Automated extraction will never do a 100% of the work for you but actually handles the ornate stuff pretty well. The issue isn't so much of trust, as the output is overlaid on your point cloud for QA and completion, but whether the type of job, quality of scan data and output required are such that it adds value. The pictures below (excuse the quality, captured from a youtube video) are taken from a cathedral scan taken with a P40. The slice taken through the pillar below illustrates where auto-extraction provides real value as the complex combination of compound curves would be painful and time consuming to draw manually. This isn't about whether automated is better than manual tracing, it is all about having the right tools in your toolbox for the job your facing. Ideally, you'll have both options. Manual tracing is better in a noisy environment and with lower quality data where human judgement is needed for many of the picks. Automated tracing shines where you have clean data, vacant possession of the site, complex surfaces and a good scanner.stutosney wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:04 am I have always used Cloudworx for AutoCAD, similar to what you say, tracing over the lines. Then there is Revit as well. I just don't fully trust automated extraction programs, especially on highly ornate or old buildings that cathedrals etc as you have to do a lot of QA. They are handy for nice square rooms though.
Points from slice only
Automatically extracted polygon with embedded arcs
Overlay of scan and extracted data. Note the P40 allowed for fitting of arcs and lines to 2mm
My feeling is that automated extraction will continue to improve over time as raw data becomes cleaner and algorithms improve. The full video from a couple of years ago is here.
youtu.be/qoOPdkcYZuA