But then they worked GREAT up until 2010 (last version I used) and made a really nice surface. Just set them to where they don't run out 10 or 20 feet and they work very well with reasonable settings.
Just one more reason I like my new stuff better. Get to fudging variables and you lose accuracy. I hate that "simplify surface" junk these programs have. That leads to a really bogus surface. Use the shots taken in the field only. Start "adjusting" things too much and you may find yourself in a witness box trying to explain the feature to a jury of "their" peers. Think about explaining the new AutoCAD to a jury of people that don't have a clue what a contour is, much less a tin.
(And, oh, it was my AutoCAD VAR that told me that he had NEVER heard of proximity faults and that the ONLY way to get valid breaklines was to trace over all of your line work with a 3D poly. Point to point. Another reason why I switched software.)
Your VAR was (is) and idiot
However as I said IF there is a feature that warrants a breakline then your surveyor should shoo the points that define that feature.
You must understand that now as with previous versions the elevations assigned to that break line is the one 'proximal' to the vertex, and we both know that is not the actual elevation.
Close only counts in hand grenades, howitzers, and nuclear weapons, not surveying.
Like I said, in the early days it was the fastest and easiest fix for an inherent problem. It gave data that meet survey accuracy and Nation Map Accuracy standards. All was well within 0.05'.
BUT with the new software we now use this is a moot issue. ALL points are as shot and the 3D and 2D are drawn the same at one time with absolutely no need for "supplemental data" or "Weeding". In the hands of 95% of the people trying to do contours today, those 2 factors are tools of destruction and latent inaccuracies. Dang, most people don't even know all of the types of contours (Major and Minor - they do not exist in the mapping world. They are a Fig Newton of the imagination of the idiots at Autodesk.) much less what to do with depression contours and their symbolization.(Strange that other software packages allow you to identify and symbolize them automatically?) Anyone else know what a "carrying contour" is. Probably not.
And now I read where Autodesk is backing off the Google tie-in and KMZ files? More and more clients are demanding photo image insertion and Google kmz files and Autodesk is doing a two-step away from that trend?? Well, you get what you pay for. Sometimes.
