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, 4 months ago 41 Members · 114 Replies
I’ve gotten only one negative bit of feedback when sending an xml file. The draftsman complained that when he re-contoured using what I sent, the contours were all different. But when he sent it to me to show me how “bad” it was, it was pretty much the same, just slightly different because of curve factor and how each software creates the contours.
I was able to fool around with the file Mr. Frame sent me last night. According to him it was drafted in BricsCAD and was a wonderfully detailed base map. It also contained all of the data necessary to recreate a surface model in C3D. There were 3D faces, 3D lines for breaklines and discrete points for elevations. I loaded all of that DTM data into a C3D surface and the result was a surface that generated contours nearly identical to the polyline contours provided in the .dwg. It was far better than the 3rd party base files we’ve received generated from non-Autodesk software previously. Kudos to the effort Mr. Frame puts into his work and I appreciate that he shared it with me!
If there are no complaints from the Client end I would not change anything about his deliverable. My only comment relating to the flavor of this thread is that I would guess with a high degree of certainty that had my Engineers received his file it would still land on my desk to create the C3D surface for them to work from. For me and my workflow I will continue to provide a turnkey file to my in and out of house Engineering Clients. Just goes to show there is always more than one way to skin a cat (no cats were harmed in the authoring of this post!). ?
IF the client has an able technician at his end then surfaces CAN be reliably created from data like 3d faces or 3d line networks, quickly and easily. Where you are dealing with known persons and abilities at the user end it can work out. But I much prefer to not be taking that chance. I’d like to be known as the guy who delivers exactly what they want and need, in the form they want and need it to be in.
Also, I prefer my Christmas presents to come fully assembled, not in kit form no matter how well the instructions are written and the parts snap together.
Had a great post, but then got Error 404 when I clicked the button and lost it all. Too bad, you all would have loved it.
- Posted by: JPH
Had a great post, but then got Error 404 when I clicked the button and lost it all. Too bad, you all would have loved it.
Plus one to what you would have posted.
(Type and save it in a word processor, then cut and past into the post).
Started with Civil 3D in school and liked it. Switched to Carlson for a while and didn’t like it at first but then it grew on me. Then it crashed on me several times which caused me to lose work. I switched back to Civil 3D and have been using it ever since. I’ve only looked up the price of Civil 3D and I think the last time I checked it was about a thousand dollars a year. That didn’t seem outrageous to me considering the price of all the other equipment surveyors use. But I get it, why waste money if you don’t have to. If I had a small 1 or 2-man shop I’d maybe give Carlson another look but since I work for a multi-disciplinary engineering company it’s nice having the Cadillac software that everyone in the company can use.
The $1k per year figure was the old perpetual license and yearly maintenance model. For standalone C3D it was about $7,700 to buy the license initially and own it forever then an additional $1k per year after that to keep up with the maintenance allowing you access to service packs, hot fixes and new versions. Recently Autodesk has moved to a SAS (software as a service) subscription model that everyone else is going to (Adobe, Microsoft, ect.) and are forcing perpetual license holders to it by increasing the maintenance costs each year and offering rebates for converting perpetual licenses. The SAS model costs approximately $2,200 per year (C3D only) without the larger initial investment. They try to sell this as providing more flexibility to the purchasing organization because you can drop a subscription if you need to because you’re essentially renting. The rub with this is to get the best pricing you need to “rent” the subscription for 3 or more year terms which negates any real flexibility in the rental model. It’s more like a car lease at that point. If you’re in a highly volatile market and constantly fluctuating up and down with staff year to year I can maybe see a benefit to the model but for the vast majority of us I don’t think it’s any better or cheaper.
It is an important component of my business just like my trucks and instruments so I try to get the best deal I can on it and build the costs into my fees. When I get the deer in the headlights look when giving someone a quote sometimes I go into the numbers, sometimes I just move on to the next one, depends on the deal and the Client.
Autodesk turned its back on small shops years ago, which is the reason I moved to BricsCAD. I can get away with that because i don’t mind (and actually kind of like) customizing my software, but I wouldn’t want to try that in a multi-seat environment.
- Posted by: Norman OklahomaPosted by: Norman Oklahoma
Does the survey need to provide a product that the engineer can use seamlessly? Yes. So I’m going to be using C3d as long as the engineers I work with do.
