ı working 
irticipants 
S for 
ults. The 
us adjust- 
hts 26 to 
hieved by 
Note 
Sssor time 
(0.7 to 
tween the 
es for 
e unit, it 
random 
£8 In 
and 55 
elds 
and ele- 
perturba- 
| planimetric 
g control 
S produced 
tests of 
justments, 
ed weights 
atic 
ordinates 
he image 
type is 
nsiderably 
stematic ’ 
ock adjust- 
stematic 
nto sections 
tial decrease 
% decrease 
2A',55 and 
ted in 
ercent 
, Partici- 
6. The simultaneous linear transformation of all photographs (Partici- 
pant 2, Sequential) produced results comparable to sequential adjust- 
nents by higher degree polynomials (Table 5) at the cost of 4 times 
the computer time. However, note that approximately 807% of the 
central processor time utilized by Participant 2 was for relative 
orientation and assembly, a situation which could surely be improved. 
7. "Tests performed using UTM versus secant plane coordinates revealed 
no significant differences in the RMSE's in discrepancies. These 
tests were run by Participant l and are not tabulated in the report. 
The simulated data block continues to be a powerful tool for experi- 
mental studies in block adjustment. Further efforts should be made to 
determine the proper parameters for generating simulated residual systematic 
perturbations which best duplicate those found in practical applications. 
Subsequent efforts with simulated blocks should be directed toward experi- 
mental studies for establishing: (a) criteria for weighting which reflect 
the true worth of observed values; (b) realistic specifications for the 
observed quantities utilized in the triangulation adjustment; and (c) opti- 
mum ground control point arrays. , 
Í 
t 
i 
Í 
i 
i 
i 
i 
t 
f 
i 
: 
i 
| 
| 
t 
| 
E 
| 
| 
i 
i 
NG