Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Terrain-Aware Adaptation for Two-Dimensional UAV Path Planners

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Terrain-aware refinement of 2D coverage paths yields 3D reconstructions with F1 gains up to 44 points on vertical testbeds, matching baseline on flat terrain.

desk verdict A practical, modest wrapper that turns a 2D coverage planner into a terrain-aware 3D mapper, with an open-source implementation and honest scope reporting — but single-run evaluation and an untested dependence on pre-scan quality keep the central claim conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17519 v2 pith:XV25IQRZ submitted 2025-07-23 cs.RO

Kostas Karakontis , Thanos Petsanis , Athanasios Ch. Kapoutsis , Pavlos Ch. Kapoutsis , Elias B. Kosmatopoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-UAVcoveragepathplanningterrain-aware3DreconstructioncameraviewpointoptimizationDARP-3Daerialphotogrammetrypre-scannedmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a standard two-dimensional coverage path planner can be upgraded for three-dimensional mapping simply by post-processing its waypoints: resetting altitude to follow the terrain and aiming each camera at nearby structure in a rough pre-scan. The authors wrap the well-known DARP planner this way and call the result DARP-3D. Across four simulated testbeds, DARP-3D improves cloud-to-cloud F1 scores over baseline DARP on the three with prominent vertical features, with gains up to 44.26 percentage points at the 5 cm threshold, while staying essentially equal on flat terrain. A real-world flight on commercial multicopter hardware produced visibly more complete models, especially in previously empty areas. If this holds, existing commercial 2D planning tools could gain 3D reconstruction capability without replacing their core coverage logic.

What carries the argument

DARP (Divide Areas for Optimal Multi-Robot Coverage Path Planning) supplies the baseline 2D paths. The load-bearing mechanism is the viewpoint refinement step, built on two searches: a KD-tree search finds terrain height under each waypoint and sets altitude to that height plus a safety offset, and a second search expands a downward-facing hemisphere of radius $r$ around the waypoint until it finds points from the pre-scanned point cloud, then computes yaw and pitch toward the point whose height is closest to the average height of all points found. This aim-at-the-average-height-point rule is what converts nadir views into oblique views of vertical structure, and the paper reports it runs in linear time per path.

What would settle it

Run DARP-3D on a testbed whose pre-scan deliberately omits a major vertical or occluded face, then compare its 5 cm and 10 cm cloud-to-cloud F1 recall on that face against baseline DARP using the same total image count; if the occluded face's recall does not improve, the claim that pre-scanned geometry guides better viewpoints is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reason 2D planners produce poor 3D reconstructions is not the coverage logic but the fixed altitude and downward-only camera, and that both can be corrected externally. DARP-3D uses the pre-scanned 3D model to rewrite each waypoint's altitude to the local terrain elevation plus a user offset, inserting extra waypoints where elevation changes exceed a margin, then searches a downward-facing hemisphere of growing radius around each waypoint to find scene points and aims the camera at the point closest to the cluster's average altitude. Aiming obliquely at vertical surfaces lets photogrammetry reconstruct faces that nadir imagery misses. The paper reports that DARP-3D beats DARP and a fixed 60-degree gimbal variant on the Rock, Cathedral, and Village testbeds at 5 cm and 10 cm thresholds, and roughly matches them on the flat Pallet Pile testbed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pre-scanned rough 3D model is faithful enough that aiming cameras at points in it improves reconstruction of the true scene; a sparse, biased, or erroneous first scan would cause the refined viewpoints to reinforce the model's mistakes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The wrapper is planner-agnostic: any fixed-altitude 2D coverage planner that outputs waypoints can receive the same altitude and camera-angle refinement.
  • The improved reconstruction comes at the same total image count as the baseline, because the first-stage pre-scan uses far fewer images and is not part of the final model.
  • The largest gains appear on terrain with significant vertical features; users mapping flat, low-relief areas should expect results similar to the baseline rather than large improvements.
  • The refinement runs offline with linear complexity and completed in under two minutes in dense test configurations, making it practical for field mission planning.
  • The refined plans can be loaded onto commercial drone hardware through standard mission APIs, as the real-world test demonstrates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Our inference: the same refinement could be applied to any downward-looking camera platform, not just rotorcraft, as long as the camera cannot point above the platform; otherwise the hemisphere constraint would need to change.
  • Our inference: relying on a pre-scan creates a possible bias loop, because surfaces the pre-scan misses will rarely be aimed at; feeding the improved model back into the pipeline for a second iteration is a natural next test.
  • Our inference: the paper's own future-work note points to abrupt yaw and pitch changes between waypoints causing overlap gaps; measuring whether smooth angle interpolation improves the 10 cm F1 score more than the 5 cm score would help separate overlap failures from pure coverage failures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modular post-processing stage for 2D multi-UAV coverage path planners that adjusts waypoint altitudes using a pre-scanned point cloud and computes camera yaw/pitch toward a heuristic target (the point closest to the mean altitude in a downward hemisphere). The method is instantiated as DARP-3D on top of the DARP planner and evaluated in four AirSim/OpenDroneMap simulated testbeds plus a qualitative real-world DJI flight. The authors report large F1-score improvements at 5 cm and 10 cm cloud-to-cloud thresholds on the Rock, Cathedral, and Village testbeds, near-baseline performance on the low-relief Pallet Pile testbed, and a real-world demonstration that fills visible gaps.