Since I made this statement early in this thread I’ve had some discussions with the engineering CAD staff. It turns out they would prefer an AutoCAD only drawing product and a LandXML of the surface. It’s caused me to think this thing over quite a bit.
I guess you can’t define a typical engineering tech either. I am only including this quote, but the OP and others have also described the engineering side as not utilizing Civil 3D the same way I do. I’d rather have you provide me with a C3D surface. I’m not sure where the love affair with XML files began. Yeah sure, use them if you have to, but if you don’t…then I’d rather not.
Addressing comments implying that we (I) might be stubborn or childish, as a designer, I would rather work with a good survey done in C3D than a great survey done in Carlson or the best survey ever done in Microstation. No matter who provides the survey, I am going to spend time adapting the drawing file. I will spend the least amount of time adapting a C3D drawing, followed by a Carlson drawing (only one surveyor that I know works with Carlson), and I will spend the most time working a Microstation drawing (which we get a lot). Time spent adapting drawings is rarely factored in to the budget. My goal is to make sure that projects are profitable. The less time I have to spend on this task the better. I can also more quickly resolve questions if I have a native C3D drawing. As Cameron has stated, single platform works best for me, and I don’t think I am being stubborn for preferring a deliverable in C3D. I’m just wanting to make money for my boss, because the more money she makes, the more money I make.
This is what I’m talking about. Carlson dwgs are ACAD, if using the OEM version. So that right there is a non-issue.
You talk about time spent “adapting drawings”. These are the ambiguous responses and complaints I’ve heard. Please tell me how much time is involved in either converting or importing points or using the import XML command. And there’s no love affair there beyond that it’s the format that converts a Carlson surface to a usable C3D surface.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but I honestly would like to know, specifically, what the issues are. Thanks.
Okay, today is your lucky day. Fortunately I am a little slow at work today, so I have some time on my hands. I’m even including visuals for you. The first three images (1-3) are screenshots of what I work with when a surveyor provides a topo done in Civil 3D. The next three images (4-6) are from a topo provided by a surveyor that was done in Carlson. These will show a partial point list, a point group list (partial for C3D, full for Carlson), and what I see when I hover over a point in both. Granted, on the hover shot, I was having trouble finding the actual C3D points that were created while importing the Carlson points, but this will still show what I see if I don’t import the points.
You should be able to see that it’s much easier to identify points with a native C3D drawing. The imported points are such a mess mainly because I do not have a description key set that matches up with the provided points, and the Carlson firm can’t provide me with a description key set. They could provide a list of their codes and I could create the key set, but that might take a full day if there are a lot of keys to define.
In setting up drawings, we always rotate our viewports so the alignment runs straight across the sheet. We also like for our symbols to show up with the same alignment if possible. Signs are tougher obviously, since we show the panel facing in the correct direction, which means there is no quick way of getting the correction orientation globally. Image 7 shows how a C3D drawing might look in model space. Image 8 shows how the same area looks on a sheet. Notice that the symbols are rotated to the orientation as the viewport. This is controlled by the point style of the C3D points. Even if the firm that provided the file didn’t have the setting correct in order to accomplish this, I can modify their styles in a short amount of time. I can’t do that with a block such as provided by the Carlson firm. Yes, I know Carlson has a routine to rotate blocks around their insertion points, but there isn’t a similar routine in C3D, to the best of my knowledge. Image 9 shows an area where, in paper space, the symbols are slightly skewed. It’s really not bad on this particular project since the alignment runs east-west, but compare that to a north-south alignment such as that shown on Images 7 and 8. The end result is that we usually don’t take the time to align blocks done in either Carlson or Microstation.
The last thing I will show is topo notes that we show on our sheets. Image 10 shows the notes from the native C3D drawing. These notes are all C3D labels. While there isn’t a quick way of getting these notes using C3D, it’s still not a huge deal with a native drawing, and of course the stations and offsets are updated automatically if the alignment changes. Image 11 shows the notes from the Carlson project. These notes were done before I started working here, and the original survey was actually done in LDD, but the notes are just plain text and the stations and offsets are not updated with alignment. Even if I was doing them now with the Carlson points, you should be able to see that it would be harder to identify and label points.
