TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: sinc on April 16, 2008, 11:21:50 AM
-
I hear that Carlson 2009 will be available using Intellicad instead of Autocad, and the price for the Intellicad version is far lower than for the Autocad version. And the Autocad version is already priced significantly below Civil-3D.
Given Autodesk's very twisted support for surveyors (i.e, their concentration on useless things like the Equipment Database, while simultaneously creating an erroneous implementation of Grid coordinate systems, failing to data ref parcels, ignoring support for construction stakeout, the horrendous FBK process, and all those other things we talk about so much in the Autodesk DGs), and the fact that they keep jacking up the price of software that continues to be plagued with a terrible quantity of bugs, I have to wonder where we're going with all this...
I have to seriously question the value of Civil-3D for Surveyors. If we didn't have such a hefty investment in Civil-3D, and if we hadn't already reached the point where we've learned to work around and through so many problems, I would be seriously looking at dropping Civil-3D for Carlson 2009 on Intellicad.
In fact, if Autodesk keeps raising the price of Civil-3D, I think we'll have to look at that other option anyway, despite the fact that we really like some aspects of Civil-3D. But we reach a point where we actually need software to work for our every-day workflow, without convoluted and twisted workarounds, and without constant crashing. Sure, I've managed to fix an awful lot of the problems with the Sincpac-C3D, but that is merely a band-aid over a gaping wound. And at the rate I see Autodesk "fixing" things, it's going to be years before they make significant progress. Right now, it looks like they are continuing to try to patch the patches, when they need to do some serious reworking of errors. And they don't seem to have any interest in that.
Not sure where I was going with this... Maybe just venting. :realmad:
-
How is working or not for the design side of life?
-
I have to seriously question the value of Civil-3D for Surveyors.
It has no value to me, I am just forced to use it buy our engineering department. We totally ignore the 'survey' portion of C3D. We don't use figures or networks. All of our traverse adjustments are still done with an MSDOS based application. CSV PNEZD baby! Working with parcels is absolutely horrible. Nothing is worse then spending several hours getting the labels the way you want them for a plat only to have them all reset for one reason or another. Sequential line/curve tags is still buggy and it periodically will skip a bunch of numbers. Sometimes moving the parcels to a new site will fix that problem, sometimes not. Civil 3D is slow and crashes often. Don't even get me started on having to use 'audit' all the time with annotative mtext.
Honestly, we wouldn't be using it anymore either had we not had so much money spent on the application. I really wish that Autodesk would just keep a version of C3D and work on fixing what is broken or not working properly instead of releasing new, buggy features in the next version. There are so many *tricks* and workarounds that need to be used in order to be productive that it makes it nearly impossible to teach anyone who has no Autodesk experience how to use the application.
just my $0.02.
-
Say guys, perhaps we can use our 'connections' here at THE SWAMP to get something done with some of this stuff. We could ask http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?action=profile;u=57 to fly to our rescue; now I know that she is officially in the LT department perhaps she might accidentally funnel us some email addys of the right peoples to open lines of communication with. It's a long shot.
-
The big thing is, it's not like Autodesk isn't aware of all this stuff.
But we get a 2009 release that does little to address the issues. I'm glad we can place parcel labels on parcels in XREFs now, but that's really just a patch on the greater problem of not being able to DREF our parcels. And really, we need parcels to be redesigned from the ground up. We don't need more and more stuff built on a faulty foundation.
The more stuff they tie to these errors, the less and less likely it gets that anything will be fixed. Take the terrible Project Management support. We desperately need a way to create a PROJECT in Civil-3D, where we can set all those important project-level parameters like Coordinate Zone, Units, Project-Type settings (e.g., Grid or Localized, and for a Localized Project, the grid/elevation scale factors or combined scale factor and additional translation/rotation parameters to get to Project Coordinates, if applicable), Project identifier information (name, job number, client name, etc.), the CAD Standards (if any) to be used for this project, etc.
What we get instead is absolutely nothing in Civil-3D, and we are told to use the Vault for PM. However, using the Vault to control all that stuff I just mentioned is an extreme error in design. It makes the Vault highly-coupled with Civil-3D, and means that any change in C3D can require a change in Vault, and vice-versa. Now add in the fact that Autodesk is trying to use Vault with other products, such as Revit, where they will undoubtedly be doing similar things. If Autodesk continues that trend, eventually all of their products will use the Vault. And if every product is as tightly-coupled to the Vault as Civil-3D is becoming, then we have a giant nightmare on our hands. Changes to Revit will end up creating bugs for C3D users, and so forth.
And there are quite a few issues like this. Just getting C3D to work properly for Grid-based projects will take a huge amount of work. But every new release of C3D is simply patches and more features pasted onto a bad foundation. And I think we all know what happens to buildings when the foundations are bad... We need to start seeing some fundamental, significant changes to C3D or the whole thing will collapse.
Where we're heading now is that, in five years when Autodesk builds themselves into a nightmare with C3D, they'll go buy some other competitor or third-party app, and then we'll have the whole transition-from-LDD-to-C3D thing all over again, but this time it will be the transition-from-C3D-to-MoreOfTheSameAfterAnotherHugeLearningCurve.
-
Trust me I know, they know. Only they don't know how truly bad it is. The reason being they dissuade open dialog on the News Groups, and at that other Brand Portal. And just because they don't want to discuss the problems openly doesn't mean they will go away. At this point they need to accept that they are off track, and open up the dialog about what is wrong with the product. I don't think the beta program is effective at discovering the flaws; as too much time is wasted rediscovering the interface.
-
I think the biggest flaw with the Beta program right now is the incompatibility issues.
Since no version of C3D is compatible with any other version, there are very few people who can actually try to use the Beta product for a real project. Most people have to maintain compatibility with the rest of their team, or with people at other companies, and working on a project in C3D 2009 renders it unusable in C3D 2008.
This issue severely impacts the value of the Beta testing.
One thing that still has me incredibly confused is why Autodesk releases new versions for their entire product line all at once. One thing we keep hearing is that it's difficult for them to make any changes to a dialog box, because even a small change means they must change 13 different localized versions of the product. Well, why do they have to release all 13 versions at once? Why can't they do an initial release in only one or two languages, then release the rest around the time they get the first SP working? That would save them a HUGE amount of time right there.
