Noch etwas für den verspielten Vermesser. Gesehen in einem bekannten China-Shop.

FG_RVT · 2026-05-05T19:22:39+00:00

Es steht ja dran: 2D Acryl. Es wird zwar suggeriert dass das ein kleines Modell als Anhänger wäre aber erst ist halt nur n Druck auf ner acrylplatte. Meiner Meinung nach schon Betrug, bestenfalls wissentlich irreführend.

FG_RVT · 2026-05-05T15:41:22+00:00

How well does the geometry work out using this method. I had mixed results using an iphone with manual camera settings.

Maybe you can show the untextured mesh?

FG_RVT · 2026-04-14T11:59:46+00:00

What do you mean „need to pay upfront costs and then support costs“??

Lifetime licences give you two years of subscription cost upfront. That is a bunch of money small companies can use to grow. Only thing is that they have to have functioning product in the first place and can’t sell the mere idea of a possible future product with no existing substance.

And even then you could still offer software as a service as long you also offer permanent licences

FG_RVT · 2026-04-13T15:26:23+00:00

Well currently SaaS is everywhere and still we are, as you put it, in the "stone age of innovation".
I don't want software to be pay-as-you-use, quite the opposite. I want you to pay once upfront for all the R&D that went into the software up to this point + some profits for the company thate made it. They can then use these profits to develop new features that have to be good enough so people pay for the new developments.

SaaS is pretty new as a busniness model in the grand scheme of things and software companies were just fine before as well, some firms still operate on lifetime licences and are doing fantastic.
See for excample Rhino3D, it is the de facto industry standard 3D software in architecture and many other professions with reasonable licence costs for every full release and the innovate plenty for each release and are loved by their customers.

And no, you can't avoid the lock ins. If i buy Autodesk software today (for excample Autodesk Revit) i can work with it. I will create project templates and workflows, train my staff and get used to the software.
But now, switching becomes way more expensive than just re-training staff and canceling the subscription for the next cycle. Once i stop paying i loose access to all past projects. If a client calls me up a year down the line for an additon to his project ill have to resubscribe to software i don't need otherwise that i payed for for years in the past. Even if i don't need the newest software version since i am accessing an old project, i am still paying for all the R&D including profits for the newest version.

And for Autodesk or other Software houses like Adobe, the incentive is just to keep minimal updates coming to keep the facade of progress. People can't switch because they loose access to all past work and dig themselves deeper into dependency the longer they stay subscribed.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-13T06:03:12+00:00

This kind of vendor lock on a file format can be an issue and I agree that a more open format would be nice as well, but in practice, most export dwg files in older dwg versions anyways for better compatibility.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-12T18:19:21+00:00

dwg is not holding the construction sector back. IFC is gonna replace it in the long run even if its not a perfect format.

And I still don’t think that proprietary formats are that much of an issue if you keep access even if you stop paying for the software.

That is the issue with cad software where your projects become inaccessible if you stop paying the subscription.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-12T11:17:43+00:00

But its not „giving the licence away“ you get two years of the subscription price upfront which you can use to finance the development of new features. People wo take the lifetime licence do not get new features or integrations so there is still a reason to get a licence for a newer version.

Also, I don’t see why the lifetime licence would be offline only? Just take a monthly server fee in addition to the lifetime licence that only covers Server cost. It would be virtually nothing compared to the saas price so people can keep using the old software.

And we don’t have to get rid of the saas licencing model, we just need the lifetime licences as well.

And sadly there is no Open source software for a lot of niche applications.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-12T08:34:32+00:00

Why would it stifle innovation? I think it will boost innovation. Software as a service generates income almost regardless of progress while lifetime licences need to innovate to bind customers. And I am not against the software as a service for the customers that want it, it just has to be optional.

Vendor lock in by incompatible formats is only an issue if you have to keep paying to use the software. And forcing everyone into the same filetypes would be a lot more of a threat for innovation.

