Eyespy360 Floor Plan Measurements12234
Pages:
1
|
simbany1 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi everyone! I know that the floor plan measurements aren't to exact specs on the 2d and 3d floor plans we deliver, but does anyone know what the +/- in inches may be? TIA! Bill |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
bryanhscott private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @simbany1 I just went through this exercise, but in a round-a-bout way: I am an EyeSpy360 subscriber as well but have begun to use Cubi.Casa for floor plans for three reasons:: 1) dimensions are more accurate, 2) the renders from Cubi.Casa look more like the floor plans we are used to seeing vs. the "artist rendering" sort of floor plan that comes from EyeSpy360, 3) My clients like the Cubi.Casa version much better, because they place equipment and some fixtures and also place doors on closets and other rooms, as well as observing accurate door swings. In any case, I noticed variances in the dimensions between the two methods, so I first wanted to compare Cubi-Casa to manual tape measurements. Overall, though there were slightly wider variances room to room, which tells me the Cubi.Casa app includes more (or less) in the rooms than my manual measurements, but the overall square footage measurement was within 1% - very similar to Matterport accuracy. I then compared room to room and overall dimensions from Cubi.Casa to an EyeSpy360 render. I found that EyeSpy360 exaggerates the sizes by about 7.5%, but the room-to-room variances between the two were +18.64% to -24.24%, a bit too much in my opinion, which together with the reasons cited above, is why I prefer Cubi.Casa over EyeSpy360 rendered floor plans. |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
MarkJohn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @bryanhscott Thanks for the comparison. The sort of variances you mention Manual vs Cubi.casa 1% / cubi.casa vs Eyespy360 7.5% are these across a wide sample of floor plans? Also can I ask what device are you using with Cubi.casa ...just a normal mobile phone? Interested as we have just started using EyeSpy360 but a level of accuracy is important to us. If it was 1% on a repeat basis I'd have a good look Cubi.casa Thanks |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
richardbollands private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @bryanhscott thankyou for manually testing those apps - I'm an architect looking to offer 360 tours as part of my package and have been trying to find out if the scanning apps are accurate enough for me to use for as builts instead of using my traditional pen and paper method. 1% is what I've been looking for but have always found Matterport too expensive for me / do not like the business model |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
bryanhscott private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @MarkJohn The measurement info I provided was for one sample space only. I wish I had at least 6 samples to make the data statistically valid, but I don't. On the question of which device I use, yes, a smart phone (iPhone 8), but my understanding is that any iPhone 7 or newer will work, as well as most newer iPads (check their spec requirements on their website to verify for sure). On the last issue related to repeatable results, as mentioned in the previous post on the subject, I found the one sample to be within 1% overall. The variances per room were larger than that, but when summed together for the total space, was just under .8% for that sample. So, encouraging yes, but absent the other 5 samples, the result is not statistically valid. @richardbollands When I hear the words "architect," and "asbuilts" used together my concern would be what your industry spec requirements are for accuracy. I am no architect, but if the client could or would use those asbuilts to build a new addition from, then my guess is that they are not usable, but if 1% is close enough for archiving, future bidding activities, and even facilities management activities, then great. Just know that, as I answered @MarkJohn above, my accuracy comments are based on only one sample. Therefore, before I declare a consistent 1% or better, I'd personally want to verify this on at least 6 sample spaces. |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
richardbollands private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @bryanhscott it would interesting to test against more samples, I will be starting using my 360 camera and testing cubicasa soon, so I will report my findings to the group | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
MarkJohn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @bryanhscott Thanks for the clarification ...understood. @richardbollands Thanks that would be useful. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
simbany1 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @bryanhscott thank you! Going to check out cubicasa for those floor plans. Let us know when you compared more sample spaces as well! | ||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Spint_Jeremy private msg quote post Address this user | |
  My work life is drawing 2D floor plans of large multi-block and multi-floor buildings, I've measured over 10,000,000 square metres of floor space over the last 20 years. I'm therefore always looking for simpler and quicker methods of creating my output. Attached are two files, the Cubi Casa file was my first attempt with this application and was without an edit request to fix the small issue. It took 12 minutes to walk the spaces and five days to return. The second file is created on the iPad app MagicPlan using a Leica Disto D2 to get exact measurements. It took 19 minutes to draft the completed output. Whilst I'm massively impressed with Cubi Casa, if you look at the variations in the dimensions you'll see they are too great for any technical purposes, but fantastic for a quick plan to reference spaces. |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
bryanhscott private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Spint_Jeremy Notwithstanding the room-to-room variances to your Leica Disto D2, what was the overall variance on the whole space. Just curious. As I had mentioned above, room-to-room variances were fairly wide (percentage-wise), but the overall space measurement was within 1%. | ||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?