Performance testing of LiDAR exploitation software

Authors:
M. Varela-GonzáLez;H. GonzáLez-Jorge;B. Riveiro;P. Arias
Affiliations:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Mining Engineering, University of Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain;Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Mining Engineering, University of Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain;Department of Materials Engineering, Applied Mechanics and Construction, School of Industrial Engineering, University of Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain;Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Mining Engineering, University of Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain
Venue:
Computers & Geosciences
Year:
2013

Citing 7
Cited 0

The working set model for program behavior

Communications of the ACM
Evaluating error associated with lidar-derived DEM interpolation

Computers & Geosciences
Surface classification from airborne laser scanning data

Computers & Geosciences
Dual-scale validation of a medium-resolution coastal DEM with terrestrial LiDAR DSM and GPS

Computers & Geosciences
Using entropy measures for comparison of software traces

Information Sciences: an International Journal
A systematic review of software robustness

Information and Software Technology
Rock bench: Establishing a common repository and standards for assessing rockmass characteristics using LiDAR and photogrammetry

Computers & Geosciences

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Mobile LiDAR systems are being used widely in recent years for many applications in the field of geoscience. One of most important limitations of this technology is the large computational requirements involved in data processing. Several software solutions for data processing are available in the market, but users are often unknown about the methodologies to verify their performance accurately. In this work a methodology for LiDAR software performance testing is presented and six different suites are studied: QT Modeler, AutoCAD Civil 3D, Mars 7, Fledermaus, Carlson and TopoDOT (all of them in x64). Results depict as QTModeler, TopoDOT and AutoCAD Civil 3D allow the loading of large datasets, while Fledermaus, Mars7 and Carlson do not achieve these powerful performance. AutoCAD Civil 3D needs large loading time in comparison with the most powerful softwares such as QTModeler and TopoDOT. Carlson suite depicts the poorest results among all the softwares under study, where point clouds larger than 5 million points cannot be loaded and loading time is very large in comparison with the other suites even for the smaller datasets. AutoCAD Civil 3D, Carlson and TopoDOT show more threads than other softwares like QTModeler, Mars7 and Fledermaus.