Significance. If supported, this is a practically valuable and low-complexity wrapper that could upgrade existing commercial 2D planners with terrain awareness. The open-source implementation, use of standard tools (ODM, AirSim, CloudCompare), and a real-world flight test are explicit strengths that increase reproducibility and practical relevance. However, the evaluation is single-run with no error bars, the method's dependence on pre-scan quality is never characterized, and the Pallet Pile result directly contradicts the abstract's 'consistently captures improved' claim. These issues currently prevent the central claim from being fully supported, although they appear addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III-B, Table I] Table I reports a single point estimate per testbed with no error bars, no repeated trials, and no statistical tests. Because the central claim is that DARP-3D 'consistently captures improved 3D reconstructions,' the evaluation must show that the observed gains are not due to run-to-run variation in AirSim/ODM or ICP alignment; add at least three independent runs with different random seeds and report mean/std or paired statistical tests.
  2. [§II-B, Algorithm 2; §III-C] The method's key camera-angle mechanism depends on the pre-scanned model, but the paper never varies pre-scan quality. Algorithm 2 grows the hemisphere radius until some point is found, so with a sparse or noisy pre-scan (the real-world pre-scan uses only 31 images) it can select a distant or off-surface target and reinforce initial model errors. A sensitivity study varying pre-scan density, noise, and viewpoint distribution is needed to establish that the reported gains are robust rather than conditional on favorable pre-scan conditions.
  3. [Table I; abstract] The Pallet Pile testbed contradicts the abstract's 'consistently captures improved' statement: precision drops by 4.55 percentage points at 5 cm and F1 drops by 0.11 percentage points at 10 cm. The text acknowledges the exception, but the abstract and conclusions should be qualified, or the paper should explicitly identify the terrain regimes where the method is and is not expected to help.
  4. [§III-B] The equal-image-count fairness statement is ambiguous. If the DARP-3D final model is reconstructed only from the 200 second-stage images while the DARP baseline uses 250 images, the comparison is not equal in reconstruction input; if the 50 pre-scan images are included, DARP-3D receives privileged prior information not available to the baseline. Please state exactly which image set produces each compared model and justify why the comparison is fair.
  5. [§III-B; Algorithms 1 and 2] The method introduces several free parameters (z_offset, tol/Δtol, r0/Δr, step, δz) and provides no sensitivity analysis. The Pallet Pile discussion itself attributes its regression to 'sensitivity to parameters definition.' Without varying these parameters, it is unclear whether the reported improvements are robust or are the result of favorable per-testbed tuning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are frequent typographical inconsistencies such as 'UA V' instead of 'UAV', 'W GS84' instead of 'WGS84', and 'xof f set' instead of 'x_offset' in the Figure 3 caption.
  2. [§II-B] The claim of 'O(n) linear time complexity' is not fully supported because Algorithm 2 includes a while-loop that expands the search radius and each SphereSearch has a KD-tree query cost; please state the assumptions and the worst-case complexity more carefully.
  3. [§III-C] The real-world validation is qualitative only; adding a cloud-to-cloud comparison for the real-world models, even with the same thresholds, would substantially strengthen the demonstration of practical effectiveness.
  4. [§III-B] The explanation of precision and recall under cloud-to-cloud thresholds is confusing ('the higher the value the more lenient the measurement becomes'); please define the two directions explicitly and state which cloud is the reference.
  5. [§III-B] The 5 cm and 10 cm thresholds are admittedly chosen arbitrarily; a short sensitivity check with additional thresholds (e.g., 2 cm and 20 cm) would make the reader more confident that the conclusions are not threshold artifacts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planner uses a rough pre-scan, but final reconstructions are scored against ground-truth models, not the pre-scan.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its headline claim. DARP-3D takes as input a rough pre-scanned 3D model and baseline 2D paths; Algorithm 1 adjusts waypoint altitude using a KD-tree search in that pre-scan, and Algorithm 2 selects camera yaw/pitch toward the pre-scan point closest to the mean altitude of points in a downward hemisphere. The final evaluation, however, compares the reconstructed meshes against the original ground-truth models via cloud-to-cloud distances in CloudCompare (Section III-B), not against the pre-scan. The paper explicitly separates the initial model from the comparison model in footnote 1: 'This initial 3D model should not be confused with the comparison model, which is produced using more images for evaluation purposes.' The image count is held equal between DARP and DARP-3D, and the real-world test is qualitative only. The DARP baseline is an external, well-documented algorithm, and the self-citations present (e.g., DARP [9], LFG [33]) are not load-bearing for the central claim. The Pallet Pile result showing slightly negative improvement is a limitation acknowledged in the text, not a circularity. Therefore, no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, and no load-bearing self-citation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim depends on several hand-set parameters (z_offset, search radii, step, delta_z), none of which are given numeric values or subjected to sensitivity analysis. The evaluation also relies on external tools (ODM, AirSim, CloudCompare) and a two-stage pre-scan assumption. The heuristic camera-targeting rule is an ad hoc modeling choice specific to this paper.