This is just what I can pull together in an hour. Granted, points are the big pain. There’s not too much extra that needs to be done regarding surfaces or alignments, but there is more. A native drawing with labeled contours only requires that I create a data shortcut to the surface. Importing a LandXML file isn’t going to give me labels, so that needs to get done. Thirty minutes to an hour may not be that long, but it’s longer than one minute. Some C3D firms also make networks from the existing sanitary and storm sewers, which is a huge help when it comes time to show the sewers in the P&P or cross section sheets. I haven’t received anything similar from a Carlson or Microstation firm.
One last thing. My comment about love affairs with XML files was directed to the quote I had from Mr. Oklahoma. Unless I’m wrong, he’s saying he is providing a native C3D drawing with a surface to the engineers, who apparently told him they would be happy with an XML file rather than the resident surface. My point was that, to me, creating a surface from an XML file of a native C3D surface doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why not just use the surface as created by Mr. Oklahoma?
As I’m finishing this post up, I’m hoping I actually can attach 11 images. I guess I’ll find out.
I forgot one! Here is a screenshot of imported points. Again, this is due to not having a matching description key set, but it is what you can expect to have upon import.
Trying to be fair here. The Carlson project is a finished project that I haven’t pulled up in a year. Those points are not actually topo points. I’m not even sure what they are, but they were a part of the provided XML file. The Carlson surveyor never provided points in a format we could use. They kept sending a CRD file, which does me no good. This illustrates another problem however. You have to be able to remember, or take time to note, why things are a certain way. I don’t have to worry about that with a native drawing. The points are in there forever with no need to try to remember what you went through to make a Carlson drawing work.
The Carlson surveyor never provided points in a format we could use. They kept sending a CRD file, which does me no good.
Wouldn’t an ASCII points file have solved all of the points-related problems noted above?
- Posted by: Jim Frame
The Carlson surveyor never provided points in a format we could use. They kept sending a CRD file, which does me no good.
Wouldn’t an ASCII points file have solved all of the points-related problems noted above?
No, not all the problems. The points would still not be sorted out, and the point styles and labels would be the same for all the points. We have just one description key set, based on INDOT codes, and that surveyor does not use the same codes. Some problems would be solved, others would not, and I still would not be able to do some tasks, such as adding the topo notes, with the same speed I could achieve with a native drawing.
By the way, I did ask our engineer to ask for an ASCII file. After a few days of waiting on him to get back to me, I asked again. A few days after that, he forwarded a new email from the surveyor with another CRD file and no ASCII file. When I pressed him yet again, he told me to do the best I could with what I had. This is SOP for how this usually goes. Microstation included. Every project I have to remind the engineers that I can’t work with TIN files or DTM files and they need to ask for an XML. Lost time and still don’t get what I need, so yet another reason to like native files.
I actually had to go back to the OP to make sure this thread hadn’t gotten sidetracked from the original question. I don’t believe it has and I’ve enjoyed all of the various opinions. Simple fact is, if your brand of Surveying doesn’t somehow touch the design side of our industry then the answer is a pretty resounding NO! C3D does not provide enough value to a Surveyor working outside of that sector to justify the expense. It was not built with the Surveyor at the center of the universe by any stretch of the imagination.
If you do live in that world which is the direction the OP pointed the topic then I believe the answer is, it depends. C3D only provides value to the downstream end user if that end user fully leverages C3D themselves. In my opinion if they don??t, you’ll get answers from them like “I would prefer just a 2D line map with an XML surface file” or ??I don??t care about the 3D survey figures?. If you??re working with designers that have jumped all the way into C3D and use it to its full potential, then creating your Survey with C3D and keeping their use of the file in mind as you??re creating it provides a ton of value to the Surveyor (goodwill, repeat solicitations, referrals, ect.) and everyone else on the team. There is a lot more to how a C3D designer uses the base map than the TIN surface itself. Being able to deliver those other elements in the native file they??ll use without them having to convert or manipulate any of it has been a cornerstone of that service offering for us. I could rattle on and on about the specifics but if you don??t have someone asking for those things then:
- They don??t care about them in the first place and you should keep doing what you??re doing;
- You??re not asking your Client how you can do better for them or what would make their life easier;
- They??ve accepted that what they??ve gotten is what they??re always going to get and there??s no use complaining about it to anyone other than their Clients and Coworkers.
My opinions are formed from my experiences relating to what we??ve received when we weren??t the ones to do the mapping. In the cases when we go in knowing we won??t be getting a C3D file to design from we include a ??CAD file conversion? line item in the scope and fee structure of our proposal to account for the extra time it will take to make the file efficient for our designers to use.
