Studying the Difference Between Mapping Accuracy of Non-RTK Ultra-Lightweight and RTK-Enabled Survey-Grade Drones

This study compares the mapping accuracy of a non-RTK ultra-lightweight drone (DJI Mini2) with two survey-grade RTK-enabled drones (DJI Mavic3E and Phantom4) in three different sites. Flight parameters and weather conditions were the same on each site. The outputs were orthomosaics and digital surface models, whose accuracies were inspected by descriptive statistics and variance analysis tools. The data of the ultralight drone on the first site could not be processed due to strong wind, but its results for the second site (11 hectares) were comparable to those of survey-grade drones, i.e., the range and average of checkpoint errors for Mini2 were 0.17 m and 0.04 m, respectively, while those were 0.10 m and 0.02 m for Phantom4 and Mavic3E. In the third site (34 hectares), survey-grade drones produced accurate results with a checkpoint error range of 0.26 m, while that was 0.87 m for the ultralight drone, implying lower accuracy results. The results obtained suggest that ultralight drones under certain circumstances can produce reliable mapping products depending on weather conditions, the number and distribution of ground control points, and area size. Their biggest drawback is their vulnerability to wind, and in calm weather conditions, due to non-RTK error accumulation, their mapping accuracy degenerates as the area size increases.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Automation
Published
2025-10-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/automation6040060
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Studying the Difference Between Mapping Accuracy of Non-RTK Ultra-Lightweight and RTK-Enabled Survey-Grade Drones

Mostafa Arastounia
1 citations
Automation
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
0.80
article

Studying the Difference Between Mapping Accuracy of Non-RTK Ultra-Lightweight and RTK-Enabled Survey-Grade Drones

Mostafa Arastounia
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This study compares the mapping accuracy of a non-RTK ultra-lightweight drone (DJI Mini2) with two survey-grade RTK-enabled drones (DJI Mavic3E and Phantom4) in three different sites. Flight parameters and weather conditions were the same on each site. The outputs were orthomosaics and digital surface models, whose accuracies were inspected by descriptive statistics and variance analysis tools. The data of the ultralight drone on the first site could not be processed due to strong wind, but its results for the second site (11 hectares) were comparable to those of survey-grade drones, i.e., the range and average of checkpoint errors for Mini2 were 0.17 m and 0.04 m, respectively, while those were 0.10 m and 0.02 m for Phantom4 and Mavic3E. In the third site (34 hectares), survey-grade drones produced accurate results with a checkpoint error range of 0.26 m, while that was 0.87 m for the ultralight drone, implying lower accuracy results. The results obtained suggest that ultralight drones under certain circumstances can produce reliable mapping products depending on weather conditions, the number and distribution of ground control points, and area size. Their biggest drawback is their vulnerability to wind, and in calm weather conditions, due to non-RTK error accumulation, their mapping accuracy degenerates as the area size increases.

AutomationVol. 6(4)
Kennesaw State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
0.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.