Trimble Business Center

Ronny Schneider posted 08-20-2024 15:02

You were faster than me then, posting at the same time.

Errors and glitches everywhere, and if we are really lucky they get fixed at a snails pace. Or often enough they are just left unfixed for years. Especially if you can work around them or if it's just an inconvenience. Because removing an inconvenience for the customer results in an inconvenience for the shareholders. Guess who is more important.

First I thought that you didn't set/import your points with control quality. But according to the point symbols that should be the case.

Which TBC version does your colleague use?

What's with that red flag? What does it complain there. And I also see that your colleague shows different feature codes. Those shouldn't be any issue at all, in theory, but they introduced an error with some feature code processing in 2024.00 that they still haven't managed to fix, at least it's not officially mentioned in the 2024.01 release notes.

Scott Lehr posted 08-20-2024 15:24

Hey Ronny, 

My peer is using 2023.10. So I think it might be a TBC issue that needs to be resolved in the newer versions. 

The flag on that one point is due to not running the adjustment yet.  Once Adjusted (the second pic) the delta to the Control Point goes away.  

As for Naming of points, that doesn't matter. 

Thanks for your reply and confirming I'm not the only one. 

Michael Fletcher posted 08-21-2024 01:29

Another reason could be 'Include Side Shots' is off. Depends on the observation types.

Jarrod Black posted 08-21-2024 08:52

@Scott  Would you mind sharing your .job and control?  What does the derivation report look like at each point un-constrained?

Robert Hoy posted 08-21-2024 09:48

Fletcher, I think that "use side shots" option is only for the adjustment report.  So that if you have a project with static, RTK, total station including full topographic mapping that your report isn't 100s of pages long because it shows all your topo side shots in it.

Scott Lehr posted 08-21-2024 11:22

Thanks for your replies.  Michael, yes I have turned off "Include side shots" as this is the TBC default.  As Robert mentioned your control report would be forever long if you included side shots. 

Jarrod, All control derivations (unconstrained) are sub-centimeter with the exception  of the top left point which is 2.6cm. Hence the desire to constrain all the control in the project when running the adjustment. I'll double check to ensure there is no sensitive data here before posting the job file.  Standby on that. 

From what I can tell this seems to be a TBC version issue that wasn't there in 2023.10.  

Scott Lehr posted 08-21-2024 15:25

@Jarrod Black I have attached the job file and control file. the data is in a local metric system with a SF of 1.000. I had to upload a .zip file as this forum wont let you upload a JXL or JOB file.  I am interested to see what you find out. 

Michael Fletcher posted 08-22-2024 05:20

@Robert Hoy

Side shots is not 'just for the adjustment report'. It is to include side shot observations to known points that you want to hold fixed in adjustment and that werent part of the main traverse or rounds of Sc

@Scott Lehr

As above to Rob- I suggested turning it on, not off in case the control you expected to see in the list were side shots. 

Jarrod Black posted 08-22-2024 08:44

Hello Scott,

I threw your data into a fresh install (metric template) and find the software to work as intended.  Below should be a screen shot of findings.  Can you upload your .vce?  Me thinks there is an issue with your input of the existing control or a bug in your existing project.  I'm running version 2024.1.  Hope this helps

Scott Lehr posted 08-26-2024 09:34

Thanks for this @Jarrod Black . It must be an error in my install then. I have wrapped up my VCE. If you have time and don't mind checking I would appreciate that. I think I might have to wipe TBC off my computer and run the cleaner before re-installing from scratch.  

Jarrod Black posted 08-27-2024 05:31

Scott,

I went ahead and posted a bug to the dev team.  I don't really think this is a bug but I do think you bring up a good point which I asked them to look into.  TBC or Least Squares Adjustment (LSA) needs a certain amount of redundant data to compare to the math model in the software.  Turning on "use individual observations" increases your Degrees of freedom (see results in adjust network) over using the mean info coming from the raw.  In my lowly opinion I would set this to use the individual observations on pretty much all data sets you process so the software has access to the full range of your good ground data therein allowing you to choose what it uses and helping you make decisions.  Not sure if this helps but it will fix your issue.

I kind of walked around your exact issue which is why aren't my control points included in the constraints.  I think they are always there given the way this particular traverse was ran (nothing bad, same way I would have ran as well).  They show when you trigger the setting change in the adjustment setting since you're telling the software to use additional, redundant information which increases your degrees of freedom.  I do think this is more complicated than it needs to be which is why i would recommend leaving use individual option on. 

Again, a lot of this is subjective and my opinion.  There is not a real right or wrong when dealing with LSA, just more better and more wrong, as long as you follow the primary rules of initially removing errors at the onset and applying your adjustment based off of your redundant measurements.  Looks like your following a good workflow in the field and commend you on checking (adjusting) your field data in TBC. 

Jarrod

Kyle Calhoun posted 08-27-2024 08:16

Hello Scott,

As best I can tell measure rounds were not used to collect the mean angles. It looks like they were computed after the fact. This appears to be leading to the issue of needing to use the individual observations for some reason. I have included snips below of your file verse one from one of our crews. My guess would be based on their location in the data Trimble is treating these two mean angles differently in terms of adjustments. I don't have a good way to verify this theory though.