TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: jpostlewait on October 13, 2006, 09:44:19 PM
-
How to move to Civil 3D and why.
First and foremost you CAN NOT do it by yourself.
It's just too big a pile to make sense of without some guidance.
There is a small but growing cadre of people that can help you.
Some resellers have on staff people that get it.
Unfortunately they are in the minority.
If you are the Lead person on getting this implemented I can give you some advice.
1.) Find who you want to help you.
Start with your reseller.
After all it is his job to support you.
If that doesn't work try nationally.
You can bring in people that are very valuable.
If your firm can't afford to bring in someone in the 1500 to 2000 buck a day range, look to partner with other firms or try to get your reseller to arrange it.
2) Learn how to play nationally.
Many Blogs, The autodesk discussion groups, The Civil Engineering community site.
3.) And for God's sake unless you are a solo shop or the CEO you HAVE to be adept politically. You will face many obstacles.
They will not be overcome without help from above.
Some resources that I recommend.
http://civil3d.com/
http://civilcommunity.autodesk.com/
The help menu in Civil 3D is absolutely the best help menu Acad has ever had.
I'm telling you guys, after all the trials and tribulations of my implementation team, They to a person, that's in deference to Megan, recommended that we proceed.
I know it's not there yet, at least in my book.
But it's getting close.
Close enough you can run with it warts and all.
Our implementation has only just started.
One of the lesson's I have learned is Autodesk is interested in you succeeding.
Oh and VAULT SUCKS.
But that is also being addressed.
More later.
John Postlewait
IS Department
George Butler Associates, Inc.
-
Congratulations John, I know it has been a long and a VERY strange road that has finally brought you to this point. I have whined and moaned at length here about my own adventures, but I have faced nothing like the financial and political challenges you have struggled with along with the same technical challenges only at a much larger scale. I would advise you to take a much deserved break now, but I have a feeling the bell is about to ring for your next round any minute.
I will share your stage just for a second to let you know that this last week had some importance for my personal adventures with Civil 3D as well. I have finally turned around my own little company culture and am pleased to announce that we are now essentially a 2007 Civil 3D shop. The program is installed and projects are being converted. LDT 2k5 is being kept around only for staking support for jobs being built. I still don't know exactly what turned things around but MAN, what a week!
-
There are a lot more stories to come.
I am glad that you have taken the plunge.
It's pretty cool stuff.
-
A friend of mine mentioned that I had started to talk about the How and had not mentioned the Why?
So let me switch gears and begin to discuss why.The most obvious answer is that is the direction that Autodesk is going and if you don't go with it you will eventually have to go with another package to stay current. That may very well be the option that best fits some users.
More importantly, if Autodesk redirects their development channel to this software, They must have seen something compelling. An organization that big and that successful does not turn on a dime. There has to be a substantial reason for changing course.
What they saw was a process that enabled the designers to focus on the model of the project and not spending the majority of their time on drawing lines and circles on page 6 of the plan set.
The Plan set will still be with us for the foreseeable future. I'm betting not in my lifetime will my firm submit a model to a reviewing agency for approval.
We have already submitted models to contractors for construction.
We have submitted models to clients for Facilities management.
But the printed document will still be there for awhile.
[ note to self, try to stay focused. ]
The goal of Civil 3D is to allow the designer more time to refine his design without having to spend hours and hours reviewing drafted sheets. No more back charges for typo's. Change the size of your structure in your model and you don't need to change notes on three different sheets and update the quantity sheet.
The key of course is "You can't B.S. the model." You must keep it accurate for all to work.
-
Back to what I really know, the How part.
Assuming after reading the first couple of rants you are still interested Some more suggestions.
If you haven't started yet but want to a couple tips.
Focus on selecting who will help, and try to upgrade the heck out of your hardware.
Sign up for AU and select all the C3D courses you can handle.
Order the course materials from Autodesk and WORK your way through them.
Don't bother with AU unless you take the tip on the course materials.
You won't know what they are talking about.
If you are past this stage some more hints.
Mark Scacco a couple of weeks ago was on the Friday webcast with his Cad Manager's Primer presentation. Watch it, download the material and start working your way through it. ALL that stuff happens, and more.
If you don't watch the Friday webcasts A.) you should and B.) they are archived for your viewing at your convenience.
Let me jump back to the how to find help topic.
I recommended earlier that you start with your reseller.
I stand by that but let me tell you a dirty little secret. Autodesk has done an inept job of providing support for the reseller chain in implementing this product. With some notable exceptions, don't want to step on any toes here guys, most of the reseller support guys don't know how to really implement this product in your environment. The ones that do are a rare and valuable resource.
Those of you that know who I selected I would recommend him in a heartbeat.
Those that don't I will reply to P.M.'s concerning this recommendation. I just didn't see this as a flag waving event for my implementer. I'm trying to give some expensive hard earned advice.
I'm thinking the next topic I tackle is how to pick the pilot project team.
-
One of the roadblocks I ran into trying to get my boss to approve some training was theamount of down time it would require. We had no one left to cover the staff while in training. No matter how hard I tried, I could not convince him he could afford 3 days with zero office production no matter how much it would later improve efficiency. He DID have a point whenhe mentioned the work schedule itself not being able to absorb the loss. How did getting your training affect every day operations while your staff was being trained?
-
As I predicted, How to pick a Pilot Project team.
The leader of the design team has GOT to be a true believer.
He [ can we agree on a generic use of "he" without offending.] must have had some level of previous training. Hopefully more than just a 3-Day essentials class.
Somebody has to help the implementer in the creation of styles and help with workflow issues. In other words somebody has to be the translator for the implementer to explain where you are so He can try to figure out how to get you where he wants you to go.
So who is your shooter? He has a great impact on this whole process. He has to walk a delicate tightrope between who your company was, and who they will be when this is all overwith. He has to be able to explain to management why so and so is b*tching about everything. Has to be able to explain how come the budget is gone and we still have a week of work to do. Has to be able to develop the internal standards and make them stick. Oh and don't forget has to be able to lead the design process also.
And attitude is critical. Got to roll with the punches, has to deal with criticism, needs exceptional computer skills and has to be able to learn how C3d thinks.
Now you got one.
Who else?
My guess is that the people that regularly work with him will supply a couple of people. If you got the superman I just described the people who work under him probably have picked up some of those traits.
A couple of relative newcomers might be advisable. Not hung up on your companies bad habits. Used to learning. Open to other ideas or came from different environments so they already know that different ways exist. Cause this is another one.
You also need to find those that possess "Good Stubborn"
The stubbornness of dogged determination not the stubbornness of "we ain't never done it that way."
When you have them picked out, do whatever you can to support them. Hardware is a must. Dual monitors, high quality processors and RAM and more Ram. Had to bump 4 machines to 4G of ram to get the project out. The memory leak is being addressed. Don't overlook bringing cookies or having celebrations.
If you work for an organization of size, it really shouldn't be hard to select this group.
If you work in a small shop you dance with who you brung.
The really hard part is picking out the next bunch.
Or who don't you train.
Those are the hard ones.
-
When you have them picked out, do whatever you can to support them. Hardware is a must. Dual monitors, high quality processors and RAM and more Ram. Had to bump 4 machines to 4G of ram to get the project out.
Gotta love the way Autodesk understates the hardware requirements... :lmao:
Of course, I could just see it now in hundreds of companies across the country: "What do you mean we need to get everyone another monitor in order to run Civil-3D? And 4GB of RAM in every machine? Tell me again, how much is that Bentley stuff?"
:angel:
-
When you have them picked out, do whatever you can to support them. Hardware is a must. Dual monitors, high quality processors and RAM and more Ram. Had to bump 4 machines to 4G of ram to get the project out.
Gotta love the way Autodesk understates the hardware requirements... :lmao:
Of course, I could just see it now in hundreds of companies across the country: "What do you mean we need to get everyone another monitor in order to run Civil-3D? And 4GB of RAM in every machine? Tell me again, how much is that Bentley stuff?"
:angel:
Check again how much that Bentley stuff is.
Ram's cheap, Bentley's not.
Another topic which I can discuss but maybe later.
They are working on the memory leaks.
Should be fixed shortly.
Dual monitors are a cost effective method of increasing productivity.
That argument flies in every board room in the country.
19 inch flat panels are getting around 200 bucks.
-
I am about 3X as productive (at least) since getting my second monitor. I cannot believe I waited this long. It is especially key when doing things like:
Stormwater Calcs when I have hydrocad or excell open I can see both windows
Documenting tasks for training material- I can have my running word doc, snagit and c3d and do minimal juggling
Writing email, reports and other stuff in the second monitor while the first one holds a processing corridor or something else.
Truly truly the best (small) money I ever spent.
:angel:
Check again how much that Bentley stuff is.
Ram's cheap, Bentley's not.
Another topic which I can discuss but maybe later.
They are working on the memory leaks.
Should be fixed shortly.
Dual monitors are a cost effective method of increasing productivity.
That argument flies in every board room in the country.
19 inch flat panels are getting around 200 bucks.
<edit> fixed quote tags Mav
-
I think a second monitor is perhaps more necessary with Microstation than with Civil 3D . . . I also think even though it is possible to be productive no one should be subjected to such abuse. I have my editor maximized on my secondary 17" lcd with the toolspace and properties fly outs permanently open on the twin primary 17" along with all of the other fun fly outs set to autohide, a small text screen and the little viewport toolbar that I couldn't fit with the rest of those with the editor. Both are full and I could really use more room. I can run it at home with just a single 17" but it really complicates the workflow without at least toolspace and properties always visible.
-
i wasn't even thinking. YES
I couldnt model a corridor with my second monitor. To see what is going on under the corridor prop box is murder without Susie LCD 19" #2
:)
I think a second monitor is perhaps more necessary with Microstation than with Civil 3D . . . I also think even though it is possible to be productive no one should be subjected to such abuse. I have my editor maximized on my secondary 17" lcd with the toolspace and properties fly outs permanently open on the twin primary 17" along with all of the other fun fly outs set to autohide, a small text screen and the little viewport toolbar that I couldn't fit with the rest of those with the editor. Both are full and I could really use more room. I can run it at home with just a single 17" but it really complicates the workflow without at least toolspace and properties always visible.
-
I am about 3X as productive (at least) since getting my second monitor.
Now I KNOW that's a wild exaggeration, even in Civil-3D... If only it were that easy to get a 3x productivity increase... :-D
But I admit, two monitors are nice, and make that program in particular much easier to use. I actually already informed the boss that we'll be wanting to get all our CAD workstations up to two monitors once we start the transition to Civil-3D. I have two at home, and already feel the pain when I'm at work with my paltry single 20" LCD... :lol:
-
The key with one monitor is you have to sacrifice real estate in you editor window and put at least the toolspace and properties flyouts minimized outside of the editor. This crimps the toolbars I like to have on a 17" monitor so I also lose a few buttons but a 19 or 20" wouldn't have this problem. There is still a bit of interruption in the workflow opening the flyouts but at least I don't have to go fishing for those two important dialogs.
-
I guess it depends on your tasks.
A significant portion of my work is blogging, document writing and other work where I am screen capturing Civil 3D and writing in word at the same time.
I am at least 3X more productive at those tasks with my second monitor.
Add a dual core into the mix and I can screen capture, blog, and process a corridor at the same time. Previously, I would process a corridor and go take a nap.
Dana
I am about 3X as productive (at least) since getting my second monitor.
Now I KNOW that's a wild exaggeration, even in Civil-3D... If only it were that easy to get a 3x productivity increase... :-D
But I admit, two monitors are nice, and make that program in particular much easier to use. I actually already informed the boss that we'll be wanting to get all our CAD workstations up to two monitors once we start the transition to Civil-3D. I have two at home, and already feel the pain when I'm at work with my paltry single 20" LCD... :lol:
-
Let's finish up the Hardware discussion.
If you want to roll out this product to your staff and invest in the training and implementation process THE LAST THING you want is a hardware deficiency syndrome.
So here you go, what does it really take to rock this monster?
RAM.... 2G minimum.
Currently if you are running Vault this will not be enough.
Next month that will probably no longer be true.
Next year who knows?
Processor?
Athlon X2 or Core 2 Duo.
Don't need the best BUT don't get the least.
Right now say Core 2 Duo 6600 and a cheaper option the Athlon 4600 or 4800 chips.
Currently Intel is back in front with motherboard bus and ram speeds
Dual monitors a must.
Great Video cards maybe not depending on what you do.
My personal favorite upgrade is a 10 K RPM hard drive.
Another 150 bucks but they do really perform.
So you are looking at deploying 2K minimum to 2.5K systems before you get started.
A 3K machine MAY be better but any more than that is over-kill.
Life expectancy?
Maybe a couple years as a front-line production system.
And whomever gets it next will love it.
Vista may change the video card game, but I can't imagine that much.
AND DON'T buy anything that is not 64-bit capable.
Who knows when that's going to hit but it might not be long.
-
AND DON'T buy anything that is not 64-bit capable.
Who knows when that's going to hit but it might not be long.
As near as I can tell, that isn't much of a priority for Autodesk. Or if it is a priority, it's a hush-hush one. Right now, Autocad can't even make good use of dual-core processors... Considering Autodesk's apparent lack of interest in high-end performance, I don't know why they'd be interested in 64-bit Windows, until they're forced to migrate by the transition to Vista...
But then again, I may have unreasonable expectations created by companies like Twelve Tone Software. I use their Sonar program quite a lot for music production. That program is almost completely bug-free, makes awesome use of dual-core processors, and has had a version for 64-bit Windows for the last year-and-a-half. True, Sonar is not quite the behemoth that AutoCAD is, but it's a pretty hefty piece of software in its own right, and the nature of what it does (real-time high-end audio and video processing) means that hardware issues are a bitch to deal with. Despite that, the software works almost flawlessly. But then again, that's from a company that actually views customer happiness as the most important aspect of their business... ;-)
-
In the forum for the Cad software I use there has been some discussion on 64-bit. There were more than a few that jumped on the "latest and greatest" bandwagon only to learn there are a lot of printers/plotters/scanners that don't have drivers. Some programs will not run or will run with serious glitches.
Personally I will wait for quite a while. There will be programs set up for 64 bit that will run on 32 for a long time. Opinion of course.
-
I would agree that running a windows XP 64 operating system is not for the faint of heart.
I was just talking hardware, and IMHO you may not be wise buying a system that is not 64-bit capable. The computers life expectancy was what I was considering and the ones that are incapable of running a 64-bit o/s will die first.
The question of when there will be a 64-bit version of C3D is probably so far off the radar screen in Manchester as to be undetectable. [ just my opinion, no pretense of knowledge.]
How bout next topic "So what is my pilot project?"
Or " How to manage expectations?"
Or " What to do when the sh*t hits the fan."
Or " How to explain to management why my pilot project is over-budget and not done yet?"
Or " Is it time I pursue a career in Real Estate?"
