## 3 Results and Discussion
### Variation in Overlap and Height
At 10 m,  
Figure 10: Average relative volume error behavior for different severity levels when varying overlap and height for vertical image acquisition (90\({}^{\circ}\)). (**a**) Low severity; (**b**) mean severity; (**c**) high severity. the least error was obtained (35.8%) with an overlap of 80%, which has 1% less error compared to the overlap of 75%, while for an overlap of 85 and 90% the error is reduced by 18.6 to 20.1%. At 15 m, the minimum error value (39.1%) was obtained with an overlap of 80%, which has between 20.0 and 25.6% less error compared to the other overlaps (75, 85 and 90%). For 20 m and an overlap of 75%, an error of 64.6% was produced, which is the lowest for this height, comparing this error with respect to overlaps of 80 and 85% there is a difference between 0.8 and 2.8% less error respectively, more than that, the error is reduced by 11.6% compared to an overlap of 90%. At 25 m, the least error was obtained (71.3%) for an 85% overlap, which is between 21.6 and 26.4% less error compared to other overlaps (75, 80 and 90%). At 30 m, the error obtained was 96.5% for an overlap of 75%, which is the lowest and at the same time high considering its magnitude, so it loses practical value. At 40 m, the error is higher than that obtained at a height of 30 m. From the above it is observed that from 30 m it loses practical value. From Figure 10c, a trend is observed of overlapping error increasing as the capture height grows. However, at 15 m with an overlap of 80%, the volume obtained was 1.8% lower than that obtained at 10 m with the same overlap. This is probably explained by problems in rebuilding with the software. On the other hand, it is observed that the error is similar to that made in the previous analysis, since at 10 m the error is greater than 30% for overlaps of 75 and 80% and more than 40% for overlaps of 85 and 90%, indicating that the experiment does not work properly for this type of analysis. At 2 m, the minimum error was 0.9%, which is associated with a 90% overlap, this error is 1.2% lower compared to an overlap of 85%, even more so the error is reduced by more than 1.9% compared to overlaps of 75 and 80%. At 5 m, the 80% overlap has the lowest error (5.5%), an error that is 7.5% less compared to a 90% overlap. Moreover, the error is reduced by more than 8.8% compared to 75 and 85% overlaps. At 8 m, the least error (24.6%) was obtained with an overlap of 85%. At 10 m, the least error was obtained (35.7%) with an overlap of 80%, which has 0.9% less error compared to the overlap of 75%. Moreover, the error is reduced by 5.6 to 7.8% compared to overlaps of 85 and 90%. At 15 m, and with an overlap of 80% an error of 33.9% was obtained, which is the lowest for that height, and which is 11.9% lower compared to the overlap of 75%. Moreover, the error is reduced by 25.2 to 27.7% compared to overlaps of 85 and 90%. For 20 m, the lowest error is 41.2%, which is associated with an 80% overlap, and has 10% less error compared to an overlap of 75%. Moreover, the error is reduced by 23.8 to 34.6% compared to overlaps of 85 and 90%. At 25 m, the least error was obtained (75.9%) with an 85% overlap, which is between 9.7 and 18.8% less error compared to the other overlaps (75, 80 and 90%). At 30 m, the minimum error (90.2%) was held for an overlap of 90%, which has no practical value. At 40 m, the error is high with respect to the value obtained at a height of 30 m. For the overlaps of 75, 80 and 85%, the volume could not be measured because no depth was recorded.