When I create a base mapping file I live in it for what, maybe 6 weeks depending on the size of the job. They live in it for months and months. That??s a lot of time to either fall in love with it or develop a deep seeded hatred for it??
The flip side of Cameron’s observation is that if your C3D-dependent engineering clients don’t generate enough profit for you to underwrite the $2k+ annual C3D subscription fee (plus training costs), then it may not be worth it for you to use C3D. That’s where I am.
- Posted by: BlitzkriegBobPosted by: Jim Frame
The Carlson surveyor never provided points in a format we could use. They kept sending a CRD file, which does me no good.
Wouldn’t an ASCII points file have solved all of the points-related problems noted above?
No, not all the problems. The points would still not be sorted out, and the point styles and labels would be the same for all the points. We have just one description key set, based on INDOT codes, and that surveyor does not use the same codes. Some problems would be solved, others would not, and I still would not be able to do some tasks, such as adding the topo notes, with the same speed I could achieve with a native drawing.
By the way, I did ask our engineer to ask for an ASCII file. After a few days of waiting on him to get back to me, I asked again. A few days after that, he forwarded a new email from the surveyor with another CRD file and no ASCII file. When I pressed him yet again, he told me to do the best I could with what I had. This is SOP for how this usually goes. Microstation included. Every project I have to remind the engineers that I can’t work with TIN files or DTM files and they need to ask for an XML. Lost time and still don’t get what I need, so yet another reason to like native files.
This sounds more like an issue with the field codes than the software. And I’m all for the surveyor using your codes, and if they do, I don’t see why if you import a txt file provided by them, that you wouldn’t get the points the way you’d like.
I work in Carlson with embedded ACAD, so the dwg is an ACAD dwg. I then send out the dwg with the points converted to Softdesk points. I also send a txt and an xml, and the dwg has all of the 3D breaklines and tin lines. So, in my opinion, they then have everything they need to get the dwg how they like.
Some clients are happy and have no complaints, once they figured out what to do on the first job. Some, mostly in-house engineers have an attitude and make continual negative comments. I ask them what or how they’d like it differently, and the response is that they would rather it be in C3D, nothing more specific.
- Posted by: JPHPosted by: BlitzkriegBobPosted by: Jim Frame
The Carlson surveyor never provided points in a format we could use. They kept sending a CRD file, which does me no good.
Wouldn’t an ASCII points file have solved all of the points-related problems noted above?
No, not all the problems. The points would still not be sorted out, and the point styles and labels would be the same for all the points. We have just one description key set, based on INDOT codes, and that surveyor does not use the same codes. Some problems would be solved, others would not, and I still would not be able to do some tasks, such as adding the topo notes, with the same speed I could achieve with a native drawing.
By the way, I did ask our engineer to ask for an ASCII file. After a few days of waiting on him to get back to me, I asked again. A few days after that, he forwarded a new email from the surveyor with another CRD file and no ASCII file. When I pressed him yet again, he told me to do the best I could with what I had. This is SOP for how this usually goes. Microstation included. Every project I have to remind the engineers that I can’t work with TIN files or DTM files and they need to ask for an XML. Lost time and still don’t get what I need, so yet another reason to like native files.
This sounds more like an issue with the field codes than the software. And I’m all for the surveyor using your codes, and if they do, I don’t see why if you import a txt file provided by them, that you wouldn’t get the points the way you’d like.
I work in Carlson with embedded ACAD, so the dwg is an ACAD dwg. I then send out the dwg with the points converted to Softdesk points. I also send a txt and an xml, and the dwg has all of the 3D breaklines and tin lines. So, in my opinion, they then have everything they need to get the dwg how they like.
Some clients are happy and have no complaints, once they figured out what to do on the first job. Some, mostly in-house engineers have an attitude and make continual negative comments. I ask them what or how they’d like it differently, and the response is that they would rather it be in C3D, nothing more specific.
If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I don’t expect to be provided all of my ingredients individually, I expect them to be assembled in the way they were ordered. You wonder why some of the Engineers are cranky with that type of deliverable? Really?
- Posted by: WA-ID Surveyor
If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I don’t expect to be provided all of my ingredients individually, I expect them to be assembled in the way they were ordered. You wonder why some of the Engineers are cranky with that type of deliverable? Really?
So, the answer is…..because that’s how I want it. Really?
You know, you’re making my point, about the childish and demanding.
Log in to reply.