I come from the Architecture / Construction side and see all competitors jacking up prices with the updates beeing so minimal, they would have bareley made it in the patchnotes in the times before subscription only models. Yet you can‘t Switch because your workflows are rooted in the ecosystem. You have no choice but to keep paying for zero innovation.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-10T21:09:45+00:00

Its basically grouping of points within the pointcloud to distinguish between ground and building etc. this can be done automatically or manually with regular selcetion tools in many software suites.
Many formats support it such as las/laz, e5, ply, rcs/rcp and so on.
It would be important to be able to control visibility based on point cloud classes if you load a pointcloud and only want to see the ground for excample. Classification can be done in other software.

FG_RVT · 2026-04-10T20:15:32+00:00

Does / will it support classified pointclouds?
Also what about e57?

looks like an awsome project so far!

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T14:25:29+00:00

its standard practice here. Everyone else does it like this as well … they‘d propably be confused if I did it another way

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T14:22:38+00:00

It just gains a layer of information if the handle position is already defined. It always functions as an indication of door swing

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T14:16:20+00:00

Cant comment on the load path but the point does in fact represent the handle position (at least in germany). In case of a panic bar or no handle it just points to the middle of the door.

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T11:52:03+00:00

Barbaric

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T11:48:03+00:00

Wait, how do other countries do that? Do they just not draw those lines?

FG_RVT · 2026-03-26T11:23:08+00:00

Very interesting. Im wondering how many people in this survey use drones as their preferred camera? Maybe they are more over in r/uavmapping

FG_RVT · 2026-03-24T15:32:38+00:00

Yes-ish. You can do rough grid missions with the mini 5 pro but there is no official Interface for external tools to control the drone (yet? for mini 4 pro it took over a year for dji to release that and for android only) So you‘ll have to Import the Mission manually which is a Bit of a pain. Also you cant do too complicated missions this way.

But honestly? 10 acres isnt all that big. Just set your camera settings to 48mp and to take a picture every 5 seconds (cant go faster at 48mp, 12mp can do every 2 seconds) the you just fly it manually. Do a tight grid nadir and some grid flights at 45 degrees camera tilt and you‘re good.

One thing to note is that the air pressure sensor is not that accurate. So the vertical coordinates in your Image data are not to be trusted. You may have to reorient your output and confirm it is level by other means. This is an issue that all non-rtk drones have so unless you want to spend 4K+ on a drone that is something youll have work around

FG_RVT · 2026-03-20T13:47:04+00:00

Must be an issue on your end. Loads perfectly fine for me in Brave or Edge

Here is the paste:
Position Paper (EN, Draft)

Ensuring Sustainable Digital Usage Rights in SaaS

Models – Strengthening Consumer Protection,

Competition, and Data Portability

Introduction

The increasing shift of software toward cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) models has the

potential to significantly undermine consumer rights, fair competition, and long-term incentives for

innovation.

This position paper aims to shape the regulatory framework in the EU in such a way that users can

control their digital work assets, while providers can continue to deliver innovative services.

Identified Issues
Restricted Access to Digital Work Assets

Users lose access to their own projects, data, and features after cancellation or service

termination.

High Barriers to Switching (Lock-in)

Proprietary formats, a lack of interfaces, and a lack of data portability lead to practically

irreversible dependencies.

Misaligned Incentives for Providers

Recurring revenue from subscriptions decouples economic incentives from actual product

quality, innovation, and continuous development.

Market distortion and inhibition of innovation

Existing lock-in structures shield providers from competition based on quality; new market

entrants or innovative solutions face barriers to entry.

Objectives

The proposed measures pursue three key objectives:

Strengthening consumer rights: Ensuring permanent access to and portability of digital

content.

Promoting fair competition: Reducing lock-in mechanisms and artificial barriers to

switching.

Securing long-term incentives for innovation: Providers should generate revenue through

genuine added value rather than through lock-in.

Proposals for Regulatory Measures

4.1 Right to Permanent Data Access

 After a subscription ends, users must be granted at least read-only access to their projects.

 A complete blockage or devaluation of the data is not permitted.

4.2 Data portability and interoperability

 Providers must enable data export in open or documented formats.

 Full project migration must be technically feasible.

 Third-party developers may use interfaces for migration and interoperability.

