Topic: I need help - Editing a Field Book

[MSTG007]

So what is new in Civil 3D 2010 for coding? What makes it easier?
Is there away you can import the TXT files or CR5 type files from your data collector and it draws it?

[therock003]

More importantly, why not finish the drawing in the field software and export it directly as a dxf. They seem to have all the necessary tools. TopSURV can even export to civil 3d directly, other can export landxml format.

So how could .FBK benefit F2F when taking the above factors into account?

[Jeff_M]

TopSURV SAYS it can export direct to C3D. Yet, when I've had C3D2007, C3D2008, C3d2009, & now C3D2010 all I get when I use that function is: "Civil3D is not installed, aborting..." Yes, I filed a bug report, no, I never heard from them about it.

A dxf from the collector/survey software is just dumb lines & text. Using a FBK to bring the data into C3D creates "smart" C3D objects.

[sinc]

The big reason we don't do F2F in our data collectors is that they are too old, and do not have that capability.  Eventually, we'll upgrade, but that isn't in the cards for the immediate future.

As far as creating everything in the data collector, I've heard varying feedback on that route.  We haven't tried it yet ourselves, though, so I can't give a first-hand account.  I haven't really noticed much benefit of having "smart" 3D objects from field data import - actually, that creates problems.  So we don't care so much about that, except for the aspect of adding breaklines to surfaces easily (something that is easy in C3D, as long as you only work with one surface per Survey Database).

The big complaint I've heard of the F2F solutions is that, when the guy in the field is trying to create what is essentially your final linework, it takes more time.  I can't corroborate that from first-hand experience, though.  But even if it takes only an extra half-hour for the field guy to complete an 8 hour survey, then it isn't worth it for us.

Say we send a field guy out and he spends 8 hours doing a topo survey.  With C3D and its linework coding, when everything is working and the field guy knows what he is doing, we typically have complete linework inside of C3D, along with a fully-built surface, in 15-30 minutes.  When everything is EXACTLY right, we have it within 5 minutes.

We've heard from multiple sources that, when the guy in the field tries to create these complete drawings, it ends up slowing the field work by a good chunk.  And if it takes a field guy 9 hours to do that Survey complete with linework drawn in the data collector, it already doesn't make sense, because with C3D and fieldbook coding we can do the same thing in 8 hours of field time + 30 minutes max of office time.  Actually, even if the field guy takes EXACTLY the same amount of time, and can complete that survey in 8 hours complete with linework with no office time, it is still a borderline call.  We would have to buy new data collectors and software, and train the field guy to use the new stuff...  All to cut out that 5 to 30 minutes of office time per job.  That's a tight call...  Is that really enough savings to justify the expense?

I should stress again that we haven't actually tried one of these F2F solutions.  I'm open to arguments, though, because we'll be hitting the point soon where we'll want to upgrade, and we're interested in the solution that works best overall, in real-world usage in real survey firms.  We are not locked in to any one thing.  But our current solution leverages the strengths of both our office and field personnel, and works quite well.

It could also be one of those things where the ideal solution varies.  I've heard that some one-man shops really like the complete solutions that do F2F in the data collectors, because it's the same guy doing all the work in either case.  Don't really know myself...

[therock003]

Well i'm not a guru myself obviously but since i've been aiming to get a Data Collector i've been running DC software demos for the past couple of weeks, and the software they're running seems pretty straight forward and automated.

They include code lists and feature attributed, and even layers with pre-determined properties.

You can set linework by selecting which point to connect and stuff like that.

So I'm really wondering how can a fieldbook top that?

Before deciding to upgrade just sign-up to the companies pages (Trimble/Topcon/Microsurvey/Carlson) and you can try the PC demo versions of data collectors and make up your mind.

I'm not saying they're better than fieldbook (since of course i dont really know what a fieldbook is all about), but they seem pretty damn good.

If you dont mind me asking, what would you like from a field software?

A dxf from the collector/survey software is just dumb lines & text. Using a FBK to bring the data into C3D creates "smart" C3D objects.

Well not really, you can assign layers with specific properties to each object, you can even create figure is some of them i think.

-Do you mean that with FBK you can create directly AECC objects?

[Dent Cermak]

Check out the Carlson products for you field use.
A DXF file does not compare, in any way, to a DWG file. DXF should have died long ago.
Our crews are doing the line work in the field and, now that they know how to do it, the process takes no longer than before. Matter of fact, over all, it takes a little less time. Drawing as they shoot cuts WAY down on bad shots and bad back sight entries.
Hooking up the underground and overhead utilities is MUCH faster and easier now.
The "lost time" is during the learning curve. The idea is to get every thing setup and train the crews how to use it.
If you are just goint to hand them the software and tell them to go at it, it will never work.

[mjfarrell]

Dent, 

I concur as you know I support training, and continuing education practices.

[therock003]

I pretty much enjoy education and learning new practice, but bottom line is the use of fieldbook files something that the modern man needs to be concerned about?

What are the better alternatives that C3D and other equivalents have to offer?

[sinc]

Well, for the "better" alternative in C3D, you have the new linework codesets in 2010.  I believe the FBK import has mostly gone away, unless you are trying to use the Survey Database and Survey Networks in C3D.  For a variety of reasons, we ignore these, and do various processing in other software, rather than in C3D's Survey Database.  So starting with 2010, we should ostensibly be able to drop the nasty FBK entirely.  (We're still using 2009, though, so we still convert our survey data from CSV format to a FBK file, which we dump into C3D, in order to get the linework drawn.)

There are also solutions such as CadApps' Stringer and Dotsoft's Mapworks, which are still more-flexible than C3D 2010's linework features.  (It's great to finally see some improvement in this area in C3D, but Autodesk still has a ways to go to match the features in other existing products.)

With F2F solutions in the data collector, you basically create the drawing in the field, using your data collector.  So there should be no real need for a FBK.  The question we have is whether it is more efficient for a field guy to create a full drawing in the field, or for a field guy to use linework codes that are then processed in the office.  If creating the drawing adds any more time at all to the field guy's time in the field, then it is probably not really worth it.  That's what we've heard from several sources - that trying to get the field guys to do a complete drawing in the field slows them down, and net result is a solution that is not as efficient as the one we are already using.  So far, Dent is the only one (outside of salesmen) I've heard give a contrary opinion.  And we haven't yet tried such a solution ourselves - our current hardware is not capable of it, and since we currently do not have the budget to replace our data collectors, we haven't yet been trying any demos of newer hardware.

Dent, didn't you also say your field guys are actually using laptops, and not the more-traditional data collectors?

[Dent Cermak]

Combination of the two systems, notebook computers and the Carlson data collectors. Both run the same software F2F set up files. The advantage of the notebook computers is a larger screen area, but both have graphics capabilities.
We use the Carlson Field 2007 software in the handhelds and Carlson Survey 2009 in the notebooks.
The office will soon be running the Carlson Survey 2009 with embeded AutoCad.
The overall costs of the Civil3D package is not justifiable for a purely survey company.
I will be able to get a purely Survey package with a whale of a lot more tools PLUS training for the users for about 1/3 the cost per seat of Civil 3D.  Plus the ease of setup of the F2F files which are much more robust. The descriptor keys AND the linework codes AND the Point Groups are ALL set up in one file. Once you get used to it, it appears to be a better and easier system.