And why do they need to release Civil-3D 2009 at the exact same time they release Autocad 2009? Why not stagger them, so that the C3D team doesn't even start developing on the new version until after they have a release candidate? I mean, it's not like we need new core features so badly that we must have them (and all their bugs) as soon as the feature is introduced in the core product. (And if the problem is compatibility, well, we already have huge compatibility issues between C3D and vanilla autocad... What's one more?)
I realize that these are probably pointless questions, and everything at Autodesk is driven by the business-services side of the company. But does that mean I have to like it? :cry:
-
Maybe disgruntled users of Civil 3D should start donating to the projects like SiteTopo (http://www.sitetopo.com/) and see what developers can do with the funds. You never know, they might be able to develop a much more stable software package over time (that has as many capabilities or more than Civil 3D), especially if a few more developers would volunteer some time and effort into the projects. I am noticing more and more open-source cad packages available. Open-source projects have really busted into the mainstream. Perhaps it is time for a good civil/survey project to hit the tracks.
-
I hear that Carlson 2009 will be available using Intellicad instead of Autocad,
It's EVEN BETTER than that
http://www.model-this.com/archives/16
http://www.model-this.com/archives/18
-
Maybe disgruntled users of Civil 3D should start donating to the projects like SiteTopo (http://www.sitetopo.com/) and see what developers can do with the funds. You never know, they might be able to develop a much more stable software package over time (that has as many capabilities or more than Civil 3D), especially if a few more developers would volunteer some time and effort into the projects.
Well, the simple reason we don't do that is that we are surveyors, not venture capitalists. Ostensibly, the company we are already paying to provide the software we need will be using our money to do that. After all, they claim to be the leaders in the industry. If they can't do it, then it will be mighty hard to convince my boss to give even more money to an informal group with no set schedule.
We just paid our annual tithe to the masters, but I can tell already that when next year rolls around, I'm going to have to justify continuing with Civil-3D, when we can license our entire office for Carlson 2009 for about the same price as one seat of C3D.
We find ourselves in a difficult position. We've already fought through the learning curve, setup our template, and everything. We're productive with C3D. We REALLY LIKE C3D. We think it has an incredible amount of potential that we have only begun to tap. But that horrendous learning curve... we have to go through it every time we hire a new person. And we just don't know if Autodesk will ever get us a program that doesn't crash constantly, and works for our line of work without the constant convoluted workarounds. They are making lots of changes to C3D, but there is very little in the way of real improvement over the last several releases. It is very apt to say that we are really on Civil-3D 2005 SP 20 or whatever it is now. The dramatic things that are wrong are not being fixed; only the little things. I get the impression that Autodesk has thrown up their hands in despair over the thought of things like making right-of-way dynamic to alignments and subdivision boundaries, and wonder if they even have a plan on fixing things like that.
But I think we are also addicted to Autodesk. It's very difficult to consider life not "on Autodesk", we've been on it so long. Maybe we need to start attending 12-step meetings, so we can learn how to function when we're not "on Autodesk"...
-
I hear that Carlson 2009 will be available using Intellicad instead of Autocad,
It's EVEN BETTER than that
http://www.model-this.com/archives/16
http://www.model-this.com/archives/18
Interesting, strange they didn’t partner with someone like Bricscad, they offer a better /faster API (BRX,DRX) than Icad 6.4 which still uses SDS.
-
I bet this might be fun to play with too http://opendesign.com/node/94
-
. . . Interesting, strange they didn’t partner with someone like Bricscad, they offer a better /faster API (BRX,DRX) than Icad 6.4 which still uses SDS.
Bricscad is used as an optional core engine for EaglePoint. That may have prevented a similar move with Carlson but it is unfortunate.
-
I bet this might be fun to play with too http://opendesign.com/node/94
And I just resigned my membership there because they started demanding a yearly fee. ODA has been making some significant progress with their Civil 3D geared projects per their monthly updates.
-
Interesting, strange they didn't partner with someone like Bricscad, they offer a better /faster API (BRX,DRX) than Icad 6.4 which still uses SDS.
I NOT NOT KNOW but would guess that Carlson has joined the IntelliCAD Consortium, purely a guess through.
Another thing to remember is that the Bricscad release numbers doesn't match the Consortium's numbers..The IntelliCAD Technology Consortium Announces IntelliCAD® 6.4 Beta. (http://www.intellicad.org/press/articles.php?NID=13)
The IntelliCAD Technology Consortium Announces IntelliCAD® 7.0 Alpha
(http://www.intellicad.org/press/articles.php?NID=15)
They did say they'd be moving to Intellicad 7.0 upon it's release
-
...Another thing to remember is that the Bricscad release numbers doesn't match the Consortium's numbers...
I suppose it really won’t matter, once the ITC releases their version 7, I suspect most third party Icad developers will make the move to DRX, which Bricscad supports now. What’s interesting is that Bricscad is making an ARX source compatible API called BRX. I haven’t seen it yet because I’m too much of a blabber mouth to sign the NDA. I certainly hope that the ITC members aren’t splitting up and developing API’s that are not compatible with each other.
-
Well, the simple reason we don't do that is that we are surveyors, not venture capitalists. Ostensibly, the company we are already paying to provide the software we need will be using our money to do that. After all, they claim to be the leaders in the industry. If they can't do it, then it will be mighty hard to convince my boss to give even more money to an informal group with no set schedule.
This is true, but if there were a free open-source software comparable to C3D which was more stable and had the other features you desire you would give it a shot wouldn't you?
I'm with you though man. They've really got a messed up practice. Software should be developed and then sold rather than sold and then developed.
-
Sinc,
I'm guessing that you have availed yourself through the subscription center to log the issues you have with C3D. A tedious, thankless process I know, however there seems to be no other lines of communication this type of information to Autodesk with risk of being banned or censured.
-
Sinc,
I'm guessing that you have availed yourself through the subscription center to log the issues you have with C3D. A tedious, thankless process I know, however there seems to be no other lines of communication this type of information to Autodesk with risk of being banned or censured.
Sorry to have a plain jane vanilla user interject... but how does one log a ticket in such a way? I have been meaning to, but all I can find in my subscription center is a suggestion to post on the discussion boards... and I think we're all familiar with the "residents" there that make this option less than inviting.
