Topic: figure prefix database

[drizzt]

It is my understanding that the figure prefix database will use the description of points, along with other database settings, to create "figures". I was thinking I could take the survey data and have it draw up just about everything from breaklines to buildings and fences. But, if it is drawing them in 3D, then my linetypes will not show up. So, I am thinking that the only use for this feature is to create the breaklines of surfaces.

What do you use this feature for? Is it effective?

[mjfarrell]

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.

[mjfarrell]

they ONLY obey the figure style IF yu set them AFTER the import operation

which as you now know is NOT how it should function. 2dor 3d

maybe someday they will listen to their customers and fix some of these 'little' issue I keep carping about.

OR

folks will STOP buying into the marketing scam that is the subscription program

[drizzt]

K, seems to me the only use for this function is drawing breaklines that you will not dispay on final production then!

Thanks!

[sinc]

We use it to draw all lines.

Then, toward the end of processing a survey, I might select all fence and utility lines, explode them to 3D polylines, convert the result to 2D polylines, and turn on linetype generation.  That generally works OK, since we typically do not consider fence or utility lines to be breaklines.

But I also have the Sincpac-C3D, with its Extract2d command, which can extract flattened polylines from Survey Figures.  It can then place the flattened linework on a different layer, or move the Survey Figure to a different layer and leave the flattened linework in its place.  (Which reminds me...  I still need to add an option to that command to automatically turn on Linetype Generation on the flattened linework...)

[mjfarrell]

I still instruct people in my classes to use figures for line creation.
I am just sure that they understand that the application is broken in that regard and have them contact their dealer about the issue.

Where is that James Wedding guy?  Are you listening?  When are they going to fix this? 

[Jeff H]

Where is that James Wedding guy? 

Texas
http://au.autodesk.com/?nd=public_profile&account_id=99584

Are you listening? 

Obviously not

When are they going to fix this? 

Never

[sinc]

When are they going to fix this? 

Never

Last year, Autodesk said they were looking at linetype problems and were asking for feedback.  So they may actually be working on a solution.

Of course, you never know until you get the next release (or the release after that, or the one after that...)

[mjfarrell]

This is me NOT holding my breath. 

Mostly because I can't stop laughing when I read Jeff's response.     

[Wedding]

Where is that James Wedding guy? 

Texas
http://au.autodesk.com/?nd=public_profile&account_id=99584

Texas is right, and since it's not exactly clear, my role as CE Tech Specialist falls within in the sales organization, not the engineering one. So, while I am actually listening, I'm only somewhat able to do much about it.

You guys would actually me much more effective than me in making change if you communicated with the development team via venus like Beta, Support Requests, and AU. AU is HUGE, especially for speakers like Mike that can leverage their role to get time with Product Managers. What you do with that opportunity is really up to you.

[mjfarrell]

James,

I did get a small chance to discuss one particular issue with a Product manager (name escapes me at the moment) while at AU.
Sadly this particular person was completely clueless about the lack of interoperability of MAP and the Civil 3D objects, and the fact that one can not create anything with civil 3D and have MAP be able to query those objects.  His lack of knowledge or understanding of how this impacted the users of C3D was more than a little frustrating.
Why not send me some names and contact information via PM or my email address so that I can at least start swimming upstream in the right channel?  

I also find you position "I'm in sales" a little odd, given some of your previous statements regarding people filing a support request and having them include WEDDING in there.  Or are those statements no longer valid, as you are only associated with 'sales' of the product?

[Wedding]

I also find you position "I'm in sales" a little odd, given some of your previous statements regarding people filing a support request and having them include WEDDING in there.  Or are those statements no longer valid, as you are only associated with 'sales' of the product?

My ability to keep an eye on an issue, versus my ability to push for product changes is subtly different. On the support request, that was a specific piece of the application where I had unique knowledge on the subject, and am one of the influencers with regards to change within that scope.

