Topic: Lessons learned.

[Dinosaur]

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.

[jpostlewait]

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?

[Dinosaur]

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.

[sinc]

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...   

[jpostlewait]

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.

[sinc]

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...   

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...   

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.

[sinc]

Civil-3D training starts for us in the morning...   

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...   

[jpostlewait]

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.

[Dinosaur]

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.

[sinc]

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...   

[Dinosaur]

The video card question is alsobeing discussed in THIS 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.

[sinc]

That trick with the AutoCAD display sounds very familiar . . .

We have the same trainer.   

OK, here's my impressions.  First, the bad stuff...   

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...   

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...   

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... 

[jpostlewait]

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.

[sinc]

>>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...       

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...

[Dinosaur]

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!    :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...       

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.