Topic: Name That Road Block

[Dinosaur]

I met two friends for the first time tonight.  As what commonly happens when people meet and talk, the conversation turned to something they all have in common.  Tonight the common ground was working with and implementing Civil 3D into our respective workplaces and one topic stood out for me more than the rest.  The conversation turned to the necessity of work arounds - having to supplement the drawings where what we need just can't be done through Civil 3D.  This is my personal roadblock with full implementation.  I can defy my boss and work with the program no matter what he says; I put my job on the line every time I fire it up, but I can't set for hours trying to hammer something out the program isn't able to perform.  I can not and will not attempt to make a plat that will meet local minimum standards using Civil 3D.  Parcel segment labeling is still not ready to show both measured and deeded or platted courses.  There are some convoluted work arounds I could try, but the results will still be some non Civil 3D labels.  It is quicker and easier for me to avoid the problem and just use an alternate method for all of my plat and survey labeling.
I think that there are several roadblocks out there that are stopping or at least hindering the acceptance of Civil 3D and I would like to hear some more.  NOT to have a good old fashioned gripe and whine session, but to see if a reasonable list could be assembled of what Autodesk needs to add to Civil 3D to help it gain acceptance.  Perhaps there may even be some work arounds that others are willing to share.  With all of the increased activity in Land Lubber lately there is no telling who may be dropping by, tonight for instance both of my companions have been wading TheSwamp waters lately and both have the ear of some Autodesk managers.
So please, what is YOUR Civil 3D roadblock?

[MMccall]

I've been using C3d since Jan. 2005 for everything. I have the companion software but I don't know how to use it so my choice is either figure out a way to get it gone in C3d or fake it with some Autocad primitives.  I've been using primitives less and less to get things done but site grading is still a jambing up the works.

For a subdivision the current work flow is that I provide engineering with a horizontal layout plan, road profiles and grading in the roadways via corridor surfaces. Engineering gives me back a 'carmine red' marked up plan with lot grading, drainage basin and drainage system. I input the drainage system as a pipe network, the basin as polylines and create a surface from those lines for use in drainage system profiles and what not. The lot grading goes in as just polylines.

For a commercial site the process is fairly similar. The only difference is that sometimes there is no need for a corridor and the site (parking lot) grading goes in as feature lines with elevations applied at locations per the 'carmine red' markup. A parking lot surface is built from the feature lines for profile use but the contours used on the finished plans are just polylines. Spot grades are framed mtext with leaders.

I'd hoped to be able to take the design further along in C3d with complete final surfaces with spot grades and contours based on the surface. Unfortunately, most of the time the feature line grading either blows up in my face, produces bad results or no solution. 2007 may be better at this but its still generating complaints and I'm having a hard time paying the subscription fee and buy into more 'potentially' good software.


On the parcel segment labelling issue. 2007 has those kewl new expressions that could be used in a segment label to handle a consistent bearing conversion to another north orientation. I've also used the segment 'description' as part of a segment label so I could incorporate segment specific information into the label.


Another road block I can think of is having qualified users with enough functioning brain cells to run this software properly.

[Dent Cermak]

I've been using C3d since Jan. 2005 for everything. I have the companion software but I don't know how to use it so my choice is either figure out a way to get it gone in C3d or fake it with some Autocad primitives.  I've been using primitives less and less to get things done but site grading is still a jambing up the works.

For a subdivision the current work flow is that I provide engineering with a horizontal layout plan, road profiles and grading in the roadways via corridor surfaces. Engineering gives me back a 'carmine red' marked up plan with lot grading, drainage basin and drainage system. I input the drainage system as a pipe network, the basin as polylines and create a surface from those lines for use in drainage system profiles and what not. The lot grading goes in as just polylines.

For a commercial site the process is fairly similar. The only difference is that sometimes there is no need for a corridor and the site (parking lot) grading goes in as feature lines with elevations applied at locations per the 'carmine red' markup. A parking lot surface is built from the feature lines for profile use but the contours used on the finished plans are just polylines. Spot grades are framed mtext with leaders.

I'd hoped to be able to take the design further along in C3d with complete final surfaces with spot grades and contours based on the surface. Unfortunately, most of the time the feature line grading either blows up in my face, produces bad results or no solution. 2007 may be better at this but its still generating complaints and I'm having a hard time paying the subscription fee and buy into more 'potentially' good software.


