Topic: FDOT C3d 2011

[cadtag]

if anyone is interested,  FDoT is beginning to roll out their flavor of c3d.  I was not able to install since the .msi fails with an error if c3d 2011 is not in the OOTB location.  Corp does it differently, and by the response from FDoT, they are not interested in fixing it at this point.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ecso/downloads/publications/civil3dworkflows/default.shtm

[mjfarrell]

Looks like the results of trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, thus creating one that needs to be solved.

Also of interest, that they are not allowing use of C3D for ALL production work, and only for use on selected pilot projects.

Sounds like those working with FDOT and C3D would be served well by better training with the product.

[alanjt]

From what I've heard, it's going to take a lot of the functionality out of corridors, etc. since FDOT's Entity Manager, etc. are written to function as old Microstation commands and any forward thinking from Autodesk gets ignored. A lot has to do with the way their QTO manager is set up.

[mjfarrell]

Your answer seems to amplify the need for training.

[alanjt]

Your answer seems to amplify the need for training.

Without a doubt. FDOTC3D isn't something you just pick up. We went to the initial/beta FLUG training weekend and it didn't even come close to explaining what you might need to know to use the software.

[cadtag]

Wisconsin DoT looks to have a beta for c3d 2010, and they too seem to go along with the fdot approach of making the adesk package work as much as possible as the bentley stuff -- regardless of loss of functionality.  Makes a bit more sense if you think of the DoTs as facility management organizations rather than engineering outifits, consumers of road data rather than creators, and needing any incoming info to feed into current systems.

of course, if WisDoT s beta testing 2010, and FDoT is beta testing 2011, when 2012 is shipping, it really doesn't bode well for the future of C3D in DoT work.

[mjfarrell]

It would be suggested that they simply use C3D as it is, and only use they data they want without dumbing down the data in any way.
Probably far easier to write reports with the data in the desired format, than to not use all of the tools to their full potential.

[BruceDana]

We invite you to give us (FDOT) a call about our implementation.  Contrary to what has been said here, we haven't removed any C3D functionality, and actually have extended it. 

On this one point, Entity Manager simply allows you to draw elements that will always land on the right Layer with the QTO data already attached, and XData also already attached so our subassemblies will automatically insert and target without the designer having to specify targets (again) in the assembly.  You select and draw entities by the objects that they are, that is you draw a "curb line,"  not have to hunt down a level that has an exotic name to draw the "curb line."

The only anchor to our long standing MicroStation Standards are we continue to use the same legacy (MicroStation V8) filename / Level(Layer) / Color / Weight(Thickness) / Linetype (Linestyles) / Cell(Block) CADD Standards.  It sure makes tanslation between system that much easier (if translation becomes necessary).  The National CADD Standard (OOTB Civil 3D) just didn't work for us.

As far as installation, we plan to improve that where our content will install wherever Civil 3D may be installed.  We tried to use the Autodesk Country Kit installer provided by Autodesk, but it couldn't do 2 critical things: 1) install applications, 2) install our content without intermingling it with Autodesk content - besides being buggy and not uninstalling correctly.  So we wrote our own install, and would love to get guidance on how to make our content (and Civil 3d) more location agnostic (Autodesk Consulting still has not been able to help us get there completely).  Again, please contact us - We would like some specific answers on how to improve this?

We'll also admit we could always use more training, but we've just about exhausted everything Autodesk has available.  If there was a CADD Manager's course that would help us focus on specific configuration issues we are having, and help get us over the hump of getting the install of our content where it could be installed anywhere, and have Civil 3D still work - that would be a benefit.  We're also working on  unifying our install so one msi will do both 32-bit and 64-bit installs.
Call us, toll free at (866) 374-3368 ext 1600 or visit us on the web at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ecso/ and ask for someone on the Civil 3D implementation team.  Thanks!

[Mark]

Welcome to TheSwamp Bruce. Thanks for coming by and letting us in on what's happening at FDOT.

[alanjt]

Open mouth, insert foot. Big Brother is still watching.   

Bruce, that's wonderful to hear from an actual FDOT employee (especially one I met at the FLUG training last year) that Civil 3D will not be 'dumbed down'. As I said, it was based on hear-say and hear-say alone.
If what you say is true, I retract my statement and humbly apologize.

[mjfarrell]

Welcome Bruce.

