Well, I think I have given this program a decent run but for now I think it’s back to Agisoft for me. Have been using (or attempting to use) during the free period and also have paid for a couple of 3 month promo runs. It has been really hit and miss for me as far as successful outputs go- which is not acceptable for business use. My main gripes are as follows:
-
Lack of documented workflows for basic tasks. Example- see here:
Faster workflow for adding ground control points
This was asked for months ago but still not available. Step by step workflow is available for other programs- seems like with RC you have to fumble your way through all the settings, lots of trial and error and you may or may not get the output you want- not exactly what i would expect from a paid software. Someone needs to spend some time preparing a few PDFs of steps for basic processes with a simple explanation of what different settings do along the way eg. getting a DTM and orthophoto using GCPs as is available for other programs. There seem to be so many settings for all sorts of things… but what do they actually do? and what are the optimal settings for particular outputs? Unless you read all the forum posts you would have no idea- needs to be a lot more Help built into the program describing all these settings. -
Crashes/Errors… what can I say?- with this program it is really hit and miss as to whether you are going to get a result or not. Program can run for hours processing a job and you come back and all you see is a big panel saying “unknown error” Well, that’s not very useful if you are trying to produce something in a business environment and are on a tight timeline.
-
Inconsistent outputs. Try to follow same workflow from one project to the next but the output can vary in a seemingly random fashion. What worked for last project fails on current project. Very frustrating to say the least. Have had this happen multiple times when trying to output orthophotos- sometimes they are properly georeferenced and sometimes not?? Why?? I don’t know- I used same workflow as I did on the last project.
-
Failures due to hardware? I can understand you are probably pushing computer hardware to it’s absolute limit to get the impressive processing speeds we are seeing but could you possibly put in some fail-safe mechanisms to stop the crashes? maybe turn down the power a bit!! I would rather have one successful output which took longer to process than multiple crashes trying to process projects even at normal detail- I don’t think I should have to run my computer in a refrigerator or freezer to get a successful output out of a program!?
-
This one may be a bit contentious but … ahhh what the heck… there seems to be a bit of arrogance on behalf of the developers as to the capabilities and stability of the software in it’s current state. I get this impression from many posts in the forum- yes I think I have read every single post… many posts where users are posting issues but it is put back on the user that it is their fault for software not giving optimal results- their hardware setup, their input, their workflow etc. A good example from memory was about poor output resolution of images compared to same output in other software-a forum user compared output of same input through RC and Agisoft- RC giving lower quality output using same images but the response is that “your images aren’t good enough quality” - hang on… he is using the SAME images in both software and getting a better result in Agisoft- surely that would mean it’s not his image quality that is the issue but something inherent in the way that RC is processing the images is the issue?? I have beta tested software and hardware on many levels for many years and I think that developers need to be very open to the fact that that their product may in fact not be perfect. Trust me… beta testers often are putting the product through a much more vigorous testing environment than can be simulated in a developers office- you need to be appreciative of this and use this feedback to improve your product, NOT blame the user for the issue (especially if the user is actually paying to use your product!).
I still believe RC will get to a stage where it is a competitor with other big name photogrammetry applications. From what I have seen from a few of my successful outputs RC is capable of generating outputs that are superior to other products, more accurate models (I’m a surveyor- this is very important for me!), in a much quicker time frame.
Maybe it’s just that there are a still a few issues with the stuff that i am trying to do- ie. modelling and orthophoto generation from drone footage. It may well be that the close range stuff works quite well eg. turntable projects, body scanning etc.
I just think there are a lot of issues which should have been addressed (eg. documentation) in the alpha/beta phase before moving to a paid product. My 2 cents worth. I might try again in 12 months or so.
?? It’s difficult to isolate to a particular machine and hardware also due to the licencing requirements- can’t just quickly change installation to another machine if main one fails processing.