Topic: Lessons learned.

[Dinosaur]

. . . The real hurdle IMO is getting the reviewing agency's to review the model not the sheets . . .

If not the main one, it is sure one of the highest.  These guys have no idea how devastating some of their comments can be to a set of plans.  Even worse, some of the orneriest comments have little if anything to do with the design of the project yet once made, they refuse to back down regardless the opposing evidence you present.

We are seeing a whole new set of problems now as each reviewing agency is adopting new APWA and ADWA design standards.  So far this year we have twice had major revisions affected by the newly adopted criteria even though projects had been approved only weeks before using the previous standards.  No indication was offered in preliminary consultations that any new criteria were to be in effect or even being contemplated.  Worse, I have yet to find the new required details except in pdf format which are difficult to assemble into sheets and add an unneeded complication in our plotting.  We have already been forced into creating an entire set of sheet blanks for 22 x 34 sheets and developing prototypes, styles and labels for 40 scale plans in addition to 50 scale.

[jpostlewait]

Anybody that has been in this business for a while can vent about reviewing agencies.
I worked on a project a while ago that didn't have to be reviewed by anybody.
Have you ever had to justify the need for storm water management in a subdivision?
All of the things that I had taken for granted suddenly needed to be justified.
No pavement spec's, didn't want curb or ditches etc.
And yes I agree they spent way to much time checking the punctuation and not enough time on design.
Just try once working without a net.

[jpostlewait]

Eagerly awaiting the arrival of 2008.
Seems like it's going to be a much better release than 2007.
The Development team spent the time trying to tighten up the code, and little time on Bell's and Whistles.
From my perspective as a Vault Administrator I wasn't that thrilled that I had to go through the process of Migrating our data into a new version, but in our case it happens to help.
We can get away from the free for all Vault that we have been running thru training and early projects, into a more structured environment.
Learned the other day that an incremental backup and restore feature is available for ProductStream. Bet you a buck it's not available for the freebie Vault. Have you ever seen incomplete software made available for free, but if you want it to really work we need your money?
Things still not going as smoothly as I had hoped but they are still going.
Still having some troubles from the surveying side, as I'm sure sinc can attest to, but overall we are starting to see some real benefits from the guys that get it.
I'm going to try to let 2008 age on the vine for a few month's before we get into it.
Some of the scar tissue from 2007 release 1 still hurts.

Unfortunately my end users, the ones actually on the point of the spear, ask every day when 2008 will be available.
Got to love the enthusiasm and I have to try to keep it going.
There are many issues involved with implementing this product and I hope I have helped those readers of this rambling diary deal with some of them.

[dgreble]

As you mentioned we are eagerly awaiting 2008 as well.  I don't think we are going to let it ripen because we are looking forward to the plan sheet creation.  We have everything ready to go in the design except for the sheets.  I sure hope it goes relatively smooth because the weather is too nice too spend all weekends in the office.  Why can't they release the software in the winter? 

[jpostlewait]

O.K. it's been long enough.
If sinc says it's better I got to get it out.
First reading through the Vault documentation, you know the kind when you really aren't paying a lot of attention, has been finished. Got to go back with the highlighter and the tabs to get things really figured out but nothing jumped out at me.
Spent some time today researching how to get a Civil 3D surface into Revit Architectural.
I found jack.
The two really flagship products of Autodesk Marketing you would think there might have been some thought put into how we get them to talk to each other.
Crap I was hoping to spend some time off the point of the spear.
Wrong again.
Autodesk ever builds a Hall of Fame I hope they have a special "outhouse" wing for the poor slumps who tried to make this stuff work in real life.
Most of the stuff I have seen so far says get it installed and get it out as soon as you can.
So that's coming up as soon as I can.

[sinc]

The big hurdle for you will be the labels that get reset from the dragged state when you open 2007 drawings in 2008.

That wasn't a big issue for us, because we didn't have a lot of drawings already in 2007 that needed to move forward.  There was only one active drawing that had lots of survey calcs in it that was a real pain.

But if you've got a lot of 2007 drawings that you want to use in 2008, it might be a real hassle.  Points, Profile View, and Parcel Area labels seem to be the big offenders.

Not a lot is really different, but the speed is dramatically better.  Still lots of crashes, but not as many, and less lost data.  It's disheartening how many 2007 problems are still around, but it's definitely a better release than last year.

The big issue now is the interoperability.  It's not just Civil-3D and Revit...   Civil-3D 2007 users can't use Civil-3D 2008 drawings - everything must be recreated in 2007 from an XML dump.  They can't even keep Civil-3D compatible with itself.  And then it's a major hassle converting DWG files to Land Desktop 2006 and earlier.  And don't even get me started on sharing stuff with Bentley or Eaglepoint users...   