free parameters (7)
  • z_offset
    User-defined vertical offset added to terrain elevation for safe distance. Value not reported; directly sets waypoint altitude and affects overlap and camera view.
  • tol / Δtol
    Initial tolerance and increment for the KD-tree terrain search. No values given; affects which ground point is matched and therefore the terrain-following altitude.
  • r0 / Δr
    Initial radius and increment for the downward-facing hemisphere search. No values given; determines the selected point and hence camera yaw and pitch.
  • step
    Stride for traversing the path and inserting new waypoints. No value given; controls path density and image overlap.
  • delta_z (δz)
    Height-difference margin that triggers insertion of a new waypoint. No value given; affects path smoothness and coverage continuity.
  • Evaluation thresholds (5cm, 10cm)
    Cloud-to-cloud distance thresholds chosen 'arbitrary' in Section III-B. Changing thresholds changes the reported precision, recall, and F1 improvements.
  • Image split ratio in evaluation
    The paper splits the total image budget between the initial scan and the refined mission (e.g., 50/200 out of 250, and 31/146 in the real flight), calling the split 'arbitrary.' This choice affects the quality of the pre-scanned model and thus the final reconstruction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A pre-scanned 3D model of the RoI is available before planning.
    The two-stage pipeline requires an initial rough model; if unavailable or too sparse, the algorithm has no terrain data to adapt to. Section II, first paragraph.
  • domain assumption The KD-tree expanding-tolerance search will find points under each waypoint.
    Assumes the point cloud is dense enough and contains ground points near every waypoint; sparse clouds force large tolerances and may yield incorrect altitude. Section II-A, Algorithm 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The point closest to the average altitude in the downward hemisphere is a good camera target.
    This is a heuristic for favorable camera orientation with no theoretical justification; it may fail for complex or concave geometry. Section II-B, Algorithm 2.
  • domain assumption ODM and AirSim faithfully simulate and photogrammetrically reconstruct the environment.
    The evaluation depends on these tools being realistic; if ODM has systematic biases, the metrics are biased. Section III-A.
  • domain assumption Manual alignment plus ICP in CloudCompare is accurate enough for 5cm/10cm thresholds.
    Precision and recall at 5cm and 10cm depend on alignment quality; no alignment error quantification is provided. Section III-B, step 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Terrain-Aware Adaptation for Two-Dimensional UAV Path Planners." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XV25IQRZ

