Topic: How difficult is C3D to learn?

[jonesy]

I work for a multi-disciplinary company, and have been put forward to be one of the first to learn/use C3D.

I was just wondering just how difficult a beastie it is to learn?  The company has said there is training included.

So do I run like the wind, and get away...   

I know this may seem a dumb question, but how different is the work process to plain-jane AutoCAD (and REVIT)

[Dinosaur]

The main obstacles to becoming proficient with Civil 3D are the resistance to change by both the user who is being pused out of a comfort zone and managers who do not acknowledge the huge learning curve that comes with the change together with reviewing agencies that have an established set of requirements that can range from difficult to nearly impossible to generate with Civil 3D.  Many favorite customizations may not work as before if at all with Civil 3D.  There are also problems with a radically different and often obtuse interface, but it is quite similar to the one for Revit, so you may be past that one.  Workflow is another area that may force changes on staff that have very little to do with the program itself.  Surveyors are especially prone to having their established procedures conflict with the most efficient workflow for Civil 3D.
Much of this can be mitigated with a comprehensive training program that takes your individual company's specialties and needs into account and follows through with continuing support.  If your promised training is a canned three day session for a select few of a large pool of potential users I would put your cahnces for a sucessful deployment and conversion to Civil 3d at 10%, perhaps even less.

[rkmcswain]

If you are a civil engineer or designer and know what an alignment, profile, cross section, and surface, etc. are, and you are not tasked with the setup of the program, then getting in an doing some basic tasks is not that difficult.

Where the learning curve really comes in, is the setup and adjustment of the thousands of settings. Generally speaking, Land Desktop, Carlson, Eagle Point, etc. are add-on's on top of AutoCAD. These programs for the most part calculated where geometry and annotation needed to go and created AutoCAD entities. For example, if you created a label for a profile and it needed adjusting or the text needed tweaked, you could just simply use AutoCAD commands to do this.

As a general rule in C3D however, labels and geometry are products of the information provided, and changes to the appearance of these objects are not typically controlled by AutoCAD commands, but rather by the hundreds (if not thousands) of styles and their settings. This is where I see people struggle. To change the color of a TEXT object in AutoCAD may take a few seconds, but to change the color of a Label object in C3D could take minutes or even hours to find the place to change this if you don't know where to look.

[jonesy]

Thanks Dino
The training is for a select few to start with, to become proficient. The training seems to be comprehensive for the first group of people through(of which I have been nominated) including the installation and configuration. They have asked for some regular users, some Eng's to be the first ones through, and our software provider has promised a full range of support.
Our company seems to be going the full "BIM"type route, full-bore. We cannot buy vanilla ACAD anymore, and they seem to be understanding we cant use the "new" technology without sufficient training and backup.
I have to admit, I'm pleased the boss chose me, it gives me something else to learn, and a new skill

[jonesy]

If you are a civil engineer or designer and know what an alignment, profile, cross section, and surface, etc. are, and you are not tasked with the setup of the program, then getting in an doing some basic tasks is not that difficult.

Thanks for your input.
I'm not an engineer, but frequently have to pick up drawings created in MX and transferred to ACAD and make them readable/understandable and issue worthy, so I presume that I will not need the more complex tools?

[mjfarrell]

It's very easy to learn; given you hire an instructor that can teach you without reading the lessons directly from the book.

There is just a different mindset to adjust to, in that the civil Objects have Styles, and this is where they get their look and feel, the cad standards side of life.

Other than than adjusting to that...if you understand civil design concepts it really isn't too terrible.

I think you will be able to learn and apply quite a bit from my free tutorials.

[sinc]

I'm not an engineer, but frequently have to pick up drawings created in MX and transferred to ACAD and make them readable/understandable and issue worthy, so I presume that I will not need the more complex tools?

That's a loaded question...

If you aren't using the tools in Civil 3D, then you can save a lot of money by getting plain Autocad.  But if you want to leverage the power and capabilities of the tools in Civil 3D, then you would want to transfer design information out of MX and create live design elements in Civi 3D.

I guess it depends on what you're doing in MX, and what you're doing in C3D...  In general, the two don't play that well together, so you would want to do significant chunks of design in either one or the other.

[Mark]

Where the learning curve really comes in, is the setup and adjustment of the thousands of settings. Generally speaking, Land Desktop, Carlson, Eagle Point, etc. are add-on's on top of AutoCAD. These programs for the most part calculated where geometry and annotation needed to go and created AutoCAD entities. For example, if you created a label for a profile and it needed adjusting or the text needed tweaked, you could just simply use AutoCAD commands to do this.

I know what point you're try to make but, C3D is an add-on too.

[jonesy]

I'm not an engineer, but frequently have to pick up drawings created in MX and transferred to ACAD and make them readable/understandable and issue worthy, so I presume that I will not need the more complex tools?

That's a loaded question...

