I came across an odd bug in this report today. Staking out 5' offsets for a house location, at the third point I was to set I felt I was only about halfway along the west side of the house. I skipped that point, set all the others which appearred to be fine. I went back to that third point and verified it was taking me to the wrong place. I happened to have my laptop with me so I fired it up, checked that the point was shown correctly in the drawing, rechecked the report, same turned angle & distance. So I drew some quick lines, and noticed that the point I was trying to set was nearly on top of the line to the backsight. I checked the angle bewteen the backsight and the set point, it was 0d01'50" and the distance was 221.60 (These numbers are best guess of what I recall, my note sheet is at the office. The stakeout report had given me 03d05'21" 222.39'. I manually checked the other 11 points and each was right on, just this one point is reported incorrectly.
Has anyone else noticed any inconsistencies with this report? (I know some of you haven't used a radial stakeout since the 70's, but some us still have to work with equipment from the stone ages....)
I'm going to try to look at the XML report code to see if there's somethin obvious going on with small angles...
I've seen this issue once before (I think in the 2010 release) when the angle was very close to a cardinal direction, but we were never able to reproduce it with stock data - the one case I had seemed to be very drawing specific. If you can reproduce it, log it with us and I'll get it to our development team for investigation.
Thanks, Jason. I was going to send you the XML file of the points that you could then add to a drawing and run the report. But I decided to test it to be sure it still exhibited the same problem. Well, in a new drawing with the points LandXML'ed into it, now I cannot get any points listed in a stakeout. The points all show up in the PointList report, the Occupied Point and Backsight point are both placed in the stakeout report, but not one other point is shown. I go back to the original drawing, and all the points go to the report (albeit that one still ha\ving the wrong data).
So if anyone would like to check it out, the XML file is attached. I'm using Point #4 as the occupation and #100 as the BS. #1039 is the one that gets the incorrect output in the report.
I came across this issue as well, did you ever find a resolution to the problem. It appears to only happen with small angles. In my case its true and was 32 seconds. Quite odd, since other angles report correctly.
No, I didn't. Since this was an isolated case for me, I never put much more thought into it. On reflection, I should've logged a support request.
Why use Civil3d radial stakeout for staking? With todays data collectors ( and most collectors for the past 15 years) it si much easier to simply export the actual points and stake to them.
I often wondered what the use of the radial stakeout routine was in today's world. The last time i even remember using something of the sort was when the crew didnt have access to a data collector and used the onboard instrument software to stake some points, that was back in the early 90s.
Why? Because we are mainly a Civil shop. Sometimes the boss says "I need this staked and the surveyors can't get to it" so I get the job. This occurs once every 5-8 months with never more than 20-30 points, so incurring the cost to have a new fangled data collector (even if it's 15 years old) is not something the boss will agree to. Trust me, I've tried. So I do what I gotta do with the equipment at hand.
And when the new fangled software we do have (C3D) gives me bogus output, with the tools it provides, then I feel I have the right to complain about it. Heck, I didn't even have a data collector of any kind until 4 years ago. But the software for it has bugs that are no longer being fixed by Topcon (well, that's not quite right...the bugs have been fixed, thanks to my complaining to them, but in doing so they dropped support for the equipment I have, leading me back to my Why....).