But yeah, all in all, I'd try to get on 2008 as quickly as feasible.

[jpostlewait]

Well sinc thanks for the nudge.
We are still in the neophyte stage so the number of projects isn't that large and if the drag state label is our biggest problem that's pretty small potatoes.
Looks like we are going to have to redo our entire survey code structure with the problems we are having with the perfixes.
Numeric code with 20 year old roots and getting it into C3D has proven impossible.
Civil 3D can't tell the difference between 3 and 37 thinks it's all the same.
Can't get layer separation.
Oh and BTW it's the same code set we use with MicroStation.
So whatever we do has to be compatible between the 2 products.
You hiring any Rodmen?
I'll ride in the back seat, bring my lunch and may still be able to swing a sledge hammer with the best of them.
I b*tch a lot however.

[sinc]

There are a couple of ways around that issue.  One is to redefine your point codes, so they all have three-digit codes.  Then you can use letters appended to the number codes to indicate strings - for example, if "103" is a "TOE", then your field guys could collect 103A for "TOEA", 103B for "TOEB", etc.  Of course, changing codes is undesirable, because your field guys are used to the codes and doubtless have lots of them memorized, so changing them introduces the likelihood of introducing error.  And when you get field data with incorrect point codes on some of the points, it can be difficult to find and correct the errors.

The way we got around it is to use a little Perl routine I wrote.  Perl is based on SED/AWK from Unix (with lots of C-like functions thrown in), and is a very good language for making any text file look like any other text file.  This also lets us continue to use TGO for reducing our field data, which works better for us than fighting Autodesk's survey database.  It also means we have no issues with GPS data, since we do all our GPS network stuff in TGO as well (C3D doesn't seem to have the necessary support for GPS site calibration and data reduction).

We also have old-style data collectors, and it's really annoying to use the Note feature in our data collectors to type in survey commands.  So the field guys type the linework commands as abbreviations in the point description, along with a numeric point code.  Strings are also numeric, and seperated from the point code with a decimal.  So, for example, a "3" is a "TOE", and "3.1" is "TOE1", "3.2" is "TOE2", etc.  Multiple strings can be joined together by including more than one code, seperated by another decimal point.  If "5" is "TOP", then a point with a description of "3.1.5.2" would be added to both the TOE1 figure and the TOP2 figure.  (I do this by creating a duplicate point, so one point has the "TOE1" description and the duplicate has the "TOP2" description.)  And as long as a string identifier is used, the Perl code will add the necessary BEGIN, END, and CONT statements automatically.  The field guys can still type them explicitly, but most of the time they don't have to.

Then, regardless of what equipment the field guys use, they end up creating a CSV dump of their field shots.  We then run the CSV through the Perl script, which converts it to a FBK.  Then we dump the FBK into C3D.

Not sure how easy it is for others to use.  The Lisp routine started out pretty simple, but it rapidly got more-complicated as I added more stuff.  I'm attaching a sample of the CSV file our field guys create, along with the FBK that gets created.

And yeah, we're probably going to hire a rod man for the summer, but the position doesn't pay all that well...   

Here's a sample.  I'm also attaching a PDF with more info.  If you want to try it, the Perl script is posted on our web site.

Code: [Select]

202,827.905,1214.616,5974.596,25.1
203,828.497,1214.825,5974.116,2.1
204,825.422,1222.957,5974.056,2.1
205,824.989,1222.472,5974.434,25 .1
206,825.649,1223.348,5974.024,2.2
207,825.707,1223.850,5974.447,25.2
208,824.823,1223.698,5974.008,12 CURB CUT
209,865.843,1225.072,5976.021,20
210,861.593,1237.022,5975.666,2.2
211,861.584,1237.631,5976.243,25.2
212,898.527,1251.801,5977.518,25.2
213 ,898.115,1251.189,5977.076,2.2
214,904.160,1234.992,5977.560,2.2
215,904.484,1235.817,5978.059,25.2.2.2
gets turned into this:

Code: [Select]

BEG TBCC1
NE SS 202 827.905 1214.616 5974.596 "TBCC1"
BEG FLPV1
NE SS 203 828.497 1214.825 5974.116 "FLPV1"
NE SS 204 825.422 1222.957 5974.056 "FLPV1"
CONT TBCC1
NE SS 205 824.989 1222.472 5974.434 "TBCC1"
BEG FLPV2
NE SS 206 825.649 1223.348 5974.024 "FLPV2"
BEG TBCC2
NE SS 207 825.707 1223.850 5974.447 "TBCC2"
END
NE SS 208 824.823 1223.698 5974.008 "CLFEATURE CURB CUT"
NE SS 209 865.843 1225.072 5976.021 "ASPH"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 210 861.593 1237.022 5975.666 "FLPV2"
CONT TBCC2
NE SS 211 861.584 1237.631 5976.243 "TBCC2"
NE SS 212 898.527 1251.801 5977.518 "TBCC2"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 213 898.115 1251.189 5977.076 "FLPV2"
NE SS 214 904.160 1234.992 5977.560 "FLPV2"
CONT TBCC2
NE SS 100000 904.484 1235.817 5978.059 "TBCC2"
CONT FLPV2
NE SS 215 904.484 1235.817 5978.059 "FLPV2"


