I’m still learning with the ppk process. I’m using phantom 4 pro. and equipped with tally antenna and reach m+
has anyone tried a large area without GCP and get high accuracy for the flights?
also wondering what’s the best settings for pix4dcapture to fly grid in scenario?
has anyone got report with GCP tied up with PPK processed and procedures to compare?
is there any other method to improve accuracy without ground work?
Those flight numbers come from many flights using Litchi with both a Yuneec H520 and a P4P. Flying lower produces better resolution, but does not necessarily mean it is a more accurate map. The higher you fly the more tie-points you get and the better that the stitching is. You just have to get your overlaps dialed in. For efficiency sake 75 front and 65 side may be at the lower end, but it also allows me to fly most of my sights with one battery.
When you plan on the web browser it gives you a distance. I typically stay at 100 to 110 ft. I’m not sure if the app gives you the distance or not. The only thing you have to do from there is calculate your speed to work with a 2 second interval image capture.
Helical antennas are omnidirectional, so the UAV can be tilted due to velocity or wind and it does not affect the incoming signal. Not having a ground plane might be a disadvantage in that you can’t eliminate reflected signals bouncing back up from the earth, but the problem associated with that should decrease with altitude.
I think you gain something and you loose something by going with a helical antenna, but it is probably not a bad choice. Maybe another user here has done some comparison tests and can chime in with an opinion.
Well, usually they are 180 degree or narrower, depending on the number of turns. The are also natively circular polarised (GNSS is RHCP), so that will mitigate some of the multipathing). Would be interesting to do a side by side comparison… Free idea for someone with an M+, right there !
To The most extent, yes. But there will be multipath signals from sats above the horizon, hitting the ground and bouncing back up. Most of these should be attenuated by the fact that hitting the ground reverses the polarity and makes the signal LHCP, but antennas aren’t perfect in that regard either.
In any case, a ground plane would take care of this completely, but has obvious disadvantages on a UAV. So if the helix is “good enough” (which I think it is), then no big problem.