I will fly like a 30-acre flight right now at 250 AGL sound good?
So this is showing about a +/- 3cm XY and a 6cm Z?
not sure trying out a new software, what section are you looking at? camera information?
I was looking at bottom of last page
flying a 40-acre mission at 250 ft AGL right now
39 satellite fix on drone, this should be good
1 Like
Yes, the camera information. This is the same values that DroneDeploy is providing us in their processing reports. I mean all this really is showing is the ability of the system to write consistent and accurate GPS information proving that are hardware is performing as it should. Of course it is directly related to accuracy but all the other flight and camera settings that we can figure are just as important for the reconstruction.
This will be a nice medium size to give us an idea of how consistent the system is overall.
1 Like
253’ AGL, 11 MPH, 75/70 overlap, 40 acres.
I could only tag 8 photos on the control point due to that altitude. here is MS. DD is processing.
Pretty impressive
1 Like
That looks pretty good for GCP’s. It will be interesting to see the camera locations with GCP’s. Our camera locations always get just a little worse I think because the images are getting forced to the GCP influence. At that point the camera locations become less important because we are just moving from relative accuracy to absolute accuracy to your final placement. When we first started using the RTK our numbers were getting pretty out of whack, like 1.2-1.5ft but I couldn’t wrap my head around on why the vertical was always less than the horizontal. I then realized that unless you are on a steep slope elevation won’t change much at all within a foot so the elevation was holding true and it was just the horizontal that wasn’t calculating correctly. Now that DroneDeploy seems to have fixed our trust level allowance we will need to monitor it but I think we will soon be able to confidently start using GCP’s again for critical grading.
What altitude were these images from? That thing straight up takes amazing photos.
That’s pretty amazing. I thought the Phantom was taking crappy pictures but then I looked up the specs and the E2P is 28mm vs 24mm on the P4P so that makes sense. Basically that’s about the same as flying 225ft.
What were the altitudes?
Approx. 180’. The P4P was flying terrain aware and the Evo was not so there is probably some slight difference. We’re in a dense rain cycle now, but getting an actual side by side test is on the list.
That makes sense then even if the ground level was slightly different. The E2P camera has a longer focal length so it will always be better at the same altitude. You should do a test taking the phantom up to that altitude, make some paint marks or something around the perimeter and then send up the E2P until it captures the same area and then compare the images. I’m guessing you would have to go another 20% or so.
Playing with settings in Map Pilot (they are starting to support the Evo2) it looks like the Evo2 should fly 22’ higher than the P4P to obtain the same GSD.
The usable flight time should be about 27/28 minutes (75% of 37) compared to the 22/23 minutes max (75% of 30) I usually plan for the P4P. But I have yet to benchmark the Evo’s duration personally.
2 Likes
190 ft AGL, over 700 photos, 47 acres, 11 MPH, 75/75 overlap, 2 battery mission