On the parcel segment labelling issue. 2007 has those kewl new expressions that could be used in a segment label to handle a consistent bearing conversion to another north orientation. I've also used the segment 'description' as part of a segment label so I could incorporate segment specific information into the label.


Another road block I can think of is having qualified users with enough functioning brain cells to run this software properly.

ZING!! DEAD DINO IN THE DIRT!!

[MMccall]

I didn't mean that last statement as a dig or insult to Dino. I only meant that the skill level required to drive the software may cause some staff turn over as some users won't 'get it' and some will be too resistant to change. It's sink or swim, some will sink. Most days I'm just treading water.

[Dinosaur]

I didn't mean that last statement as a dig or insult to Dino. I only meant that the skill level required to drive the software may cause some staff turn over as some users won't 'get it' and some will be too resistant to change. It's sink or swim, some will sink. Most days I'm just treading water.

And none was taken . . . you have mentioned one of the major obstacles Civil 3D faces in trying to gain acceptance.  What makes this more serious is that it seems the more well versed a designer / technician is with Land Desktop, the more difficult the transition to Civil 3D becomes.

[Mark]

I didn't mean that last statement as a dig or insult to Dino. I only meant that the skill level required to drive the software may cause some staff turn over as some users won't 'get it' and some will be too resistant to change.

Dent knew what you meant, he was just trying to get a rise out of ya.   The more you hang out in theswamp the more you'll come to appreciate Dent, he is a very comical individual. At the same time Mr. Dent can be a great resource of knowledge on many subjects other than surveying.

[Greg B]

At the same time Mr. Dent can be a great resource of knowledge on many subjects other than surveying.

And you said that with a straight face Mr. Thomas?

WOW!

[Jeff_M]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my biggest roadblocks are 1.) Lack of training,  2.) Severe LDT mindset that must be retrained, and 3.)The need for me to continue providing drawings to consultants, contractors, clients in LDT3 format (Yes, we have sloooowwww movers in Northern California.....the surveyor that does 90% of the staking on our projects is still using R14/S8)

[Greg B]

Why does it feel like if someone does not upgrade, they are considered out of date?

[Jeff_M]

Why does it feel like if someone does not upgrade, they are considered out of date?

Why do you use WinXP-SP2? Win98 works pretty well.....

Why do use DataCad Version 11? That's the most recent, isn't it?

The rest of us want to get our projects done better & faster, which the new tools allow us to do (once these new tools are learned & mastered). When they are languishing back in the bronze age with their tools of choice, it makes us spend some of that time we saved to be able to provide them with a usable product.  If I can demonstrate to them that I can do the exact same job as them, in 2/3 the time, and they still refuse to upgrade? Yeah, I can say they are out of date......

[Greg B]

Oh so those that use LD3 don't want to move to a program that, from the sounds of it, really never was ready for public release.  Has a learning time and curve that most companies can not spend time and money on else they go out of business for not getting their work done.  And probably costs an arm and a leg that, guess what, not everyone can afford!

[Greg B]

Why do you use WinXP-SP2? Win98 works pretty well.....

Why do use DataCad Version 11? That's the most recent, isn't it?

Company computer...no choice on the version of the OS.  I use what I can get for free.

DataCAD Version 11...yeah and the most recent update to it, because it's free.  If I get a CAD package for home, I'd probably go with DataCAD LT.  Cheaper and does what I need it to do.  Google SketchUp, free version.  Does what I need it to do.

Until I built my own computer (over a year ago now) I was on a machine that I bought in 96 and ran Windows 95.  Thing worked fine.


I'm saying, don't slam blast a company that doesn't have the lastest and greatest when you don't know the reason they don't upgrade.  Course you probabl think they do it just to bug you out of spite.

[Greg B]

I over stepped myself.  I shouldn't have said a lot of the things I did.

I am sorry to Jeff and those that had to read a rant that shouldn't have been here.

[Dinosaur]

. . . a program that, from the sounds of it, really never was ready for public release.  Has a learning time and curve that most companies can not spend time and money on else they go out of business for not getting their work done.  And probably costs an arm and a leg that, guess what, not everyone can afford!

I think you have provided some very valid points here, Greg.

[Greg B]

Thank you Dino...

I felt bad about ranting because as I discussed this with a friend, my comments were based on incomplete information.  My information is from what people have posted here at the swamp.  While this information is good, it does not mean I can get as snippity as I did.