On more general issues, a wave of customer requests, with backing reasoning, is more influential than me making a suggestion to the development team. It's just the nature of humanity. We all have jobs to do, and while I certainly advocate for certain things (and believe me, I included the Map/Civil inquiry on an internal rant just this week,) there are certain levers that have more strength with division than a member of the sales team yelling for features. Again, you as a speaker are one of those. Brian as a VAR partner is one of those, Beta testers are one of those. A single point of pressure rarely moves a ship as large as Autodesk.

[drizzt]

Sinc,

I considered doing the copy figure, explode, convert to 2dpolyline also. The problem there is that you loose curve data. Although, if I can't get the company to foot the bill for Sincpak, I may go this route anyway, re-creating curves on an as needed basis.

Thanks all for you opinions and help with this.

Wedding---- huge fan of the Mastering series!

[sinc]

Although, if I can't get the company to foot the bill for Sincpak, I may go this route anyway, re-creating curves on an as needed basis.

Too bad...  There are a lot of commands in the SP, any one of which can save you so much time that it pays for the purchase price of the product the first time you use it.

You may want to keep pushing the issue, and let them know each time you spend an hour or more doing a task that the SP can do in seconds.  Eventually, they might see that they are being penny-wise but pound-foolish...   

[drizzt]

Sinc,

when sincpak converts figures to polylines, does it keep curve data in tact (sp?).

[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.

[reno]

the inability to draw parcels from legal descriptions

sinc,

have you had a chance to look at the new subscription tool in 2011? it's supposed to help with getting legal descriptions into c3d (as plines I believe). just curious on your take.

[mjfarrell]

the inability to draw parcels from legal descriptions

sinc,

have you had a chance to look at the new subscription tool in 2011? it's supposed to help with getting legal descriptions into c3d (as plines I believe). just curious on your take.

have you used it?  did it actually work?

[drizzt]

ok.... what is F2F, field to finish?

[mjfarrell]

ok.... what is F2F, field to finish?

yes Field to Finish

[sinc]

have you had a chance to look at the new subscription tool in 2011? it's supposed to help with getting legal descriptions into c3d (as plines I believe). just curious on your take.

I haven't looked at the 2011 SAP tools yet.  We've been using C3D 2010 so far, and are just getting ready to move to C3D 2011.  At some point, I'll check out the SAP.  I remember seeing a blog post on Being Civil about a problem it introduced with the new Point Import Wizard, so I postponed downloading the SAP in the hopes that, by the time we get moved to C3D 2011, a fixed version will be available.

[Wedding]

I remember seeing a blog post on Being Civil about a problem it introduced with the new Point Import Wizard, so I postponed downloading the SAP in the hopes that, by the time we get moved to C3D 2011, a fixed version will be available.

There's only an issue if you have defined User Defined Properties. Jason't full post is here:
http://beingcivil.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/importing-points-with-the-subscription-advantage-pack-with-user-defined-properties.html

Hope this helps encourage those of you who have not looked into the Subscription tools to check them out, there's some real gems in there.

[edge691]

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.

Hello all,

I just happened across this post so I resurrecting it,

I'm assuming your talking about the "Flatten Figure to Elevation" option in the figure style.   I 'm a little curious as to what is the issue is with this setting, the figure still has elevation it is just displayed without elevation which can be used to display linetype correctly.  If you edit elevation on the figure you get the original elevations, if you explode it (for whatever reason) it is still a 3d polyline.

Cheers,

[sinc]

You can't turn on Linetype Generation, so if your Survey Figure has vertices that are too close together, the linetype looks Continuous.

[mjfarrell]

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.

Hello all,

I just happened across this post so I resurrecting it,

I'm assuming your talking about the "Flatten Figure to Elevation" option in the figure style.   I 'm a little curious as to what is the issue is with this setting, the figure still has elevation it is just displayed without elevation which can be used to display linetype correctly.  If you edit elevation on the figure you get the original elevations, if you explode it (for whatever reason) it is still a 3d polyline.

Cheers,

No what I was talking about is that NO survey figures actually honor the Figure Styles as assigned by the user. Irrespective of wether they are being flattened or otherwise.  And further as SINC points out even after one manually assigns the desired Figure Style one can not enable linetype generation such that the pattern line(s) patterns are displayed correctly.