Topic: Civil 3D - I Need TWO Sizes For My Labels

[Dinosaur]

Now I am going to dump Dana out of her canoe and get her feet wet by helping me with a labeling problem - SPLASH . . .

One of the major promo points for Civil 3D is its ability to keep a constant size for each label in any scale viewport . . . a noble goal that works exactly as promised even when the results are surprising.  When I use different scales that are too different, the results are either too crowded or undesirably spaced or positioned.  I understand the concept of using a different style with text that will be appropriately sized and positioned, but I have not had the chance to apply it.

If I need to apply two different styles to the labels for the same object, is it possible to copy the label and just change the style or do I have to do the entire labeling process for each style?  I still find labeling to be complicated enough the first time through and am not eager to do it twice.

[dbreigprobert]

what type of objects?

pipes are easy to double label.

some others aren't quite so easy. tell me more.

[Dinosaur]

The labels most likely to need multiple scales are alignment and the most evil of all (for me at least) parcel labels.

- EDIT -

for those of you who doubt The Dinosaur, you will please notice that it took less than 6 hours over a Fiday / Saturday overnight . . . on a holiday weekend no lees . . . to get Dana back here trying to solve a problem.  I think there is also some "heavy weather" named Ernesto in her neighborhood about now too.  I forgot to mention, she seems to rarely sleep.

[dbreigprobert]

In 2007:

For Parcels:

Additional area labels need to be done with a General Note label that contains a parcel reference.  Use a different text size and layer.  You should be able to reference parcel area, number and other things.  In 2006, you are SOL.  There are work arounds, but they all involve maintaining two drawings, or having to go in and toggle a different label before you plot.

this doesn't show you how, but:
http://www.civil3d.com/2006/06/plat-problem-resolved.html

Alignments:

Too easy.

Make two Major Station labels (and two of the others, too) Then, include BOTH of them in your label set.  If you make the one Major label style at .08 on Layer BIGTEXT and another MAjor Station label style at 0.04 on a Layer called LITTLETEXT.  Including both sizes of each type of alignment label in your label set will mean you don't have to go back through.  That should work in 2006 as well.

Freeze and thaw as appropriate

The truth is, I don't do much else in life.  I hang out with my daughter and my dogs, and Mr. Probert, too.  He works for the DOT, so he is out picking up trees and setting up sandbags today.

I like Civil 3D.  I find it entertaining.  But I can't always promise such turn-around

[Dinosaur]

Dana, quick turn-arounds like that are a pleasant surprise that we all hope for but do not expect and would never demand.  Like I said, you seem to hardly sleep as it is between your profession as a reseller and doing real world WORK with this stuff besides.
Now I must apologize for posting when I was too exhausted to be specific with my questions.  The labels I dread most in the world are for the parcel segments . . . the nightmare ones on the right of way when the boss and client came up with a layout that leaves you with an arc or line segment that can be labeled normally on 50 scale construction plans but will get your 100 scale plat laughed out of the planning department.  The prevailing theory around here is if there is a minimum radius in the regulations then exactly that must be used and it is left up to drafting to make the ridiculous lot boundaries label correctly and readable.  Course and curve tables are also frowned upon. :realmad:

I know, I know, "care for some brie with that Whine?"

THESE are the things I am fighting trying to get into Civil 3D labels.

[dbreigprobert]

no problem

expect a post at Civil 3D.com by the sunday AM

[dbreigprobert]

http://www.civil3d.com/2006/09/double-labeling-for-different-scaled.html

[Dinosaur]

ALL RIGHT !!!

Lady's and gentlemen, may I have your attention please.  Tonight The Dinosaur is announcing his intention to remove access to his r13 and EaglePoint programs and attempt to use Civil3D parcels and labels for his next new project . . . ? ? ? . . . 

OMG ! . . .    What have I done?  Now I have to learn good topology technique too . . .

[MP]

Uh oh. You've been throwing back the benylin w/codeine shooters again haven't you? Good luck.

 

[dbreigprobert]

and for my next trick.....

a topology post coming soon including a tag team with jason RE span labels demystified.

it is in the works right now, but i am trying to meter things out- at Civil3Drocks i would post like 10 in a weekend and forget about it, but civil3d.com is a more civilized place with more self control.

but parcel rules explained is a good place to start

http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/2006/06/parcel-rules-explained.html

[Dinosaur]

They won't let me have codine anymore since I drank the whole bottle driving between Denver and Gunnison one night . . . at least that is what they tell me I did.

[MMccall]

The last time I ran into this situation, it was for a final plat at the end of a project. The geometry wasn't about to change at this point so I saved the file as a new name, final plat, and modified the label styles I used in the original labels. This seemed to make the most sense in my situation as I also had a bunch of mtext that needed to be resized too and maintaining two sets labelling and text layers would have taken some layer juggling in the current file and any file that xreffed it.


Funny that parcels seem to be the only C3d object that you can't label more than once. Copying the parcels to a new site and labelling the copies with a different styel might be an option for some situations.

[Dinosaur]

One thing that would have made this easier all along would be the ability to use a MAP query to get these objects into a different drawing.  In fact I would like to be able to query ANY Civil 3D object.