@misc{pith2026250717519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Terrain-Aware Adaptation for Two-Dimensional UAV Path Planners},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XV25IQRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17519}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-UAV Coverage Path Planning (mCPP) algorithms in popular commercial software typically treat a Region of Interest (RoI) only as a 2D plane, ignoring important3D structure characteristics. This leads to incomplete 3Dreconstructions, especially around occluded or vertical surfaces. In this paper, we propose a modular algorithm that can extend commercial two-dimensional path planners to facilitate terrain-aware planning by adjusting altitude and camera orientations. To demonstrate it, we extend the well-known DARP (Divide Areas for Optimal Multi-Robot Coverage Path Planning) algorithm and produce DARP-3D. We present simulation results in multiple 3D environments and a real-world flight test using DJI hardware. Compared to baseline, our approach consistently captures improved 3D reconstructions, particularly in areas with significant vertical features. An open-source implementation of the algorithm is available here:https://github.com/konskara/TerraPlan

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model side-by-side comparison of the Cathedral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of our 3D path planning extension algorithm applied to DARP. Stage 1 produces 2D paths from the baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of viewpoint adaptation to terrain mor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The four 3D models of chosen simulated testbeds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative evaluation of real-life experiment (b). Baseline algorithm (a), and extended approach (c) 3D models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Drones on the Rise: Exploring the Current and Future Potential of UAVs

    Islam, S. M. “Drones on the Rise: Exploring the Current and Future Potential of UA Vs.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13702 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    A comprehensive review of recent research trends on unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs)

    Telli, Khaled, et al. “A comprehensive review of recent research trends on unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs).” Systems 11.8 (2023): 400

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Overcome the Fear Of Missing Out: Active sensing UA V scanning for precision agriculture

    Krestenitis, Marios, et al. “Overcome the Fear Of Missing Out: Active sensing UA V scanning for precision agriculture.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 172 (2024): 104581

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    On the energy consumption of a quadcopter navigating in an orchard environment

    Stoican, Florin, et al. “On the energy consumption of a quadcopter navigating in an orchard environment.” 2024 32nd Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED). IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Dynamic Scene Path Planning of UA Vs Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning

    Tang, Jin, Yangang Liang, and Kebo Li. “Dynamic Scene Path Planning of UA Vs Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning.” Drones 8.2 (2024): 60

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Crack detection and quantification for concrete structures using UA V and transformer

    Ding, Wei, et al. “Crack detection and quantification for concrete structures using UA V and transformer.” Automation in Construction 152 (2023): 104929

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Distributed control for 3D inspection using multi-UA V systems

    Zacharia, Angelos, et al. “Distributed control for 3D inspection using multi-UA V systems.” 2023 31st Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED). IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    UA V bridge inspection through evaluated 3D re- constructions

    Chen, Siyuan, et al. “UA V bridge inspection through evaluated 3D re- constructions.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 24.4 (2019): 05019001

    work page 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    DARP: Divide areas algorithm for optimal multi- robot coverage path planning