*smacks forehead*
nevermind... I couldn't find it before, for some reason, but I got right to it, today... *grumbles*
Don't mind me... back to the 'general forum' :-)
-
Josh,
Happy to help!
As I said, tedious process. Also feel free to stop by anytime. :wink:
-
Well, I like to keep tabs on this stuff for no other reason than learning and being able to keep up on conversations intelligently when dealing with surveyors/civil-site folk, but tbh, I don't have a dog in this Land Lubber hunt so I generally don't ever post.
Thanks for the help :-D
*goes off to write up some tickets of varying severity*
-
I'm guessing that you have availed yourself through the subscription center to log the issues you have with C3D.
That doesn't seem to be the problem. I don't get the impression that Autodesk is failing to receive the feedback they get. The problem seems to be in what Autodesk does with feedback once they get it.
As just one example, let's look at auto-creation of parcels based on roadways. Under typical usage, ROW follows the roadway alignments. And we have different categories of roads - e.g., we may have a "residential" class of road that has typical 50-foot ROW, a "minor arterial" that has typical 60-foot ROW, a "major arterial" that has typical 80-foot ROW, etc. These could vary, depending on our local standards, so there should be an obvious way of creating a "standards" file that contains all this data.
Under a simple usage scenario, we could create the alignments for each of our roads, and declare the category of the road. The ROW would then be autogenerated from our alignments, and Parcels would autogenerate (based on frontage rules, etc.) for the areas that aren't ROW. This is the basic requirement for auto-creation of Parcels.
Now Autodesk gets that requirement, and they create something where we can generate Parcels from our Alignment, but once generated, the Parcels do not change when we move the Alignment. Unfortunately, this wasn't really the requirement - the Parcels should be generated using the ROW as a boundary, not the Alignment. And while they give us a "Create ROW" command, this creates Parcels that do not change with the Alignment. And there is no way to define categories of roads, and assign that category to the Alignment for use in ROW creation, so the "Create ROW" command is also rather clunky.
Now time goes by, and we eventually get another release. In this release, Autodesk has fixed the problem where the Parcels do not change when we change the Alignment, but the ROW generation is still disconnected. So we can generate ROW from an Alignment, but if we move our Alignment, the ROW doesn't move with it. Instead, we get all our land subdivided into a bunch of new parcels by the Alignment. There is no way to avoid this Parcel autogeneration, short of creating extra Sites and keeping alignments on different Sites to suppress the auto-generation of Parcels. This is not what we wanted at all.
More time goes by, and we eventually get another release. Autodesk has heard all the complaints about the unwanted "extra" parcels that get autogenerated from alignments. In response, they create a "Siteless Alignment" collection. The ROW problem is not fixed - it is still not dynamic with Alignments. The parcel-autogeneration problem is not really fixed, we just have a "catch-all" collection that we can use to suppress it. And while we can place Alignments there to suppress the auto-parcel generation, when we do that, we lose the ability to manage Alignments. Normally, we can manage Alignments by putting related Alignments together in a Site, and creating new Sites as-needed, but we lose this ability when we use the Siteless Alignment collection. Also unfortunately, this Siteless Alignment collection has completely different API access, and it creates a lot of bugs when not everything is updated to work with Siteless Alignments as well as normal Alignments. So now there's a chain of extra work for developers all down the line, including third-party developers, all for something we didn't really want in the first place. All we wanted was a way to keep those useless Parcels from being autogenerated - we didn't want a separate Siteless Alignments collection.
See what I mean? We start out with one requirement. Autodesk does something hackneyed. We complain. They patch the problem, instead of fixing it. We complain again. They patch the patch, instead of fixing the underlying problem. Now we still have the underlying problem, and we also have additional problems created by the patch to the patch.
This is only one example - I can come up with several more that are virtually identical.
And the real drawback is how long this process takes. In the example above, this process progressed over several years, and we still aren't really any closer to the original goal. Well, part of the reason for this is that I don't think it's possible to achieve the original goal with the current design of Parcels, so Parcels need to be redesigned from the ground-up before it can happen, but there's no sign of that happening yet. And the longer Autodesk takes to fix core problem features like Parcels, the more stuff they'll get built on top of it, and the harder it will be to change. And if they wait too long, they'll find themselves in the position where it's just too difficult to change, and they're better off dumping the whole thing and starting over, like they did with LDD.
-
Carlson 2009 and future releases will still be available on an AutoCad base. It appears Carlson is adding Intellicad to their supported platforms. They are not dropping AutoCad, even though AutoCad did them like dirt as a VAR. In the future you will be able to get a Carlson Standalone, a Carlson/autoCad, a Carlson/Intellicad and, eventually, a Carlson for Intergraph. (That's what they are telling us.)
Your basic statement that AutoCad does not serve the Surveyor well is VERY true though. what has REALLY changed in LDD in the past 5 releases? I just got the Land Desktop 2009 and it is pretty much the same old, same old. That's good though. It still works. (Makes me wonder about AutoDesk's statement that Land Desktop was going away and civil 3D was here to stay - as a replacement.)
-
I started out my career doing civil survey and progressed up to civil design. My previous job at the local council I was in charge of changing over from Civilcad to Civil3D and I must admit the hardest part was getting the surveyor on board as Civilcad is a very surveyor user friendly program (however was lacking in the design side of things and were getting left behind). In the end we had to use a program to get around the lack of anything survey in Civil3D. This wasn't too big an issue as the Council could afford the program and the annual cost.
I now work for a smaller company and the cost plays a lot larger part in the setup and process. I'm still trying to find the ideal solution and Autodesk are definitely doing nothing to make it easier for me. To use the work around program some work has to be done in Civil3D so this would mean having a Civil3D seat available just for the surveyor to use possibly a few times a week. Our company cannot justify that kind of cost.
I really can't see why Autodesk can't release a cut down version purely for survey. I would think that a lot of companies would be crying out for this just as we are.
We're currently reassessing our survey data collector and software to try and streamline it and improve efficiency to Civil3D.
It's very frustrating as many here have stated.