Or " How I watch Cristy Brinkley and Chuck Norris and still think about work?"
-
64 bit computing? Chew on this . . .
Our server is running 64 bit Ubuntu Linux as I write. Drivers were readily available for every printer/plotter in our office and all plotting is via the server thus relieving any strain on the workstations at plot time. The drivers may not all be there for workstation devices, but that could turn at any time - I would wager sometime in the next two years which is just about the longevity of a workstation in our office and ours are ready just in case. Even if it is past this timeframe, these stations will have a longer useful life after production retirement than if they couldn't use the same software as the production machines.
John, Have you examined the new perpendicular writing hard drives? We have started using these instead of the Raptors. Even at 7200 rpm, they seem to perform better and quieter than the Raptors.
and I vote for what to do when the well known substance hits the modern electrical convenience
-
>>John, Have you examined the new perpendicular writing hard drives? We have started using these instead of the Raptors. Even at 7200 rpm, they seem to perform better and quieter than the Raptors.
and I vote for what to do when the well known substance hits the modern electrical convenience<<
So how did I not know anything about perpendicular write hard drives?
No don't answer that.
I check a lot of sites in a day and have not heard that term.
And I really haven't noticed a Raptor noise problem.
And I have one.
The short answer on what to do when in that circumstance?
Old lesson I learned in the Marines.
Always know where the nearest foxhole is.
Has served me well since then.
Give me a day or two to come up with that one.
-
I am not to concerned about the Raptors' noise either but these new perpendiculars are a bit more quiet. I am still on my old Raptor at work or I might have a better review . . . it was a close call though when my Civil 3D went south yesterday - the new perp. writer was sitting on the table ready to install. They are supposed to be quiter, faster and cheaper than the Raptors - guess we will find out. I will try to find a product page for them to post.
-
HERE (http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,759,00.html) is a link to Seagate's product page for the perpendicular drive. From what I understand, one builder around here has found a higher than expected failure rate for the Raptors he put in his machines, hence the interest in these units.
-
Thanks for the Link.
Been thinking a little bit about what to say about when the stuff hits the fan.
It will.
Pilot projects will come in over budget.
Not just ours.
How to deal with it?
Crap I don't know.
You have to convince Management that in the end it will all be worth it.
Will it?
Again " Crap I don't know."
I think you can make the argument that if you implement now, you will gain competitive advantage in relation to your competitors.
I think you can make the argument that next project will be more cost effective.
I think the argument can be made Evolve or Die.
And now that the NDA has been sorta waived SP3 should be on the street by the end of the month, maybe. It's quite a bit better than sp2.
My end users are requesting Beta sp3 be installed on their machines in order to move forward.
And that is to move forward on a live for money and deadlines project.
I will tell you this, I think Autodesk knows what the stakes are here.
They are willing to put resources into seeing this product succeed.
I wish it was easier, but it's not.
Good friend of mine said " It is what it is."
Think I'm going to leave it here.
Sorta like, going back to the military analogy, I have heard the incoming, next time how to find the foxhole.
-
That brings back "fond" memories of my first almost Civil 3D project almost two years ago now. R2005 and zero training . . . the plug was mercifully pulled after 6 weeks and use of the program was banned at our office for the first time. I was able to spend the next six months setting up some styles and contracting my own training. It took a few more false starts with '06 before it finally took root for us last month.
I know you don't stray out of Land Lubber very often, but you might enjoy some of the comments toward the end of THIS POLL (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=13133.0) over in CAD General.
-
Did enjoy reading the Poll thread.
Good evening Dino and others.
Spent a very interesting half hour today in my foxhole.
The CEO's office.
My partner in this implementation and I were in there to discuss a related matter.
I don't think I can emphasize enough how this product implementation is MUCH more a political exercise as compared to any other aspect of it.
We have had successes and failures on that front.
But the BEST thing that we did is convince the CEO that this needed to be done and when he decided to do it, he stood behind us.
We do try to be judicious when we call upon him to swing a hammer on our behalf. But when we have asked he swings.
To blow my own horn, but as I have heard "If you don't blow your own horn there may not be any music", The CEO has been impressed with the quality of assistance I have been able to assemble.
We have been at it for a while and still not at the point yet to show demonstrable results, but that's not that far away.
It's a long slow expensive process.
Can it be avoided? I don't think so.
Will you benefit from our experiences? I'm guessing yes.
Is it in your best interest to do it now?
BIG question.
If you haven't started, you are behind.
If you are reading this you are not all that far behind.
A lot of resources are available. Research, prepare, establish connections, work the problem.
Of course if this all goes to h*ll in a hand basket the CEO will still be the CEO and I'll be sharing a culvert with some of the people I hang out with.
-
We have been at it for a while and still not at the point yet to show demonstrable results, but that's not that far away.
It's a long slow expensive process.
Can it be avoided? I don't think so.
Has anyone been following that Autodesk Sitelines thing? They've been trying to show a company's transition to Civil-3D in real-time, over a period of roughly 6 months. They've had web broadcasts at the end of each month, and are now on the final month.
I've been meaning to watch the archived webcasts, but haven't had a chance. However, they've been running a blog, and I notice that they STILL only have a single engineer, trying to figure out Civil-3D. They keep saying that once she's comfortable, they'll start adding more people. Doesn't sound like they've gotten very far at all with the project, and that's with the full resources of Autodesk helping them out.
-
I read the first two blog entries and reached the same conclusion about their rate of progress. I know there at least a couple more success stories out besides John's recent submittal but there are a lot of projects just rolling back into LDT because the company and or the client just can't absorb any more delays or invoices. John has been the first one to really come forth in a public forum and really talk about the battle from right on the front lines and I thank him for choosing to do so.
There is one thing I am very curious about though John; when we met I noticed that you were able to both sit and walk about quite naturally and I have wondered how you managed that while wearing those armour plated scivies. :evil:
-
My real armor plate is provided by a gentleman in Dallas, of all places.
Or rather one of the Dallas suburbs.
And some friends of his from Alabama, and Delaware and Who knows where, transitioning to Manchester.
And of course some current residents of New Hampshire.
I have had a lot of help.
Just so they know I have appreciated ALL of it. Even when it didn't feel good.
Don't forget to check 3D rocks for my Chili recipe.
-
My real armor plate is provided by a gentleman in Dallas, of all places.
Mine is a bit further West, but I know what you mean.
Don't forget to check 3D rocks for my Chili recipe.
A daily stop that is always a pleasant break. There is also another daily stop I have been intending to mention again that has been putting some great information out free for any who take the time to visit. Civil3D dot com has taken flight in recent weeks with a collection of ongoing articles from Dana, Jason and James tackling hot potatoes like Vault and advice on working with survey functions, corridors, parcels and workflow. Anyone who is trying to tame this software that doesn't keep current with James Wedding's site is missing a tremendous resource.
-
Sinc,
I haven't kept pace with the SITELINES presentations, interesting to note that only one engineer is attempting to convert to Civil 3d. If that is true, it would explain why little appears to be getting done on the project. I like a total team/office training approach for many reasons. In this scenario, everyone learns the interface, and the tool functionality together. Then a user or two can concentrate on how to design with it, while others can use the designed data and apply various style settings to the design.
Can an office complete a pilot project on time and under budget; I say yes!
Do I see a lot of it happening, no not really. The culprit is the interface, and the omission of functions that can lead to a truly miserable experience.
-
The key advantage I see with Michael's approach is that with everyone participating, the key questions are more likely to be asked. A potential user who will concentrate on survey or surface modeling tasks may not know or think to ask questions about sewer design. Ideally, the designers should learn all aspects of designing with Civil 3D, but in reality there are specialists and they will ask about that first. When the discussion time is limited, those may be all there is time for.
-
The benefits of having everyone present extend in both directions at the same time.
From the surveyor to the project manager, each brings their unique talents, experiences, and
focus to the class. As each relates their perspective and challenges the exchange of ideas about how, when, and why to apply the tools is dynamic. Managers get a better idea of what is possible, and the data, and process needed to achieve what is possible. Surveyors benefit from hearing about what is or isn't good data collection practices
The 'trickle down' theory of application training has yet to yield the highest return for ones training investment. Often we find users that display a high aptitude for various functions; and these become the new guard, the front line in adopting the software. Even the sharpest of you out there can't say that you can go to a 2-3 day session to learn all the new software and application concepts, and then pass on this new knowledge 100% complete upon returning to your office. Or should I call you Mr. Spock?
Also, I find that the least knowledgeable member of your team is the best place to start the learning process. They have the least to lose from asking a question that might go unanswered, the discussion of their questions often leads to a deeper understanding, of both the company process (standards), and the functioning of the software tool.
-
>> The 'trickle down' theory of application training has yet to yield the highest return for ones training investment. Often we find users that display a high aptitude for various functions; and these become the new guard, the front line in adopting the software. Even the sharpest of you out there can't say that you can go to a 2-3 day session to learn all the new software and application concepts, and then pass on this new knowledge 100% complete upon returning to your office. Or should I call you Mr. Spock?<<
Well I sure a h*ll know I'm not Spock.
I agree completely this is not how to implement the product.
Have patience I will disagree with you later.
>>Also, I find that the least knowledgeable member of your team is the best place to start the learning process. <<
Well maybe sooner than later.
I have seen the process of change be easier for those with less baggage.
But those with the most baggage are the ones with the most design, production, and output Knowledge.
They are the key.
You are correct to a certain extent that it is easier to learn if you don't have to unlearn first.
But the Dino's of the office, with a deep knowledge of the approval process and innumerable other things are the guys you really have to get to.
Somehow you got to convince Dino that he has to change and he has to take the risk of change in order to move forward.
And I apologize Dino for using you personally as an example but I hope you know that it's not personal.
Crap dude I'm as old as you are, I know what kind of impact this kind of change makes.
As for the Sitelines series.
Where in the f do you find a client that will wait 4 months for you to design a 13 lot cul-de-sac.
With all of the support in the world from both the reseller and Autodesk.
And after it's all over they have 1 user sorta trained.
Sh*t I wish my life was that simple.
-
. . . Well maybe sooner than later.
I have seen the process of change be easier for those with less baggage.
But those with the most baggage are the ones with the most design, production, and output Knowledge.
You are correct to a certain extent that it is easier to learn if you don't have to unlearn first.
But the Dino's of the office, with a deep knowledge of the approval process and innumerable other things are the guys you really have to get to.
Somehow you got to convince Dino that he has to change and he has to take the risk of change in order to move forward.
You gotta stay true to your school so I'm sticking with Michael's postion. You are right that you have to get the key people on board, but sometimes when the rules change the key people may exchange roles. Someone waiting in the wings for a team leader to move on may get a better grip on this new game in three days than team leader ever will.
. . . Crap dude I'm as old as you are :-o , I know what kind of impact this kind of change makes.
Well THAT I might have to take personal. :evil: There are not very many of us geezers making much noise (other than razzberries anyway) about Civil 3D and that is part of what I find remarkable about the story you are sharing. You could easily have decided to sit back and let some young Turk with an eye toward your position some number of years from now fight this battle and give HIM the grief when billing time came.
You mentioned in an earlier post how political the introduction of Civil 3D has been. I have seen this also both at my little shop and the larger company who hosted the training I hitched the ride with. Old tried and true methodology they had mastered years back is being threatened with the same fate the drawing boards and monster calculators (remember the old Friden and Olivetti units? How about the Varitype? . . . wow, spellcheck didn't even know that one!) met when DCA appeared. This stuff is different, has the potential to leave them drooling on the sidelines and they are scared. It is not just the geezers either - my nemeses is half my age. These politics are a greater hurdle than training a good staff and the clients with their associated budgets are their allies and don't get me started on the wrench a reviewing agency can throw at you.
-
. . . Don't forget to check 3D rocks for my Chili recipe.
We have a special place in TheSwamp for sharing favorite recipes. Why don't you post it HERE (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=3000.0) for some of the swampers who don't venture out into the Civil 3D blogs? :-)
-
As for the Sitelines series.
Where in the f do you find a client that will wait 4 months for you to design a 13 lot cul-de-sac.
With all of the support in the world from both the reseller and Autodesk.
And after it's all over they have 1 user sorta trained.
Sh*t I wish my life was that simple.
(http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0130.gif)
The countdown is ticking for us... Official Civil-3D training starts next month. I'm hoping that we've waited long enough, and the software's improved enough, that it should be a less-traumatic experience than the one you had (are having)...
-
. . . The countdown is ticking for us... Official Civil-3D training starts next month. I'm hoping that we've waited long enough, and the software's improved enough, that it should be a less-traumatic experience than the one you had (are having)...
TAKE NOTES . . . bunches of them. They will be more useful than the hands on exercises.
-
I don't know; the hands-on is totally vital.
Just last night C3D taught me an interesting lesson
about Median modeling that no amount of reading the help file would
have ever clued me in on. If it hadn't beat me down for about 4 hours,
before I clued-in on how to solve the problem, it was mine not the
application, I would never learnt THAT lesson. Now I if I could only
fit it all into a neat package to share.
-
8-)
(http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0130.gif)
The countdown is ticking for us... Official Civil-3D training starts next month. I'm hoping that we've waited long enough, and the software's improved enough, that it should be a less-traumatic experience than the one you had (are having)...
[/quote]
Jump on in, the water is getting calmer.
Next week after SP3 is out Most of the stability and performance issues will have been addressed.
There will still be plenty of Trauma left, but nearly all of that will be self-inflicted by the end user.
A lot of organization will have to be done before you can really start rolling.
Styles will need to be documented. You really want everyone using the appropriate styles in order to produce a uniform product.
The entire workflow issue will need to be addressed.
There are many ways to organize and produce projects. You have to figure out what works best in your environment.
That can vary from project type to project type.
You have to decide now the Vault question.
As you know I'm not much of a Vault fan BUT in some cases it can be quite helpful depending on your business structure.
Communicate, Compromise and Document.
-
I don't know; the hands-on is totally vital . . .
It is ALL vital . . . but I have regretted every note I failed to take or neglected to transcribe into legible instructions that night because I KNEW I could remember that. Most of my SOS calls would have not been necessary had I made sure I had recorded the stuff I had only one chance to get.
Sinc, I am jealous. I am at least a year overdue for a refresher with zero chance of getting it. You are fortunate in that your company sees the value in investing in training.
-
.... but I have regretted every note I failed to take or neglected to transcribe into legible instructions that night because I KNEW I could remember that. Most of my SOS calls would have not been necessary had I made sure I had recorded the stuff I had only one chance to get.
AMEN, brutha!
When I was first getting into DCA I never took notes because I COULD remember what I learned for long periods of time. LDT came along and it wasn't all that much different so I could still remember most things I learned.
Then came C3D.......and the fact those memory brain cells don't seem to stay as charged as they once did. (I will soon have my last 40 something birthday.) I still have a really hard time remembering to write down what just took 3 hours to figure out, that will take 2 minutes in the future......if I can only remember what it is.