Thanks for confirming what I've said since the beginning; that the NCS is neither National, nor the Standard and it doesn't work well for most other users either.
Also thanks for clarifying what FDOT was or has 'modified' within C3D for their needs.

[BruceDana]

We posted many of the presentation we did at the Region update training we did last Fall 2010 here:  http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ecso/main/FDOT2010RegionalCADDUpdate.shtm

This was a mixed platform presentation, so you will find some of the MicroStation related ones also.  Of course without a video recording, just the handout is less than the "live."

We intend to repbish the pages with the "State Kit" workflows before the end of June, with several additional workflows.  Our goal was to rely upon external resources for all of the fundamental Civil 3D workflows and operations, and only produce our own when we had something specific to set or something that deviated slighly from those you see in the Autodesk documentation or the very good books that are our there.

Also, we want input, criticism (good and bad), and help testing what we put out there.  We do not have the legacy of 25 years using Autodesk and Civil 3D for production like we do with Intergraph/Bently tools, and want to know where we can value add to Civil 3D to make it work well for transportation design in Florida.

[cadtag]

Thanks for the information Bruce,  but a comment or two that may be helpful (or not)

>>we plan to improve that where our content will install wherever Civil 3D may be installed.

That's not really going to help me all that much -- I truly do need any add-on, or vertical-of-a-vertical, to be installed in an arbitrary location, or failing that in  a pristing directory under Programs.  I'm already dealing with multiple client or company standards, multiple add-ons, etc etc etc.  I need to be able top run C3D either in pristine condition, company standard, for fdot, or for whatever other purpose/client/standard I need.  Any installation that forces itself into a application deployment is not good in my corporate environment (10k+ employees).  Rather rude of the installation, to put it one way.

Another comment is simply based on only being able to see the .dws files after extracting them from the .msi.   They seem (and since I can't access or run the FDOT C3D tools, it's quite possible I'm wrong) to mimic normal microstation practices - with per-object over-rides rather than bylayer.  If that's the case.....

And finally, how do you propose to handle the incompatabilities C3D has demonstrated between annual releases?  If you release a 2012 version later, how can any consultants working with 2011, 2010 produce FOT spec documents?  How can any consultants collaborate between firms, other than forcing themselves to stay in lockstep with FDOT releases - whether tha's on the current 2012, or 2011 versions?  Seems like Bentley products have a long history of file/entity compatability between versions -- C3D not so much.

[Dinosaur]

Thanks for the information Bruce,  but a comment or two that may be helpful (or not)

>>we plan to improve that where our content will install wherever Civil 3D may be installed.

That's not really going to help me all that much -- I truly do need any add-on, or vertical-of-a-vertical, to be installed in an arbitrary location, or failing that in  a pristing directory under Programs.  I'm already dealing with multiple client or company standards, multiple add-ons, etc etc etc.  I need to be able top run C3D either in pristine condition, company standard, for fdot, or for whatever other purpose/client/standard I need.  Any installation that forces itself into a application deployment is not good in my corporate environment (10k+ employees).  Rather rude of the installation, to put it one way.

Another comment is simply based on only being able to see the .dws files after extracting them from the .msi.   They seem (and since I can't access or run the FDOT C3D tools, it's quite possible I'm wrong) to mimic normal microstation practices - with per-object over-rides rather than bylayer.  If that's the case.....

And finally, how do you propose to handle the incompatabilities C3D has demonstrated between annual releases?  If you release a 2012 version later, how can any consultants working with 2011, 2010 produce FOT spec documents?  How can any consultants collaborate between firms, other than forcing themselves to stay in lockstep with FDOT releases - whether tha's on the current 2012, or 2011 versions?  Seems like Bentley products have a long history of file/entity compatability between versions -- C3D not so much.

A few years ago when I was still trying to use this turkey, I was exploring the idea of using virtual machines with each VM having its own installation and setup customized for a particular client requirement.  Along with a pristine OOTB installation I had one with a typical customized setup that could be cloned for each unique client setup.  I was having pretty decent results with this approach at the time and would recommend exploring it as an option.

[cadtag]

Din0saur --
that's an interesting take, and sure sounds workable if corporate will let people.  I would guess that would be organization dependent -- does the company IT have any interest/expertise in VMs, are they on control-freak lockdowns, let people actually work, or what have you. 

to BruceDana --
Since this development is being funded by taxpayer dollars, can we presume that the package being distributed is public domain?  If not, why not?