-
I have read the whole article... WOW. I maybe on the wrong side of things, I do place budget in our softwares. We do beta test Civil 3D's in our firm to test all the bugs we find and to suggest easy / hard things for them to fix. yes its a pain in the butt with the auditing and crashing. But you have to say to yourself, by you or who ever, you are helping Autodesk Civil 3D TEAM design a better protect for you to make your job easier and faster and more accurate.
I do surveys and mostly engineering. Its amazing on the engineering side, however, for me, I need something more complete and faster that CIVIL3D. But I am willing to look at other softwares ( I dont wanna) PowerCivil and Carlson 2009 with a Hydrocad based. The prices are about the same too. But I do not want to relearn software.. .AHHHH!!! I would rather ask or design a bandaid which works for a small problem I found in CIvil3D and report it to the Civil3D Team so they can address it on the next update.
If we all look at the way things use to be/ before the 2005 version of Civil 3D... what I can do in a few hours would take me litterally days or weeks in Vanilla Autocad.
Like this forum, we all work together, share, and help eachother get things done:) Its great! The relationships and the wisdom from all of you, also help make the software what it is. Now, As for the cost, Its up to your dept or firm where you place your money. I hope this helps! Sinc Hang In there. I believe you do not always have the follow the new method if its harder. But you can still use the old way if it works!
Best part of a Civil 3D Project on a survey construction stance. I love to take a 3D Modeled Site and do Calcs from draging the cursor on the surface! woo hoo!!!! Sorry I had to let that out!
-
Well, see, that's the problem. As the one who basically decides what software my company buys, I have to look at the entire picture. As such, I cannot simply compare C3D 2008 to Vanilla 2005 and say it's better. I can't even compare C3D 2008 to LDT 2008 and say it's better. The question is now how C3D 2009 compares to Carlson Civil 2009.
And to be fair, it's really how C3D 2009 + the Sincpac-C3D compares to Carlson Civil 2009. With some of the things in the Sincpac, we can perform calcs that used to take all day in literally minutes. And of course, we have some things internally that are not yet available to the general public, which also aid us Surveyors in particular, and more in the works. With all of that, the solution we have is pretty powerful, and tough to beat.
But I still have to look at the grand picture, which includes more than the capabilities. It also includes the cost of the software and its upgrades, as well as the time/cost involved in training new employees to use the software. When five licenses of Carlson Civil 2009 cost the same as one of C3D 2009, I have to take note, especially when the software has a significantly lower learning curve. The only question is one of comparative capabilities.
At this point, we basically know how to use Civil-3D, and are getting effective use from it. Switching software would mean some amount of disruption, no matter how easy the other software is to learn. So it's possible that C3D might still be a bad choice for surveyors who are just now looking to replace their old software, because of the learning curve and the bugs and the cost. However, since we already know how to use C3D, and have already bought a number of seats of the software, and have it in active production, it may make more sense for us to continue with C3D, especially since it has been getting more-reliable and easier to use, if slowly...
-
I am sorry to say, But i do agree with your last statement. It can only get easier.
-
Basic problem with the Surveying business is that they don't have a large market.
In a global business market the US survey market is small potatoes.
We've integrated C3D into our Survey Department workflow and it's not elegant but it's workable.
Please I'm not denigrating surveying or the profession it's just the facts.
-
So guys,what are the software options for us land surveyors,since it is claimed that c3d lacks plenty?
You've already mentioned carlson survey 2009.Then what other options do we have?IS there any good bentley package for surveying?
-
IS there any good bentley package for surveying?
Not that I've seen but I've not used Microstation in years. Eaglepoint use to make a microstation product http://www.eaglepoint.com/
Wow looks like eaglepoint is supprting BricsCad too http://www.eaglepoint.com/solutions/workflow/office/bricscad/
I've heard mixed reviews of Microsurvey http://www.microsurvey.com/
Then of course Carlson bought out C&G and Simplicity Systems
http://www.carlsonsw.com/PL_CG_Survey.html
http://www.carlsonsw.com/PL_Simplicity.html
-
Bentley lists the following as surveying applications.
http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Markets/Civil/Surveying.htm
Cmon guys lets gather here surveying apps and see what they got to offer.
BTW.:Whats the significance of the Bricscad support?
-
Bentley lists the BTW.:Whats the significance of the Bricscad support?
Have you priced BricsCad v Autocad lately?
The biggest thing holding back the Intellicad platform has been the lack of capable vertical applications, that seems to be changing now.
-
I don't think the challenge is that the SURVEY market is small as a user asserts; as EVERY single construction job is and must be supported by survey of one form or another. I think Autodesk does not respond to their customers needs, or complaints. And sticking a SURVEY tab inside C3D does NOT a fully functioning survey application make.
-
That is one way to look at it too. On the other hand. I am sure there are plunty of expierenced civil 3d surveyors who are using everything they need inside of Civil3D. I know this is corny. but if you have been using this all your life, the old LDT with survey, then the new Survey Civil3d you just need to search around for it. commands and processes.
-
Maybe that's where we're different.
For the engineers, C3D is a completely different world. There have been massive improvements.
You are saying that we merely need to hunt in the nooks and crannies of C3D, and we can find many of the old Land Desktop features for survey support.
Well, shouldn't surveyors be able to expect new features in new software, too? If the engineers aren't still using 15-year-old technology, why are we expected to still use FBK files? As surveyors, we seem to be expected to simply benefit from the engineering improvements that "flow over" into Surveying, such as better surface generation, etc. Well, there's also the Survey database, but because of many decisions Autodesk made in its implementation, we have basically found we cannot really use it. So they thing they worked on the most is something we can't even use.
And I actually have found a HUGE number of things missing and/or misimplemented in C3D when it comes to Surveying. I have addressed some of the biggest gaps with the Sincpac-C3D, and am addressing more, though, so things are much better now than they were when we first tried to use C3D, and we didn't have the Sincpac-C3D.
I suppose at this point, it would actually be to my benefit if Autodesk continues to ignore Surveyors. As time goes on and I add more and more to the Sincpac-C3D, eventually I'll have a pretty high-powered add-on for C3D that addresses the lack of Survey support. It already makes a massive difference, and I've only implemented a small sliver of my ideas so far.