As John stated, it is paramount to document your styles. So much can be done with them, but improper use can make your drawing set look totally flawed.
-
Dino mentioned this a while ago and I would like to comment
>>You gotta stay true to your school so I'm sticking with Michael's postion. You are right that you have to get the key people on board, but sometimes when the rules change the key people may exchange roles. Someone waiting in the wings for a team leader to move on may get a better grip on this new game in three days than team leader ever will.<<
This is the question that really has me stumpted.
The total number of installs in our Org. is roughly 80 of LDT.
We have a core group of "Heavy Lifters" who build the surfaces, create the pipe networks, balance the sites, etc.
That's in the 20-30 range.
Then there are LDT users how only do a little bit of LDT functionality.
Survey group.
Copy drafter types in a couple groups.
Couple of Architects that do Prelim. site plans for their projects.
Couple of Landscape Archies.
Some project manager types that are good enough to open a drawing and get what they need without Jacking things up. A few of them actually had Mad cad skills at some point but now are in the attend meetings and prepare for presentations mode.
What do I do with them?
If you are in a Vault environment they may not even be able to open a file without doing some damage.
My personal view of where the business is going is if all you can do is redline hard copy You are no longer an engineer. If you can pass a P.E. exam without being required to bring a laptop it's time to change the examination process. The licence renewall process needs to be examined.
If your Marketing group buys lunch and brings in a Pipe salesman and awards you Continuing education you are kidding yourself. A lot of what I just said is an exaggeration today. But 5 years from now it may be gospel.
When you mentioned some people may have to exchange roles
How do you exchange roles when the guy who isn't any good at it makes twice what the guy that gets it is?
Like I said this one has me stumpted.
-
JP,
Interesting, I've had two distinct reactions to the paradigm that C3D, and intelligent modeling as a whole impact the company model. One company, was upset to hear that the traditional model of an Engineering company was being replaced by C3D. The archaic model of pushing red-lines around, is being replaced by a process wherein data and Engineering intersect to produce smarter plans, the intelligent model, faster with higher profit margins.
At another place a young man reacted in shock and fear as he realized that C3D could quite possibly eliminate his job. Luckily his manager observed that a good designer would always be of value, whereas someone with simple cad functionality has their days numbered to say the least.
Now to this pay issue. You know it has long been a peeve of mine as to how totally arbitrary the pay system can be in the Engineering profession. I've seen guys performing similar functions, paid more because they also happened to be married. Women paid less; only because they were women. Or in a personal case; as network administrator/cad manager I developed some processes for them, only I didn't have a job number to bill my time to I missed out on a sizable bonus. So as you can see, I'm as baffled as you are.
C3D, may or may nor offer any real hope for either of us in the area. However, IF your company were to get everyone excited about using the product, now there's a different story. Firstly, some will reinvent themselves as the writing on the wall becomes clear that they soon wont have a job without the skillset being shown them in class. Second, some will reinvent themselves because they will see C3D as an opportunity to gain greater skills and responsibilities within the project. Some managers(engineers) will see that if they properly mentor the staff around them, that C3D allows them more time to manage the project, and easily modify the design elements without destroying the drafted output.
Should the tools within C3D be placed in the hands of those that most properly understand the site, and it's unique design constraints the connection between the drafted output and the design model is total. C3D calls out for retraining your staff and rethinking the workflow, and
processes, otherwise you risk losing the advantages it gives you. Properly trained C3D will let you do more with less. Now how you go about getting paid more for doing more, well I don't have a good answer for that one.
-
Thanks Michael, I have been trying to figure out how to say that for a couple hours. I have wondered since the first time I fired up r10 how long a journeyman CAD drafter could hang on to a job once the designers figured out they could "sketch" their stuff out in CAD and take a little bit of care about how they were doing it, skipping the drafter position for all but the most basic tasks. Civil 3D takes this to a new level that surprisingly my little shop is positioned to take full advantage of. Our engineer typically designs only the final grading and the storm sewer system. The balance of his time is taken up with administrative tasks such as meetings, permits, final checks before submittal and basic trouble shooting. There is a good chance he also does some of his own CAD work and even running prints, eh dgrebel. The balance of the design falls on a designer who also does most of his CAD work. The CAD drafter is most often in a training role for a designer position, but also picks up any left over CAD work.
John's situation reminds me of what I was facing only 3 years back. I had been quite content since 1996 working in r13 and EaglePoint. I resisted the push to upgrade to 2004 and LDT and spent most of one year finishing off the r13 projects to avoid the hassle of converting things. I used LDT just enough to get the basics and grudgingly managed to get some projects out with it while rookies like photodave jumped in and still are better using it than I am. I despised LDT then and still do; if our new plotter had not refused to plot r13 correctly I might still be trying to use r13 for some real production. Civil 3D changed that for me - if nothing else it was going to boot the hated LDT off my computer for good. I was motivated and I started "getting it" rather easily. I have seen other designers equal to or even much better than I struggle with the program because they were threatened rather than motivated and one notable case has turned completely when there was more motivation than threat.
Perhaps it may be that John has to have Civil 3D teams AND LDT teams. Work it out between clients and the teams who will do what job to keep things fair. When I worked in seismic exploration, we had two types of contract for a crew. One was a basic (and quite "healthy") monthly charge that included all crew expenses even if the entire month was weathered out . The other type was a Turn Key contract that had a minimal base amount, the client reimbursed expenses along with a big incentive fee for every hole that was successfully recorded. Only during 2 very bleak winter months did the Turn Key crew not kick the monthly crew's collective keesters all over the northern great plains. I wonder how an LDT team might fare if they were working in a Turn Key situation when compared to a Civil 3D team where compensation was supplemented by production numbers. I also wonder how long there would be LDT teams.
-
JP,
Interesting, I've had two distinct reactions to the paradigm that C3D, and intelligent modeling as a whole impact the company model. One company, was upset to hear that the traditional model of an Engineering company was being replaced by C3D. The archaic model of pushing red-lines around, is being replaced by a process wherein data and Engineering intersect to produce smarter plans, the intelligent model, faster with higher profit margins.
At another place a young man reacted in shock and fear as he realized that C3D could quite possibly eliminate his job. Luckily his manager observed that a good designer would always be of value, whereas someone with simple cad functionality has their days numbered to say the least.
Now to this pay issue. You know it has long been a peeve of mine as to how totally arbitrary the pay system can be in the Engineering profession. I've seen guys performing similar functions, paid more because they also happened to be married. Women paid less; only because they were women. Or in a personal case; as network administrator/cad manager I developed some processes for them, only I didn't have a job number to bill my time to I missed out on a sizable bonus. So as you can see, I'm as baffled as you are.
C3D, may or may nor offer any real hope for either of us in the area. However, IF your company were to get everyone excited about using the product, now there's a different story. Firstly, some will reinvent themselves as the writing on the wall becomes clear that they soon wont have a job without the skillset being shown them in class. Second, some will reinvent themselves because they will see C3D as an opportunity to gain greater skills and responsibilities within the project. Some managers(engineers) will see that if they properly mentor the staff around them, that C3D allows them more time to manage the project, and easily modify the design elements without destroying the drafted output.
Should the tools within C3D be placed in the hands of those that most properly understand the site, and it's unique design constraints the connection between the drafted output and the design model is total. C3D calls out for retraining your staff and rethinking the workflow, and
processes, otherwise you risk losing the advantages it gives you. Properly trained C3D will let you do more with less. Now how you go about getting paid more for doing more, well I don't have a good answer for that one.
Yup.
Complicated little puzzle.
I'm pretty sure that if we commit to a company wide make-over
, you know along the lines of " Design the model or die " In a couple years we could be outstanding.
That sort of process is painful.
I don't know that we could replace the guys that don't get it with guys that do.
And I object on principle of the concept of you have to know the tool rather than you have to know how the Clients project needs to be designed.
I've got a bunch of people who know the answers to the Civil Engineering questions but will probably not know the Civil 3D way to answer it.
Pretty obvious they are going to have to know both before long.
In the Civil business the problems remain the same, only the tools have changed.
My 16th birthday my father gave me a Post slide rule.
8 scales maybe, can't recall all of it.
First surveyor I ever worked for carried a logarithm table book and taught me the difference between a secant and a co secant.
Well not really, I knew that, I just didn't know how to apply it.
The Civil 3D beast is promising.
It's nearing adolescent stage.
It will be transforming.
I'll cut this off.
Gotta go back to watching the Colts and Broncos.
One of the guys playing for the Colts went to High School with my son.
So I got a dog in that fight.
-
Interesting telephone conversation with a friend of mine today.
He has been following this rant and offered some advice on how to move forward.
The two alternatives I had been weighing were the obvious.
1.) Next Pilot Project.
One guy ( generic guy) from original team.
4-5 brand new users.
Essentials training for new guys and introduction to the styles and workflow developed on original project.
Small reduction on support from implementer but still a key player.
Strength; widens install base quickly.
Weakness; replay of painful process.BUT minus much of the difficulty of initial setup.
Added PLUS; would be done with SP3 software version. Huge improvement.
2.) gradual expansion of team.
ADD 2 people to core staff.
Essentials training for 2 new generic guys.
Next project team consists of 2 new people and 2-3 of original team.
Reduced participation of implementer.
Strengths; Less of an immediate impact on expense, my core group gets experience implementing product in our environment.
Weakness; My God this could take forever, I mean really are you going to tipey-toe into this or just frickin JUMP. BUT transition pain levels cannot be ignored.
Back to what advise I received from my friend.
How about just keeping your core team together, produce your next project more efficiently and start to generate some numbers that will justify moving forward.
Show the doubters that this beast can really be tamed.
Different type of project will reveal more styles that will need to be created.
Confidence in product will grow.
In house competence will grow, allowing us to generate a higher level of in-house support.
Strengths; just talked about them.
Weaknesses; no or little expansion of install base.
Could result in overall more cost effective solution.
I'm going to mention again SP3 will change everything in how you decide to move forward.
The product is getting close to the Marketing Hype that has been out there for a few years.
-
Your friend sounds wise, John. At least a second project for a base to build from couldn't hurt. I have found that each Civil 3D project has been different to varying degrees and the expanding base of styles has made each a little easier . . . except when someone drops in with a bunch of layers, etc. from an old project where we had things really messed up. You haven't mentioned yet what type of development your pilot project was, but perhaps one of a different scope would be quite useful in demonstrating Civil 3D's versatility. One other consideration is you sound like this pilot is still in the design approval phase and I know first hand what that can mean in your area of Kansas.
-
Fair enough, Dino, I'll try to give some detail concerning project type without saying too much about the clients project, still in the design phase, in a public forum.
Multi-building Apartment complex.
Normal sorts of plan sets required.
Storm, Sanitary, erosion control,, grading, dimension, intersection improvement plans, etc.
Not exactly single family subdivision plans that the product was focused on.
Back to the strength and weakness question.
Strengths; project took us to all of the corners of the software, styles developed somewhere around a hundred, plus this sort of project is what we do best.
Weaknesses; really tests the pain threshold, like taking a graduate course in Civil 3D your freshman year.
Couple of notes on how rapidly this product, C3D, is changing.
Our first training was using 2007 Beta 3.
Advanced training was with 2007 release product.
Turned out to be too unstable to proceed.
Called timeout until SP1 was released.
Trained up the project team on SP1 and started project design.
Started running into more problems and had some input into SP2.
Installed SP2 and drove forward.
Many problems addressed, but many remained.
Submitted project for review.
After initial submittal we had a surprise visit from a gentleman from Manchester.
He came out to visit the frontlines, talk to the people that filled out the flaming CER's, and to further address our issues.
He looked the CEO in the eyes and told him that 80 per cent of our problems would be fixed in 2 weeks.
4 days later I downloaded SP3 Beta 2.
It runs like a champ.
If I have gone beyond the bounds of what should be posted in a public forum I apologize.
Don't expect a visitor to your site.
Happened to us by a strange confluence of events.
But it goes to what I mentioned earlier that the code developers are interested in seeing the product succeed and are willing to work to see that it does.
-
But it goes to what I mentioned earlier that the code developers are interested in seeing the product succeed and are willing to work to see that it does.
Based on what you are saying, Autodesk has really jumped the gun on trying to force people into Civil-3D. They raised the price of C3D Companion from $300 to $2000 at the beginning of the year, in an effort to force people into switching.
As near as I can tell, that price increase was just complete gouging of the Autodesk user base, because Civil-3D was NOT ready for deployment. That's the part that has us most upset - they're charging us a premium for staying on the old software, but the new software is too buggy to use...
-
Sinc, did you ever try to work with 2005 Civil 3D? Talk about not ready for deployment! But even then I heard of a few projects go out using it for the streets and grading.
What I am waiting to hear of is a regular old 30 or 40 lot single family subdivision using Civil 3D for streets, storm and sanitary. That is when I will know for certain Civil 3D is "ready". If something like that can be designed, go through the approval process, staked, built and as-built all in Civil 3D, the LDT holdouts had better get up to speed fast.
John, your project sounds like the big brother to our latest best effort - 49 single family cluster homes mostly in pods of 5 each crammed into a 6.8 acre triangle bounded by developed property and right-of-way. We had high runoff from this extra density compounded by very heavy flows from upstream through already undersized system.
All of this has now reached the construction staking phase after starting life in Civil 3D 2005, converting to LDT and restarting almost from scratch with Civil 3D 2006. Only the storm sewer plans are not in Civil 3D, but there was no platting required, only easement dedication.
-
I think the thing that has me most-worried at this point is the Zero-Layer thing.
We REALLY REALLY need to be able to send design surveys to engineers who are still using LDD. If we can't control the layers things end up on after being converted to LDD, I see BIG problems ahead... :-o
-
Couple of things Sinc.
1. discussion of Autodesk subscription pricing or new seat purchasing is forever banned from this thread.
I will be more than happy to contribute to a thread concerning Why my business HAS to pay a thousand bucks a seat to convert one license to another. Those jackals are in California and get paid more than the guys in Manchester.
2. >>We REALLY REALLY need to be able to send design surveys to engineers who are still using LDD. If we can't control the layers things end up on after being converted to LDD, I see BIG problems ahead...<<
Where are you located?
The guys we get files from could give a rat's *ss what layer anything is on.
I agree than the inter-operability is going to be a problem.
Currently the process of sharing files with other agency's , be they private or public, is clumsy and time consuming.
Throw Vault into the mix and the whole concept of collaboration becomes unworkable. or barely workable, or maybe if we got any budget left workable.
As the entire world moves toward the Marketing concept of Collaboration, C3D throws Vault into the mix.
Funny story.
In my implantation teams meeting with our visitor from Manchester, after introductions and opening remarks, floor was open for questions.
One of my newer users, smart kid been here 2-3 years with a lot of game,
says, " What were you thinking when.......".
Brought down the house.
If I remember correctly had to do with the default contour label precision of the nearest hundredth.
