SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Jeodezi ve Jeoinformasyon Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

UAV flight path impacts on three-dimensional photogrammetric product accuracy

İHA uçuş güzergahı şekillerinin üç boyutlu fotogrametrik ürün doğruluğuna etkisi

Hasan Dilmaç(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6877-8730
Veli İlçi(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9485-874X
Nazime Tilbe Şaşmaz(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi)0009-0002-5042-2837
Fazlı Engin Tombuş(Hitit Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2607-3211
Pages
33–48
Publication Date
2026-01-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study's results indicate that the D pattern offers the best option for only one flight.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The accuracy of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products is affected by many parameters, such as ground control points (GCPs), flight plans, overlap rates, flight altitude, etc.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It was also evaluated the positional accuracy and number of points in both horizontal and vertical planes within three-dimensional (3D) models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study's results indicate that the D pattern offers the best option for only one flight.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İHA fotogrametrisi · Uçuş desenleri · Yüzey çıkarımı

Abstract

The accuracy of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products is affected by many parameters, such as ground control points (GCPs), flight plans, overlap rates, flight altitude, etc. Flight patterns could be another factor that influences UAV product accuracy, but is not given as much attention in the literature. The impact of seven combinations derived from Single (S), Double (D), and Circular (C) flight patterns on point formation is analysed in this study. It was also evaluated the positional accuracy and number of points in both horizontal and vertical planes within three-dimensional (3D) models. For each model, 15 common comparison surfaces (CSs) (10 vertical and 5 horizontal) were selected, and a point cloud generated by a robotic total station was used as a reference to generate reference planes (RPs), which were utilized to compute surface scoring and root mean square (RMS) error of the models. Ultimately, two separate analyses were conducted. Each model's demonstration level of the chosen horizontal and vertical planes is rated in the first analysis. In the subsequent analysis, the RMS values were determined based on the distance between the model points and the generated RPs. The study's results indicate that the D pattern offers the best option for only one flight. Furthermore, the D+C flight combination yielded the best results among the evaluated models when multiple flights were conducted.

Özet

İnsansız hava araçları (İHA) ile elde edilen ürünlerin doğruluğu, yer kontrol noktaları, uçuş planları, bindirme oranları, uçuş yüksekliği gibi birçok parametreden etkilenmektedir. Uçuş desenleri de İHA ürün doğruluğunu etkileyebilecek başka bir faktör olabilir, ancak literatürde bu konuya çok fazla önem verilmemiştir. Bu çalışmada, Tekli (S), Çiftli (D) ve Dairesel (C) uçuş desenlerinden türetilen yedi kombinasyonun nokta oluşumu üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Ayrıca üç boyutlu (3B) modellerde seçilen yatay ve düşey düzlemlerin konumsal doğruluk ve nokta sayıları da değerlendirilmiştir. Her model için 15 ortak karşılaştırma yüzeyi (10 düşey ve 5 yatay) seçilmiş ve referans düzlemleri (RD’ler) oluşturmak için robotik total station tarafından üretilen nokta bulutu referans olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu RD’ler, modellerin yüzey puanlaması ve karesel ortalama hatasının (KOH) hesaplanmasında kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak iki farklı analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. İlk analizde, seçilen yatay ve düşey düzlemlerin her modeldeki temsil seviyesi derecelendirilmiştir. İkinci analizde ise model noktaları ile üretilen RD’ler arasındaki mesafeye dayalı KOH değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, tek uçuş için D deseninin en iyi seçeneği sunduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, ikili uçuşlar için D+C kombinasyonu değerlendirilen modeller arasında en iyi sonuçları vermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dilmaç, H., İlçi, V., Şaşmaz, N. T., Tombuş, F. E., *, H. D. (2026). UAV flight path impacts on three-dimensional photogrammetric product accuracy. Jeodezi ve Jeoinformasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.9733/JGG.2026R0002.E

