecting rents for bug fixes.
One of the various reasons I'm dead set on sticking with Star*Net (aside from the purely practical one of having about 25 years worth of work alive in that format) is that it seems the most effective countermeasure to the rent seekers is to not depend upon them.
Naturally, there are numerous other advantages inherent in not having to be endlessly dealing with some modification in the functionality of some critical piece of software and I think that there is a viable niche for simple, well-made stuff that works. Those X90 (or whatever the designation is) GPS receivers would seem to be a good example of that.
1. Use basic LGO installation to make a "format file" that exports exactly the star*net grammar you need.
2. At the end of a day, export the data from the Leica as a text file ready to drop into star*net.
3. Let me know if you get it to work.
I had a very specific desire, which was that I wanted every setup to be a direction set, so as to translate Leica's "resection" plus some side shots to be a star*net direction set. None of the converters would get even close. I made one that sort of worked with the Leica FRT files. It still needed hand editing so eventually I found the hunt and peck method I still use today. By now I have done so many of those that I could probably get the FRT file to work.
Someone else had the same idea here
> 1. Use basic LGO installation to make a "format file" that exports exactly the star*net grammar you need.
>
> 2. At the end of a day, export the data from the Leica as a text file ready to drop into star*net.
>
> 3. Let me know if you get it to work.
Yes, if I ever want to consider my surveying practice to be mostly a hobby activity, I'd think that would be a great way to kill time.
If it's not a hobby, you're just a businessman.
> If it's not a hobby, you're just a businessman.
Actually, the proper formulation is "if it's just a hobby, you're not a professional." A professional seeks to find efficient ways to provide his or her service to clients, whereas that doesn't enter into the calculations of a hobbyist. The former necessarily involves an estimate of costs and benefits. The latter can think about building a ship in a bottle. The balancing of costs and benefits is part of the reality of professional practice. The construction of ships in bottles? Maybe not so much.
It is a problem that has been solved by many others to use their Leica equipment efficiently. The existence and continued use of the FRT files over many years proves it. Likewise, you could conjure up your own script/program/procedure like I did. You only have to do it once to reap the rewards for the effort, and that makes for your sacred efficiency.
You simply have not put in the mental effort required. I know you are capable of it.
A little bit of page flipping is required but you do seem to be fairly literate and thus should be able to finish it in a weekend if you deny yourself the usual recreational beverages. You can empty bottles for your tiny ships some other weekend.
Barbs aside, I am curious to hear about the S3, S6. etc. They were not available when we got our Leica. They are a good bit lighter. I appreciate the weight of the Leica at every setup but not so much carrying it in between.
Another thing you might consider is an ADAPX pen. With one of those and MS-OneNote you could book the field notes directly in star*net grammar/notation and import them directly into star*net as a text file. All that would remain would be to work on your handwriting.
I think star*net is dead, or at least it will be soon.
As has already pointed out, Microsurvey bought star*net. If I have the chronology right, shortly afterwards Microsurvey was bought by Leica / Hexagon / whoever they are now.
Leica has no great impetus to support or further develop star*net. They already have a least squares program with LGO (MOVE3 underneath) that is better than star*net.
I have only about 10 years of stuff in star*net. The path forward I see is Columbus, which does combine GPS and total station work, and does the math on 3D geodetic rather than on the grid.
I started learning Columbus last December and have used it for a couple of jobs. It has a converter for star*net into Columbus, and that has worked without any hiccups for most things.
It doesn't have some of the more esoteric inline functions like .mapmode anglecalc but it works for field data.
It looks to me as if the Sokkia CX motion screws were designed to be operated primarily in the face 1 position, by using one's right hand. The problem, as you point out Kent, is that when you're taking a face 2 observation, you then have to operate the screws with the left hand and there's an awkward reach around needed, especially for the vertical screw. Despite this awkwardness, the design would allow for the left hand to be free for data collector operation during ordinary F1 pointing. (Unfortunately, on my data collector, a TDS Nomad, the enter key is on the right side, and operating it with my left thumb requires reaching across the body of the DC, or flipping the DC upside down)
The older Topcon total stations that I am familiar with (GTS-225 and GTS-301D) also seem to be designed for one handed (right) operation, but the placement of the vertical screw is on the objective side for F1 observations, making access to the vertical screw easier during F2 observations. I suspect the designers of the CX chose to have the vertical screw to the right of the telescope eyepiece so that it would be easier to access during ordinary F1 observations.
