Topic: Create profile view polyline from plan view points

[tcdan]

I am new using LDD so maybe this is simple or has already been answered (hopefully not an obvious answer!).

So I have an aerial photo that I want to manually place points on and assign an elevation to them based on a topo map that I will lay over the aerial photo.  Then I want to create a polyline in profile view that shows the elevation as if you were driving the route.   It seem to me this is something that should have (or hopefully could) be automated - I just choose the points, which are numbered sequentially so that their order along the line is known, and 2-D polyline is drawn based on the distance between the points and the elevation that has been assigned to them.

Can it be done?

[Dinosaur]

Do You have Civil Design installed along with Land Desktop?

[Dent Cermak]

If he doesn't it's back to hand plotting the data.

[Dinosaur]

Either way, it is going to be a pretty rough profile without some actual shots.  It might not make any real difference, depending on his topo map.  Back when I was doodlebugging, we would call this a "barstool survey"; the clients would have revolted if they found out how some of their data was 'collected', but it was close enough sometimes.  Maybe it will be close enough for him as well.

[tcdan]

Yeah, this is just a 30% feasibility study (need to be accurate to withing 30% of the actual cost).  Down-n-dirty

So hand plotting it is huh?  Tell me about Civil CAD - is it worth it?  We do a lot with water-related civil design, some small grading plans (parking lot, small subdivision maybe). . .

[Dent Cermak]

During my one and only real trainning class on AutoCad, a month or so back, I learned tha LDD has 90% of the tools I need. The survey pack is basically for data collector links and downloads. (I do that so I need that.)The civil package gives me the grading tools and the alignment and profile tools. So not every drafter in my office needs all 3 pacs. That will save a lot of money in the future.
If you are preparing or working with a lot of x-sections in laying out water lines or sewer lines, then the civil pac is a MUST have. (Unless you just get off on hand plotting that stuff on a plan/profile sheet.) What takes a couple of hours by hand takes a few minutes in Civil. The pac will pay for itself in a very short time.

[Dinosaur]

The bad news is that if you don't already have Civil Design you probably can't get it except as an add on to Civil 3D which is a BIG ol' can of worms.

[tcdan]

The bad news is that if you don't already have Civil Design you probably can't get it except as an add on to Civil 3D which is a BIG ol' can of worms.

Are you serious?  That's ridiculous - we don't need 3D stuff (well, I don't think we do).

Dent - could you give me a quick project example to give me a sense of what you mean by "a lot of x-sections".  How often do you actually use the package on projects and how big are your projects?  In any case, it seems to me that too much innovation is bad for small companies who are only doing a part of the overall project and are billing by the hour - cuz they end up charing their clients less.

[Dent Cermak]

I do very few profiles or x-sections. Generally that is an engineering function and I send all of that mess to them. I am strictly plannimetric and topographic plats and maps.
If you prepare 20 or more x-section sheets a month, civil would pay for itself in a month or two in time saved. Once you have your alignment, you can knock out a profile or x-section with all lines and labels in under 5 minutes.
I think the civil pack for 2005 may still be available. You would need to check with your re-seller on that.
If you are laying out water and sewer lines and preparing the plan/profile sheets, this pack would be a "God Send".
I have used this pack on a sewer project over in Vicksburg, Ms. 175 miles of sewer line. Plan profile sheet covering the full project. I did the topo map and then cut a plan/provle from the engineer's layout. Probably 50 or 60 profiles. I really would have hated to do the project by interpolating elevations along the stations and then hand plotting that on a grid. I would probably just now be finishing up.
You need the tools to do your work in the shortest amount of time while maintaing accuracy and producing a professional looking product. That's what all of these add-ons allow you to do.
I cannot imagine doing my work without these tools, yet I am told 90% of the firms out there are doing this work and not using the figure prefix library or descriptor keys. Fine. Go ahead on Dudes. I'll smoke your butts on the schedule and thus I can do the work for less exspense and know my data is complete and correct. QC to the max!
See if your re-seller can get you a demo. I really believe that once you try it you won't want to go back. (I don't know that I can say that about Civil 3D. Haven't loaded it yet.)

[Dinosaur]

Civil Design would certainly make your project easier and probably is a necessity if it grows past the concept phase.  Autodesk has however put LDD and Civil Design on life support only until Civl 3D can stand on its own and it is doubtful if they survive until the next format change.  I believe they can only be upgraded now as a part of the Civil 3D Design Suite.  Autodesk intends that Civil 3D WILL be used for all AutoCAD based civil design projects very soon If Autodesk can ever get the product complete.

[jonesy]

The engineers here use a program called MX (its by Bentley :moon: ) and it means that ant time a design is modelled by them it has to be translated to ACAD file format. It also means we have to have all sorts of object enablers on the machines.

Does anyone know how different the 2 programs are(MX and Civil 3D), or do they do completely different things. Us lowly caddies arent allowed to use/see it, you know hush hush, protect our jobs type thing

[Dinosaur]

MX is Microstation's program roughly equivalent to Civil 3D.

[jonesy]

MX is Microstation's program roughly equivalent to Civil 3D.

What do you mean roughly equivalent.
Is it better?
I cant figure out why we're using that when we have no intentions of buying microstation. This means every time the engineers make any change to the design model they have to translate it into ACAD, which means each of the files cannot be worked upon or even xref'd into a working drawing until they're completely finished, this then slows down the drawing time or am I being simplistic about this.

[Dinosaur]

I know very little about MX except that it is from Microstation and it tries to use a 3D environment.  I think it may be more mature in its development than Civi 3D.  Civil 3D has much promise, but it is little more than a beta at this point.  It has no Hydrology modules at yet and the piping features that first appeared in the 2006 release are far from complete and the interface for building parts is notoriously unstable as are parcels and grading design.  It is still impossible to perform all of the necessary design work for most projects in Civil 3D without reverting to Land Desktop and Civil Design or some other package to pick up the missing and unstable functions.