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F., & Martínez-Carricondo, P. (2017). Assessment of photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation ground control points number using unmanned aerial vehicle. Measurement, 98, 221–227.
  2. Aicardi, I., Chiabrando, F., Grasso, N., Lingua, A. M., Noardo, F., & Spanò, A. (2016). UAV photogrammetry with oblique images: First analysis on data acquisition and processing. ISPRS Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B1, 835–842.
  3. Akturk, E., & Altunel, A. O. (2019). Accuracy assessment of a low-cost UAV derived digital elevation model (DEM) in a highly broken and vegetated terrain. Measurement 136, 382–386.
  4. Bakirman, T., Bayram, B., Akpinar, B., Karabulut, M. F., Bayrak, O. C., Yigitoglu, A., & Seker, D. Z. (2020). Implementation of ultra-light UAV systems for cultural heritage documentation. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 44, 174–184.
  5. Byrne, J., O’Keeffe, E., Lennon, D., & Laefer, D. F. (2017). 3D reconstructions using unstabilized video footage from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Journal of Imaging, 3(2), 15.
  6. Carvajal-Ramírez, F., Navarro-Ortega, A. D., Agüera-Vega, F., Martínez-Carricondo, P., & Mancini, F. (2019). Virtual reconstruction of damaged archaeological sites based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry and 3D modelling. Study case of a southeastern Iberia production area in the Bronze Age. Measurement, 136, 225–236.
  7. Casella, E., Drechsel, J., Winter, C., Benninghoff, M., & Rovere, A. (2020). Accuracy of sand beach topography surveying by drones and photogrammetry. Geo-Marine Letters, 40(2), 255–268.
  8. Casella, V., Chiabrando, F., Franzini, M., & Manzino, A. M. (2020). Accuracy assessment of a UAV block by different software packages, processing schemes and validation strategies. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(164), 1–21.
  9. Chaudhry, M. H., Ahmad, A., & Gulzar, Q. (2020). Impact of uav surveying parameters on mixed urban landuse surface modelling. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(11), 656.
  10. Chiabrando, F., Lingua, A., Maschio, P., & Teppati Losè, L. (2017). The influence of flight planning and camera orientation in UAVs photogrammetry. A test in the area of rocca San Silvestro (LI), Tuscany. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences - ISPRS Archives, 42(2W3), 163–170.
  11. Colica, E., D’Amico, S., Iannucci, R., Martino, S., Gauci, A., Galone, L., Galea, P., & Paciello, A. (2021). Using unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry for digital geological surveys: case study of Selmun promontory, northern of Malta. Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(17), 1–14.
  12. Dominici, D., Alicandro, M., & Massimi, V. (2017). UAV photogrammetry in the post-earthquake scenario: case studies in L’Aquila. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 8(1), 87–103.
  13. Elkhrachy, I. (2021). Accuracy Assessment of Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Photogrammetry. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(6), 5579–5590.
  14. Ferrer-González, E., Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F., Martínez-Carricondo, P. (2020). UAV photogrammetry accuracy assessment for corridor mapping based on the number and distribution of ground control points. Remote Sensing, 12(15), 2447.
  15. Frey, J., Kovach, K., Stemmler, S., & Koch, B. (2018). UAV photogrammetry of forests as a vulnerable process. A sensitivity analysis for a structure from motion RGB-image pipeline. Remote Sensing, 10(912), 1–12.
  16. Gonçalves, J. A., & Henriques, R. (2015). UAV photogrammetry for topographic monitoring of coastal areas. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 104, 101–111.
  17. Gupta, S. K., & Shukla, D. P. (2018). Application of drone for landslide mapping, dimension estimation and its 3D reconstruction. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 46(6), 903–914.
  18. Jeon, E. I., Yu, S. J., Seok, H. W., Kang, S. J., Lee, K. Y., & Kwon, O. S. (2017). Comparative evaluation of commercial softwares in UAV imagery for cultural heritage recording: case study for traditional building in South Korea. Spatial Information Research, 25(5), 701–712.
  19. Kakooei, M., & Baleghi, Y. (2017). Fusion of satellite, aircraft, and UAV data for automatic disaster damage assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 38(8–10), 2511–2534.
  20. Kameyama, S., & Sugiura, K. (2021). Effects of differences in structure from motion software on image processing of unmanned aerial vehicle photography and estimation of crown area and tree height in forests. Remote Sensing, 13(4), 1–22.
  21. Lin, L., Yu, K., Yao, X., Deng, Y., Hao, Z., Chen, Y., Wu, N., & Liu, J. (2021). UAV based estimation of forest leaf area index (Lai) through oblique photogrammetry. Remote Sensing, 13(803), 1–16.
