Party chef, post: 326980, member: 98 wrote: I have used both. Your frustration may stem more from user issues than choice of software. If I have followed correctly you have had a couple field blunders which you tried to fix after the fact in the office, a tricky proposition for a novice user. I would focus on aligning your field and office software and adopting a working field data protocol rather than going with a new field soft. You've hit the nail on the head, in one respect: 'a working field data protocol'.Ya, easier said than done.

Jan 22, 2017  برچسب ها: field genius crack field genius downloads field genius software fieldgenius 2016 fieldgenius 8 crack fieldgenius crack download fieldgenius demo download fieldgenius download fieldgenius keygen fieldgenius register fieldgenius software fieldgenius torrent microsurvey field genius microsurvey field genius crack MicroSurvey.

I've asked for advice on that, and it's all over the map. Everyone here does it differently, and it seems the bulk of folks are using GPS rather than total stations. It's just not something you're likely to learn 'in school', either, (which for all intents and purposes, I am). Today, I re-surveyed the original blunder, only to find that I did NOT carry the first point that I set up on (the last known good point) in the control file for the survey.

As a result, SurvCE asked me to calculate the coordinates for that point. But when the raw file got back into the survey in the office, it was 'floating in space'. When I setup the DC, it asked me for the Back-sight point, which WAS in the control file, so I have no idea why the.rw5 came in so screwed up, but it's probably because it had no azimuth data. (I tried this time to use 0 for the back-sights, rather than carry azimuth.so much for that idea). I'm sure most surveyors who know what they're doing (or who have field crews who do), don't spend much time editing raw data. Just not too sure how to crack this ongoing challenge. Thanks for the keen observation though.

I have both and find Field Genius easier to use but probably lot of that comes from many years use versus little of SurveCE. Microsurvey make a point of its ease of use and being 'idiot proof'. I wouldn't go that far but has merit (statement). Probably explains though why SurveCE is more powerful and feature superior but which needs more knowledge of the application etc. Good field practice is essential and certainly won't be overcome by any software as you'd appreciate. Pozdraviteljnie konverti s dnem rozhdeniya dlya deneg raspechatatj. Have a look at FG, download and install and give it a try.

If you're struggling with your methods, outcomes or all then I'd run a simple test traverse and write down target and instrument heights with point numbers along with station setups. I still do that (record station details) in a field book and it has saved my bacon more than once.

As for field practise. Does your TS take uploading of bearings? Mine doesn't (Nikon), and I just set zero on TS as back sight. I could well imagine if it does accept uploading bearings that could be an area for fouling up. I also observe my back sight at times as a point, mainly as it's easier to retrieve data the way I want it from the software later. I check back sights regularly as things can shift orientation without realising.

Keep asking, you'll get there. Richard, post: 327110, member: 833 wrote: I have both and find Field Genius easier to use but probably lot of that comes from many years use versus little of SurveCE. If you're struggling with your methods, outcomes or all then I'd run a simple test traverse and write down target and instrument heights with point numbers along with station setups.

I still do that (record station details) in a field book and it has saved my bacon more than once. As for field practise. Does your TS take uploading of bearings? Mine doesn't (Nikon), and I just set zero on TS as back sight. I could well imagine if it does accept uploading bearings that could be an area for fouling up.

I also observe my back sight at times as a point, mainly as it's easier to retrieve data the way I want it from the software later. I check back sights regularly as things can shift orientation without realising. Keep asking, you'll get there. The Topcon TS I'm using can set the back sight azimuth if the DC tells it to. I ran previous sessions that way, but, (as some here pointed out), it's much harder to immediately detect blunders when you flip the scope (0-0-13 on the back sight Direct, then 180-0-11 or whatever in reverse). The set report in SurveCE also gives you this information though.

I've really had great results using the field book and pencil; if using a DC is useless without the field book, then maybe I'll just dump the DC, lol. I think the largest contributor to this problem is the procedure I'm using to go back and forth from office to field and back again. Previous advice had me open a new job in SurvCE daily, so that I had a 'clean' independent file for each day's work. But bringing my adjusted survey back into the DC as a 'control file' has been problematic (to wit: the current problem of the point I set up on not being in the file). Continuing the same job (on another day, or a week later), would allow one to just pick up where they left off and keep going. That's the way I did it when I made my first major blunder; (set up on a point other than the one I was actually on!) As Spledeus said in another thread: 'Editing the.rw5 file is an essential skill'. I've taken that to heart and dug in on it, but am realizing that the more you start messing with 'raw data', the more likely the possibility of introducing another source of error.