I have found that when a project fails it often does so at the AT stage and that it is difficult to then get it back after this. We are currently looking at geotagging our images with an RTK solution. Will this increase the chances of a successful AT?
From my own limited understanding, using RTK will enhance processing time and increase the final accuracy of the project geolocation but not improve the chances of a correct triangulation.
I understand it can be used in an “alternative processing mode” but not sure how this works. Any light that can be shed on this would be appreciated.
In our experience, a project failure is often caused by low overlap between images. In this case, the RTK will give better priors for the location of the camera, but will not help correct for the low overlap. You can see our recommendations for flight planning here
https://support.pix4d.com/hc/en-us/articles/202557459-Step-1-Before-Starting-a-Project-1-Designing-the-Image-Acquisition-Plan-a-Selecting-the-Images-Acquisition-Plan-Type
The alternative calibration method is something else entirely. It is a different algorithm used for the calibration. It is recommended when the scene is relatively flat (not much height variation) and there is image geolocation. The textbook case is an agricultural field.