  22. Liu, X., Lian, X., Yang, W., Wang, F., Han, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Accuracy Assessment of a UAV Direct Georeferencing Method and Impact of the Configuration of Ground Control Points. Drones, 6(2), 30.
  23. Martínez-Carricondo, P., Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F., Mesas-Carrascosa, F. J., García-Ferrer, A., & Pérez-Porras, F. J. (2018). Assessment of UAV-photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation of ground control points. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 72, 1–10.
  24. Mesas-Carrascosa, F. J., García, M. D. N., De Larriva, J. E. M., & García-Ferrer, A. (2016). An analysis of the influence of flight parameters in the generation of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) orthomosaicks to survey archaeological areas. Sensors, 16(11), 1838.
  25. Messina, G., Peña, J. M., Vizzari, M., & Modica, G. (2020). A comparison of UAV and satellites multispectral imagery in monitoring onion crop. An application in the ‘Cipolla Rossa di Tropea’ (Italy). Remote Sensing, 12(20), 1–27.
  26. Mitka, B., Klapa, P., & Pióro, P. (2023). Acquisition and Processing Data from UAVs in the Process of Generating 3D Models for Solar Potential Analysis. Remote Sensing, 15(6), 1498.
  27. Nesbit, P. R., & Hugenholtz, C. H. (2019). Enhancing UAV-SfM 3D model accuracy in high-relief landscapes by incorporating oblique images. Remote Sensing, 11(3), 1–24.
  28. Phojaem, T., Dangbut, A., Wisutwattanasak, P., Janhuaton, T., Champahom, T., Ratanavaraha, V., & Jomnonkwao, S. (2025). Evaluating UAV Flight Parameters for High-Accuracy in Road Accident Scene Documentation: A Planimetric Assessment Under Simulated Roadway Conditions. International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(357), 1-25.
  29. Ridolfi, E., Buffi, G., Venturi, S., & Manciola, P. (2017). Accuracy analysis of a dam model from drone surveys. Sensors, 17(8), 1777.
  30. Roberts, R., Inzerillo, L., & Di Mino, G. (2020). Using UAV based 3d modelling to provide smart monitoring of road pavement conditions. Information, 11(12), 1–24.
  31. Roca, D., Lagüela, S., Díaz-Vilariño, L., Armesto, J., & Arias, P. (2013). Low-cost aerial unit for outdoor inspection of building façades. Automation in Construction, 36, 128–135.
  32. Russo, M., Carnevali, L., Russo, V., Savastano, D., & Taddia, Y. (2019). Modeling and deterioration mapping of façades in historical urban context by close-range ultra-lightweight UAVs photogrammetry. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 13(4), 549–568.
  33. Sanz-Ablanedo, E., Chandler, J. H., Rodríguez-Pérez, J. R., & Ordóñez, C. (2018). Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and SfM photogrammetry survey as a function of the number and location of ground control points used. Remote Sensing, 10(10), 1606.
  34. Turk, T., Bahadur, B., Demirel, Y., Altuntas, C., Ocalan, T. (2025). Investigation of the effect of GCP number and distribution on photogrammetric product accuracy in UAV photogrammetry. Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation, 12(1), 77-88.
  35. Vacca, G., Dessì, A., & Sacco, A. (2017). The use of nadir and oblique UAV images for building knowledge. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(393), 1–26.
  36. Varbla, S., Puust, R., & Ellmann, A. (2021). Accuracy assessment of RTK-GNSS equipped UAV conducted as-built surveys for construction site modelling. Survey Review, 53(381), 477–492.
  37. Waagen, J. (2019). New technology and archaeological practice. Improving the primary archaeological recording process in excavation by means of UAS photogrammetry. Journal of Archaeological Science, 101, 11–20.
  38. Watanabe, Y., & Kawahara, Y. (2016). UAV Photogrammetry for Monitoring Changes in River Topography and Vegetation. Procedia Engineering, 154, 317–325.
  39. Yang, M. Der., Chao, C. F., Huang, K. S., Lu, L. Y., & Chen, Y. P. (2013). Image-based 3D scene reconstruction and exploration in augmented reality. Automation in Construction, 33, 48–60.
  40. Zhang, D., Watson, R., Dobie, G., MacLeod, C., Khan, A., & Pierce, G. (2020). Quantifying impacts on remote photogrammetric inspection using unmanned aerial vehicles. Engineering Structures, 209(109940), 1–13.
  41. Zhao, S., Kang, F., Li, J., & Ma, C. (2021). Structural health monitoring and inspection of dams based on UAV photogrammetry with image 3D reconstruction. Automation in Construction, 130(103832), 1–16.
  42. URL-1: https://novatel.com/products/waypoint-post-processing-software/grafnav-static (Accessed: 21 March 2025).
  43. URL-2: https://www.dji.com/global/phantom-4?site=brandsite&from=insite_search (Accessed: 02 April 2025).
  44. URL-3: https://support.pix4d.com/hc/en-us/articles/209960726-Types-of-mission-Which-type-of-mission-to-choose-PIX4Dcapture (Accessed: 04 April 2025).
  45. URL-4: https://leica-geosystems.com/products/total-stations/robotic-total-stations/leica-ts16 (Accessed: 17 February 2025).
  46. URL-5: https://www.cloudcompare.org/main.html (Accessed: 20 April 2025).