Necessity for Nadir Images With Crosshatch for 3D Model?

Subject matter is a group of buildings and surrounding landscape in about a 20 acre area. Objective is to get good modeling of buildings and a bit lesser so with the surrounding landscape. Also need to generate a DEM+contours for the surrounding undeveloped landscape. My plan is to do an Enhanced 3D Mission (Crosshatch + Perimeter) for the entire site and then a bit lower altitude in a smaller area just around the group of buildings. I’ve always noticed the “Enhanced 3D” mode just includes crosshatch and perimeter flights, no nadir flights. It also defaults to 60/60 overlap.

Does this mean if you run Enhanced 3D also doing a nadir mission doesn’t provide a significant enough benefit to make it worthwhile? If so, if only using Enhanced 3D for modeling buildings, should the overlap be increased? Or would a better quality model be achieved from combining the Enhanced 3D at 60/60 overlap with a nadir mission at say 70 sidelap, 80 frontlap?

1 Like

I think this feature needs to be rethought. The inability to run nadir with crosshatch hampers the ability to get space in between near vertical objects like cars and buildings that are close together and thus robs us of points to stitch to when generating a DTM. We end up stitching across a wide gap of where all the objects/cars were. The 90deg transverse can’t get in between each set of objects and even if it does it is on the edge of frame and unusable. @Andrew_Fraser, what would it take to be able to do both?

I would run two mission. 80/65 nadir and 60/60 crosshatch.

That’s what I normally would do, but I’m always looking to improve efficiency, realizing the law of diminishing returns. However you make a good point. I think I will stick to my original method of doing nadir+crosshatch+perimeter.


Personally I don’t use the perimeter function. That is good for standalone buildings where you can orbit one subject. I think that is a point of diminishing returns as you mentioned.

That said the perimeter flight path needs to be rethought as well. It is best to capture walls perpendicular to the wall. The current perimeter function is more of an orbit with single point of interest so as it strafes the yaw is changing as well and you capture skewed obliques which do not have good perspective. The recommendation would be that the ability to have multiple points of interest or a perpendicular heading would be more useful.

@MichaelL You can now run both Nadir and Crosshatch in a single flight by using the Mission function. Have you given that a try?

That is a good point, but I don’t see that option. Is it only on the RC device in the flight interface? It should be in planning as well.

In flight. You make both plans normally and just select both when you fly.

Well that is great and thanks for that, but for organizations I think it would be better to be able to preplan the daisy-chain and have the operator hit one button to fly all missions consecutively instead of having to have them select from specific missions that have been planned. What if I have four or five smaller missions for specific purposes that don’t need to be flown every time? I told the operator run Mission Alpha and we’re done. Of course the configuration you have is great as well.

1 Like

Yep, just tried it and it seems great if you are making all the flight plans, know exactly which ones are to be used and flying them yourself. It really needs a more structured approach for companies that have separate Drone Analyst and Pilots, not to mention the rest of VDC and Project Management.

Does DD always default to 65-degree gimbal angle on crosshatch and perimeter regardless of the altitude? If you are shooting a 75-feet tall structure, the angle for the obliques to get the sides of the structure would be far different when flying at 50ft versus 100ft. Do you just have to essentially guesstimate the best gimbal angle? Seems like DD really needs a couple additional setting like two focal point settings (a) horizontal: center of plan (the current default) or perpendicular to flight path, and (b) vertical: some altitude above ground and then if can automatically calculate the appropriate gimbal and yaw angles.

I believe the crosshatch is 60deg and the perimeter follows a focal point, but being that you cannot change the altitude between the two portions it may appear to be the same.