[dbreigprobert]

while i certainly don't disagree that we should be able to do map queries on a lot of things, parcels are a special animal all together.

it is actually a better plan to save-as and then erase everything else in the drawing rather than attempt a wblock with a complicated parcel plan.

the reason is that attached parcel lines (the create by layout kind) get "moved" first, then their target lot lines (like back of lot) move next.  this is why if you rotate or erase parcels, lines that may have been once bounded by a rear lot line now extend out further than they did previously.

parcels are more than just static areas to civil 3d, and i don't know that the attached parcel special features (like the perpendicular grip and flexible rear) would be portable the way we would like them to.

just don't be too tempted to do the LandXML in and out to get parcels in your new site plan.

http://www.civil3d.com/2006/08/parcel-migration-and-parcel-import.html

[Dinosaur]

Ouch, OOH . . . you used the double whammy!  XML and parcels . . . my very first Civil 3D project, disaster, 40 kiloton migraine and MEGACRASH all in two little words . . . no sleep for me next week . . . too many nightmares.

aah . . . the Thorazine man commeth . . . I'm much better now . . .  :kewl:

Here is lesson one about topology issues and how they can creep in with seemingly innocent edit operations.  Who would have thought that a query would cause a problem?  Thanks  Dana.

[Mark]

expect a post at Civil 3D.com by the sunday AM

That's awesome Dana. Thanks a bunch, I almost can't wait to return to work Tuesday just to try this.

welcome to theswamp!

[Jason Hickey]

Parcel topology - what a B***H.   Autodesk, in their infinite wisdom, has given us one of the coolest tools since the "UNDO" button and no clear way to tell us how to make it work.   

Creating a subdivision lot layout is a bit like building a 100 story building - if you don't start with a good foundation, your building is eventually going to come crashing down around you.   Start out with a GOOD boundary.   Clean it up with the Map Cleanup tool.   Pay attention to how your ROW is created.   A;ways remember - every lot line that is common with another should only have ONE LINE (or curve) defined for that common line!   Multiple lot lines stacked on top of each other will cause you to curse the existence of the ancestors of the development team in Manchester - trust me, I've been there.   But once that "topology" lightbulb went off over my head, I picked up on it and am USING it.   I've had similar lightbulbs regarding the CUI (hey, some of these weren't RECENT lightbulbs), Profile views, generic subassemblies, intersection design, and quite a few other things.    I've got a lightbulb or two about to come on as well - I can feel the electricity "humming."

While it's on my mind - MM, of COURSE you can label parcels twice, providing that you're using C3D 2007.   Ever heard of a general note with reference text?

[dbreigprobert]

the interesting thing is that truly "good topology" from the textbook definition (as applied to Map topologies and others) doesn't allow the span label to function.

Hence my original confusion.

In the strictest definition of good topology there are no overlapping lines at all- meaning each segment terminates at the node (or intersections)

So I think I have reverse engineeered enough of it that between jason and i we will write the blog post of the century soon.

[Jason Hickey]

So I think I have reverse engineeered enough of it that between jason and i we will write the blog post of the century soon.

Holy crap, thanks for that pressure.    That's one heckuva promise to have to live up to 

[Cannon]

BAH.

Good C3D topology will by its very nature be dirty in a GIS sense. You can't slide bearings if the line ends at the first concept plan lot line. ROW and Boundaries MUST be continuous to make labeling and closure sense. Performing a Map cleanup without thought on a site plan would destroy it for C3D use. Yes, you should get rid of Null nodes, overhangers, and little shorties. A GOOD surveyor will present you with clean topology. A good planner probably won't, they just don't care.

And I think most of you could avoid two label styles on one object. Parcels being the _one_ exception that I've found because of their Un-Vaultiness (is that a word? It is now.) The rest of the use cases preseted here for two label styles and the headaches there in can be handled by using data shortcuts.

Now back to the regular Nick, Jason and Dana show.  And the post of the Century? That's a big claim.

[dbreigprobert]

Ok, so if between you, me and jason we have this whole Civil3D topology thing licked, why arent we writing AOTC parcels right this second?  We need to before we give away all of our secrets.

Here is the deal on the data shortcuts.

Fine.  Cool.  Rework your entire workflow and the comapny workflow, i am all for tha.

But guys like Dinosaur are lone wolves.  The boss says- try it.  If you fail, its done. is over.  no room to shift that paradigm later.  These guys need a solution now.  Once they get in, they do a project, their eyes open and see possibilities.

Secondly, do you know how many phone calls, emails, requests and otherwise I get PER DAY about stuff like this?  people who are knee deep in projects.  People who are cadautl clients but maybe didnt get training.  or maybe got training but for some reason still went back into an old drawing and didnt move it forward to a Civil 3D template.

They are googling, questioning and calling because they need a solution now.  What am I supposed to tell them?  "Rework you workflow.  Install vault andstart over?"

No freaking way.