Anybody out there ever issued a contour map to the nearest hundredth?
Later guys.
I hope I'm helping somebody.
-
Well, I did draw an as-built grading detail of a dead flat cul-de-sac at 5 scale and 0.2' contours about 16 years ago. It did at least prove that the water would actually go away in about 3 days. Of course that was Denver and most of it would be evaporated.
The guy from Manchester must have looked like a deer frozen in headlights when that question fired up. The number of endings for that start is huge.
The whole collaboration and layer thing doesn't bother me very much. We don't trade drawings very often and I never send anything out and expect to open returned to me and start working. We don't send to anyone with LDT or Civil 3D. They don't need drawings with that stuff in them so it will all be exploded. If we ever get a drawing back for something, I bring in their contributed work via a MAP query or wblock into my original of the copy I sent them.
-
Couple of things Sinc.
1. discussion of Autodesk subscription pricing or new seat purchasing is forever banned from this thread.
I will be more than happy to contribute to a thread concerning Why my business HAS to pay a thousand bucks a seat to convert one license to another. Those jackals are in California and get paid more than the guys in Manchester.
I don't understand this. My whole point was that Autodesk started increasing prices in March in an effort to "encourage" people to switch. They did not provide usable software, but they instituted the price increase anyway. That is unethical, in my mind. THAT is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what the price is, or how much it costs to convert. I care that they are penalizing people for refusing to switch from software that works to software that doesn't work.
If SP3 is as good as you say, then it would have made sense for them to start the price increases with the 2008 version. But NOT the 2007.
Where are you located?
The guys we get files from could give a rat's *ss what layer anything is on.
Yeah, I've heard people dis surveyors a lot, and complain how worthless they are with Autocad. Evidently, we take pride in NOT being worthless... :wink:
Look at it this way. Do you LIKE getting everything on random layers? If you were used to receiving nice, clean, easy-to-use drawings, how would you feel if you suddenly started getting garbage? And when you tried to find out why everything suddenly turned to garbage, the answer is "We switched to Autodesk's new product..."
We've already been having enough problems caused by the fact that LDD 2007 is incompatible with earlier versions. That has been a MAJOR hassel, but we've gotten used to dealing with it. It's possible we'll just get used to what we have to do with Civil-3D. But that doesn't mean we'll like it. :-(
-
>> don't understand this. My whole point was that Autodesk started increasing prices in March in an effort to "encourage" people to switch. They did not provide usable software, but they instituted the price increase anyway. That is unethical, in my mind. THAT is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what the price is, or how much it costs to convert. I care that they are penalizing people for refusing to switch from software that works to software that doesn't work.<<
Actually this started some years ago.
My subscription agreement is up at the end of January.
The release cycle starts in April.
I have been extended the privilege of paying next years rate at a time when the only thing that is available is this years product.
The first time I got stabbed on paying for C3D development was when the product I had contained the caveat that it was not released for production, but I got to pay another hundred bucks a seat because the next release would be ready to use.
They were talking about 2005.
[whistle: Referee calls rule violation for discussing off topic issues.]
My purpose on this thread was to try to tell people that the product is getting tantalizingly close to what it was supposed to be. And maybe, just maybe, this could be the time to jump.
And I don't disparage surveyors, I used to drive the truck.
I can still throw a chain and I know how to use a right angle prism, and if you need your hand level adjusted I can still do that.
-
.
I can still throw a chain and I know how to use a right angle prism, and if you need your hand level adjusted I can still do that.
What's a chain? :-D
-
Been a few days since my last rant.
Evidently I haven't learned any lessons. :-o
Been busy with my real job of working in the Information Systems Group.
Lots going on there.
My MEP group is transitioning into Building Systems, finally.
My Archies are trying to implement Revit.
We are moving our servers over to a VMware Virtual server.
IE 7 is now a critical update.
We have been running it a while, not much difference for the regular user.
Vista and Office 2007 are due out soon.
Back to the Civil 3D front.
SP3 was published late yesterday.
Download it and install it.
Or being the sceptic that I am wait a week and check the message boards.
My end users have been running a Beta on a live project and wouldn't have it any other way.
Needless to say running Beta on a live project is not for the faint of heart.
Vault performance increased tremendously.
Data shortcuts back.
So you can implement without having to go through Vault.
We are still facing some issues with the Beta product, but they are greatly reduced on an order of magnitude.
-
I'm glad your back posting this saga John, there is still a lot left to tell. I am also curious how are your archies dealing with Revit. From what I can tell, it seems like a much easier change from ADT to Revit than it is from LDT to Civil 3D. At least I see a lot more archies crowing about how great Revit is than civil engineers fawning over marvels of Civil 3D.
. . . SP3 was published late yesterday.
Download it and install it.
Or being the sceptic that I am wait a week and check the message boards.
My end users have been running a Beta on a live project and wouldn't have it any other way.
Needless to say running Beta on a live project is not for the faint of heart.
Vault performance increased tremendously.
Data shortcuts back.
So you can implement without having to go through Vault.
We are still facing some issues with the Beta product, but they are greatly reduced on an order of magnitude.
Late I guess . . . I snagged a copy about 9:30 last night. I think they posted SP2 about the same time. Perhaps they are hoping to give themselves at least a weekend off before the multitude start complaining about something still not fixed or a broken favorite command. I noticed also that they seem to have learned a lesson about making sure any warnings are easy to spot on the download page. For the record, if you are using Vault you need to update that BEFORE you apply SP3 and yes, it is going to break Google Earth, so that will have to be updated as well. There are also two different downloads - one for the locked version of Civil 3D and one for the unlocked version. I would think it prudent to check for which one you need before applying the service pack.
-
Well got everything downloaded and installed.
The machines running sp3 beta had to be uninstalled and reinstalled.
Those systems with sp2 only had to be updated.
Ran the Vault patch first on all of the systems before sp3.
Except for mine, I forgot, installed it afterward and it appeared to go on o.k.
My guys busy trying to get the styles creation farther along.
Still working on getting the documentation put together.
Seems like this time around the land desktop sp may have some problems.
Keep an eye on the Autodesk discussion groups in regards to this. Couple of pretty smart guys have run into some problems and don't have the answers yet.
May just be confined to their situation but it's only day 1.
Pilot project back in the garage for redesign.
Lots of changes and we are going to readjust the process.
Going to take another shot at running a corridor through the parking lots as many of the design restraints that gave us trouble are no longer present.
Plus when we ran into those problems it was SP1A and now we have SP3 to run with.
Kind of cool watching my pilot team learning how to walk. They are getting pretty good at this. Eavesdropped on a conversation between 3 of them discussing what needed to be a parent style and what needed to be a child.
I knew who to call to find out, but they were doing a good job of figuring it out and that is how you learn.
Thanks Bud for teaching them how to think.
They are getting pretty good at it.
-
It sounds like it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep LDT and Civil 3D compatible with each other. I wonder how much longer Autodesk will think it cost effective to keep trying to crank out competing products and have them compatible with each other as well as the core program.
About your pilot project . . . I have been around long enough to not be surprised a first submittal comes back with more red than black and white combined, but I think you will now see some of the real miracles of Civil 3D. My first few rounds of comments were budget busters even if the whole thing hadn't been already shot, but I also still didn't quite know what I was doing. The latest rounds have gone much better and it is becoming clear that what looks to be a complete redesign can be turned around much faster with Civil 3D. Your guys sound to be more than up to the task and with sp3 greasing the way - it might just be fun to watch.
-
A short quick update to my adventures implementing this beast.
First off I ordered some systems the other day, part of the regular quarterly purchase, done to rotate the stuff off the bottom by putting things on top and trickling down the systems.
You can buy some great boxes these days.
We use a working figure of 2K per system as a working number and try to get as much as we can for that.
I'll wave a flag for XI computers today.
They are not perfect. We have had some problems, Particularly with the new AMD socket motherboards of a few months ago.
But they were easy to get in touch with and worked the problems with us.
Anyway they now offer a line of Core 2 duo processor based systems and I got some.
I went to Dell and HP to configure similar boxes and they were 2-3 Benjamin's more expensive.
I know they weren't exactly the same 'cause the box builders like to point that out.
Anyway why does this belong on this thread?
Because C3D requires some serious hardware to be effective. Part of the implementation plan has to include hardware. Most of the memory leak issues seem to have been addressed. So 2 G should work O.K. But make sure you have two open slots cause who knows what happens next. Two monitors still a must.
Vault server, I still don't think has to be much.
You can get by on something way less than a beast and be fine.
>> It sounds like it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep LDT and Civil 3D compatible with each other.<<
They aren't really but so what?
-
John, we have tried a couple mid range video cards and not found much if any performance increase over some of the lower end nvidea and ati cards with 128 mb or less. What have you found to be the best approach to video cards for Civil 3D?
>> It sounds like it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep LDT and Civil 3D compatible with each other.<<
They aren't really but so what?
Well, not much "what" really . . . it wouldn't keep me up nights if Autodesk just pulls the plug on LDT tonight and in fact, I think it would be the best thing by any measure you prefer to advance Civil 3D's acceptance (and eliminate most of its performance and stability problems that remain which was the point of my comment). Equally important, the LDT crutch that lets you blink when crunch time comes insures that only the most dedicated of design teams get a chance to refute the claims that Civil 3D can not finish out a project.
-
Well, not much "what" really . . . it wouldn't keep me up nights if Autodesk just pulls the plug on LDT tonight and in fact, I think it would be the best thing by any measure you prefer to advance Civil 3D's acceptance (and eliminate most of its performance and stability problems that remain which was the point of my comment). Equally important, the LDT crutch that lets you blink when crunch time comes insures that only the most dedicated of design teams get a chance to refute the claims that Civil 3D can not finish out a project.
For most people, what matters the most is how quickly they can complete a project, not on how neat the software is, or how much potential a the software has. If it takes twice as long to complete a project in Civil-3D, that is not a good endorsement, no matter how neat and how easy it is to do the first 80%.
I suspect the largest effect of pulling LDD would be to cause more people to switch to Bentley. That's a much easier switch than switching to Civil-3D. Of course, Civil-3D is much more powerful and has a lot more potential, but if it can't be used for production work, not many people are going to want to bang their heads against a wall and wait for Autodesk to fix things... (Autodesk really does have a pretty bad overall track record with fixing things, although I have heard a couple of other stories like John's, where people from Autodesk show up on a site, catalog a whole series of problems with Civil-3D, then have them all fixed a month later...)
But Autodesk has been telling people for nearly two years that Civil-3D is ready for prime-time, and we all know that's been a lie... Too many people tried it, only to be disgusted with it. It may finally be reaching the point that it can stand up to they hype, but now people are gun-shy... :|
-
Before anybody starts banging the Bentley drum too hard we have 20-25 seats with Geopak.
It, while stable in select versions, is not without it's faults.
Have you ever tried to contact Bentley to straighten out a billing problem?
We have .
The latest started nearly a month ago and they won't even return e-mails or voice mails. Our contract manager, who changes frequently, will not reply to inquiries.
My dedicated band of Bentley true believers are very productive and certain versions are very effective at what they do, but the support channel is non-existant. If your account manager won't reply to a phone call or e-mail concerning a 50 k bill, how would you judge their product?
I am not a Bentley basher. I have seen a segment of of business prosper using their products. They are not without faults. And more than anything else it is expensive.
I would not be surprised at all if the Microstation product line went through the same sort of transition that LDT and C3d is doing know.
J to V8 was an adjustment but they will have to do more than that going forward. Haven't been involved with any of the XM version yet.
Making my first trip to Autodesk University this year.
I'll post some comments concerning that trip. Should be interesting.
-
It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm sure Bentley will follow, and create a model-based product. Autodesk seems bent on abandoning their older product, in favor of the newer. I wonder if Bentley will do the same.
I've seen many firms that still use maybe 10% of the functionality of Land Desktop at the most. I can't see those firms being in any hurry in trying to transition to Civil-3D. In fact, I suspect demand for an LDD-type product will be around for another decade, and probably longer. So if Autodesk abandons that market, I'm sure others will fill it. Carlson is well-poised, and Intellicad is coming along, so there will be options in addition to Bentley.
And then as soon as Autodesk announces they're dropping Land Desktop, there will be people who buy the last version of the program, drop their subscription, and then use that copy of Land Desktop for the next seven years... :-D
But I definitely think a model-based approach like Civil-3D is the wave of the future. Once all the problems are worked out and the software really comes into its own, I suspect only the companies who have invested in learning it will be able to land the really big, interesting, and fun jobs... 8-)
I'd hazard that Autodesk would be well-served by keeping LDD around for a least a couple more years, at least until LDD users start hearing more Civil-3D success stories... Once LDD users start hearing a lot of "I can't believe how much faster and easier it is to do everything now that we switched to Civil-3D...", then they'll be more inclined to switch.
-
Civil-3D training starts for us in the morning... :lol:
It will be nice to get some guidance from someone who knows the product. I was figuring things out on my own and making progress, but it was taking a long time... I frequently found it difficult to tell if any given problem was due to something I was doing wrong, or due to a problem with the software. Of course, that was primarily with the 2006 and 2007 (pre-SP1) releases, so there were lots and lots of problems to find... I finally gave up, and decided to wait until we could get official training.
As things turn out, we now have 2007 SP3 for training, so we're hoping things go relatively smoothly... :wink:
-
John, we have tried a couple mid range video cards and not found much if any performance increase over some of the lower end nvidea and ati cards with 128 mb or less. What have you found to be the best approach to video cards for Civil 3D?
>> It sounds like it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep LDT and Civil 3D compatible with each other.<<
They aren't really but so what?
Well, not much "what" really . . . it wouldn't keep me up nights if Autodesk just pulls the plug on LDT tonight and in fact, I think it would be the best thing by any measure you prefer to advance Civil 3D's acceptance (and eliminate most of its performance and stability problems that remain which was the point of my comment). Equally important, the LDT crutch that lets you blink when crunch time comes insures that only the most dedicated of design teams get a chance to refute the claims that Civil 3D can not finish out a project.
Couple things.
We use fairly crappy video cards, Nvidia 500 class products.
128 ram dual output kind of stuff.
Seems to work just fine.
I may be singing a different tune when Vista gets installed and the next Version of 3D gets released, but so far so good.
Most of the Land ways of doing things are still there.
You can Xref files, show dumb profiles, Label stuff in plan view by hand all that kind of stuff is still there. We had to do it. But nobody has Land Desktop Companion installed.
I'm interested in hearing how Sinc's adventure is going.
-
It sounds like you are seeing the same thing with video cards that we are. From what we have observed, Civil 3D just doesn't need the high end or even medium range cards unless you are trying to render the model or do walk throughs. Here is a barstool story for you. I just had to do a temporary install of C3D 2k7 on an AMD 1.5 ghz with 1 gb memory MINUS the 32mb on board S3 video. It installed without a hitch, blew razzberries at me when it did the system check and then proceeded to run - slow, but it runs. I don't have to really push it, so I don't expect any problems.