-
The 'need' to use the FBK instead of the .job files with "Trimble Link" is due in part to the relationship betwixt Autodesk and Trimble. In theory If you are running the more Expensive Survey Pro on your controller, then you can use the .job file. However if you are running the basic software on your Trimble controller then you can not. So they decided you had to pay a toll in order to use the tools, only THEY never quite tell you that when the demo(hype) C3D to Surveyors.
Trust, that I do 'root' around in the application.
-
Another biggy MJ. you are diffently right about that. I do not know how this may go, but it does sound political. More money, sure you will get all the bells and whistles. But for some who want the LX model, or basic... I guess you get lucky for some of the free things they might throw your way.
Sinc - Have you been apart of the Beta Team for testing the surveyor tools in Civil 3D? On an engineering side, I have issues and give them ideas they take it as far as they can. By the way, in beta stage alot of crashes and "X#$#()*$@()" on your send report do give you alot of points, for what I dont know.
And again Sinc, Since you have figured out how to program some of the tools within Civil3d.( i am jealous) YOU have alot more capilbilties... If I knew what you knew on a Engineers side of programing woo hoo... I tell you I know how my stuff would be quick easy and well ... I will leave it at that.
Another Idea... Show some of the Beta Team your tools, and ask them to implament them.
-
The 'need' to use the FBK instead of the .job files with "Trimble Link" is due in part to the relationship betwixt Autodesk and Trimble. In theory If you are running the more Expensive Survey Pro on your controller, then you can use the .job file. However if you are running the basic software on your Trimble controller then you can not. So they decided you had to pay a toll in order to use the tools, only THEY never quite tell you that when the demo(hype) C3D to Surveyors.
Are you saying that if we weren't using Trimble equipment, we would be able to create linework and breaklines inside of Civil-3D, after getting all the points into C3D? That isn't the impression I got... I had gotten the impression that the FBK files were an Autodesk thing, and were used regardless of the survey equipment...
From what I gather, there is a major problem with C3D's linework generation, and it exists regardless of the survey equipment being used. The big problem with this is that the linework and breaklines are created as part of the import process. If there is an error in the fieldwork, then there are some minimal edits that can be done inside of C3D, but for the most part, errors must be fixed in the raw data, and then the import process must be done again. This is incredibly inefficient workflow, an incredibly difficult way to work and incredibly annoying. Not to mention, the Survey Figure Commands are weak, custom linetypes are weak, and a slew of other problems.
Now it's true that a number of these issues are solved by 3rd-party apps such as Stringer. Maybe that's all there is to it - if you expect to use Civil-3D as a Surveyor, expect to need 3rd-party apps.
Of course, that introduces another major issue, in that it means that C3D is MORE EXPENSIVE for Surveyors than for Engineers. This is backwards, since Engineers get far, far, far more value out of C3D than Surveyors do.
-
No, what I am saying is there are a ton of folks trying to import the .job file, only to discover that they can't because they are running the base software in the collector. And yet, you are correct, even IF done in the field, they then have limited editing capabilities AFTER the data is imported. And yes that would require the backwards workflow you imagine.
See this: http://discussion.autodesk.com/adskcsp/thread.jspa?messageID=5225580 (http://discussion.autodesk.com/adskcsp/thread.jspa?messageID=5225580)
or: http://discussion.autodesk.com/adskcsp/thread.jspa?messageID=5486092 (http://discussion.autodesk.com/adskcsp/thread.jspa?messageID=5486092)
-
When the model gets dumped straight into the "Blades" who needs surveyors?
That's the direction the software people are headed.
And yes I know that the surveyors are still needed for other aspects but construction staking will soon be very limited.
Lidar dumps into software, to design, to model to equipment is the path that is being pursued.
-
Now it's true that a number of these issues are solved by 3rd-party apps such as Stringer. Maybe that's all there is to it - if you expect to use Civil-3D as a Surveyor, expect to need 3rd-party apps.
Of course, that introduces another major issue, in that it means that C3D is MORE EXPENSIVE for Surveyors than for Engineers. This is backwards, since Engineers get far, far, far more value out of C3D than Surveyors do.
Couldn't agree more on this point. I really can't understand how a major player in the CAD field can't get fully functional survey working. It's not really rocket science is it? (that's no disrespect to surveyors of course it's in repsect to the stringing functionality)
We can't have a whole package of Civil3D just sitting there waiting for a surveyor to use it a couple of times a week. They need to create a surveyor package similar to Autocad lite etc.
Once they get a fully functional survey package reasonably priced they might find more people taking up their Civil3D package.
Why did you get me started. :-(
-
I know you are just relaying the software geeks theories but I just have to say something about what little guys like us face with that logic. I am not sure about the contractors your guys work with John, but with the crews that win the bids on all of our jobs, the only data they will accept from us is in the form of polylines at elevation. All of those nice Civil 3D surfaces get the explode button twice and exported out in 2000 dwg format. That leaves me with precious little ammo to defend the keeping the surface intact and "unsullied" all the way through design when the contractor either can't or won't use it. And that is just addressing grading and maybe curb staking. What does this fancy new equipment know about staking the storm, sewer and water? What happens when a manhole gets misplaced either vertical or horizontal? I know this shouldn't happen, but then if it didn't we wouldn't have to spend all of that time on as-builts.
-
I'm not saying it's here yet Dino, just the direction it's going.
As far as sewers go why can't the lasers the contractors use be GPS equipted?
I'm still getting over the heart attack of the surface grading machines being GPS equipted and grading a downloaded model.
-
I knew what you were getting at John, I was just venting about what I thought of the idea. The machines can have the grading, but I don't want them near my pipes yet. All the lasers, GPS and robotic stations you can throw at it will still run into shallow rock or some other weird " field surprise" and have to adjust the rest of the line so the stuff still flows down hill within or "close" to design criteria and use all of the original structures because they are already built and on site.
As far as alternate software solutions, I still can't give an honest opinion for Bentley products, but everything else I have seen looks to be Land Desktop clones. Civil 3D still seems to be the only really different solution.
-
I think part of the problem might be a trend that I have noticed of late. There is a disconnect in the Civil industry, as not all firms that survey, do design. And the Design firms do not survey, and the ones that do both sometimes do not use the software anywhere near it's capacity. So this leads to certain functions not being explored, exploited, tested until failure what ever.