If i give them that line they will miss their deadline get pissed at me and autodesk, go back to land desktop and tell me later what a crock of crap civil 3d was cause they couldnt change their label size.

these are firms that current manage to sets of land desktop labeling or dtext anyway.  their layer states are already established (whether officially or "in their heads") to accomodate different text sizes in differnt plats.  or maybe they label in paperspace to avoid all confusion on scale all together.

THIS is what I am upagainst.  I can't hide from it and I won't say you cant use ciivl 3d if you dont change everything.  that's not gonna happen. 

in my personal work, where i work over spotty VPNs, FTPs and other not so tight data sharing situations I would rather hand over a baseplan that can be xrefed into many sheet families and a CAD tech can just zip through and change layer states than try to wrestle with vault over distance.

So sure.  Ideally, and eventually, change your whole workflow.  But for now, who gives a crap?  Just label the damn line and get back to work.

And this is why the James, Nick, Jason and Dana show is so entertaining. Consider the can of worms opened.

[Jason Hickey]

James is right about a few things:

1) Map Cleanup is one of the most powerful (and dangerous) tools that I've ever seen.   Use it carefully, or it will **** up your drawing.

2) Surveyors almost always give me a boundary with passable topology.

3) Planners/project managers/people who lay out subdivisions for conceptual design almost always give me crap.   This is why I need Map Cleanup.

Now, I'm wondering a) if parcels will ever work with Vault, and b) why no one hasn't talked about general labels with reference text more in depth yet 

[Dinosaur]

I sure am a troublemaker, aren't I?

How about this for EVERYONE to chew on . . . Right now, my situation is not that critical.  My personal instructor has tried numerous times to get a training session in place, but they are adamant in their refusal to consider actually learning their own tools.  My powers that be have already pulled the plug on any new subdivision work being done with anything other than 2005 Land Desktop.  I can do some small siteplan work in 2006 Civil 3D as long as no one else has to touch it . . . if I am not at work and my C3D project needs something that can not wait, when I return it will be a LDT project and if there was ANY trouble converting it over I will be catching flack.  Further, if I tried to do it in 2007 I would be sent down the road kicking rocks.  Essentially I am now using it for evaluation purposes again, so if it were not for the 2007 thing I would be 100% up for ANY changes in workflow, methodology, standards or anything else that would get me moving forward again.  Any REAL evaluation I will be doing is own my own time on either a dummy or mirrored project.
PLEASE, what I need to know most is how to make this software sing . . . give me your collective best shots.

[Dinosaur]

. . . Now, I'm wondering a) if parcels will ever work with Vault, and b) why no one hasn't talked about general labels with reference text more in depth yet 

THIS is the real direction I have anticipated treveling.  I have never really liked the concept of dynamic updates for any plat labels.  I have found several instances where errors had crept into the geometry while in the process of reworking the affected labels which would have gone unnoticed without that check.  The lot geometry I am often given is complex to the point that even if spanning labels worked without all of the common workarounds I would have to give many lots their own site to have them labeled properly.  I wish I had a good example to post for this type of area, but non of my parcel segment labeling efforts have survived.  I think the only logical choice I will have will be to pick off the values and use general labels and reference text.

[dbreigprobert]

I didnt meant that to sound at all like I wanted to give James a hard time.  on the contrary.  James is my hero.  My mentor.  The man who has made so much come in to focus.  Seriously.

And I really WANT to build a model in the most abstract sense- above and beyond any drawing.  I really want Vault to be the place where my silly putty is kept and drawings be just places to pull info out.

I REALLY REALLY DO.

I just need to see it with my own eyes and slowly dig my way out of CAD mismanagement purgatory, which is what i think a lot of us live in.

[Dinosaur]

. . .  slowly dig my way out of CAD mismanagement purgatory, which is what i think a lot of us live in . . .

Why did you not at least stop by to say hello when you were in my office . . . no, on second thought purgatory would have been the floor above mine . . .

[Cannon]

And I admit that I got to cheat. I went directly from being that user in hell trying o slog through it every day, being the one to test it and get it wrong, to being the Consultant that just gets to walk in and trash everything in the name of efficiency. There are still some battles I put off (layouts, JP?) but they're in my mind, and I'll eventually take them on.

No one pays a consultant to hear how they're doing everything right. It would be a short career if I couldn't find something to fix, right? So why not fix it all?

So, I did get to skip the dance that Jason, Nick, and Dana all do so well, the AE support shuffle. I never had to deal with someone who had bitten off more than they could chew, was working all weekend, and then called me for support.

So, to make a long story short, if you want the ideal, sometimes pie in the sky, plan, you can look for my answers, if you want the right answers right now, look to them. The cool part is that we're all sharing knowledge and making it better for everyone I hope.

[Jason Hickey]

That support shuffle is what makes the job so fun.   

One thing that makes the Nick, Dana, James, and Jason show so great is that we all have our own ideas and ways that we think are best.   The great thing about Civil 3D is that there's an unlimited number of ways to skin a cat.   What I tend to do is take my initial idea, Nick's idea, Dana's idea, and James' idea and combine all of them into one MEGA idea, which we then try to document     In most instances, the final workflow is greater than the sum of its parts.

OK, now who wants to sing a rousing round of Kumbaya?