Trimble Business Center

This is normal. When you are producing a surface, presumably you are downsampling the point spacing. Likely via the advanced filtering tool. in my experience, the points to surface report will always be quite a bit coarser than simply comparing points in the point cloud against control/check shots. be sure to clean the surface to remove any erroneous peaks or valleys, and of course, use breaklines.

Let me make sure I am on the same page, when inversing from the nearest point cloud point to point 201 (a target check point) I am getting 0.489ft, no surface involved.  In the photogrammetry adjustment report 201 has a vertical residual of -0.07.  Also I will add that all the photogrammetry projects have this same problem, and it is always in the same direction.  The target points are below the point cloud points.  I could see if they varied above and below, with a mean of around zero, but they are always lower than the cloud and have an average of about 0.25 ft.  This seems to be a systematic error.

Sam

This is normal. When you are producing a surface, presumably you are downsampling the point spacing. Likely via the advanced filtering tool. in my experience, the points to surface report will always be quite a bit coarser than simply comparing points in the point cloud against control/check shots. be sure to clean the surface to remove any erroneous peaks or valleys, and of course, use breaklines.

Hmm. I didn't know that you could inverse between a survey point and point cloud point in TBC. Is it properly snapping to the survey point AND point cloud point? 

Let me make sure I am on the same page, when inversing from the nearest point cloud point to point 201 (a target check point) I am getting 0.489ft, no surface involved.  In the photogrammetry adjustment report 201 has a vertical residual of -0.07.  Also I will add that all the photogrammetry projects have this same problem, and it is always in the same direction.  The target points are below the point cloud points.  I could see if they varied above and below, with a mean of around zero, but they are always lower than the cloud and have an average of about 0.25 ft.  This seems to be a systematic error.

Sam

This is normal. When you are producing a surface, presumably you are downsampling the point spacing. Likely via the advanced filtering tool. in my experience, the points to surface report will always be quite a bit coarser than simply comparing points in the point cloud against control/check shots. be sure to clean the surface to remove any erroneous peaks or valleys, and of course, use breaklines.