Sinc is likely too busy right now to post much, but I too am anxious for a report . . . and still quite jealous.
-
I just had to do a temporary install of C3D 2k7 on an AMD 1.5 ghz with 1 gb memory MINUS the 32mb on board S3 video. It installed without a hitch, blew razzberries at me when it did the system check and then proceeded to run - slow, but it runs. I don't have to really push it, so I don't expect any problems.
The big thing I notice with a better video card is that EVERYTHING is slightly more-responsive, even just moving the mouse around on the screen. I really noticed the difference between an Nvidia 5600 and a Quadro FX 700 - even using Windows Explorer was a little bit more responsive. But it was a rather marginal thing. It makes the user experience a little bit more pleasant, but doesn't really add any productivity. On one system, I was briefly using the MOBO graphics before putting in a Quadro FX1300, and I noticed a BIG difference there.
The new system has a Quadro FX1500 ($550), and the thing is silky-smooth... It can also do very smooth 3D-Orbits in conceptual mode, which the others can't. Of course, I suspect the Core 2 Duo, 800MHz RAM, and Express chipset on the MOBO have something to do with that, too... At some point, I'll have to swap video cards around between machines and see if I notice any difference between, say, a Quadro FX1300 and a Quadro FX1500.
I'm really liking the RAID - that seems to make a big improvement to Civil-3D, more so than the mid-range video card...
Our trainer showed us a little trick that seems to make dual-monitors rather unncecessary, at least for every task we've done so far. There might be SOME task that would really want two monitors, but we haven't hit it yet. Basically, the primary window is not maximized, and has gaps on the edges of the screen. Then things like the Prospector are set to auto-hide and sit on the edges. This is somewhat nicer than a dual-monitor setup in that everything is closer to the action, and there's less mouse-movement involved, and seems to work basically just as well, especially on a 20" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution...
Oops, gotta go... I'm gonna be late for class. More later when I have time... :-)
-
The video card question is alsobeing discussed in THIS (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=13577.0) thread in the Hardware Forum. I will admit that a quality video card can make a noticable difference in some things, but I think there may be better places to throw that $200 -$400 or more than into the video card.
That trick with the AutoCAD display sounds very familiar . . . it works great in any situation where you just don't have 2 monitors or are using a laptop.
-
That trick with the AutoCAD display sounds very familiar . . .
We have the same trainer. :-)
OK, here's my impressions. First, the bad stuff... :-o
It is now crystal-clear why I was having trouble with Civil-3D. The user interface is tolerable from a design point-of-view - not great, but I've seen worse. There's a few pieces that are particularly obtuse, leaving us wondering "what the hell were they thinking?", but other parts of it show excellent design. Unfortunately, the execution of the design is TERRRIBLE. Civil-3D is filled with inconsistent behavior in dialog boxes, and dialog boxes that serve no valid purpose. The worst are the tiny dialog boxes that can't be resized, even though they are crammed full of little sub-windows with scroll bars in them. Autodesk won't let you resize the dialog boxes - instead, you get this little tiny area to work in. And then there's all the critical functions that are "hidden" until you "summon" them... Then once summoned, they stay visible and easy-to-find, even when Civil-3D is shut down and restarted. But when you first get Civil-3D out-of-the-box, GOOD LUCK trying to find some of them on your own...
The absolute worst is the documentation. Those things that Autodesk calls "Tutorials" should actually be called "Demos". They do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to teach anyone how to use the product. No wonder I was lost, trying to use them... Anyone trying to learn Civil-3D from the Autodesk documentation and tutorials, I'm telling you right now you might as well give up. CRITICAL INFO CANNOT BE FOUND THERE.
And that doesn't even touch on how unreliable the software is. We had quite a few corrupted drawings, where EVERYTHING was lost, just in the course of the class. And since all project information now resides inside of DWG files, losing a DWG file is much worse than it was in Land Desktop. The frequency of this occurrance is so great that it severely impacts the value of the product. It is right on the borderline of being SO BAD that the software is unusable. However, it is stable enough that, AS LONG AS THE USER SAVES MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE FILE FREQUENTLY, it can be used.
There's a little dance that's required. Obviously, AutoCAD's Autosave and Recover options cannot be trusted - they fail at least half the time. As such, they rank right up there with some of Autocad's most useless features - not because they are bad ideas, but because the implementation is so poor that they can't be relied upon. And .BAK files don't work, either, because they are always one version behind. So the safest thing is to always keep two copies of your DWG file (e.g. "MyFile.dwg" and "MyFileBAK.dwg", and VERY FREQUENTLY, do a "SAVE AS" to first the backup DWG file, then immediately do another "SAVE AS" to the main DWG file. That way, when the main DWG file gets corrupted (and it WILL get corrupted), you still have the other one to fall back on. You can also try hitting "SAVE" twice, so you know the .BAK file that Autocad creates is up-to-date, but that .BAK file can still get lost if the user is careless. So it's safer to just always SAVE AS two different DWG files.
Then there's all those little things that just prove that Autodesk programmers don't actually USE their own product, e.g. the command line goes away when no drawing is open. And Project Management is basically left to the user - even the pathetic Project Management features that existed in Land Desktop no longer exist. That's a HUGE step backwards. And it basically seems like Surveyors are largely left out to dry - Autodesk really screwed the pooch when it comes to supporting calculating points for field-staking. There is NO way to set Cogo points on feature lines, and have the point get its elevation from the feature line. Little details like this really show that Autodesk is living up to it's nickname of "the 80% solution" - they get you 80% of the way there, then drop the ball...
But then there's the good stuff... :lol:
Working with intelligent, 3D entities instead of dumb, 2D linework is an ABSOLUTE JOY! And tasks that were inexplicably obtuse and difficult-to-perform in Land Desktop are now a breeze. Even with all the many, many flaws in the current product, it is obvious that we will be able to save a lot of time with C3D. Unfortunately, we may need to drop down into Land Desktop sometimes in order to perform many of our field calcs, because Autodesk did some REAL BONEHEAD THINGS, but I might be able to fix that with some judicious coding (if I can sort through all the broken and incomplete developer documentation well enough - another place where Autodesk really dropped the ball). And of course, our trainer is really bugged now by this issue (he HATES not having the answer to a problem), and has sworn that if there's any other possible workaround for issue, he'll find it... :wink:
I know I already don't want to start up Land Desktop anymore. I'm tired of fighting that old, tired software, that Autodesk has refused to improve since 2000. In comparison, C3D is FUN! Too bad it crashes so much...
-
Welcome to to brawl with this beast!!!!!!!!!!
You will get past this stuff.
>>The absolute worst is the documentation.<<
Actually I thought the help files were pretty good.
Of course they only tell you what goes right and not what goes wrong but hey there is always google.
>>Anyone trying to learn Civil-3D from the Autodesk documentation and tutorials, I'm telling you right now you might as well give up. CRITICAL INFO CANNOT BE FOUND THERE.<<
Yup.
Why do you think I started this thread.
>>And that doesn't even touch on how unreliable the software is. <<
We have found that SP3 is pretty reliable.
Still not without it's faults but is deployable in a production environment.
>>I know I already don't want to start up Land Desktop anymore. I'm tired of fighting that old, tired software, that Autodesk has refused to improve since 2000. In comparison, C3D is FUN! Too bad it crashes so much... <<
Yup.
Welcome to the point of the spear.
It is cool.
>>Unfortunately, we may need to drop down into Land Desktop <<
Do not do that.
Most of that stuff is there.
Just don't go backwards.
BTW, Nice rant.
-
>>The absolute worst is the documentation.<<
Actually I thought the help files were pretty good.
I should have been more specific. There are parts of the documentation that were done quite well and completely. The assembly documentation comes to mind.
But all the stuff about how to transition from Land Desktop to Civil-3D, and the Tutorials, and the stuff designed to orient the complete newbies a give them real chance at figuring the beast out - THAT's the stuff that's terrible.
>>Unfortunately, we may need to drop down into Land Desktop <<
Do not do that.
Most of that stuff is there.
Just don't go backwards.
We'll try not to. Like I said, I've already lost interest in even starting up Land Desktop. It is definitely old, obsolescent software that should go away. I still think it will be around for quite some time, but I'll be glad when it's gone.
However, we won't be converting all our existing Land Desktop projects to C3D, at least not until we get more comfortable in C3D, and get more styles setup, etc. We'll probably start off with some of our smaller, newer projects in C3D, and start converting some of the others as time goes on, and we start to feel more comfortable. Right now, we have to maintain productivity while still learning the ropes.
But we actually are feeling comfortable enough in how to do our most-common tasks that we'll probably try starting many of our new projects in C3D... The jobs where we're doing the construction staking will be the easiest to start with - for those, it doesn't matter that we don't have lots of styles setup. We now know enough about processing dirty LDD linework from an engineer in Map, bringing it into C3D, and creating the basic project entities like surfaces, alignments, profiles, etc., that we'd still save time, even if we then had to then dump it out into LDD for some of the calcs. Similarly, it may be easier to do design surveys in C3D (assuming we can manage the transfer to LDD for the engineer, which hopefully we can.) The plats will probably be the last - those are the ones with the most-complex labeling, and the ones that face the strictest review by regulatory agencies.
...Amazing what a difference good training makes. After only the first two days, everyone in our office basically knows how to do many of our most-common tasks. Our trainer can tell us to go to any job, query its data into C3D via Map, and create all necessary alignments, surfaces, profiles, and (simple) corridors, and EVERYONE in our office can do it, with no guidance, and in much less time than the same tasks in LDD. At the Autodesk Sitelines thing, after five months, they have one engineer sort-of trained in C3D, and practically no actual work done on the target project, despite having the full resources of Autodesk on hand...
All righ, all right... I realize we really need to wait a bit, and see how we manage when our trainer isn't right there with us, and we'll find out how much of what we just learned has really sunk in... But still, I'm optimistic... :-D :-D :-D
I'll start another topic, explaining the primary issue we've discovered so far, and see if anyone has come across a workaround. This problem severly impacts our ability to work. It seems to make it impossible to calculate points for survey stakeout, and it's hard to believe that we are the first survey firm to try using C3D... So unless everyone's been jumping down to LDD and/or Carlson for stakeout calcs, there must be a workaround...
-
We have the same trainer. :-)
:kewl: Please give him my regards and continuing gratitude for all he has taught me.
. . . And then there's all the critical functions that are "hidden" until you "summon" them... Then once summoned, they stay visible and easy-to-find, even when Civil-3D is shut down and restarted. But when you first get Civil-3D out-of-the-box, GOOD LUCK trying to find some of them on your own
Have you tried establishing a workspace? Many of the functions can be pulled up and set to autohide with their positions locked and easy to find. This also allows you to recall that preferred workspace if unwanted toolbars or dialogs make a surprise visit on start up.
. . . even the pathetic Project Management features that existed in Land Desktop no longer exist. That's a HUGE step backwards
I feel that this is the most serious defect left in Civil 3D along with not being able to use a MAP query for Civil 3D objects. Vault seems like a very heavy handed approach to drawing management rather than the more flexible project management needs of civil engineers and I am not convinced that the recently revived data shortcuts are a good answer either unless they can be enhanced to follow with xrefs. We are working on projects in their 6th and 7th phases that have been ongoing for 5+ years and I can not see how vault could effectively deal with this. We don't have little parts that need to have a record of their evolution, only the current design. Anything prior to that has been rejected for cause and will not be revisited. In the rare event a concept plan is revived, our own backup system can restore to any date specified since we implemented the system.
. . . Working with intelligent, 3D entities instead of dumb, 2D linework is an ABSOLUTE JOY! . . . I know I already don't want to start up Land Desktop anymore. I'm tired of fighting that old, tired software, that Autodesk has refused to improve since 2000. In comparison, C3D is FUN! Too bad it crashes so much...
And one more convert is welcomed to the fold
. . . The plats will probably be the last - those are the ones with the most-complex labeling, and the ones that face the strictest review by regulatory agencies.
2007 at least makes doing a plat feasible. I have finally figured a way to get platted vs measured boundary information to display how I want and as long as the geometry is not too complex I can make it work. I still have no clue for getting parcel segment labeling to work with the complexity of most of our lots, but the general line and curve labels turned the trick for most platting.
. . . Amazing what a difference good training makes. After only the first two days, everyone in our office basically knows how to do many of our most-common tasks. Our trainer can tell us to go to any job, query its data into C3D via Map, and create all necessary alignments, surfaces, profiles, and (simple) corridors, and EVERYONE in our office can do it, with no guidance, and in much less time than the same tasks in LDD . . .
ain't it the truth! :-D :kewl:
. . . And then there's all the critical functions that are "hidden" until you "summon" them... Then once summoned, they stay visible and easy-to-find, even when Civil-3D is shut down and restarted. But when you first get Civil-3D out-of-the-box, GOOD LUCK trying to find some of them on your own
Have you tried establishing a workspace? Many of the functions can be pulled up and set to autohide withtheir positions locked and easy to find. This also allows you to recall that preferred workspace if unwanted toolbars or dialogs make a surprise visit on startup.
. . . even the pathetic Project Management features that existed in Land Desktop no longer exist. That's a HUGE step backwards
I feel that this is the most serious defect left in Civil 3D along with not being able to use a MAP query for Civil 3D objects. Vault seems like a very heavy handed approach to drawing management rather than the more flexible project management needs of civil engineers and I am not convinced that the recently revived data shortcuts are a good answer either unless they can be enhanced to follow with xrefs. We are working on projects in their 6th and 7th phases that have been ongoing for 5+ years and I can not see how vault could effectively deal with this. We don't have little parts that need to have a record of their evolution, only the current design. Anything prior to that has been rejected for cause and will not be revisited. In the rare event a concept plan is revived, our own backup system can restore to any date specified since we implemented the system.
. . . Working with intelligent, 3D entities instead of dumb, 2D linework is an ABSOLUTE JOY! . . . I know I already don't want to start up Land Desktop anymore. I'm tired of fighting that old, tired software, that Autodesk has refused to improve since 2000. In comparison, C3D is FUN! Too bad it crashes so much...
And one more convert is welcomed to the fold
. . . The plats will probably be the last - those are the ones with the most-complex labeling, and the ones that face the strictest review by regulatory agencies.
2007 at least makes doing a plat feasible. I have finally figured a way to get platted vs measured boundary information to display how I want and as long as the geometry is not too complex I can make it work. I still have no clue for getting parcel segment labeling to work with the complexity of most of our lots, but the general line and curve labels turned the trick for most platting.
