I was surprised we are that far apart, 3 cm seemed excessive. I was curious about your settings, maybe if the instrument, backsight and foresight were allowed some error I would think we would be within mm of each other.
The big difference is that all the northings are out by a factor of 4 or 5 over the easting errors. That is really curious to me. The angles from control AR10 to the network adjusted very little in what I produced. Which makes sense because thats your only angle not constrained by any distances.
You say your processing and averaging coordinates. how many individual coordinates are you averaging for each point ? You can see in the V2 report the 5 angles are really getting adjusted a good bit. Least Squares is not just averaging so this could be a big difference with your values.
Also, look over my raw data at the beginning of the listing. I don't think I busted anything inputting the data? I did initially. I ran the adjustment and was like what did I do wrong. I looked at the most adjusted data and had two angles I keyed in wrong. I did not see anything else, so check me please !
@norman-oklahoma I do the same to some degree. But I also don't want to start changing values that I'm assuming are being met in the field. Most of what I adjust are 3d traverses so i adjust the zenith angle standard of error a bit. I don't adjust the edm standards at all and rarely the horizontal angles. a lot of times I start with what the online calculator gives me , run the adjustment and then just round the odd value up to a whole number.
If I pass the chi-square I am confident my work is within the standards I set and my error ellipse on the adjusted points are realistic and not scaled up by the combined error factor.
As far as the actual instrument capabilities I could only guess, and were the angles turned once or how many sets, and distances were actually measured. I made the assumption there is some averaging in his final data he presented. I think 2mm and 2ppm for EDM is close and the 2 second instrument is good. set up errors are close to what I use.
Could I have your arranged form, which you insert into the starnet ?
The 2nd page of the listing I posted is the actual input file. Its a text based format in just a text file.
I took the "-" out of your point names as startnet uses that to differentiate D-M-S in the input.
The big difference is that all the northings are out by a factor of 4 or 5 over the easting errors. That is really curious to me. The angles from control AR10 to the network adjusted very little in what I produced. Which makes sense because thats your only angle not constrained by any distances.
You say your processing and averaging coordinates. how many individual coordinates are you averaging for each point ? You can see in the V2 report the 5 angles are really getting adjusted a good bit. Least Squares is not just averaging so this could be a big difference with your values.
Also, look over my raw data at the beginning of the listing. I don't think I busted anything inputting the data? I did initially. I ran the adjustment and was like what did I do wrong. I looked at the most adjusted data and had two angles I keyed in wrong. I did not see anything else, so check me please !
Exactly.. i wasn't believing the traversing by civil3d especially i gave the average point from each station by Excel, it was unconvincing process at all
The 2nd page of the listing I posted is the actual input file. Its a text based format in just a text file.
I took the "-" out of your point names as startnet uses that to differentiate D-M-S in the input.
Great, let me try with the other point group
thanks sir
Or this one :
The 2nd page of the listing I posted is the actual input file. Its a text based format in just a text file.
I took the "-" out of your point names as startnet uses that to differentiate D-M-S in the input.
brother
can you take a look at the error?
i don't know what's going on
Delete the .data off and .data on inline options from your input file.
this lets you keep data in the input file but mark out sections not to be processed.
you can also use # at the beginning of a line to mark out just that data, as you see in the last line of my first posting.
Delete the .data off and .data on inline options from your input file.
this lets you keep data in the input file but mark out sections not to be processed.
you can also use # at the beginning of a line to mark out just that data, as you see in the last line of my first posting.
Did you think the trial version is working well ? As the official website offers full access features within 10 days
But still gives me error !
I was surprised we are that far apart, 3 cm seemed excessive. I was curious about your settings, maybe if the instrument, backsight and foresight were allowed some error I would think we would be within mm of each other.
Sorry, I do not work in meters so 0.03m felt like 0.03' 😯 and I ignored it. I did go back and put in the same error settings that you used and reran the Least Squares on PCSurvey. My adjusted coordinates were closer to yours with a max difference of 0.02m and I'm sure that that is just my software. On the average 400m distance that makes a precision of approximately 1:20,000 if I was trying to match your coordinates. Anyway this has been a great exercise in adjusting a real network using Least Squares.
brother
can you take a look at the error?
i don't know what's going on
Just guessing here but it might be the order of your data entry. Lines 24,25,26 must come after lines 28-33 because N3 does not exist until after the data measured at AR210.
I think the issues is the .Data off and .data on I line options.
Those need to be deleted, the software sees those inline commands and ignores everything in between.
They are helpful when problem solving multiple data sets or different types of observations.
The residuals on the angles are mostly in the 10" range. That may be appropriate for the instrument in use.
The residuals on the angles are mostly in the 10" range. That may be appropriate for the instrument in use.
That's great sir!
Appreciate your help
I'm just wondering about this line What does refer to?
It a Bearing record establishing the bearing between your two control points. The "!" holds that bearing fixed. In this way if there was any difference in your field measurement between the control points, that difference does not interfere with the statistics. I could have just left the control values held fixed with ! ! on each point. It is just my way of setting up the data file, especially when there were not redundant measurements to that backsight point.
You really need to get an online demo with Starnet and your data so you can learn more about the input records and options for adjustments.
It a Bearing record establishing the bearing between your two control points. The "!" holds that bearing fixed. In this way if there was any difference in your field measurement between the control points, that difference does not interfere with the statistics. I could have just left the control values held fixed with ! ! on each point. It is just my way of setting up the data file, especially when there were not redundant measurements to that backsight point.
You really need to get an online demo with Starnet and your data so you can learn more about the input records and options for adjustments.
GREAT GO IT MT GARY
THANK YOU SO MUCH
I got another issue here
i have another group of points
When I set all the settings and information, i get incorrect result (looks like rotated result)
The traverse should be the same as the CAD snapshot below, and i get these results like the below: