Topic: figure prefix database

[sinc]

Yes, it does.

[Jeff H]

I owe you a apology Mr. Wedding.

I was joking and not fimilar with you because I do not do civil work and have opened Civil 3d once and got scared and confused and closed it.

So maybe if I act like a arse in the MEP fourms maybe I can get them to listen that they still size wires wrong.

[Dent Cermak]

You use the Figure Prefix Library to do ALL of your autolinework. When I build a surface the ONLY 3d poly I create is for curbs. You CAN use 2d polylines as breaklines for your surface. You DO NOT have to retrace them as 3d polys.  I have been doing it this way for over 20 years, so I do not need the experts telling me that I am wrong. The secret is "proximity faults".  I'm probably one of the few that use them. No instructor that I have EVER had from a VAR knew anything about them.
I build my surface from  the coordinate point file, "Contour Faults" and Proximity faults under the Breakline heading, and occasionaly the boundary line option. I use my 2d polys that are my asphakt, concrewte, buildings, walls, cl lines for roads and ditches. etc as proximity faults by polyline and it works just fine.
So before all of y'all tell me this will not work, try it. Like I said, I do it every day and it works on my drawings. (And if you were smart, you would be on Carlson where using the 2d polys is a table option that works very will. Just window everything and you are off to the races. But this method in LDD works VERY well.)

[mjfarrell]

The topic is is do you use it; because it mostly doesn't work to assign the figure styles correctly...

..only issue I have with the select all and Off to the Races Method; I've used it too many times, trying to ferret out, and edit or delete one of that multitude when they go awry.  Then I hate myself for not adding those breaklines in a more logical manner.  DOH!

[sinc]

So before all of y'all tell me this will not work, try it. Like I said, I do it every day and it works on my drawings. (And if you were smart, you would be on Carlson where using the 2d polys is a table option that works very will. Just window everything and you are off to the races. But this method in LDD works VERY well.)

C3D is a bit different.  When you use F2F, your linework comes in as Survey Figures.  You can configure them to draw flattened to Z=0 if you want, and you can still use them as normal breaklines - the elevations of the "flattened" figures is still used, with no need for Proximity Breaklines.

The problem with C3D's F2F is that, even if you flatten Survey Figures to Z=0, you STILL can't turn on Linetype Generation...

(And I'll let the "if you were smart, you would be on Carlson" comment slide, only mentioning that I've been seeing a number of companies lately dropping Carlson in favor of C3D...)

[Dent Cermak]

In my area, just the opposite is true. I know of no firms that have to do local and corps work that are willing to give up Carlson's ability to handle multiple F2F settings for figure prefix and descriptor key settings. The only companies that I have seen move away from Carlson were the ones that could not figure out how to configure the software for their needs. And that is only 2 firms out of the dozens I know of. Don't get me wrong, I loved my LDD, but most firms here simply cannot afford the cost of the software (these are surveying firms that cannot justify spending big bucks for C3D when they will use only about 20% of the packages capabilities.) nor the cost of the trainning that will be required to to go with 2010 C3D or the configuration costs. Local "trainning companies" are usually the VAR's and most of them come up WAY short when it comes to trainning.
I'm glad you know folks that are doing so well that they can afford to whiz away that much money, but times are tight in the South right now so I think it may be a while here before the event you mention happening here.

[mjfarrell]

Civil 3D can handle multiple FTF settings.  Yes training through the VAR, ATC, etc, is expensive and often falls way short of the users needs.  The good news is there are other sources for said training that will NOT cost $1200/user, and only last 3 days.  And with good training the 'configuration' is mostly accomplished through the tasks one does in said class.

Explore this option if it is not currently available.

Contact your local Community college, or technical school that issues a degree; as them if they have a "Business and Industry" department?  If they do request or state interest in having C3D training at their facilities.  And ask them to contact myself to schedule dates.  This will cost you slightly more than going to camp, and typically covers 5 days of training not 1 or 3.  At the end you will have functional mastery of C3D.  The software my not be perfect; however you will be able to apply it such as it is.

[sinc]

Don't get me wrong, I loved my LDD, but most firms here simply cannot afford the cost of the software (these are surveying firms that cannot justify spending big bucks for C3D when they will use only about 20% of the packages capabilities.) nor the cost of the trainning that will be required to to go with 2010 C3D or the configuration costs.

There isn't much difference in cost between a seat of C3D and a seat of Carlson.  And we use FAR more than 20% of the program...  More like 80%.

The up-front configuration is definitely arduous, but once it is done, it is very easy to work extremely quickly in C3D, yet produce very high-quality work with a great degree of consistency.

Of course, it's only software, so no matt4er what software you choose, that's only part of the equation.  We have a local city government that has their own Surveyors, yet they still keep hiring us to do design surveys for them.  They are much happier with what they get from us, than with what they get from their own Surveyors.  They've said things like "Our guys are using this Carlson crap..."  Now I know Carlson isn't crap, but it's just software.  You won't magically get awesome results simply because you use Carlson.  Carlson is also a relatively complex program that takes a fair bit of time to learn to use well.  And there are things that it does better than Civil 3D.  But there's also a lot C3D does better than Carlson.

C3D may not be the right choice for everybody, but it's wrong to say "If you're smart, you'd be using Carlson".  That's rubbish.

[Dent Cermak]

The figures linetypes function has been broken now since it's original introduction...thank everyone that pays their subscription fees

however one can set it draw them 'flattened' to 2d and STILL not have them show up correctly either...

let me verify that with 2011 real quick...stand by for edit to this post.

Mike, I must disagree. I have been using the figure prefix library and descriptor keys for all of my line work and symbology since ACAD14/SDSK8 to LDD2008 without any problems what so ever. Using these 2d polys as breaklines by "Proximity faults by polyline" has served us well in all of these versions. Major changes were made in AutoCad after LDD2008 and these changes may have broken the system, but to say that the figure Prefix Library has never worked since its inception is just not correct.
The MANY changes that AutoDesk employed after the 2008 version are the main reason that my company switched products. I can see where they are headed with these changes, but it would have been better to wait to implement the changes when the full system was functional. Insted they chose to "upgrade" annually. Now, it appears that that decision may be biting them in the keester.

[mjfarrell]

Dent; you missed that I am talking about a C3D specific issue wherein the Figure Style is NOT honored by the application during import (Survey Import Event).  Clear?

[Dent Cermak]

Don't get me wrong, I loved my LDD, but most firms here simply cannot afford the cost of the software (these are surveying firms that cannot justify spending big bucks for C3D when they will use only about 20% of the packages capabilities.) nor the cost of the trainning that will be required to to go with 2010 C3D or the configuration costs.

There isn't much difference in cost between a seat of C3D and a seat of Carlson.  And we use FAR more than 20% of the program...  More like 80%.

The up-front configuration is definitely arduous, but once it is done, it is very easy to work extremely quickly in C3D, yet produce very high-quality work with a great degree of consistency.

Of course, it's only software, so no matt4er what software you choose, that's only part of the equation.  We have a local city government that has their own Surveyors, yet they still keep hiring us to do design surveys for them.  They are much happier with what they get from us, than with what they get from their own Surveyors.  They've said things like "Our guys are using this Carlson crap..."  Now I know Carlson isn't crap, but it's just software.  You won't magically get awesome results simply because you use Carlson.  Carlson is also a relatively complex program that takes a fair bit of time to learn to use well.  And there are things that it does better than Civil 3D.  But there's also a lot C3D does better than Carlson.

C3D may not be the right choice for everybody, but it's wrong to say "If you're smart, you'd be using Carlson".  That's rubbish.