. . . All righ, all right... I realize we really need to wait a bit, and see how we manage when our trainer isn't right there with us, and we'll find out how much of what we just learned has really sunk in... But still, I'm optimistic... :-D :-D :-D
Not to worry . . . I am sure you have rememberred and heeded my advice about the notes. ;-)
I left you some thoughts about your staking points problem. They are likely not a complete solution, but I think they will start you in the right direction. Points are weird . . . I thought I had a fair handle on them quite quickly and as I got deeper into projects, I started finding more surprises. I have only recently started making some progress toward where I once thought I was concerning points.
-
Hey sinc.
Notice you didn't mention the styles part of the beast.
Still running OOTB or have you tied into that yet?
-
Hey sinc.
Notice you didn't mention the styles part of the beast.
Still running OOTB or have you tied into that yet?
Funny you should notice... :-D
That's actually the current area of concern - how do we handle styles, layers, etc. We still are very concious that we need to at least get SOME of our linework on other layers for when we send design surveys off to engineers (none of the engineers we know is currently using C3D -they're all still on LDD).
We're somewhat resigned to not giving them drawings that are as neat as what they used to get. But as much as possible, we're trying to avoid giving them drawings where EVERYTHING is on Layer 0 and NOTHING is ByLayer... :laugh:
BTW - what's OOTB?
-
. . .BTW - what's OOTB?
Out Of The Box
-
>>We're somewhat resigned to not giving them drawings that are as neat as what they used to get. But as much as possible, we're trying to avoid giving them drawings where EVERYTHING is on Layer 0 and NOTHING is ByLayer... <<
Don't be resigned to that.
I think that actually if you put in the time and effort you drawing quality will improve.
When you do venture into the belly of the styles beast you will discover some amazing functionality. Also some incredible shortcomings.
Your core issue concerns your ability to deliver C3D 2007 created drawing files to your clients without that capability.
And that's ugly.
Inter-separability is a huge issue that has been inadequately addressed.
In my own house, we have the Archies trying to move to the Revit flavor of the month, the MEP guys using building systems and the civil guys trying to roll out C3D.
What happens when we actually get a project using these diverse products?
I don't know but I'll take a WAG that it's not going to be quite as smooth as it looks in the marketing brochures.
And then after we are past that somebody else may stake it.
WTF are we going to be able to send them?
-
Time to update this.
Believe it or not I actually have learned someting since the last post.
The Beta test business is essentially wide open now.
If you want a look at next years product, sign up.
Another lesson learned.
If you go to AU for a week don't be surprised when you return home that the Naysayers have gained traction in your absence.
The Dinosaurs, no offense Dino, will take advantage of your absence.
This product really is a life changing event and some people are quite comfortable in their lives.
We need to figure a new strategy, not unlike the Iraq study group, in order to move forward.
Fairly critical period in our efforts and might be time for a CEO meeting.
Despite the early failures of the 2007 product the SP3 stuff ROCKS.
Lot of thinking needs to be done by my implementation team and I before we chart the next course.
I'm getting impatient, it really can't be as hard as we are making it.
Well, it ain't easy.
-
Well John, as long as you still had an office to come back to, they didn't gain enough ground to turn the tide back. They are fighting a losing battle because this thing is just too good to go away. It is far from perfect, does a lot of things we don't really need and misses some things we would really like to have but even so is superior to anything else available that doesn't come with a Bentley logo and it may be better than MX or PowerCivil too. I am not sure if Civil 3D will be the future workhorse for civil engineering design, but I know whatever it is will darn well NOT be Land Desktop 20xx. My battles with the Naysayer (only one in my case, but quite a handful) are now done, but Civil 3D is still teetering on the brink. If it falls though, it will be to some package still beyond the horizon. As sinc has discovered, once you give Civil 3D a chance to show its stuff, one does not look even forward to firing up Land Desktop. It is pure tedium to use once you figure out how to accomplish a few tasks with Civil 3D.
Now, the last we heard you had a whopping load of comments from your project. How well is Civil 3D holding up to a significant round of revisions compared to cranking out the initial design?
-
Sorry Dino for my delay in filling you in on what's happening.
Last week was difficult.
My guys are beginning to feel the sense of urgency that I have trying to convey for a while.
We have to regain forward momentum before we sink.
Pilot project on hold for a number of reason's best not discussed in a public forum.
Running into some real Mid-Management roadblocks that are proving to be more difficult to overcome than I would have hoped.
The theme of this year's AU was "An Agent of Change"
I'm putting in for a purple heart.
Just hope it's not awarded posthumously.
Spell checker's suggested replacement for Mid-Management was Mismanagement.
Now that's a pure piece of gallows humor that I have ever heard.
-
OUCH ! ! Our problems were always a sense of urgency to just get the blasted project finished and approved along with hemorrhaging budgets because we had to learn and develop things as we went. This sounds like a whole new class of what I call "megacrash" caused by high management and bean counters rather than the program. I can only offer that I was officially forbidden to use Civil 3D on three separate occasions for durations measured in weeks and months before things turned around. I didn't necessarily follow those dictates completely, but they were rough times indeed that eventually passed.
For some reason though, I keep looking at that 2006 AU theme name and reading "AGENT ORANGE" - blast those Vietnam era flashbacks . . .
Don't worry about the delayed response - I have been too busy since that last post to even check in here on a regular basis during the day. With any luck, the title information came through Friday and our 163 acre project has started its first adventure through the approval process. I won't know until Monday as rather than work Friday, I got to drive 760 miles over 14 hours with minimal breaks courtesy 3 cans of Red Bull, 2 Starbuck's Frappuccinos and double strength Starbuck Cappuccino energy drink - all on a virtually empty stomach . . . .bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Sorry Dino for my delay in filling you in on what's happening.
Last week was difficult.
My guys are beginning to feel the sense of urgency that I have trying to convey for a while.
We have to regain forward momentum before we sink.
Pilot project on hold for a number of reason's best not discussed in a public forum.
Running into some real Mid-Management roadblocks that are proving to be more difficult to overcome than I would have hoped.
The theme of this year's AU was "An Agent of Change"
I'm putting in for a purple heart.
Just hope it's not awarded posthumously.
Spell checker's suggested replacement for Mid-Management was Mismanagement.
Now that's a pure piece of gallows humor that I have ever heard.
If I am reading certain posts on the Discussion Group correctly, John has indeed prevailed through this troubled time and is now up to his eyebrows converting the masses. I hope I am not jumping the gun in congrtulating him on a job very well done.
-
Congrats is a big word.
We have managed to "backfill" our political lapses in this process.
2007 sp3 is finally floor ready and the styles beast has been addressed.
The Vault business has been addressed.
I still think it's a bloated, primitive, POS but from the end user prospective they like it.
So if I have to deal with it and they don't we're are moving forward with it.
Our company finally reached the tipping point.
It's going out and it's going to everybody.
Well everybody in the Land Desktop end of the business.
And a couple guys in the Microstation Geopak side also.
It certainly isn't easy from from my side.
Can't imagine what it's like from the Mom and Pop shop side of the business.
But you don't have to create PowerPoint presentations on why we should move forward.
My partner in this adventure wrote an article for Civil3D dot com about being a technical Evangelist.
If he ever turns it in you should see it.
Damn 7:20 on Friday Night and I'm posting on a Geek board.
I'm thinking I need Help.
-
Not as much as your consultant that jumped on that same board on Saturday to read it.
See you Monday. :lol:
-
Or logging in on Sunday during nap time to lurk! :-D
-
Even more progress to report.
Because of events, some that I have influence in and some I didn't we now have 6 more users trained.
The Pilot project has come back, 1 new project starts Monday and the other new project next week.
So we are sitting with 6 pretty good users and 6 toddlers and three projects to do.
Seems like the force ratio should work.
Maybe in another month or so we should be able to know a lot more about both how to implement and who is next.
Can't say enough about how important the CEO has been during this process.
My partner in this, the guy on the floor who has to deal daily with the forces of the darkside has been a ROCK.
My consultant, who is rumored to lurk here and occasionally post is......... searching for a word here........ sorry not one word.
It's a little more complicated than that. If you want to hire someone to help you implement this product I have a lot to say in favor of the guy helping us. I have a lot to say about the quality of service and advice that I have been fortunate to receive from him, and his friends.
I said early on I was not going to use this thread to promote any one implementer, those who pay attention know and those that don't can always P.M. me and I will be happy to share.
Besides I blow enough wind in his sails on other locations.
We are now over the hump. Still some moguls to negotiate but it's downhill now.
Thinking maybe March we turn out another dozen users and run them on more projects and then maybe May shoot for another dozen or so.
At this point it's a done deal.
Trying to decide if I should post a top ten Lessons Learned or just make everybody slug it out through this thread.
Wait a minute maybe I have a good idea for a post on another site.
No football tomorrow.
Top ten list. I might try that.
Crap Saturday night and I'm posting on a Geek board.
I really do need a life.
-
Update this thing.
After next week we will have a couple dozen trained users and a half a dozen projects going.
Among the growing pain decisions yet to make are what the heck do we do with 2008?
Vault is sort of under control, as much as it can be, but what happens when we really get rolling?
Lots of questions remain.
Our pilot project, after some starts and stops, not the fault of the software, is nearly finished.
The guys involved from the start are scary good at this stuff but they will tell you they have a ways to go.
We have a keeper of the dwt and I am confident that he will do a good job of evaluating what needs to go in there and what doesn't.
We are struggling some with how to communicate.
If the guy in the Wastewater group figures something out how does the traffic guy find out also?
I got published with some of my BS here.
http://www.civil3d.com/index.php/2007/03/heres-johnny-a-survival-top-10-list/
Thinking tonight of submitting to the powers that be a Survivors list at next years AU.
At this point things are going downhill, but there is always tomorrow.
-
Good to see you back with more war stories. If have been as busy as I with taming this beast there is little wonder at your absence here.
I am still curious how Civil 3D fared with you when the comment letters hit the fan. It has already saved my keester once when we got caught submitting a project based on design criteria that had been replaced literally 3 days prior with completely different requirements with such things as sheet size and scales in addition to having both ends of the project in City A that the sewer actually will serve and the bulk of it in City B who decided its entire mission was to block it at all cost. Both cities went wild with their turnaround deadlines. LDT would have failed us miserably with the scope of changes but Civil 3D allowed me to at least maintain some dignity and now the newly completed elementary school can actually have flush toilets.
-
Glad to catch you up Dino with my adventure.
This thing is sort of like trying to break a horse even if you don't know how to ride.
2007 SP3 is pretty stable and useable in a production environment.
The Beta discussions on 2008 were pretty mild when compared to 2007.
My big concern now is manageing expectations from Management.
After all there is still not a F9 redesign project function.
The process will work much better when the project manager can go into the model and change a pipe size and slope and have that revision reflected in the drafted sheets.
The product isn't quit there yet, and God knows neither are my Project Managers.
But it is a process of change and that takes some time.
-
and you know it is well worth the project managers time to learn how to change a pipe size or any other element if not for the simple fact that all can sleep at night knowing that with the change of pipe size and inverts the slope is adjusted as well as all other labeling and the issue will not come up a month down the line during construction because of a phone call or other interuption.
-
That is dangerous stuff there Damian unless they have taken the proper steps to know how to NOT make one heck of a mess. You have mended your ways and sought help but many others haven't. I offer you a recent conversation to illustrate . . .
bossmen: While you were busy with that new project we had to change a few things to wrap up ****. The client is on his way here to pick up the submittal so could you figure out why some of the profiles won't plot and have them ready in about an hour?
me: I see you made your own new layers instead of using the defaults - you created them as no-plot - there (make note to check very viewport in the document set), but these things aren't scaling correctly and the labels are a different size.
bosses: We couldn't get the labels to have all of the information so we exploded them, but they are all our standard sized text.
me: But this nimrod at the city insisted that we use a 40 scale instead of 50. Now the whole thing will have to be exploded out and tweaked to the new scales. The location is off now too so this will take a while.
bosses: Well THAT is stupid.
me: < comment reserved > I silently agree but something tells me we are talking about different things. Why are all of the control points showing up along with these stakeout shots?
bosses: We combined those point groups so the field crew could stake a walkthrough. They needed a file and a plot of all of those points.
me: Well at least that can be cleaned up later . . . oops no, you put the new point group on Layer 0 didn't you?
bosses wife and/or mother: Is that ready to plot yet? I don't want that guy waiting around here for his drawings mad again.
me: You don't have any flow information for these pipe runs.
boss: OH ****! I knew there was something I needed to do. (runs to office and slams door that doesn't quite muffle the cursing from inside.
other boss: This program sucks . . . I just don't understand why everything has to be so hard and take so long.
prologue: After waiting 45 minutes the client left with the plans. I grit my teeth and take a look in Prospector to see what else happened while the bosses were helping me.
-
Dino,
To that I offer to you a virtual:
1. Warm bowl of soup and crackers
2. Nice cup of tea
3. Soothing music
4. Commute home with no delays
and a bear trap to set at your Prospector!
-
Around here, we just have a PLS who keeps poking through Civil-3D projects using Land Desktop. And of course, he still hasn't quite gotten the hang of which "Browse" button to use, so he keeps creating LDT projects inside of our Civil-3D projects... and adding those stupid ADCADD_ZZ blocks everywhere, of course... :pissed:
Actually, I think I got him broken of that habit. But he recently came and got me to explain why he couldn't ATTEDIT a Civil-3D label, so hopefully we aren't about to start having similar issues... :|
-
... I offer you a recent conversation to illustrate . . .
been there done that, got the scares to prove it! :-)
-
Sinc, was the PLS in our class? Or only present in class? Say it isn't so?!?
Dino, OUCH!
I feel your pain. We so need to get all of those folks into one room for a few days.
To talk about the concepts and explain the correct workflow, and work habits.
And Dgreble, I missed seeing you in Omaha :wink:
-
MJF,
That was definitely my loss for not being there!
-
Sinc, was the PLS in our class? Or only present in class? Say it isn't so?!?
He's the guy who started working here on the second day of class. He started sitting in for a while that second morning, but was completely lost after missing the first day, so he didn't stay long. We've gotten him to the point where he can jump in and do minor changes to small things like General Notes, and of course he can edit notes on title pages, but that's basically all he's doing right now. He's the manager of the field crews and also does proposals for new work, and is busy enough that he doesn't spend a lot of time in drawings, so I think things are OK.
But, yeah, I tried to get him to start a day earlier so he could attend the class, but it didn't work out. As it turns out, it would have been a good thing if he had been there for the class, but that's in the past now.
-
Sinc, was the PLS in our class? Or only present in class? Say it isn't so?!?
Dino, OUCH!
I feel your pain. We so need to get all of those folks into one room for a few days.
To talk about the concepts and explain the correct workflow, and work habits.
And Dgreble, I missed seeing you in Omaha :wink:
The correct workflow?
How about the appropriate workflow based upon the project requirements and the people involved?
-
JP
The correct worklfow would be very handy indeed!
