Idag blir användningen av drönare allt mer vanlig för dokumentation av markytor. Det är ett billigare alternativ för att dokumentera små och otillgängliga områden. Genom tekniken går det bland annat att framställa olika digitala modeller som representerar jordens yta. En sådan modell kan vara en terrängmodell (DTM) som är en modell av markytan exklusive vegetation, hus eller annat som befinner sig på marken. Modeller kan framställas genom flygdata såsom laserskannad (LiDAR-data) eller flygfotograferade data (flygbilder). För att framställa en digital modell från rådata används olika programvaror. Den här studien utvärderar två olika programvarors förmåga att framställa digitala terrängmodeller från flygbilder. Främst undersöks levererade osäkerheter och användarvänligheten i programmen. Referensdata som användes i denna studie tillhandahölls av Norconsult och samlades in vid ett projekt över Hammarbyhöjdsskogen i Stockholm, hösten 2018. Den data som erhölls från projektet till denna studie var flygbilder samt terrestra detaljmätningar. Programmen som studien utvärderar är UAS Master som både använder datorseende och fotogrammetriska metoder och SURE Aerial som använder datorseende. Genom studien visade det sig att fler än de ursprungliga programvarorna behövdes för att framställa de digitala terrängmodellerna och vidare jämföra dessa. En orsak var att UAS Master saknade förmågor att redigera och visa punktmoln i 3D-vy och vidare skapa en DTM. Detta resulterade i att använda Trimble Business Center för slutarbetet. En annan orsak var att SURE Aerial visade sig vara avsett för framställning av digitala ytmodeller (representation av den faktiska, synliga ytan). För att framställa en DTM av punktmolnet användes både Cloud Compare och Agisoft Photoscan (numera Metashape). Geo användes sedan för att ta ut höjdavvikelserna från modellen. Två slutsatser som kunde dras utifrån denna studie var: 1) trots de olika tillvägagångssätten erhölls snarlika resultat för marktypernas lägesosäkerheter för respektive programvara (asfalt: 0,039 m; grus: ca 0,040 m; gräs: ca 0,048 m), varpå alla blev godkända enligt HMK – Flygfotografering 2017; 2) SURE Aerial är ett enklare och snabbbare program men med UAS Master har man som användare bättre förståelse över processerna och erhåller bättre dokumentation. / Drones have become a more and more frequent tool to document the surface of the ground, especially in smaller areas that otherwise are too expensive to observe by other means. This technology makes it possible to create digital terrain models (DTM) that represents the surface of the ground excluding vegetation, houses or other objects on the ground. These models can be created by laser scanned data (LiDAR-data) or aerial photogrammetry (aerial photos).  In order to create a digital model from raw data are various software needed. This study aims to test two software’s ability to create digital terrain models from UAS photos. The software were evaluated by the uncertainties of the models, as well as the user-friendliness of each software. All data used in this study was collected by Norconsult for another project in 2018 and consist of UAS photos and data from terrestrial measurements.  The softwares used in this study for comparison are UAS Master (using both computer vision and photogrammetric methods) and SURE Aerial (using computer vision). It turned out that additional use of software were needed to create DTMs that were comparable. UAS Master could not show or edit point clouds in 3D, because of this the software Trimble Business Centre had to be used. This program was also used to obtain height deviations. SURE Aerial on the other hand turned out to only be able to create digital surface models (models of the visible ground). The software Cloud Compare and Agisoft Photoscan (nowadays Metashape) were therefore used to create the DTM from the point cloud. The height deviations from the ladder DTM were obtained from the software Geo. Two conclusions could be drawn from this study: 1) the uncertainties of the different surface types were similar in the software despite the different ways to create the DTMs (asphalt: 0.039 m; gravel: 0.040 m; grass: 0.048 m). All of which meet the requirements according to HMK – Flygfotografering 2017; 2) SURE Aerial is a lot easier and quicker to work with but UAS Master give the user a lot more feedback in the way of documentation throughout the different processes.

There is a large number of design options to consider when designing aircraft vehicle systems for fighter aircraft, and there is a lack of tool support that provides an overview of these available design options. Various design options will bring consequences in terms of weight, performance, cost, etc. which is desired to be known in an early conceptual phase. Conventional methods, such as morphological matrix and design structure matrix, lack the ability to generate an overview and map complex systems. By studying model-based tools in form of ontologies and feature models in Protégé and FeatureIDE respectively, these tools are considered to provide a higher level of detail regarding the available design options compared to the conventional methods, such as the morphological matrix and the design structure matrix. Ontologies and feature-models are therefore considered to increase the effectiveness in the conceptual design phase of aircraft vehicle systems. By combining ontologies and feature models, more thoughtful design decisions can be performed. An increased knowledge of the available design options can lead to an improved development of aircraft vehicle systems, and new solutions can be evaluated. By performing more detailed trade studies for an unmanned aerial vehicle, for different system solutions, various parameters such as engine power outtake, system weight, etc. can be analysed and provide an indication whether a concept should be evaluated further. It is however necessary to consider how different parameters affect the overall system, and fuel penalty may be implemented as an equivalent parameter. Performing power flow calculations do however not consider solution-specific limitations, which have to be implemented to be able to determine if an aircraft vehicle system concept should be considered advantageous or not.