Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Software, CAD & Mapping › Does Civil 3D provide value to the typical surveyor?
Does Civil 3D provide value to the typical surveyor?
Mark Mayer replied 5 years, 3 months ago 41 Members · 114 Replies
I have been using Carlson Survey since July 2007. I have never had anyone have trouble using my data. I have worked for numerous engineering clients, and have never had anyone not be able to use my data. LandXML is one way to transfer data. Another way I have seen engineers take my surfaces and create a surface in their software is to use my 3Dfaces that I always generate when I create a tin. It will preserve your edits (swapping faces to smooth out a contour), etc.
Civil3D just seems way too complicated for 90% of what we do. We do have one copy that we can use one at a time, and I do need to learn more about it, but Carlson will be my software of choice for the foreseeable future.
- Posted by: Cameron Watson PLS
I don’t think the end user engineer being in-house or out makes any difference, they’re still your Client. I actually have one engineering Client that has in-house Surveying and they contract me on a regular basis to do their design surveys so the “go somewhere else” option seems available regardless of the company’s service offerings.
For me it generally boils down to this statement “…XML allows the transfer of all data.”. If I can avoid “transferring” something I will. It’s just another step that someone outside of my control has to take adding to the opportunity to jack something up. If my Client (in-house or external) is using C3D which 100% of them are then they don’t have to do anything with my base file. XREF it or data reference it or both and they get the exact data I intended them to get exactly the way I intended them to get it without having to take any other steps.
If all of my Engineering Client’s designed in MicroStation that’s the platform I would use to develop my base files. IMO staying single platform always results in less headaches.
I disagree about the in-house engineer being my client. If we work for the same company, and I can produce more efficiently in Carlson, and provide the base dwg with everything they need, then demanding it in a somewhat different format is somewhat childish, and shows them to be stubborn and unwilling to compromise or accommodate. It also continues the perception that we’re just the tool for and subordinate to the engineers.
As said, though, an outside client gets what they want.
- Posted by: JPH
I disagree about the in-house engineer being my client. If we work for the same company, and I can produce more efficiently in Carlson, and provide the base dwg with everything they need, then demanding it in a somewhat different format is somewhat childish, and shows them to be stubborn and unwilling to compromise or accommodate.
I think that argument can just as easily be made in reverse.
I have multiple Clients on each job. Obviously the one signing the contract and paying the bills is my Client but more times than not that person/entity is different than the direct end user of my deliverable. That end user is often times my most important Client. Making my Client’s job easier (even if only in perception) is my top priority and taking an extra step if necessary to make them happy, whether they’re in-house or out, is what reinforces my importance and value to the entire team, not what downgrades me to a necessary evil that has to be dealt with.
I am fortunate in that I do not have clients that choose which software I use. In the past I have lost clients that refused to understand that I was averse to spending money for whichever software or version they would prefer I use. I liken it to choosing your doctor based on what car he drives.
I did work for one very prestigious engineering firm it was their policy that we were to have whatever software or version that the clients thought we should have. They also added the cost of the software or upgrade to the client’s bill.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation EffortsSurvey figures can be a pain to edit, so its even more important if you are drawing line work with your topo shots in the field to do it right the first time. The benefit of survey figures is they work in to your surface as break line. If done correctly, you can contour a site very quickly.
I’ve been using Civil 3D for several years and I agree with a lot of the comments, for just drawing up simple surveys, its pretty clunky at times but I’ve gotten used to it.
- Posted by: FL/GA PLS. @bow-tie-surveyor
Try BricsCAD out, the demo is free.
While BricsCAD is a great low cost CAD Engine, it does need an add-on to be truly useful for surveyors.
- Posted by: Bow Tie SurveyorI’m not so sure about the theory that if everyone is running Civil 3D everything works great. …..
If I said that, or anything that feels like that, I apologize. That is not what I meant to say. But if the design team I’m serving is using a particular platform, that’s the platform I use. Hair, thorns, and all.
- Posted by: LDavis
As a Texas surveyor, original land grants/patents are in varas, and when deed sketching in Carlson, varas is an option for units, which is a great time saver.
Carlson has always had superior customer support. When I worked with Tim Jackson at Carter & Burgess in Dallas in 1997, we bought several seats and were helped to get up an running by their tech support. I think Tim asked to have varas added to the deed sketch routine and it was included in the next update.