[Dent Cermak]

and I have found that when it comes to 3D and surfaces, Bently and AutoDesk are totally incompatable.

[jonesy]

I had, in the past, the tremendous misfortune to work on Mickeystation. I had to do it for more than a year, and boy did the time go slow. I was working (as always) in 2d and on an older version (not V8. ). Translation was a PITA, and from what I can see, MX is the same.

I may need some advice on how I can persuade the engineers to change to autocad products.

[Dinosaur]

I may need some advice on how I can persuade the engineers to change to autocad products.

Be careful, when I said beta I meant BETA

I keep a shorcut on my desktop to the folder that stores Civil 3D autosaves and before upgrading the hardware I was hitting that shortcut at least once an hour to recover from a crash.  I keep autosave at 5 minutes and just live with the delays.  It is still a rare day I don't restore an autosave.

If they have MX functioning and stable, they will not be very happy campers if forced to switch to the current Civil 3D

[Dent Cermak]

I really hate to say this, but in all honesty, when it comes to GPS, GIS, 3D modeling, Contouring and any other related mapping matters, Micrsatation is VASTLY superior to AutoCad.
I have heard that one of the principals has said that AutoCad will rule the surveying and mapping profession in a year. If so, it's gonna take a WHOLE lot more than Civil 3D and 2006. Both of them are on a par with R13 right now. The patches and fixes will probably fill several cd's before they get a useable product.

[Dinosaur]

I really hate to say this, but in all honesty, when it comes to GPS, GIS, 3D modeling, Contouring and any other related mapping matters, Micrsatation is VASTLY superior to AutoCad . . .

Stop the presses and mark the time . . .

Absolutely dead center on target, Dent.  The issues surrounding 2006 and the continuing fiasco getting Civil 3D operational is alienating a huge segment of the Civil/GIS community, especially the small to medium size firms.

[jonesy]

If you think about it in the future, could you let me know if and when the software becomes more usable!

Many thanks

[Dinosaur]

For the tasks that it CAN do, Civil 3D is already amazing; it is just incomplete.  It is an exceptional tool for COGO, points management and profiles.  It also handles corridor modeling (cross sections) and surfaces with only a few glitches.  The grading shows promise, but stability issues are pushing users back to LDD to get projects completed without busting the budgets.
Autodesk is intent on phasing out LDD/Civil Design asap, so if one is inclined to keep using Autodesk, they would be well served to learn what Civil 3D CAN do and get their users up to date informally without the pressure of a deadline or tight budget.  Use it for what it does well and supplement with LDD, MX or whatever when it falls short.

[tcdan]

Sounds like quite a dance to try to keep up with all these products. . . what does a price comparison look like?

[Dinosaur]

A full comparison (from Autodesk's perspective) can be found HERE.
I don't know about prices - all of the web sources just refer you to their sales departments.  I would expect the full packages of either to run $7k to 10k if you could not upgrade something.

[sourdough]

I have almost started getting used to using LDT ... I even worked for softdesk (this was when it was a whole product from Henniker NH) after giving up one of the best civil packages called PacSoft. PacSoft used Basic and it was one of the best. It does what know LDT ended up with, if you consider that LDT is dead soon. It was a tool for Civil/Survey, but hence is also long gone. I know of a couple of packages that I hope will replace Civil3D, but would like to hear from others that might be using the packages (SurvCadd and EaglePoint).
   I used to use Carlson now called SurvCadd and looked at the most recent versions and found that Carlson is easiest to adapt to if used to LDT. I used Eaglepoint for a year 5 years back and it made me sick with all the errors and updates that weren't retro to a project. I do hope that the vision of Civil3D dies an ugly death.
  I know from the 18 years experience of doing this type work, that if I can't get on the machine with new software and use common sense and open the book just a bit, I could get it to work. The Civil3D just feels like a bad case of food poisoning. I do think that I probably have a case of not wanting to use a map to find the next gas station, but gut instinct tells me from the bottom of my self that the use of Civil3D just doesn't have a clue what the users want, and doubt if they even ask. I do hope that there will be a rescue in the making. Other rumors of Autodesk are that they plan to use Revit as a base to newer version.
  The learning curve to make a business profitable, let alone know that as a mere employee to a company who puts themselves out on the line with expectations of making it and knowing that the software that makes it possible is turning into a black eye is something that makes my future in doubt.

Learning & Growing

Mike

[Dinosaur]

Our office tried SurvCadd as an option to Land Desktop.  It was doomed as much by the incompetence of the users as any problems with the software, but From my perspective of actual drafting the program fell short of even Land Desktop which I find to be aceptable for design purposes only.  SurvCadd got only one shot with us with an inexperienced staff, but just observing the project evolution I was able to see serious problems with the way it created profile drawings.  For plat annotation, it may perform sightly better than Land Desktop.
Prior to SurvCadd, we had been using EaglePoint 95 on top of r13.  We were not close to using the full potential of that program for design but the drafting part of the program was superb.  Standard procedure in our office still is to export the layout to something r13 can read and do any plat annotation with EaglePoint.  The work is done significantly faster and looks better than jobs turned out using Land Desktop.
Civil 3d for platwork is a non-issue at this point thanks to the obtuse behavior of the Parcel module.
You are quite correct about the non-intuitive nature of Civil 3D's interface.  I have seen in the Autodesk newsgroups that programmers have been concentrating on getting things to just work and will adddress the interface issues based on the feedback they have been receiving - we can only hope.  As to Revit's influence, it has already contributed its toolspace style interface.