    Kapoutsis, Athanasios Ch, Savvas A. Chatzichristofis, and Elias B. Kosmatopoulos. “DARP: Divide areas algorithm for optimal multi- robot coverage path planning.” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 86 (2017): 663-680

    2017

  2. [10]

    Predrecon: A prediction-boosted planning frame- work for fast and high-quality autonomous aerial reconstruction

    Feng, Chen, et al. “Predrecon: A prediction-boosted planning frame- work for fast and high-quality autonomous aerial reconstruction.” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Fc-planner: A skeleton-guided planning framework for fast aerial coverage of complex 3d scenes

    Feng, Chen, et al. “Fc-planner: A skeleton-guided planning framework for fast aerial coverage of complex 3d scenes.” 2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A Review on Viewpoints and Path Planning for UA V-Based 3-D Reconstruction

    Maboudi, Mehdi, et al. “A Review on Viewpoints and Path Planning for UA V-Based 3-D Reconstruction.” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 16 (2023): 5026- 5048

    2023

  5. [13]

    SOAR: Simultaneous Exploration and Pho- tographing with Heterogeneous UA Vs for Fast Autonomous Recon- struction

    Zhang, Mingjie, et al. “SOAR: Simultaneous Exploration and Pho- tographing with Heterogeneous UA Vs for Fast Autonomous Recon- struction.” 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Evolution- ary computation for unmanned aerial vehicle path planning: A survey

    Jiang, Yi, Xin-Xin Xu, Min-Yi Zheng, and Zhi-Hui Zhan. “Evolution- ary computation for unmanned aerial vehicle path planning: A survey.” Artificial Intelligence Review 57, no. 10 (2024): 267

    2024

  7. [15]

    Two-dimension path planning method based on improved ant colony algorithm

    Wang, Rong, and Hong Jiang. “Two-dimension path planning method based on improved ant colony algorithm.” Advances in Pure Mathe- matics 5.09 (2015): 571

    2015

  8. [16]

    A multi-robot coverage path planning algorithm based on improved darp algorithm

    Huang, Yufan, Man Li, and Tao Zhao. “A multi-robot coverage path planning algorithm based on improved darp algorithm.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09741 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Collaborative Hunt- ing Method of Multi-AUV in Three-Dimensional IoUT: Searching, Tracking, and Encirclement Keeping

    Zhang, Meiyan, Hao Chen, and Wenyu Cai. “Collaborative Hunt- ing Method of Multi-AUV in Three-Dimensional IoUT: Searching, Tracking, and Encirclement Keeping.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Improved BINN-Based Underwater Topography Scanning Coverage Path Planning for AUV in Internet of Underwater Things

    Cai, Wenyu, et al. “Improved BINN-Based Underwater Topography Scanning Coverage Path Planning for AUV in Internet of Underwater Things.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 10.20 (2023): 18375-18386

    2023

  11. [19]

    A multi-robot coverage path planning method for maritime search and rescue using multiple AUVs

    Cai, Chang, et al. “A multi-robot coverage path planning method for maritime search and rescue using multiple AUVs.” Remote Sensing 15.1 (2022): 93

    2022

  12. [20]

    Inspection of ship hulls with multiple uavs: Exploiting prior information for online path planning

    Grippa, Pasquale, et al. “Inspection of ship hulls with multiple uavs: Exploiting prior information for online path planning.” 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Multi-robot weighted cover- age path planning: a solution based on the DARP algorithm

    Idir, Olivier, and Alessandro Renzaglia. “Multi-robot weighted cover- age path planning: a solution based on the DARP algorithm.” 2022 17th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV). IEEE, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Tmstc*: A path planning algorithm for minimizing turns in multi-robot coverage

    Lu, Junjie, et al. “Tmstc*: A path planning algorithm for minimizing turns in multi-robot coverage.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Decentralized Multi-Agent Coverage Path Planning with Greedy Entropy Maximiza- tion

