Ty, mac.
Since the soup ain't eaten as hot as it is being served..... I think I won't....
Cheers!
Antenna on the top?
- Thread starter Photo
- Start date
Ty, mac.
Since the soup ain't eaten as hot as it is being served..... I think I won't....
Cheers!
PatR
Premium Pilot
Nah... I do not like those messages either.
Also..... Americenglish is not my native language. Should better have said 'High-Precision GPS antenna' instead I suppose and pointing at the size and the elevated ( possibly free of interference) placement of it (and the GPS/accellero/magneto module). But with a pole on the roof our H would not look as cool as it does.
The thread got me nosing around for nice(r) antennae, I was surprised by the sheer weight of the better ones. There was another thread on the forum about the Yuneec module and a third party one (by taedla01), nice stuff. Very good HDOP on that one, curious to hear more of it.... you heard any more maybe?
Cheers!
I run cut/fill analysis for sitework contractors using AGTEK software and am interested to integrate aerial mapping in to my business. I believe in the platform and that we will eventually have a solid working grid mapping capability to fly with enough precision to create great 3D models that I can import in to my AGTEK software. What concerns me now is the accuracy of the elevations being used to create the contours. What is the accuracy of the H's equipment and how much of an improvement could we expect to recognize if a third party GPS module was attached in a more optimal location?
Just curious to know what the H might be capable of or if it would make more sense to invest in the 520 or 920 for mapping purposes.
Thank you in advance for your response
Just curious to know what the H might be capable of or if it would make more sense to invest in the 520 or 920 for mapping purposes.
Thank you in advance for your response
PatR
Premium Pilot
I like the "pole on the roof" line
I have not heard any more about the Spanish unit but did offer to be a tester.
Interesting thing about the Chroma pop up antenna. They worked ok but a lot of them had to be replaced after people used their Chroma for a bowling ball. Stocking spares costs $$, and companies don't like to spend money. Pole mount antennas also require longer cables that, guess what?, cost more $$. My guess is bottom line economics was the driving force in the H GPS design, although your "cool factor" theory likely weighted (no pun intended) the decision too. I have a couple of different GPS pedestal mounts where each weighs more than the antenna they are supposed to support, before adding for mounting hardware and cabling.
I have not heard any more about the Spanish unit but did offer to be a tester.
Interesting thing about the Chroma pop up antenna. They worked ok but a lot of them had to be replaced after people used their Chroma for a bowling ball. Stocking spares costs $$, and companies don't like to spend money. Pole mount antennas also require longer cables that, guess what?, cost more $$. My guess is bottom line economics was the driving force in the H GPS design, although your "cool factor" theory likely weighted (no pun intended) the decision too. I have a couple of different GPS pedestal mounts where each weighs more than the antenna they are supposed to support, before adding for mounting hardware and cabling.
PatR
Premium Pilot
FLvA,
There's not enough info out about the 520 yet to make a call. For mapping all that's needed is an accurate map pack, a camera with excellent geo tagging, the ability to fix a great many waypoints with accurate GPS referencing, and an FC that will effectively control the camera shutter. The camera control could be offset with programmable burst shutter control. After all that the task is pushed to computer software or a point cloud service.
There's not enough info out about the 520 yet to make a call. For mapping all that's needed is an accurate map pack, a camera with excellent geo tagging, the ability to fix a great many waypoints with accurate GPS referencing, and an FC that will effectively control the camera shutter. The camera control could be offset with programmable burst shutter control. After all that the task is pushed to computer software or a point cloud service.
I like the "pole on the roof" line
I have not heard any more about the Spanish unit but did offer to be a tester.
Interesting thing about the Chroma pop up antenna. They worked ok but a lot of them had to be replaced after people used their Chroma for a bowling ball. Stocking spares costs $$, and companies don't like to spend money. Pole mount antennas also require longer cables that, guess what?, cost more $$. My guess is bottom line economics was the driving force in the H GPS design, although your "cool factor" theory likely weighted (no pun intended) the decision too. I have a couple of different GPS pedestal mounts where each weighs more than the antenna they are supposed to support, before adding for mounting hardware and cabling.
Yeh... there are a few drawbacks. Flying bowling balls is one of them...
Pity you did not hear from the Spanish guy.
For what it is worth... I am perfectly satisfied with the GPS as it is, for the purpose I use the H. I never had any issues or errorflags in telemetry.
Besides if I let H come home by RTH (yeh, lazy..) I land her myself, so the 'on the spot' landing is always ok (except for that one on the roof of my car, flying final over the metal bonnet....
).
Last edited:
Thank you PatR..
From your perspective then, does the H have the potential to deliver on those items that you identified. From what I've read, it appears that the 3rd party GPS modules are claiming centimeter accuracy without the need for ground control. I'd imagine that with ground control points the software could deliver results closer to 2cm accuracy which is well within the tolerances that I'm looking for.
Does the camera provide the geo tagging accuracy you think would be needed or would I be better off using my H to practice landings on the roof of my moving car?
I appreciate your insight.
Cheers
From your perspective then, does the H have the potential to deliver on those items that you identified. From what I've read, it appears that the 3rd party GPS modules are claiming centimeter accuracy without the need for ground control. I'd imagine that with ground control points the software could deliver results closer to 2cm accuracy which is well within the tolerances that I'm looking for.
Does the camera provide the geo tagging accuracy you think would be needed or would I be better off using my H to practice landings on the roof of my moving car?
I appreciate your insight.
Cheers
PatR
Premium Pilot
PatR
Premium Pilot
FLvA,
Can I try to answer your questions a little later on a laptop instead of a phone? I will reply to the cm accuracy thing now. That's not going to happen with systems costing less than multiples >$10k, before adding a payload. Claiming it is one thing, actually doing it is another. It is being done but just the avionics suite costs more than a fully loaded M class multirotor. Those claiming even 3cm resolution are more or less stating they can provide resolution equal or greater than secure satellite resolution on the cheap. Not happening.
Can I try to answer your questions a little later on a laptop instead of a phone? I will reply to the cm accuracy thing now. That's not going to happen with systems costing less than multiples >$10k, before adding a payload. Claiming it is one thing, actually doing it is another. It is being done but just the avionics suite costs more than a fully loaded M class multirotor. Those claiming even 3cm resolution are more or less stating they can provide resolution equal or greater than secure satellite resolution on the cheap. Not happening.
Thanks PatR. That would be helpful. Sounded too good to be true. When you have the time, it would be helpful for me to understand how ground control stations and the current software available on the market might be used to increase accuracy or if this is also a myth. I'm looking to provide accuracy that a site-work contractor could rely on to prepare and submit responsive bids. There is real money at stake if I misrepresent what the actual ground elevations.
PatR
Premium Pilot
The point cloud accuracy is quickly improved through photo overlap. More overlap, more position reference comparison data to provide a clearer and more accurate image. I am not an expert on this subject but I do associate with people that do it for a living. To increase positional accuracy requires multiple GPS receivers. That's partially how LIDAR functions, through subject frame position deltas using data for the same subject collected from more than one location simultaneously, geo referenced against another fixed position. RTK and DGPS share a few similarities with LIDAR functionality since both require multiple GPS stations at different locations to improve a positional "fix". Three or more GPS stations, or receivers, are necessary for a fix to be improved. Obtaining 0.2 meter accuracy for the fix is possible, and routinely performed, but those results are not consistent because of the GPS data being broadcast by satellites. The high precision GPS data, at least for U.S. stuff, is still closely guarded by the U.S. government. The separation of the GPS receivers is quite important to increasing fix resolution. Multiple meters of separation is vastly superior to inches of separation.
Similar threads