In general C3D does some great stuff. It is when you push it that you start to discover the omitted, obtuse, overlooked, crash inducing pile of code with a foul oder. (If one could smell software)
-
In our case Michael, the only link either in or out of the office between Civil 3D and our surveyors is a simple PNEZD asci file with points. There is zero interest or even perceived need of any further interaction. We are in fact looking at alternate solutions for handling of points all together. Sadly, they again can make a good case that points handling to the extent we use it has become more cumbersome since the 2007 format and a different solution may well indeed serve us better.
-
I might be able to change their minds if I showed them a demo of some of the things I do with Civil-3D + the Sincpac-C3D... :-)
Even though Autodesk's support for Surveyors has been disappointing, the product itself is capable of quite a lot, and it also has a lot of that functionality exposed in the API. That makes it rather flexible.
It's just unfortunate that everything from the stock subassemblies to the reports to the Survey Database illustrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the common tasks Surveyors need to perform. And then there is the learning curve, and the time lost to styles, and the price of the software... One might start to wonder if using Civil-3D for surveying is like using helicopter to go to the grocery store.
-
And then there is the learning curve, and the time lost to styles, and the price of the software... One might start to wonder if using Civil-3D for surveying is like using helicopter to go to the grocery store.
So true. The surveyor from my old job was more or less persuaded over to Civil3D reluctantly from CivilCAD and now is quite happy with what he can do with Civil3D. I would hate to know how much extra time he's put into it to get it to where he is happy with it, but very surprised at how he does like it now.
-
My guys are the same way.
There was quite a bit of resistance to Civil-3D at first, as people fought the learning curve. For a while, one of my guys in particular was still using Land Desktop for most things. But I new the tide had finally changed when he was working on some construction calcs in Land Desktop with one of our other employees, and he said "This would be a lot easier in Civil-3D..." :-)
Civil-3D is definitely powerful. And now that we've gone through all the effort to learn it, we can do a lot with it. But is it the best choice for Surveyors? And more to the point, what will happen in the future? Will Autodesk continue to largely ignore the needs of Surveyors, and do things like say "The Transformation Tab isn't that bad - we can leave it the way it is"? Or will they actually start fixing/improving things? Or is it like JP says, and Surveyors aren't a big enough income stream for them to worry about?
-
I have a stupid Question. And this is just a thought... Civil 3D... "3D" Would you ever think a reason Autodesk placed the Surveying tools in Civil 3D is to build a model in 3D with all the 3D parts. For instance, our firm tried this and it worked, But we did a topographic survey on a site and the contours were in 3D and the Landscape Trees, buildings, structures and pipes, to generate a table etc. (Similar to the way engineering is done.) That was fun and pretty cool and it was quick.
As technology keeps changing, I am sure we all know the next big thing is 3D Scanning. How is ACAD going to help with this? Its Far More Advanaced then what I just mentioned above.
As for when I am importing a FBK. I have to say, I do not use the Survey Database. I import all the points and lines and then unlock them. And all the Feature Lines. I Explode to a POlyLine so I can move it and edit it. I know its not the right thing to do. But it works for us. ok you know my secrete.
-
Or is it like JP says, and Surveyors aren't a big enough income stream for them to worry about?
Uh, they would appear to a big enough revenue stream for autodesk to hype and shill the product to them. So if Surveyors are important enough to misrepresent the products capabilities too, then they should be large enough to fix the defects and omissions for; or at least stop prevaricating to them about the products abilities.
-
So MSTG007, essentially your contribution to this discussion is that C3D works for us because we do not actually use C3D without exploding the C3D objects and using brute force cad to accomplish what C3D wont let us do easily or otherwise. Or did I read too much into the last sentence?
If my perception is correct; that's a hell of an endorsement for the product. C3D it GREAT! If only you don't really try to use it as designed.
-
lol MJ you are right. I am Speechless. good Summary.
-
:roll:<<looking for my Sarcasmometer>> :roll:
...now where did I put that thing???
-
May i ask,how do you guys work?Do you use a fieldbook/data collector for the job?I'm 3-4 months away of getting my degree here on Greece,and the equipment we've used is theodolites (analog equipment got to write measurements down) and total station,where it stores distances,angles,coords on internal memoery and you transfer data via cable to the pc.We havent used so far any fieldbook though and i wonder whats the purpose for one?
-
When they mention FBK or field book they're referring to a file type not a physical field book (Just in case you were getting confused).
We use a data collector (quite old now and in the process of researching new ones) and download to the PC. We download to CivilCAD as it has all the survey tools we need and it's easier to use.
I will start another thread to discuss survey processes. I've been meaning to ask how other people do it and get Civil3D to string up for them.
-
I have now posted a new version of the Sincpac-C3D that adds some significant enhancements geared toward Surveyors.
The main improvements are the new DISPLAYPOINTS and DISPLAYPROFILE commands. With these commands, I'm exploring some alternatives to reports, because I'm really not happy with the way they work. In many respects, these two commands are "dynamic, interactive reports, that can still dump the data out to a CSV file, with no need for extracting the data from a formatted web page". In other words, I think they are more-useful for Surveyors than the reports Autodesk gave us.
There's also a command for adding Station/Offset to point descriptions (so the Station/Offset appears in exported PNEZD files, unlike Station/Offset Labels), a command for pruning PVIs from existing profiles, a command for converting an EG profile into an FG profile, and a command for cleaning up duplicate vertices in polylines (all kinds).
That's just the new commands in this release. The Sincpac-C3D already contained a wealth of routines that help in the Surveyor's line of work, and some of the existing commands have also been improved in this version.
And this is still just the beginning. The DISPLAYPOINTS and DISPLAYPROFILE commands offer only a glimpse of the functionality that I envision.
[blatant plug]
It's already to the point where I can't imagine any Surveyor trying to use Civil-3D without the Sincpac-C3D. It just saves way too much time, and makes arduous tasks so much easier. Eventually, my goal is to make Civil-3D+Sincpac-C3D the only sane choice for Surveyors. I haven't concentrated on replacing the FBK process yet, since so many other third-party providers have already covered that one, but I think I'm addressing a lot of needs that no one else is.
[/blatant plug]
Crazy? Maybe, since according to JP, the Surveyor market isn't big enough for Autodesk to care about. But I'm a Surveyor, and I think this technology has more potential than any other solution out there, once the "holes" left by Autodesk start getting filled in (as best we can fill them with third-party technology, anyway).
