Figure 9 above depicts a visual representation of the baseline errors derived in Table 10.
Notably, when WLT are not integrated, the error increases gradually over distance whereas in
the WLT enabled solution, the error is far more consistent and increases significantly less over
the course of the baseline. This indicates that not only does WLT help to mitigate the perceived
drift error, but that it also helps to make this error more consistent over the entire course of a
user's viewing experience.
Scenario 3 - Round Trip
Finally, by taking the observations found in scenario 3 (Table 3 above), positional errors can be
derived by differencing the observed model position from the true position of the anchor point.
Table 11 below highlights these errors.
Positional Error (m)
Hz Z 3D
WLT
Integrated
Round 1 0.065 0.002 0.065
Round 2 0.034 0.001 0.034
Round 3 0.099 0.004 0.099
WLT Not
Integrated
Round 4 1.086 -0.034 1.087
Round 5 1.048 -0.032 1.049
Round 6 1.006 -0.027 1.006
Table 11: Round Trip Positional Error (m)
By taking the average round trip error from the table above, a comparison can be drawn
between the WLT and non-WLT solutions. It is clear that WLT have made a significant impact
on retaining model stability as the user returns to the anchor location - resulting in a smaller
error by approximately 94%.
Figure 10: Round Trip Error (m)
15