    Champagnie, Kale, Farshad Arvin, and Junyan Hu. “Decentralized Multi-Agent Coverage Path Planning with Greedy Entropy Maximiza- tion.” 2024 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    UGV Coverage Path Plan- ning: An Energy-Efficient Approach through Turn Reduction

    Baras, Nikolaos, and Minas Dasygenis. “UGV Coverage Path Plan- ning: An Energy-Efficient Approach through Turn Reduction.” Elec- tronics 12.13 (2023): 2959

    2023

  17. [25]

    Cooperative multi-UA V coverage mis- sion planning platform for remote sensing applications

    Apostolidis, Savvas D., et al. “Cooperative multi-UA V coverage mis- sion planning platform for remote sensing applications.” Autonomous Robots 46.2 (2022): 373-400

    2022

  18. [26]

    Automatic and semantically-aware 3D UA V flight planning for image-based 3D reconstruction

    Koch, Tobias, Marco K ¨orner, and Friedrich Fraundorfer. “Automatic and semantically-aware 3D UA V flight planning for image-based 3D reconstruction.” Remote Sensing 11.13 (2019): 1550

    2019

  19. [27]

    A multi-UA V coopera- tive route planning methodology for 3D fine-resolution building model reconstruction

    Zheng, Xiaocui, Fei Wang, and Zhanghua Li. “A multi-UA V coopera- tive route planning methodology for 3D fine-resolution building model reconstruction.” ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing 146 (2018): 483-494

    2018

  20. [28]

    OpenDroneMap/ODM GitHub Page 2020; https:// github.com/OpenDroneMap/ODM

    OpenDroneMap Authors ODM - A command line toolkit to generate maps, point clouds, 3D models and DEMs from drone, balloon or kite images. OpenDroneMap/ODM GitHub Page 2020; https:// github.com/OpenDroneMap/ODM

    2020

  21. [29]

    AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles

    S. Shah, D. Dey, C. Lovett, and A. Kapoor. “AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles.” Field and Service Robotics (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1705. 05065

    2017

  22. [30]

    Improving time and energy efficiency in multi-UA V coverage operations by optimizing the UA Vs’ initial posi- tions

    Stefanopoulou, Aliki, et al. “Improving time and energy efficiency in multi-UA V coverage operations by optimizing the UA Vs’ initial posi- tions.” International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications (2024): 1-19

    2024

  23. [31]

    CloudCompare (version 2.13) [GPL software]. (2024). Retrieved from http://www.cloudcompare.org/

    2024

  24. [32]

    Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/fossil-rock-in- dubai-0fbd27c662134e02a5a65aac2e9fe227

    Fossil Rock in Dubai 3D model. Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/fossil-rock-in- dubai-0fbd27c662134e02a5a65aac2e9fe227

  25. [33]

    LFG: An easy-to-use realistic synthetic LandFill Generator

    Petsanis, Thanos, Athanasios Ch Kapoutsis, and Elias B. Kosmatopou- los. “LFG: An easy-to-use realistic synthetic LandFill Generator.” SoftwareX 28 (2024): 101936

    2024

  26. [34]

    Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/village-corse- b7f785a8ceab436386d22833f80b32d0

    Village corse 3D model. Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/village-corse- b7f785a8ceab436386d22833f80b32d0

  27. [35]

    Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/cologne-cathedral- 200bac005a2e42458e64060d9719cd06

    Cologne Cathedral 3D model. Retrieved from https: //sketchfab.com/3d-models/cologne-cathedral- 200bac005a2e42458e64060d9719cd06

  28. [36]

    https://www

    CloudCompare Cloud-to-Cloud Distance. https://www. cloudcompare.org/doc/wiki/index.php/Cloud-to- Cloud_Distance

  29. [37]

    Stockpile volume es- timation in open and confined environments: a review

    Alsayed, Ahmad, and Mostafa RA Nabawy. “Stockpile volume es- timation in open and confined environments: a review.” Drones 7.8 (2023): 537

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.