AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Traverse results Survey Controller vs. TGO vs. TBC

8 Posts
7 Users
0 Reactions
886 Views
said-lot
(@said-lot)
Posts: 92
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I've recently run two traverses of 6000-7000 feet, one with Survey Controller v. 12.22 the other with 12.46. TGO gives me the same coordinates that I have on the data collector, but when I import into TBC I've got 0.02-0.03' of difference in my coordinates. The job is scale factor 1. Has anyone else run into this?
The only difference I've seen in TGO terrestrial report vs. TBC mean angle report is a frequent 3-6" difference in the mean vertical angle. Could that be the difference? Or rounding?
And no, I'm not losing sleep over 0.03'. Just curious.


 
Posted : March 7, 2012 8:52 pm
Norman_Oklahoma
(@norman-oklahoma)
Posts: 8310
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Curvature and refraction correction, maybe?


 
Posted : March 7, 2012 9:11 pm
thomasacto
(@thomasacto)
Posts: 10
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Check your confidence display. Change to 1-sigma in TBC and review your results.


 
Posted : March 7, 2012 9:19 pm
NonTangent
(@nontangent)
Posts: 124
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Another weird TGO/TBC thing is that you can import an RTK, .DC file into both programs and TGO will show you the same residuals as the data collector but TBC will show the residuals as being consistently double those shown in the .DC and TGO. This wasn't discovered by me but I ran a few tests and got these results also. I haven't seen a published explanation for this.


 
Posted : March 7, 2012 10:07 pm
Chan GePlease
(@chan-geplease)
Posts: 1159
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I may be way off base here, but it seems to me that Trimbleworld came to be for GPS, and GPS only. They have that expertise nailed down for the most part.

When they went to conventional flat earth methods, such as a total station and levelling, things got goofy. Thus their desire to buy out Geodimeter, Spectra Physics, TDS, and who knows what else. All it did was goof up their software so they remained seemingly competitive. Not sure, but???

My suggestion would be to manually reduce your field measurements via your HP48, or equivilent. Then you'll have your answer.


 
Posted : March 8, 2012 12:16 am

Mike Evans
(@mike-evans)
Posts: 103
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Have you checked if 1 is international foot and the other US survey feet?


 
Posted : March 8, 2012 3:47 pm
jeff-wright
(@jeff-wright)
Posts: 82
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

> Have you checked if 1 is international foot and the other US survey feet?

That's what I was thinking, too. That's around the difference you could expect with assumed coordinates in the range of 10,000.00 by 10,000.00


 
Posted : March 8, 2012 8:24 pm
said-lot
(@said-lot)
Posts: 92
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I agree that Trimble's strength is GPS, but it's nice when all your tools sort of work together and you can put all your data in a single database. The HP 48 seems dated to me, but I've seen people who could work circles around me operating one.
Units are fine; C&R is set in the data collector and has no toggle in TBC; and the confidence level shouldn't affect unadjusted coordinates (should it?).
Guess this is just one of life's mysteries. I'd like to know if anyone else has not had the same thing happen.


 
Posted : March 8, 2012 9:12 pm