Manchmal haben meine Modelle eine falsche Ausrichtung. Ein Beispiel ist dieses Modell.<\/A> Der Straßendurchbruch scheint um 10 Grad überschritten zu sein, aber die tatsächliche Situation ist das Gegenteil. <\/P>Die Bilder wurden in einem freien Flug mit DJI mini 3 PRO aufgenommen. Von ca. 100 Straßendurchbruch-Modellen haben 5-10 Modelle eine falsche Ausrichtung, alle sind zur Straße geneigt. <\/P>Ich habe dieselben Bilder in PIX4D matic berechnet, und dort ist das Modell perfekt. Was kann getan werden, um dies zu lösen?<\/P>
Die Bilder wurden in einem freien Flug mit DJI mini 3 PRO aufgenommen. Von ca. 100 Straßendurchbruch-Modellen haben 5-10 Modelle eine falsche Ausrichtung, alle sind zur Straße geneigt. <\/P>
Ich habe dieselben Bilder in PIX4D matic berechnet, und dort ist das Modell perfekt. Was kann getan werden, um dies zu lösen?<\/P>
@HalgeirDahle has rasied this issue as a supportcase with the Norwegian support team with me as consultant. Adding details
I did process the imagery in Drone2Map which seems to produce a "correct" result. With Drone2Map I digitized 4 points which was imported to Site Scan as GCP's. Registering the "GCP's" in Site Scan and reprocessing seems to produce a better result (see https://sitescan.arcgis.com/share/8a0be250-a240-4452-92a3-31d6a37fb1ff). The cut may also be looked at with Google Street View (https://shorturl.at/hrAZ3).
My guess, the current processing engine in Site Scan require more "consistent" flight planning.
Heavy trafficked road, therefor a light drone (max 250 grams) and no GCP's to avoid blocking the road for traffic.
Attachements:
bestPål Herman
Thanks for bringing this. Without looking at the actual images, it's challenging to diagnose why 5-10 models out 100 show this tilt. @Pål_Herman_Sund could you please escalate this to Esri Inc Tech Support so they can work with you and @HalgeirDahle to review the actual data? The upcoming Reality Engine Beta v2 may help here especially if you've already seen good results in Drone2Map where it's already implemented. Support will be able to try that out for you now as well.
Thanks @NicoBonnafoux I escalated yesterday and got excellent (as usual) help from @NikolasDingus. Two proposals both seemed to solved the issue (though I have not yet compared the DSM's).
I can make an update when DSM's are compared.
@NicoBonnafoux @HalgeirDahle @NikolasDingus I have compared the DSM's. They have an offset (no big surprice). Part of the offset accounted for with use of raster arithmetic's. They both now have similar slope for the cut's. I would say "case closed"
It ain't over till it's over @NicoBonnafoux . Found a feature today which I m not able to explain. @HalgeirDahle had another problem in his Site Scan organization with the results. He had Output Settings to EPSG:32632/EGM96 (WGS84) resulting in model again being heavily tilted. I changed Output Settings to EPSG:25832/EGM96 (ETRS89) - re-processed and everything is fine.
Due to "bad" flight-altitudes I have to offset the mesh with 110 meters in the WGS84 results and approx 70 meters for the ETRS89 results for the results not to intersect the underlaying DRM in the "mesh viewer". The difference between the two being approximate the geoid height in this area. Both processed with the Beta Engine. So - I have some questions here 🙂
Angemeldete Mitglieder können Beiträge verfassen, Updates folgen und mehr. Neu hier? Registriere ein kostenloses Konto.
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.