I am talking about companies like mine that are purely survey companies. In such a case the costs are definately a major issue. I am not going to design bridges or roadway, I am going to do property survey and topos, thus my use would be at the mentioned 20% level. For me to say that it is a smart for a SURVEY firm to use Carlson is not rubbish at all, it is fact. (When responding, please remember your audience. Not all of us work for the same type corporate structures.)

[Dent Cermak]

Dent; you missed that I am talking about a C3D specific issue wherein the Figure Style is NOT honored by the application during import (Survey Import Event).  Clear?

We seem to be in agreement that C3D is broken. Until AutoDesk realises how much this broken features cripples its survey users, they will continue to lose customers. This, in essence, puts the survey user back to drawing "node to node". That is a war stopper.

[mjfarrell]

Dent; you missed that I am talking about a C3D specific issue wherein the Figure Style is NOT honored by the application during import (Survey Import Event).  Clear?

We seem to be in agreement that C3D is broken. Until AutoDesk realises how much this broken features cripples its survey users, they will continue to lose customers. This, in essence, puts the survey user back to drawing "node to node". That is a war stopper.

Uh, no they do NOT have to draw node to node.  There are ways to work around the issue.

Granted one should not have to 'work around' such a fundamental fail in what could be called their flagship civil product.

[sinc]

I am talking about companies like mine that are purely survey companies. In such a case the costs are definately a major issue. I am not going to design bridges or roadway, I am going to do property survey and topos, thus my use would be at the mentioned 20% level. For me to say that it is a smart for a SURVEY firm to use Carlson is not rubbish at all, it is fact. (When responding, please remember your audience. Not all of us work for the same type corporate structures.)

I don't understand your post.

We're a Survey-only firm, a small company with about a dozen people total.  I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to "corporate structures".

I never said that C3D was the best choice for everybody...  In fact, I said quite the opposite.  Where I flat-out disagree with you is where you say "If you were smart, you'd be using Carlson"...  If you're smart, you analyze the capabilities of each system, compared with what you want to do, and you make the appropriate choice.

Saying that Carlson is the only possible choice is simply ridiculous, and probably has more to do with Autodesk-angst than anything...  I understand Autodesk-angst, but you can get carried away...

We see the Survey industry changing.  It's no longer enough for most people to simply do what they've done for the last 30 years.  The industry has changed significantly, and we're keeping up with the changes, and doing things we never even dreamed of four years ago.  That's why I say we probably use more like 80% of Civil 3D, even though we are a Survey-only firm.  And we've been busy lately, while other competing companies in our area are cutting back to skeleton staffs, or have gone out of business.  If you have a niche where you're comfortable, great, but don't get overly-complacent in your niche...

[sinc]

We seem to be in agreement that C3D is broken. Until AutoDesk realises how much this broken features cripples its survey users, they will continue to lose customers. This, in essence, puts the survey user back to drawing "node to node". That is a war stopper.

I think you're focusing on the wrong points...

The inability to control linetype generation for Survey Figures is an embarrassment to Autodesk, especially since the problem has existed for so many releases.  But it hardly means we need to draw "node to node"...  We've been using F2F since we started using C3D, and yeah, it was painful at first, when it was essentially the same limited system as we had in LDD.  But it's better now.

If you want to complain about C3D for Surveyors, I'd think you'd concentrate on the more-important failures...  Such as the failure to integrate Map with C3D, the inability to apply Transformation Tab settings to import/export, the failure to apply transformations to LandXML import, the mishandling of floating scale factors, the cheesy Survey Database, the inability to draw parcels from legal descriptions, the inability to data reference Parcels, the inability to group Parcels, etc.  Why harp on such a minor point as linetype generation, when there are so many other massive targets?

And while there are lots of problems with C3D, it can also do an awful lot, and while it might be painful and even ridiculous at times, we can work around all the problems I just mentioned.  So we have to look at the package as a whole...  No package is without flaws.  You have to look at the big picture of what you can accomplish with the software.