I have been using mostly Topcon and Sokkia instruments for the last 15 years or so. Generally, I have been pleased with their performance, though as I have no experience with Ziess and Wild equipment, maybe I don't know what I'm missing! I have had some opportunity to work with Nikon total stations, and as expressed by others, the optics were quite impressive. That said, I can't think of a time when the optics on the Topcon and Sokkia instruments were so poor that I couldn't properly accomplish my work as a result.
As a sidenote, I've mostly been using the Sokkia SRX3 robot over the last 6 years or so. The motion screws have been replaced by a motorized sort of adjustment system, and this permits both horizontal and vertical adjustment knobs to be placed on the right of the instrument for F1 observations and on the left for F2 observations. More often than not, because of its speed and ease of use, I rely upon the auto-pointing features of this gun for locking on to the target, and so don't often use the fine (manual) adjustment knobs. In fact, because of the auto-pointing, it is becoming less common that I need to look through the telescope at all.
For those surveyors who tend toward high precision work, where multiple sets of F1 and F2 observations are made, I can see that the placement of the knobs would be of critical importance, whereas for the lower precision topo surveyor, it might not matter much at all....
> I think star*net is dead, or at least it will be soon.
LOL! If by "dead" you mean that the large corporation that bought it will quit selling it because it's cutting into sales of their inferior software, that may be right. But if you mean that somehow one day Star*Net will just quit working, that's a bit absurd. The whole advantage to Star*Net has been and will likely continue to be that it keeps working without a maintenance agreement or some endless rounds of bug fixes.
> I have been using mostly Topcon and Sokkia instruments for the last 15 years or so. Generally, I have been pleased with their performance, though as I have no experience with Ziess and Wild equipment, maybe I don't know what I'm missing!
The telescope that the Sokkia CX I rented was fitted with had noticeably poor resolution. What that meant was that a target that would be sharp and clear in the telescope of every Zeiss instrument I've ever owned looks like it's slightly out of focus in that of the CX.
> For those surveyors who tend toward high precision work, where multiple sets of F1 and F2 observations are made, I can see that the placement of the knobs would be of critical importance, whereas for the lower precision topo surveyor, it might not matter much at all....
Well, even in ordinary boundary surveying, I assume that you're still measuring angles to control points and boundary markers by F1 and F2 pointings. I do, so the motion screw arrangement is a more or less constant annoyance.
> Well, even in ordinary boundary surveying, I assume that you're still measuring angles to control points and boundary markers by F1 and F2 pointings. I do, so the motion screw arrangement is a more or less constant annoyance.
Yes. For ordinary boundary work, though, usually only one set of F1 and F2 to backsight and foresight, and for me its not all that difficult because I rely upon the auto pointing function of the robot. I have worked with others doing high precision work where multiple sets of F1/F2 would be measured. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 sets to each foresight. On the other hand, I suspect there are many users who don't do F2 measurements, but they may not be here, or even if they are, they won't admit it. My point being that the more you take F2 measurements, the more important knob placement becomes. I think the manufacturers are tending to focus on the more common users (F1 only) and leaving high precision users to fend for themselves. That's probably an oversimplification, but maybe has some merit.
By the way, Kent, what is the arrangement of the knobs on the Zeiss instrument that you like most?
> By the way, Kent, what is the arrangement of the knobs on the Zeiss instrument that you like most?
I'd say that the arrangement on the Elta 50 is optimal. The lock and tangent knobs are concentric and largish, fairly close together so there is no fumbling around to find them when you're sighting. The vertical/zenith lock and tangent knobs are above the horizontal knobs, the tangent motion being a larger knob against the face of the alidade and the locking knob being somewhat smaller and projecting.
The locking knobs are not the wierd finny things that Sokkia has put on the CX, but are round, with shallow indentations for grip. With the finned knob Sokkia has chosen, you have to fumble around for half a second (if you're working by feel) to grasp it just right, which isn't true of a radially symmetrical knob.