-
Whilst researching possible new processes we've come across the program from MicroSurvey - FieldGenius 2007.
Has anyone used this before for surveying and then bringing into Civil3D? (Did a search but could only find references to the design side of MicroSurvey)
Looks promising. Graphically stringing and DTM's in the field would be very handy. Would help in locating errors whilst on site etc.
Wondering how complete the survey would be by the time it's loaded into Civil3D.
We're still waiting for a quote for the data collector and software.
-
I have heard very positive reviews for MicroSurvey, especially for FieldGenius. You might try checking at civil3d dot com - they are now a vendor for MicroSurvey and Jason Hickey has spoken highly of it recently.
-
I have heard very positive reviews for MicroSurvey, especially for FieldGenius. You might try checking at civil3d dot com - they are now a vendor for MicroSurvey and Jason Hickey has spoken highly of it recently.
That is an interesting tidbit? For some reason one would expect that those folks autodesk tattoed on their soul. And here I see that they now represent and sell a competing product to c3d. Wow, I think I may have to keep an eye on the sky and a large umbrella in case that flock of winged porcine happen overhead.
-
That is an interesting tidbit?
Ya know, sometimes you have some good information that folks can learn from. Othertimes you seem to live in a complete Utopia and think the world should comply with that model. Then others, such as this, make me wonder why I read your posts.
Why you feel like you have to make stupid remarks towards, or about, people who have been trying to get C3D to work how us users would like it be (much like you claim to), is beyond me. Please, do everyone a favor and keep your personal jabs to yourself. I doubt I'm the only one who is tired of seeing this type of useless post.
No, I won't respond to any quick comeback you may have. I have said what I felt I should and have nothing more to say about it.
-
That is an interesting tidbit?
Ya know, sometimes you have some good information that folks can learn from. Othertimes you seem to live in a complete Utopia and think the world should comply with that model. Then others, such as this, make me wonder why I read your posts.
Why you feel like you have to make stupid remarks towards, or about, people who have been trying to get C3D to work how us users would like it be (much like you claim to), is beyond me. Please, do everyone a favor and keep your personal jabs to yourself. I doubt I'm the only one who is tired of seeing this type of useless post.
No, I won't respond to any quick comeback you may have. I have said what I felt I should and have nothing more to say about it.
I do not live in a complete Utopia, nor believe anyone need comply, I merely offer an alternate view, that some may choose to consider thoughtfully.
I just found it interesting that despite of and in the face of those folks pushing C3D are now reversing their field so to speak.
Keep in mind that for the most part EE, is in the business of selling autodesk products, training, and support, they are not product developers, nor do they really assert any influence on said developers as they themselves have expressed in other posts.
Most interesting that you want to make commentary, and then not wish to engage in discussion. My posts are here to offer solutions to issues, or alternate views, and to perhaps stimulate thoughtfull discussion. That is probably why you read then in the first place.
This particular 'jab' as you consider it, is simply a pointed observation that these purveyors of autodesk product and propaganda, now see fit to sell a competing product.
The fact that you are offended by it, and believe it is your place to attempt to silence any non consenting view that doesn't match yours is an interesting position for you to take. I find it very interesting that you feel a need to defend them, in this manner.
For what it's worth, perhaps the only posts of mine you should read are when I solve your cad issues, as you seem to be so intolerant of others opinions. Or when you see an opinion you can't embrace do as you suggest you will do, and not comment on it, just think about it and maybe one day you will be more open to other ideas, and some of them will make sense within your worldview.
And the post that you think are worthless might have some value to others whom are able to consider other points of view. Even some that have disagreed with some of my positions later admit that my whacked out views did give them food for thought. Bon appetite!
-
Jeff_M, if you were to meet Mike in person (have you?) you may not take some of his comments in such a way. These discussion forums are wonderful, but you can't always get the full tone of the message simply by text that is typed out.
-
I may have misspoke slightly . . . per their new website EE lists only the FieldGenius software for sale NOT the full MicroSurvey product . . . my appologies.
-
dfarris, no I have net met Michael in person. Nor have I met any of the EE folks in person. I am well aware of the fact this medium does not convey message tones, facial expressions, etc. Which is why I cannot fathom WHY Michael continually beats on the EE people and even the C3DAutodesk team as much as he does.
I have had the urge to write before about this, and actually have but decided against sending the message. I am usually quite easy going and really do try to see the poster's point of view as they may be trying to convey it. But his constant negativity towards those who also are here trying to help just finally rubbed the skin down to bleeding sores and I couldn't take it anymore.
I do appreciate the time he puts into helping others. I also appreciate the time all the others put into helping all of us. But when he attacks those that are essentially here trying to do the same as he, that's what I don't need to hear/read.
Michael,
It wasn't an attempt to defend EE as I'm sure they could do that themselves. It was MY observation that your negative, unsubstantiated, opinion should be left at the door in this case. Din0 gave an informed, useful, response to Craig and somehow you felt the need to make an unnecessary comment that had nothing to do with helping anyone.
Again, I am NOT attempting to defend the EE team. This is merely what I have observed over the years.....
Every one of them has said, at one time or another,:
that C3D has issues
that C3D may NOT be the best choice for a firm's work flow
yeah, I think that the ***** (insert command of your choice here) sucks rocks, too.
that there ARE other choices out there
What can I do to help you get through this?
Not once have I seen them blast another user/teacher for their participation in what ever form that may take. And that even applies to you, even after the shots you've taken at them.
So, to summarize since it seemed to go right past you or my facial expression wasn't caught :-/ ....
You're views are just that, your views. I have no problem with you expressing them and I even read a good majority of them, so long as they remain constructive and thought provoking. This, to me, is not "thought provoking":
For some reason one would expect that those folks autodesk tattoed on their soul. And here I see that they now represent and sell a competing product to c3d. Wow, I think I may have to keep an eye on the sky and a large umbrella in case that flock of winged porcine happen overhead.
There is not one thing there that is of benefit to anyone, except maybe yourself. And THAT is what I took offense to.
-
I think some of what you perceive as 'shots' taken at others, is simply your view of the exchange.