I was running Civil3D with Carlson Survey module. With the update to 2019, we purchased Carlson Survey with AutoCad, but not Civil3d. I just did the install last night and am dealing with getting all my settings fixed. The one thing that I am going to miss the most is not having Geomap which displays georeferenced aerials in the drawing. Not sure if Carlson has a similar feature, but if they don’t they ought to. It is extremely helpful to overlay your deedsketch on an aerial to plan recon, see roads and evidence of occupation.
I have been fighting this beast for many years. I do like it though but, I perfer my Carlson at home. I spend more time arcgis or terrascan nowadays.
We do what your talking about with the aerials by using the GIS module. 2 clicks, draw a window and then you have an aerial. Pretty handy
I’ve worked for an organisation that used C3D, with CivilCAD (now known as Magnet office) being a legacy program from what they used to use before it came out. If you’re designing major freeways and/or highways C3D may be the pick for you, even really complex intersections may benefit from it. As survey software I found it to be overly complicated, and it didn’t offer the survey adjustment routines, etc. which I needed to get the job done. On top of this most the C3D files can be opened by other survey software also, otherwise it’s easy to create a mutually readable file.
I feel that C3D was designed moreso with engineers in mind than surveyors. Funnily enough, I found that designing in CivilCAD was again less complicated and more efficient, with the only apparent advantage C3D had was its “dynamic” workflow to be able to do revision freely. Over here in Australia they released an add-on for C3D in the early days called Advanced Road Design because the road design methodolgy in C3D didn’t sit too well with designers over here.
You can probably tell I’m not a fan of it, if you’re a full time engineering designer working on large civil works it may be worthwhile, for everyone else it’s an extra headache you could do without.
Carlson was designed for surveyors. C3D was designed for engineers. If you do more surveying than engineering design, go with Carlson. If you have a major client that requires C3D dwgs as an end product, purchase C3D so that you can convert your Carlson dwgs and not burden them with the task. Just burden them with the bill…
I think that argument can just as easily be made in reverse.
I disagree. I’m not trying to tell them what software to use or how to do their job. They are.
- Posted by: Murphy
Carlson was designed for surveyors. C3D was designed for engineers. If you do more surveying than engineering design, go with Carlson. If you have a major client that requires C3D dwgs as an end product, purchase C3D so that you can convert your Carlson dwgs and not burden them with the task. Just burden them with the bill…
I think this may be the answer. Just operate in whatever platform is most efficient for your survey work flow then when your done convert it to whichever Civil 3D version your client is working.
WA-ID Surveyor and Cameron Watson both summed up most of my thoughts on this topic (you guys rock!), but I do have one question after the last few posts. What exactly is meant by “converting” a Carlson drawing to a Civil 3D drawing?
I don’t see much change in productivity from Autocad 12 to C3D 2018. For most drawings it’s slower with the newer versions.
Probably the biggest improvement over the older version is the ability to handle imagery and send KML’s, that type of thing.
But we were using F2F in the mid 80’s so that hasn’t changed much, and drawing a reservoir or site topo isn’t quicker in C3D.
If there is a complicated multi-surface design then C3D is the way to go for sure. But that’s engineering.
The pricing structure is putting Autocad on a knife’s edge for me, one more payment and I may be out.
I still can’t draw as fast as I could with SurvCAD 10, a digitizer menu and a 16 button puck. Regens are faster.
Paul in PA
- Posted by: BlitzkriegBob
WA-ID Surveyor and Cameron Watson both summed up most of my thoughts on this topic (you guys rock!), but I do have one question after the last few posts. What exactly is meant by “converting” a Carlson drawing to a Civil 3D drawing?
There is no true conversion. Basically you would just need export a LandXML (for rebuilding your surface) and your linework and, depending on your method of labeling features in Carlson, you might have to check that all your text came in correctly.
I like C3D for making a pretty map and plats. I haven’t used Carlson, but I do use MicroStation and find Civil 3D a lot less clumsy for most but not all tasks. Styles are easy to edit and create, but you definitely want to have a solid collection of styles for everything to give you a good start.
A lot of the C3D stuff meant for surveyors is clunky: Parcels suck, the survey database sucks, survey figures suck. My biggest beef with C3D is there are a few relatively minor steps to get away from those entities. I might process a batch of points through the database to generate linework, but I’m usually exploding the figures into 3d polys right away and killing off the database and reinserting points as separate entities. Still much preferred over wrestling with Geopak, and the end product just looks nicer.
I also appreciate that with C3D being so widespread, almost any question you have can be solved by a google search.
- Posted by: Murphy
There is no true conversion.
Yeah, that’s my point. A drawing is either a Civil 3D drawing or it’s not.
Log in to reply.