If you aren't using the tools in Civil 3D, then you can save a lot of money by getting plain Autocad.  But if you want to leverage the power and capabilities of the tools in Civil 3D, then you would want to transfer design information out of MX and create live design elements in Civi 3D.

I guess it depends on what you're doing in MX, and what you're doing in C3D...  In general, the two don't play that well together, so you would want to do significant chunks of design in either one or the other.

Sorry I guess I didnt explain that too well.
Currently the designs are done on MX. The company is wanting everyone to use C3D for the design and unless a client states that they want MX or ay Bentley design they will be using Autodesk products, hopefully making it a seamless transfer to be able to produce the final drawings instead of the process it is now. 

[mjfarrell]

I think the majority of the work could still be designed in C3D....and then a combination of tools to export it into MX/Bentley to provide final deliverables  would also be a practical workflow solutions for those clients as well Mrs. Doe.

[sinc]

Currently the designs are done on MX. The company is wanting everyone to use C3D for the design and unless a client states that they want MX or ay Bentley design they will be using Autodesk products, hopefully making it a seamless transfer to be able to produce the final drawings instead of the process it is now.  

In that case, you'll definitely need to learn to use the Civil 3D elements.

One of the problems that you'll probably run into is that Civil 3D is not like other software.  In the past, an Engineer might design a project, and then a CAD drafter would create the plans from the Engineer's work (which was often done by hand, on paper).

With Civil 3D, you design your model, and annotation is created by applying display styles and label sets to your model.  So a lot of the old-style drafting work is largely eliminated.  But it means that you are actually creating the design and doing the engineering IN CIVIL 3D, and the plan pages (at least to a large degree) are "auto-generated" from your design.  If you try to work "old-school", with an Engineer designing on paper and a CAD Tech trying to create plan sets from that design, you are losing most of the power of your software.  In fact, you'll probably end up FIGHTING the software, and that can result in a very bad experience for all involved.

This is the point that some companies have the greatest trouble with during their transition, even more so than the stuff RK McSwain mentioned.

[Dinosaur]

One of the problems that you'll probably run into is that Civil 3D is not like other software.  In the past, an Engineer might design a project, and then a CAD drafter would create the plans from the Engineer's work (which was often done by hand, on paper).

With Civil 3D, you design your model, and annotation is created by applying display styles and label sets to your model.  So a lot of the old-style drafting work is largely eliminated.  But it means that you are actually creating the design and doing the engineering IN CIVIL 3D, and the plan pages (at least to a large degree) are "auto-generated" from your design.  If you try to work "old-school", with an Engineer designing on paper and a CAD Tech trying to create plan sets from that design, you are losing most of the power of your software.  In fact, you'll probably end up FIGHTING the software, and that can result in a very bad experience for all involved.

This is the point that some companies have the greatest trouble with during their transition, even more so than the stuff RK McSwain mentioned.

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my first very rushed response.  The software is now mature enough to do almost anything required to create a useable set of construction documents although there will likely need to be some compromises needed for some cosmetic items.  Changes in long established work flow and job responsibilities can potentially derail an otherwise smooth transition.  Above all else, there must be a full commitment by users and management alike to the change for the best chance at a successful migration to Civil 3D.

[mjfarrell]

to add an echo to Dino's points....

this transition is best handled right at the very beginning with emphasis on workflow and process changes built right into the training....

Typically this is NOT covered by any autodesk vendor unless and until you pay a lot more for what they call 'customized' training.

These changes in workflow and responsibilities ARE covered in my classes, as they are all tailored directly to the customers needs in advance.  And the lesson plans I prepare are open and flexible enough to adapt as various skills or weakness of same are exposed and remedied as much as practicable right there in class. 

It's a powerful tool, and when placed in the hands of those that know, and understand the design constraints a lot of profit can be made.  If however the transition is NOT made and those that don't know the design side are waiting on those that do to give good direction then a lot of profits can be lost.  Or if the designers and engineers bother to teach the draftsperson some design skills, AND give them good direction...even more profits can be made, as the lowest cost operator can produce very usable results.

However the Engineers, and Designers must still learn to use C3D, or the Revision Cycle will become a vortex that sucks all the profit right out of the contract.

[rkmcswain]

I know what point you're try to make but, C3D is an add-on too.

Well, in the sense that C3D is built on AutoCAD Map, then I guess you could say that. True, C3D is not like Revit or Inventor.

But the main point in that statement was that the other civil programs out there create AutoCAD entities (for the most part.... I know that LDT has points, grading objects, etc) - and that C3D (for the most part) creates objects that can't be manipulated using traditional AutoCAD editing commands. ---- and learning how to change the appearance of C3D objects is a huge stumbling block for a lot of people.

[sinc]

Nick Zeeben has said that Civil 3D is not built on Map.  They share the geospatial library, but that's it.

The problem with that is that we've been told for years that the reason Map can't see Civil 3D objects is that Civil 3D is built on top of Map.  But it sounds like that isn't the case.  So that leads me to wonder what Autodesk's excuse is now for the disconnect between Map and Civil 3D....