v1.67, RW5 reduces differently than CRD

Moderator: Carlson Support

v1.67, RW5 reduces differently than CRD

Postby Surveyor-1984 » Thu May 05, 2011 1:52 pm


We had been using SurvCE v1.65 in one of our data collectors with our Leica 1203 Robotic for quite some time. A few months ago, just before starting a large project, we had the instrument and Data collector in to the shop. While there, the tech upgraded 1.65 to 1.67 saying it was the most up to date and least troublesome v1.xx version.

I am noticing that there are some differences when I process the raw RW5 file in Carlson Xport, and compare it to the CRDs. IF I process each day's RW5 into coordinates, I see differences in the coordinate values, especially vertically. I tried turning on and off the C+R to see if that expalined it, but it does not. I then took the RW5, converted it to FBK with Carlson Connect in LDD/Autocad 2009, then imported the FBK to CAD. I got yet another set of values, both horizontally and vertically! It just doesn't make sense. I am not sure now if there is some setting missed in v1.67, or whether Carlson Connect/CAD is having an issue with the v1.67 files, or just what is going on. The tech at the equipment supply/maintenance office tells us the settings are correct and the instrument is working fine, but I just can't figure out what is going on here. Has anyone encountered any anomolies like this with SurvCE 1.67, Carlson Connect, LDD? Are there more settings to investigate or look in to? I would appreciate any suggestions. I do not have another platform to check it against, just the software I specify above.

Thanks in advance for any insight you might be able to offer.
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:37 pm

Try disabling Recip. Calc

Postby Artanian » Thu May 12, 2011 2:41 pm

I would recommend going into File / Configure Reading and makes sure the "Reciprocal Calc" is set to "NO"

If you set this to Always it will constantly adjust your occupied Control Point elevation if there is a discrepancy in your backsight checks once you've traversed forward to a control point.

If you Occupy 1 backsight 2 then foresight 3 it knows the distance and elevation then when you move up to 3 and backsight 1 it can compare this distance and elevation behavior and Adjust your values

The DEFAULT is always "NO" for this setting
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:58 pm

Re: v1.67, RW5 reduces differently than CRD

Postby ropey20 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:13 pm

The Reciprocal Calculations is'n the solution the problem described, although a valid setting to review and confirm. I have come across the same problem (RW5 to CRD Conversion), and after multiple test scenarios, here is what i can say:

1. The Data Collector receives measurement information from the instrument and writes it to the RW5. Subsequently, the coordinate derived from measurement is written to the CRD.
2. Using X-Port, opening the same RW5 and choosing Process-No Adjust, from the file menu, produces a slightly different coordinate value listed in the lower panel of the X-Port application (CRD)... when compared to the native CRD (produced on the Data Collector)

So, it appears that the RW5 to CRD "routines" within X-Port and the Data Collector are either subtly different at the application CODE level, or perhaps the mathematical processor calls, used by the programs, are contributing to the discrepancies, since the chip sets are different between the data Collector and the Desktop workstation.

I've tested the scenario on 64bit and 32bit workstations. No difference.

What i'm still unclear about is how to manage significant figures, from the data collector side. It would seem appropriate to collect and record measurement data to ... say...6 decimal places, but only display to 3. But, i can only find significant figure settings within stakeout routines. I would expect to see such settings at the application level as opposed to the routine level.

This issue has been around for several years and yet to addressed. Producing coordinates from measurements is fundamental. So, why do two pieces of software, written by the same company, produce differing results when the same source data (RW5) is used? If there are specific settings which need to be in place, why is there no white paper?
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Mid-Atlantic USA

Return to TS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users