[jpostlewait]

Thanks for the help sinc.
We will check that out on Monday.
We just have too much time invested in redoing descriptive keys and reworking the symbols to find out we have to start all over. Painted into a corner and need a door.
Sorry to hear you aren't interested in an overpaid grumpy old rodman.

[Cannon]

Just for the record his consultant told him the list was nuts on day 2.  :ugly:

But that was a battle for another day.

[jpostlewait]

Just for the record his consultant told him the list was nuts on day 2.  :ugly:

But that was a battle for another day.

Well we are even then, on day 2, I thought the Consultant was nuts.

Going to try and get the Vault 2008 server built next week, as the crush of providing interns with software and hardware has passed.
This will be one of those times when being in a Virtual Server environment will pay dividends.
I can create another server, install and update it's Windows Server 2003 installation and be ready to go.
Now the sweet part.
If I put Windoz and SQL express on a relative modest chunk of drive space, say 20 G, I can put the File store on a separate D: drive which is expandable. I'm not confined by a space requirement when building the server.
And when the conversion process is complete I can blow away the old Vault server and I will not have violated anybody's licensing agreement.
Doesn't take away from my frustration that the D*mn Vault versions aren't compatible or my reluctance to go through this frickin exercise every year. Honest to Haysus Autodesk look at the Microsoft model concerning server components.
On the survey front, a meeting was held on Friday, which I could not attend, and the conclusion was reached to redo the survey coding.
Oh well as always there comes a time for change.
You can only push bad habits for so long until you have to go back and invent new bad habits.

And by the way Vista is cool. You just don't want it on a work computer yet.

[Dinosaur]

. . . And by the way Vista is cool. You just don't want it on a work computer yet.

Heck, I am not convinced I even want C3D 2008 on a work computer yet.  I think I could use a year off not fighting new software and just worrying about getting some work done < perhaps even fishing over a summer holiday instead of trying to minimize the " surprise factor ' when I load up 2008 with the intent to do business>. . . how about you?

[jpostlewait]

Unfortunately doesn't seem to work that way anymore.
Makes for interesting times though.
Crazy thing when you are chasing the technology bus, if you stop you get farther behind.
I'm just glad that people like Mike and James and the others are really on the point of the spear and we can benefit from their experience.
The consultants and the support people don't get nearly enough credit. Their work is invaluable.
And NO James your rate isn't going up.
Just discovered the buttons on this skin. cool.
What's a glow?

[Dinosaur]

Hah, yet another conversion to the dark side!  Yes the Helios theme can be quite elegant.  Have you found the color options yet?  The yellow looks the best, but I am using the blue right now because of the rest of my current color scheme and it is a close second.

I am not sure if I would consider the times interesting or not - maybe early on with 2005 and pre sp2 2006.  After that it has started to look like Civil 3D would take root and the only drama revolves around how many service packs it will take each year before all of the new glitches are dispatched.  It is more like a yearly pain in the back of my lap that lasts 3 or 4 months before everything works as smoothly as it did before the upgrade.  I feel like I've done my part in helping this thing get past critical and would just like to use it for awhile before I retire.  In that ten years Civil 3D should be an outdated package like today's Land Desktop and one of these rookies I'm breaking in can start the battle all over for the next software revolution.

[jpostlewait]

Latest news.
I did get my Vault built.
As usual in my case not as easy as it should have been.
Had I actually taken the time to go back through the documentation and Highlite the crap out of it I may have saved myself 45 minutes of head banging.
For those interested pay attention to the part about going into IIS and giving ASP.NET write rights on the default web site.
I still have to move my file store to a different location and I have to get my working folder pointed to the new project server, but My Vault Lives.
Haven't migrated any data yet and don't have C3D 8 on the floor but I finally got started.
Installing Vault server really isn't that big of a deal but you do have to KNOW what the documentation tells you.
Last Tally was 4 active proposals and 14 active projects.
And a lot of other crap that has to get cleaned up.
Gonna have to create a different vault for the experiments and training we do and keep the project Vault clean.
Also The inventor guys use a Library and I don't know if that functionality would be useful in the C3D world.
Oh and Vista is like a trophy wife. If you can afford it, go for it.