When those others posit themselves as 'masters' of the 3d universe, and their clients seem to suffer for it, I happen to notice that and point it out.
Perhaps I need to put on blinders and ignore the facts that present themselves, and let other readers make their own judgement.
I will keep this in mind, however it may not change the manner that you interpret my posts.
-
Thanks for that Dino. I'll go check it out.
-
>>When those others posit themselves as 'masters' of the 3d universe, and their clients seem to suffer for it, I happen to notice that and point it out. <<
Masters was the title of a series of texts.
And if you suggest they are not, ask the product developers.
If you need addresses I have them.
This client didn't suffer for it so which one did?
The only thing you seem to point out consistently is a list of the product flaws and your ability to overcome them. Or the current whine about the lack of project management tools. We manage our projects fine with the existing toolset and it frankly is beyond me how you would remove the users from the project management phase and improve the use.
All projects are not the same and the software cannot possibly account for all things that may need to be addressed.
Project management is best left to the people that manage projects and not the people who write code.
-
Respectfully, go back and read some of the post you made in "What I've learned".
No suffering? Really that is not what I saw you post there. And I will save everyone the embarrassment of naming other names, in an attempt to appear to be attacking no one.
The current whine about lack of project management tools actually extends back about 3 years. This in not a new complaint, it is a continuing issue. Irrespective of what you or your users are doing. Read some of sinc's post and tell me you would not enjoy the benefits he and I speak to in regards actual project management. <not version control and backup functions as vault currently serves in your addmitedly limitted functionality>
The addresses you offer to provide will 'prove' nothing. Just because they have met with and exchanged emails with some of these people is meaningless in the bigger scope of things. As they seem all to willing to accept and apologize for the products shortcomings, and autodesk's unresponsiveness to customer needs. Go read some of my objections to the book and what it lacked, in terms of being critical of the bugs, defects, and deficiencies of C3D to see my point.
Now if those people want to really discuss the chunks of junk in C3D with me my email address is in my profile. And for ease of use mailto:mjfarrell@earthlink.net (http://mailto:mjfarrell@earthlink.net). My inbox is now open.
Trust this, I believe that they believe they are working as hard as they can doing what they do. And largely they do a good job of it.
-
G'day everyone. I'm new here, as you can tell. Dino asked me to come here and join this group. Dunno if I'll be much help. I have done a Civil 3D course, but I don't use it. I use 12D Model. But on the plus side a bit, I am a surveyor. Currently doing Civil design.
Please don't pick on me. :roll: :roll: :lmao:
-
Welcom Alan!
-
Thanks, Mike.
Hope I can somehow fit in here.
I guess time will tell. :wink:
-
Hey Alan! Welcome from rustysilo. :wink:
-
G'day everyone. I'm new here, as you can tell. Dino asked me to come here and join this group. Dunno if I'll be much help. I have done a Civil 3D course, but I don't use it. I use 12D Model. But on the plus side a bit, I am a surveyor. Currently doing Civil design.
Please don't pick on me. :roll: :roll: :lmao:
Welcome! Sinc and myself are surveyors as well, I don't know about anyone else... I think most here might be...ummm....*cough* engineers *cough* but don't let that discourage ya! :-)
-
at least you didn't call us artichokes . . .
-
Hey Alan! Welcome from rustysilo. :wink:
Cheers, mate,
Now I do feel at home.
-
at least you didn't call us artichokes . . .
:-D well, sometimes I think that you guys are... Do you know how many times I get some bad design and I catch it when we are going to lay it out. I notify the engineer and he/she says "can't you make it work?!?" :-D
-
Well I am not an engineer either - just an humble designer with a 37 year old BA in History.
-
Then there are guys like myself, the almost a designer cadd draftsman...
But one question for Randy... Can't you?
-
Then there are guys like myself, the almost a designer cadd draftsman...
But one question for Randy... Can't you?
I always do! :wink:
-
at least you didn't call us artichokes . . .
:-D well, sometimes I think that you guys are... Do you know how many times I get some bad design and I catch it when we are going to lay it out. I notify the engineer and he/she says "can't you make it work?!?" :-D
You know I had a conversation with a LSIT last year whom insisted that he NOT learn any of the C3D design tools, "because I am going to be a surveyor, and that stuff is engineering."
I tried so very hard to get this young man to understand that knowledge of design would ultimately make him a better Surveyor. However my efforts were to no avail. :cry:
-
Welcome! Sinc and myself are surveyors as well, I don't know about anyone else... I think most here might be...ummm....*cough* engineers *cough* but don't let that discourage ya! :-)
Hey I take offense to that. (Hides screen from the Engineers near him). I'm a designer who started out doing survey so get involved in the survey side of things on a daily basis. I'm also managing to get out and do some surveying again which is great.
-
You might try checking at civil3d dot com - they are now a vendor for MicroSurvey and Jason Hickey has spoken highly of it recently.
Dino,
Would you happen to have a direct link to where it is on that site? I've had a pretty good look around it and can't find it. If you can't that's fine.
I'm going to have to get in contact with a local seller to get a price I think.
Craig
-
You might try checking at civil3d dot com - they are now a vendor for MicroSurvey and Jason Hickey has spoken highly of it recently.
Dino,
Would you happen to have a direct link to where it is on that site? I've had a pretty good look around it and can't find it. If you can't that's fine.
I'm going to have to get in contact with a local seller to get a price I think.
Craig
Sorry Craig, I forgot that I had followed a link in an article that took me to this page on the NEW EE CORPORATE PAGE (http://www.eng-eff.com/partner.php).
-
Or you can just go straight to the horse's mouth:
http://microsurvey.com/
-
I looked yesterday. You can buy it online for 2k.
-
Welcome! Sinc and myself are surveyors as well, I don't know about anyone else... I think most here might be...ummm....*cough* engineers *cough* but don't let that discourage ya! :-)
Hey I take offense to that. (Hides screen from the Engineers near him). I'm a designer who started out doing survey so get involved in the survey side of things on a daily basis. I'm also managing to get out and do some surveying again which is great.
Good for you! Many years ago, I got a BSCE but never went on to become a PE or even a EIT. Engineers always ask me why I stayed with surveying. I had two answers for him. 1) Surveyor's are more fun to hang out with and 2) I wanted more of a challenge!