Project 1 - Site Topo & Boundary
People involved - Survey - Design Tech - LS review - out the door (possible plat)
Project 2 - Site Topo & Boundary with Site Design
People involved - Survey - Design Tech - LS review - Architect - PE - out the door
Project 3 - Site Topo & Boundary with Subdivision Preplan, Final Plan, Construction Plan, Final Plat, Asbuilts
People involved - Survey - Design Tech (x 2-3?) - LS review - PE (x 2?) - out the door for City review, repeat
I am sure there are numerous other scenarios.
We are not looking for the "Design Plan" button but would like a flow chart, data grouping, best management practices on handling these situations in C3D for the project requirements & the people involved.
-
I think that we are in agreement John. C3D, can, will, and does impact and is itself impacted by the project requirements. The people involved will always remain a variable for a myriad of reasons. However given the functionality of C3D here is the process as I understand it.
Somehow a company gets a project, the survey is completed. The data is imported into C3D and a surface, or a parcel must be built, in my world the Surveyor processes the data he collects, this allows him to reduce errors and improve his methods. The data is then passed to the person that understands the engineering design constraints, and local design guidelines. This person uses C3D to create the finished site design model, and sets up the sheets. The design is reviewed by the project engineer with a working knowledge of C3D, and can adjust the design elements as required. The model above is linear, the toolset offered with C3D allows for a reduction in design time, and drafting review.
I know that I've simplified things, like leaving out design review process, local meetings and agenda requirements, client demands. However you would agree that the more you can get done right, earlier in the process the smoother the project tends to go. C3D allows for a dramatic shift in workflow, and profits.
In short, I'm saying that the more people who use C3D, as a DESIGN tool, it will change your workflow. Or it should change it.
-
I was a bit to harsh in my comment.
There have been a number of white papers and consultants pushing the "magic" workflow documents.
The tools are just so flexible, the projects so different and the collections of people so diverse that a "correct" workflow is confined to each project IMO.
The are guidelines that need to be followed, and the bigger you are the more complete the guidelines become. But you just have to try to leave as much flexibility in the process as you can.
Smart dedicated users running a flexible software can sometimes work wonders.
Some design teams can thrive in one environment and not so much in another.
I guess I'm trying to say that everybody's solution is a little bit different.
-
John,
I couldn't agree with you more. I too have issues with those propaganda documents.
The method or model that I speak too is not being subsidised by any company.
Truth is in my training sessions I often speak about this model work flow. Often companies explain
why or how they are unable to move towards this model; often it is the people side of the equation.
They just can't seem to get 'old Joe' to upgrade. Trust that I understand and appreciate a company
looking after it's people, however from a business case Joe had better be a serious profit center.
And I would hope that Joe would try to learn, and that the company supports and provides training
to all employees.
The stuff that follows is a suggestion, and is not paid for, nor endorsed by Autodesk, their Vendor Network,
Training Centers, or any employee thereof.
The model that follows works with C3D, however it evolved from years of using Land Desktop, Civil Design, and Survey.
All work progresses from a Project Prototype, uses Standard Description Keys, Figure Preferences and methods.
Remember that standards of practice are key to profitability. Teach them the Standards.
The surveyor whom collects the site data, shall be the person to process the site data.
This allows for better site surveys, as they correct their errors, they will learn how to stop making them, through
editing the field book files. They should then process the data to create the original ground model, there should be
standard point groups already inserted in the EG model already in the DWT that requires only adding the break lines
from the figures and a Right-click to rebuild the surface after any headwalls or other unique fault lines are added.
This data is them sent to the project designer. In my last class session we actually hauled an Engineer in and documented
for the "Cad Operators" the local optimum minimum design guide lines for on-site grading design. Then we used a
hand full of grading features and actually built the site. The lesson was designed to explore grading features and surface
volumes, in the end they were well on the way to learning site design, as well as C3D. The idea is that either the Engineer
should use C3D directly, such that their work is the drafting. Or they train the draftsman/designer and they use C3D
to perform the design, and they then serve as QA/QC for each others projects. And use the time gained to manage
the project, and do client development.
Sometimes I talk about this model, and the response is positive, other times not so much.
The hurdle is, that its a change from the traditional Red Line Drafting Model. Properly harnessed
the product offers the potential the every job is profitable, and on time.
I've heard many of the objections; our field crews don't know cad, it's hard enough to get the codes right, etc....
Well, why not? Bad data, or missing field data costs you money.
Draftsman, or Survey Techs that A) don't want to be designers B) haven't been trained to do design.
And or Engineers that don't use CAD.
Well why not?
-
Mike,
Interesting conversation.
Of course any thread that begins with "I couldn't agree with you more." I tend to rate highly. :-)
I think it would be nice for the surveyors to spend time in the office actually creating some stuff.
Would be very beneficial. Long, long time ago when I first got near this business, Engineers spent a couple years in the field being resident engineers. They learned a lot. I worked for a company that tried to get the party chiefs some "board" time in order to improve the quality of field notes and learn what it takes to produce a drawing.
Haven't really seen that much lately.
I'm a big fan of cross-training but on a practical level it just doesn't happen very often. Let me rephrase, nearly enough.
One of the big keys to this product is to get the project manager types re-involved in the design process rather than Carmine Red on hard copy. The tools are there. The people well some are some are not.
The real hurdle IMO is getting the reviewing agency's to review the model not the sheets.
They will be mowing over me when that happens. :cry:
-
. . . The real hurdle IMO is getting the reviewing agency's to review the model not the sheets . . .
If not the main one, it is sure one of the highest. These guys have no idea how devastating some of their comments can be to a set of plans. Even worse, some of the orneriest comments have little if anything to do with the design of the project yet once made, they refuse to back down regardless the opposing evidence you present.
We are seeing a whole new set of problems now as each reviewing agency is adopting new APWA and ADWA design standards. So far this year we have twice had major revisions affected by the newly adopted criteria even though projects had been approved only weeks before using the previous standards. No indication was offered in preliminary consultations that any new criteria were to be in effect or even being contemplated. Worse, I have yet to find the new required details except in pdf format which are difficult to assemble into sheets and add an unneeded complication in our plotting. We have already been forced into creating an entire set of sheet blanks for 22 x 34 sheets and developing prototypes, styles and labels for 40 scale plans in addition to 50 scale.
-
Anybody that has been in this business for a while can vent about reviewing agencies.
I worked on a project a while ago that didn't have to be reviewed by anybody.
Have you ever had to justify the need for storm water management in a subdivision?
All of the things that I had taken for granted suddenly needed to be justified.
No pavement spec's, didn't want curb or ditches etc.
And yes I agree they spent way to much time checking the punctuation and not enough time on design.
Just try once working without a net.
-
Eagerly awaiting the arrival of 2008.
Seems like it's going to be a much better release than 2007.
The Development team spent the time trying to tighten up the code, and little time on Bell's and Whistles.
From my perspective as a Vault Administrator I wasn't that thrilled that I had to go through the process of Migrating our data into a new version, but in our case it happens to help.
We can get away from the free for all Vault that we have been running thru training and early projects, into a more structured environment.
Learned the other day that an incremental backup and restore feature is available for ProductStream. Bet you a buck it's not available for the freebie Vault. Have you ever seen incomplete software made available for free, but if you want it to really work we need your money?
Things still not going as smoothly as I had hoped but they are still going.
Still having some troubles from the surveying side, as I'm sure sinc can attest to, but overall we are starting to see some real benefits from the guys that get it.
I'm going to try to let 2008 age on the vine for a few month's before we get into it.
Some of the scar tissue from 2007 release 1 still hurts.
Unfortunately my end users, the ones actually on the point of the spear, ask every day when 2008 will be available.
Got to love the enthusiasm and I have to try to keep it going.
There are many issues involved with implementing this product and I hope I have helped those readers of this rambling diary deal with some of them.
-
As you mentioned we are eagerly awaiting 2008 as well. I don't think we are going to let it ripen because we are looking forward to the plan sheet creation. We have everything ready to go in the design except for the sheets. I sure hope it goes relatively smooth because the weather is too nice too spend all weekends in the office. Why can't they release the software in the winter?
-
O.K. it's been long enough.
If sinc says it's better I got to get it out. :-)
First reading through the Vault documentation, you know the kind when you really aren't paying a lot of attention, has been finished. Got to go back with the highlighter and the tabs to get things really figured out but nothing jumped out at me.
Spent some time today researching how to get a Civil 3D surface into Revit Architectural.
I found jack.
The two really flagship products of Autodesk Marketing you would think there might have been some thought put into how we get them to talk to each other.
Crap I was hoping to spend some time off the point of the spear.
Wrong again.
Autodesk ever builds a Hall of Fame I hope they have a special "outhouse" wing for the poor slumps who tried to make this stuff work in real life.
Most of the stuff I have seen so far says get it installed and get it out as soon as you can.
So that's coming up as soon as I can.
-
The big hurdle for you will be the labels that get reset from the dragged state when you open 2007 drawings in 2008.
That wasn't a big issue for us, because we didn't have a lot of drawings already in 2007 that needed to move forward. There was only one active drawing that had lots of survey calcs in it that was a real pain.
But if you've got a lot of 2007 drawings that you want to use in 2008, it might be a real hassle. Points, Profile View, and Parcel Area labels seem to be the big offenders.
Not a lot is really different, but the speed is dramatically better. Still lots of crashes, but not as many, and less lost data. It's disheartening how many 2007 problems are still around, but it's definitely a better release than last year.
The big issue now is the interoperability. It's not just Civil-3D and Revit... Civil-3D 2007 users can't use Civil-3D 2008 drawings - everything must be recreated in 2007 from an XML dump. They can't even keep Civil-3D compatible with itself. And then it's a major hassle converting DWG files to Land Desktop 2006 and earlier. And don't even get me started on sharing stuff with Bentley or Eaglepoint users... :-P
But yeah, all in all, I'd try to get on 2008 as quickly as feasible.
-
Well sinc thanks for the nudge. :?
We are still in the neophyte stage so the number of projects isn't that large and if the drag state label is our biggest problem that's pretty small potatoes.
Looks like we are going to have to redo our entire survey code structure with the problems we are having with the perfixes.
Numeric code with 20 year old roots and getting it into C3D has proven impossible.
Civil 3D can't tell the difference between 3 and 37 thinks it's all the same.
Can't get layer separation.
Oh and BTW it's the same code set we use with MicroStation.
So whatever we do has to be compatible between the 2 products.
You hiring any Rodmen?
I'll ride in the back seat, bring my lunch and may still be able to swing a sledge hammer with the best of them.
I b*tch a lot however. :lol:
-
There are a couple of ways around that issue. One is to redefine your point codes, so they all have three-digit codes. Then you can use letters appended to the number codes to indicate strings - for example, if "103" is a "TOE", then your field guys could collect 103A for "TOEA", 103B for "TOEB", etc. Of course, changing codes is undesirable, because your field guys are used to the codes and doubtless have lots of them memorized, so changing them introduces the likelihood of introducing error. And when you get field data with incorrect point codes on some of the points, it can be difficult to find and correct the errors.
The way we got around it is to use a little Perl routine I wrote. Perl is based on SED/AWK from Unix (with lots of C-like functions thrown in), and is a very good language for making any text file look like any other text file. This also lets us continue to use TGO for reducing our field data, which works better for us than fighting Autodesk's survey database. It also means we have no issues with GPS data, since we do all our GPS network stuff in TGO as well (C3D doesn't seem to have the necessary support for GPS site calibration and data reduction).
We also have old-style data collectors, and it's really annoying to use the Note feature in our data collectors to type in survey commands. So the field guys type the linework commands as abbreviations in the point description, along with a numeric point code. Strings are also numeric, and seperated from the point code with a decimal. So, for example, a "3" is a "TOE", and "3.1" is "TOE1", "3.2" is "TOE2", etc. Multiple strings can be joined together by including more than one code, seperated by another decimal point. If "5" is "TOP", then a point with a description of "3.1.5.2" would be added to both the TOE1 figure and the TOP2 figure. (I do this by creating a duplicate point, so one point has the "TOE1" description and the duplicate has the "TOP2" description.) And as long as a string identifier is used, the Perl code will add the necessary BEGIN, END, and CONT statements automatically. The field guys can still type them explicitly, but most of the time they don't have to.
Then, regardless of what equipment the field guys use, they end up creating a CSV dump of their field shots. We then run the CSV through the Perl script, which converts it to a FBK. Then we dump the FBK into C3D.
Not sure how easy it is for others to use. The Lisp routine started out pretty simple, but it rapidly got more-complicated as I added more stuff. I'm attaching a sample of the CSV file our field guys create, along with the FBK that gets created.
And yeah, we're probably going to hire a rod man for the summer, but the position doesn't pay all that well... :-)
Here's a sample. I'm also attaching a PDF with more info. If you want to try it, the Perl script is posted on our web site (http://www.ejsurveying.com/csv_to_fbk.htm).
202,827.905,1214.616,5974.596,25.1
203,828.497,1214.825,5974.116,2.1
204,825.422,1222.957,5974.056,2.1
205,824.989,1222.472,5974.434,25 .1
206,825.649,1223.348,5974.024,2.2
207,825.707,1223.850,5974.447,25.2
208,824.823,1223.698,5974.008,12 CURB CUT
209,865.843,1225.072,5976.021,20
210,861.593,1237.022,5975.666,2.2
211,861.584,1237.631,5976.243,25.2
212,898.527,1251.801,5977.518,25.2
213 ,898.115,1251.189,5977.076,2.2
214,904.160,1234.992,5977.560,2.2
215,904.484,1235.817,5978.059,25.2.2.2
gets turned into this:
BEG TBCC1
NE SS 202 827.905 1214.616 5974.596 "TBCC1"
BEG FLPV1
NE SS 203 828.497 1214.825 5974.116 "FLPV1"
NE SS 204 825.422 1222.957 5974.056 "FLPV1"
CONT TBCC1
NE SS 205 824.989 1222.472 5974.434 "TBCC1"
BEG FLPV2
NE SS 206 825.649 1223.348 5974.024 "FLPV2"
BEG TBCC2
NE SS 207 825.707 1223.850 5974.447 "TBCC2"
END
NE SS 208 824.823 1223.698 5974.008 "CLFEATURE CURB CUT"
NE SS 209 865.843 1225.072 5976.021 "ASPH"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 210 861.593 1237.022 5975.666 "FLPV2"
CONT TBCC2
NE SS 211 861.584 1237.631 5976.243 "TBCC2"
NE SS 212 898.527 1251.801 5977.518 "TBCC2"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 213 898.115 1251.189 5977.076 "FLPV2"
NE SS 214 904.160 1234.992 5977.560 "FLPV2"
CONT TBCC2
NE SS 100000 904.484 1235.817 5978.059 "TBCC2"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 215 904.484 1235.817 5978.059 "FLPV2"
-
Thanks for the help sinc.
We will check that out on Monday.
We just have too much time invested in redoing descriptive keys and reworking the symbols to find out we have to start all over. Painted into a corner and need a door.