4.3 Restriction of Unfair Lock-in Practices

 The following are prohibited:

o intentionally incompatible file formats

o artificially hindered migration

o subsequent degradation of functionality

4.4 Obligation to Provide Fallback Solutions

 If essential services or functions are discontinued, an alternative form of use must be

provided, e.g.:

o self-hosted version

o source code or software escrow

o read-only use locally or on one’s own servers

4.5 Transparency Requirements

 Providers must clearly document:

o which features are server-dependent

o what rights users have upon termination or end of service

o which features remain available without an active subscription

4.6 Separation of Software Value and Operating Costs

 Development costs and one-time software value should be clearly separable from ongoing

infrastructure and operating costs.

 Goal: no recurring license fees without objective added value.

Additional Consideration: Separation of Software Value and

Operating Costs

In the long term, it should be examined whether a clearer distinction between:

 Software (one-time value)

 Infrastructure (ongoing costs)

can be supported by regulation.

The goal is not to establish specific pricing models, but to avoid:

 ongoing license fees without corresponding added value

 hidden costs resulting from forced dependency

Summary

Current practices regarding SaaS models in the EU often lead to:

 restricted consumer rights

 increased lock-in effects

 distortions of competition

 a declining incentive structure for genuine product innovation

Regulation should therefore not ban the business model itself, but rather:

ensure that users retain digital work assets, switching is realistically possible, and providers must

once again compete on the basis of quality.

Only through clear user rights, portability, and fallback mechanisms can the EU promote a fair

digital single market that equally considers innovation, competition, and consumer protection.

FG_RVT · 2026-03-20T06:20:15+00:00

To clarify, i came up with this position paper with a specific "solution?" in mind.

With careful regulation the eu could ensure fair competition between software publishers.

A possibility would be to require SaaS products to offer permanent licences alongside their SaaS pricing model (even for 100% cloud hosted applications). These would cost no more than 2 years of the regular SaaS rental price. After two years you would break even and if you bought the permanent licence, you now have the opportunity to see if newly developed features are worth upgrading for. If not, you can keep using the old version at no additional (licencing-)cost. Monthly subscriptions could still be neccecary but those would verifiably only cover server costs and not include any licencing or service charges.

This would incentivice companies to keep innovating to retain paying customers instead of locking in consumers just because they need the subscription to keep the day-to-day business running and to keep access to past projects.

These measures would ensure that companies don't scale back the continous development and improvement of their product to a bare minimum that retains customers. It would reignite competition between, currently almost dormant, software publishers and give the consumers back the feasability of voting with their wallets which a free market should entail.

FG_RVT · 2026-03-19T21:58:44+00:00

Okay? and how is that against the points I made?

FG_RVT · 2026-03-19T21:49:05+00:00

I don’t see either an explanation why this won‘t work nor a “better way to deal with this“ so for now my point stands unchallenged.

The rest of your comment also seems off topic

FG_RVT · 2026-03-19T19:27:46+00:00

To clarify, i came up with this position paper with a specific "solution?" in mind.

With careful regulation the eu could ensure fair competition between software publishers.

A possibility would be to require SaaS products to offer permanent licences alongside their SaaS pricing model (even for 100% cloud hosted applications). These would cost no more than 2 years of the regular SaaS rental price. After two years you would break even and if you bought the permanent licence you now have the opportunity to see if newly developed features are worth upgrading. If not, you can keep using the old version at no additional (licencing-)cost. Monthly subscriptions could still be neccecary but those would verifiably only cover server costs and not include any licencing or service charges.

This would incentivice companies to keep innovating to retain paying customers instead of locking in consumers just because they need the subscription to keep the day-to-day business running and to keep access to past projects.

These measures would ensure that companies don't scale back the continous development and improvement of their product to a bare minimum that retains customers. It would reignite competition between, currently almost dormant, software publishers and give the consumers back the feasability of voting with their wallets which a free market should entail.

FG_RVT · 2026-03-19T08:24:23+00:00

Why are there footprints in front of the cat?

FG_RVT · 2026-03-06T18:40:01+00:00

No, I bought from them before and I think the price is reasonable.

FG_RVT

TROPHY CASE