Has anyone flown the R360 high and fast and could provide a few figures of the accuracy they saw? I am just putting my feelers out there before having to do a test flight and pay for processing. TIA
Optimum Speed & Altitude
ROCK’s recommended optimum height for Survey-Grade Topography accuracy is 50m (164ft) AGL, anything above that will be dependent on the terrain, the target locations, the vegetation, etc. At 400 feet the R360 is sufficient for General Topography.
Why do you need to fly so high?
It would be forestry work where survey-grade data is not required, but I still would like to provide future clients with general accuracy figures.
Would toggling “on” the high-sensitivity option make a a difference here?
That’s a good thought, and I am unsure what it would do.
I believe, in the scenario you describe, you may get better results.
Is there anyone here that can confirm this?
I also have several missions coming in heavy forest, this would be good to know. I would go and test, however, my current location does not have many trees. LOL
If there is no response, I will test and report back.
1 Like
ROCK doesn’t recommend toggling on high sensitivity as a standard workflow. The best way to test how the data will look is flying a small test data set, if possible. Using terrain follow will also aid in your data collection. What sort of relative accuracy are you looking to achieve?
Please let us know how it goes!
Right… on all accounts,
but if you have a canpopy of trees, and this is a non-typical mission, would it hurt?
Daniel mentioned that the high sensitivity added a good bit of noise at a lower altitude but doesn’t have experience with high sensitivity at a higher altitude (such as 400ft). It may help add density to your data, but we can’t say for sure as a blanket statement.