Sorry to hear you aren't interested in an overpaid grumpy old rodman. :-o
-
Just for the record his consultant told him the list was nuts on day 2. :ugly:
But that was a battle for another day.
-
Just for the record his consultant told him the list was nuts on day 2. :ugly:
But that was a battle for another day.
Well we are even then, on day 2, I thought the Consultant was nuts. :-o
Going to try and get the Vault 2008 server built next week, as the crush of providing interns with software and hardware has passed.
This will be one of those times when being in a Virtual Server environment will pay dividends.
I can create another server, install and update it's Windows Server 2003 installation and be ready to go.
Now the sweet part.
If I put Windoz and SQL express on a relative modest chunk of drive space, say 20 G, I can put the File store on a separate D: drive which is expandable. I'm not confined by a space requirement when building the server.
And when the conversion process is complete I can blow away the old Vault server and I will not have violated anybody's licensing agreement.
Doesn't take away from my frustration that the D*mn Vault versions aren't compatible or my reluctance to go through this frickin exercise every year. Honest to Haysus Autodesk look at the Microsoft model concerning server components.
On the survey front, a meeting was held on Friday, which I could not attend, and the conclusion was reached to redo the survey coding.
Oh well as always there comes a time for change.
You can only push bad habits for so long until you have to go back and invent new bad habits. :-)
And by the way Vista is cool. You just don't want it on a work computer yet.
-
. . . And by the way Vista is cool. You just don't want it on a work computer yet.
Heck, I am not convinced I even want C3D 2008 on a work computer yet. I think I could use a year off not fighting new software and just worrying about getting some work done < perhaps even fishing over a summer holiday instead of trying to minimize the " surprise factor ' when I load up 2008 with the intent to do business>. . . how about you?
-
Unfortunately doesn't seem to work that way anymore.
Makes for interesting times though.
Crazy thing when you are chasing the technology bus, if you stop you get farther behind.
I'm just glad that people like Mike and James and the others are really on the point of the spear and we can benefit from their experience.
The consultants and the support people don't get nearly enough credit. Their work is invaluable.
And NO James your rate isn't going up. :-)
Just discovered the buttons on this skin. cool.
What's a glow?
-
Hah, yet another conversion to the dark side! Yes the Helios theme can be quite elegant. Have you found the color options yet? The yellow looks the best, but I am using the blue right now because of the rest of my current color scheme and it is a close second.
I am not sure if I would consider the times interesting or not - maybe early on with 2005 and pre sp2 2006. After that it has started to look like Civil 3D would take root and the only drama revolves around how many service packs it will take each year before all of the new glitches are dispatched. It is more like a yearly pain in the back of my lap that lasts 3 or 4 months before everything works as smoothly as it did before the upgrade. I feel like I've done my part in helping this thing get past critical and would just like to use it for awhile before I retire. In that ten years Civil 3D should be an outdated package like today's Land Desktop and one of these rookies I'm breaking in can start the battle all over for the next software revolution.
-
Latest news.
I did get my Vault built.
As usual in my case not as easy as it should have been.
Had I actually taken the time to go back through the documentation and Highlite the crap out of it I may have saved myself 45 minutes of head banging.
For those interested pay attention to the part about going into IIS and giving ASP.NET write rights on the default web site.
I still have to move my file store to a different location and I have to get my working folder pointed to the new project server, but My Vault Lives.
Haven't migrated any data yet and don't have C3D 8 on the floor but I finally got started.
Installing Vault server really isn't that big of a deal but you do have to KNOW what the documentation tells you.
Last Tally was 4 active proposals and 14 active projects.
And a lot of other crap that has to get cleaned up.
Gonna have to create a different vault for the experiments and training we do and keep the project Vault clean.
Also The inventor guys use a Library and I don't know if that functionality would be useful in the C3D world.
Oh and Vista is like a trophy wife. If you can afford it, go for it. :lmao:
-
Interesting twist in the Implementation process.
The last couple of groups of users, who were trained despite objections, have exhibited a new tactic.
They just don't use it.
Go back to the cube, carry on business as usual.
While the knowledge gained runs out their ears.
While the resolution to this resides in the corner offices, I'm struggling to come up with the proper way to present it.
Complicated question.
They fall back on the age old excuses, project deadlines, client needs, ongoing projects, blah, blah, blah.
The last option for management is to tell somebody with 30 years experience, get on the Bus or get run over by it.
On the other hand.
I sent out a questionnaire concerning our implementation efforts.
Asking for feedback on where we have been and where we are going.
My true believers replied within a half hour.
They love it and want to get moving on more stuff.
I'm pushing on.
I've got a great support network and a bunch of committed users.
I still have obstacles to overcome, but nobody ever said this was easy.
-
I had an answer for this one last year John. I don't know if you didn't see it or saw and rejected it, but it amounted to letting that group have their choice to NOT use it and let the results determine the matter. This group doesn't need just not wanting to learn for an excuse to not give it a chance. The software itself will give more than enough ammo to anyone wanting to resist the change to make their case. I would suspect their resistance will run out of steam with the next dwg format change. I can not see Autodesk extending Land Desktop past the 2007 format. At some point they will retire it and if the LDT adherents can no longer read or write files with the rest of the world, the choice will be made for them.
Now whether that choice will be Civil 3D may a different matter; at least it would be for us. When my 2008 trial version pulled up my just completed 70 lot subdivision plat and revealed that NONE of the general line or curve annotation I had placed with 2007 existed in any form whatsoever (just all gone - POOF), my armor protecting this experiment was destroyed along with a good sized chunk of my own resolve. Starting last week, other solutions including Inroads XM and EaglePoint are being actively researched.
-
Don't forget Carlson. I like it much better than the other programs you mentioned and you retain AutoCad compatibility with the client.
-
It seems that surveyors in general are very disappointed with Civil-3D.
I hope Autodesk is paying attention, and really attacks this issue hard in the 2009 release.
-
Our surveyors are using ZERO C3D functionality - of course they didn't use any of LDT's either. The one thing I hope Autodedsk hears loud and clear is that they HAVE to get this turkey backward compatible with itself. I am NOT going to keep any job started with one version on that version until completion while I may be doing other projects in software 2 or 3 generations newer and I am NOT going to transfer things around via XML either. If Autodesk continues to insist those are the only methods to deal with long term projects and yearly program upgrades, I am going to have to start learning Microstation on the fast track. Yes, I heard you Dent regarding Carlson. Unfortunately at this point it sits on an Autodesk platform that has taken an abrupt fall from favor in our office.
I apologize John, for hijacking your fine thread with this rant, but I guess this must be the week for it.
-
Not so Dino. You can get a version that loads on top of MAP instead of C3D. They also have a stand-alone version that is dwg compatable. Plus it can use XML to transfer data to AutoCad without any problems that we have found yet. The major advantage is that it includes tha data collection package we are using now. AND with our tablet system, the guys in the field have exactly the same software in their data collector that I have on my desk. That cuts down on a lot of problems. If you are using the same software in the field that you are using in the office, all of the "conversion" problems are bypassed. Neither of the packages you are looking at have a field package.
It would pay you handsomely to take another look.
http://www.carlsonsw.com/PL_CS_Civil.html
Plus, if they force you to microstation, the Carlson rw5 files work in Anygraph too. You can even code the rw5 files to draw your linework in Microstation just like in Autocad. You really need a day in Jackson to see what it can do. Plus, Bass Pro Shops is having a sale!!
If you go to the website, look under the Support tab at the top and go to downloads. They have training movies that will show you what the software looks like and what it does. Just pick one that the subject interests you and give it a watch.
afterthought: We are owned by a sizeable engineering firm with multiple office locations. The company is running everything from R14 to 2007. In order to get everyone on the same sheet of music, they looked at just upgrading all of the offices to 2007. With AutoDesk's current pricing structure, that runs a little over $500,000. We may soon have more Carlson converts with us.
-
Well, I was about to split this topic away into it's own rant, but now it seems like a very appropriate place for it to live.
I am going to call off the full alert and replace it as just one more annoying Civil 3D layer behavior. I remembered that I had placed my bpoly's on their own layer, locked and froze it out. My labels stayed in 2007 so everything was grand. It seems 2008 managed to attach the layer state of the bpoly layer to that of my labels because when I turned it back hot all of my labels popped right into place even though they still show in properties to be on the separate layer.
LESSON LEARNED . . . don't assume Civil 3D will translate your mix of objects and their labels with your layering scheme and properties intact.
-
That makes more sense.
I've run into that particular... "feature". I'm not impressed with it. (It's actually been something of a thorn.)
But it's something I've seen. I was rather confused when you said that all your labels had disappeared. The big problem we noticed was labels resetting themselves from the dragged state, but not labels disappearing.
-
What really threw me was when I noticed that there were a very few labels that HAD appeared after translating into 2008. These were identical in every way - created in the same session with the same styles and on the same layers as the missing ones. The only difference was that these labels were placed individually on a segment while the missing were placed on closed bpoly's with the multiple option. There must be something different in the commands between the options to cause this.
EDIT
One more bizarre twist to this is that the layer that has pirated my labels is set to be "no plot" however after the labels become visible they will still plot with no problem. Therefore the labels seem to have only inherited the visibility properties of the layer and not its plotting status.
-
One more bizarre twist to this is that the layer that has pirated my labels is set to be "no plot" however after the labels become visible they will still plot with no problem. Therefore the labels seem to have only inherited the visibility properties of the layer and not its plotting status.
Consistency would be foolish. :-D
As another bizarre twist, you can turn off or freeze the layer containing the linework, and the text will remain visible... until you REGEN the drawing. Then all the text disappears. That was the bit of user-friendly behavior that clued me into this particular joyful aspect of C3D labels.... :-P
-
I check out of here for a couple of weeks and It turns to this? :laugh:
Nothing much to report from my end.
Got my Vault built and ready, gonna wait until SP1 to put the product on the floor.
Got some cleanup work to do as the old vault was kind of a free for all.
Thanks sinc and dino for playing in this game. Both of you have helped a bunch.
Glad your stumble was a temporary thing Dino.
We all face something new everyday. Sometimes it's interesting and sometimes it just pisses you off.
Too bad the 2007 initial release was so crappy, I'm sure their goal was to have H&H and survey fixed by now but they had to go back and fix the guts.
-
The sad thing is, this program has developed a reputation for this kind of behavior to the point I was EXPECTING something like that to happen . . . just hopefully not as dramatic as it seemed at first. I have been pushing this program into people's faces for the better part of 3 years now and I was ready to believe the worst at the first sniff of trouble. How many do you suppose have observed some kind of deviant Civil 3D behavior early on in their evaluations, promptly demoted the discs to table coasters and gone about their business of making money?
-
JP, Dana, Sinc, Dino & everyone else,
Thanks for the ramblings. They do help. I recently got our first few C3D jobs out & just started to use vault.
The adventure has just begun...
JM
-
JP, Dana, Sinc, Dino & everyone else,
Thanks for the ramblings. They do help. I recently got our first few C3D jobs out & just started to use vault.
The adventure has just begun...
JM
Crap I've been outed.
Hope you enjoyed my adventures and feel free to take any knowledge gained.
Probably cost a couple of Benjamin's worth of beer to produce this thread.
Good luck in the whitewater raft ride that is implementing this product. :laugh:
-
Welcome to TheSwamp John. There is a lot of information and helpful advice to be had here even beyond Land Lubber along with some of the most creative coders around. Quite a bit of fun and irreverence is lurking about thanks to some very colorful characters. Some more experience with Civil 3D is most welcome and any story, whether it is a success or failure, can yield valuable information for all. What kind and scope of projects have you sent out with Civil 3D? Any of it include storm sewers? They are kicking my keester right now - sanitary works great but these storm networks refuse to bend to my will.
-
You know when I started this thread I really expected it to be over by now.
But it's not.
A change of this magnitude isn't accomplished in a short time.
I don't want to scare anybody off but it takes years.
To realize the benefits of this change the crucial members of the design teams, the project managers, have to participate in the design process. To fulfill the promise of the product the guys that go to the meetings and wear ties have to do something different.
Rather than type meeting minutes and red line sheets they just have to go in and move the inlets.
They went to school to learn design not how to make powerpoint presentations.
When they return to actively participating this has a real chance.
-
. . . Conklin Associates is a success story for James, Dana & the good folks at EE. We were up & running spitting out stuff in C3D in a two to three months. All new projects are in C3D . . . We are a 10 person firm. Survey crew, surveyors & engineers. A typical job in this firm is most likey tiny in magnitude compared to most other firms but it includes property & topographic survey, design, construction stakeout & as-built.
This is exceptional John. Excepting the training, our company is nearly identical to yours. Something special for you to look forward to is the creation of points for construction staking. sinc has started to get a handle on this and has posted a link to some of his custom tools that you will find most valuable. As-Builts are an absolute gas as well. Most of our C3D As-Builts have been for a jurisdiction that not only requires the drawings be modified to reflect any deviation from design but also have completely different standards for plotted line weights screening and text size and completely different labeling. Quite a challenge when you are still designing the adjoining phase.
. . . They should forget about & drop all new features until the beast tamed.
This has been my lone wish list item the last two years
-
Dino,
I look foward to finding Sinc's post. We have yet to get a C3D project to the as-built phase as approvals do not come fast or easy. We are always looking for insight & experiance to help plot our own course & I am sure Sinc's knack for, "telling it like it is" will help illuminate some dark corners as we proceed. Thank-you both for sharing.
Now I am off to see if a couple fixes were left out of the Readme file for C3D SP1.
1. Will a C3D corridor recognize the choosen alignment when setting a profile target for the alignment that was previously targeted
2. Will the add Breaklines dialog box remember the user input for min-ordinate & supplement factors or can I set them in a template.
These two drive me nuts.
-
John,
Not sure what #1 is about, could you be clearer.
For Item 2, that would be, or should be a setting under the Command Settings for building surfaces however it is NOT there at this time.
And from reading the Service Pack 1 information it does not appear to be adding that functionality to the Surface>>Add Breaklines feature settings, or command settings that you are after.
-
When you get into targeting in a corridor. You may tell a link to attach to an alignment. You then go to target the profile & you need to select the same alignment & the profile.
Take a look at the screen shot. This dialog should call up the alignment that is typically already a targeted alignment for a region if you work from top down in the target dialog box(s). You actually have to tell the region to target alignments two times if you want to also target a profile.
-
OK, I don't really get that part either, also not being able to use the same PGL for offsets as the baseline pgl....because well sometimes this is what needs to happen. So one winds up copying the CL PGL to two new names to get the corridor to allow this.
Also I don't like that it presumes that the user has created a profile under every alignment name, so it goes looking for your Right ETW profile under the RT ETW alignment name, only often it is far easier to create these offset alignments in the CL profile view, much like the DT/Transition profiles worked in LDT.
-
Found SincPak3.
Looks like some real good stuff. I will try to play this weekend.
Big thanks for making it public Sinc.