I am new to building models and im currently working with Trimble Business Center. Building a complicated corridor. Its a 4 Lane with side roads and complex side slopes with a bike path that runs along side the west bound lane. The main surveyor is using TerraModel and my other coworker has used Civil 3D and is also learning TBC, but has more experience with design than I do.
Basically, what would be better for me to learn on?
I know what has to be done and what is done out in the field with Machine Control, just looking for the software that will help the most.
So far, TBC is making me want to pull my hair out.
AFreeman444, post: 362590, member: 11122 wrote: I am new to building models and im currently working with Trimble Business Center. Building a complicated corridor. Its a 4 Lane with side roads and complex side slopes with a bike path that runs along side the west bound lane. The main surveyor is using TerraModel and my other coworker has used Civil 3D and is also learning TBC, but has more experience with design than I do.
Basically, what would be better for me to learn on?
I know what has to be done and what is done out in the field with Machine Control, just looking for the software that will help the most.So far, TBC is making me want to pull my hair out.
"Basically, what would be better for me to learn on?"
Doesn't your company have standards? Don't you all have to work with the same software? That should be the answer... otherwise there is going to be confusion ahead.
Before this year, the main surveyor was the only one building models. Now that Machine control (Trimble) has become a standard on most of our jobs, they have put two more people to help build files. We have BC to export the TerraModel files so they work in the equipment.
They have sent us to training on BC but all they teach you is more Sitework data than they do corridors. The corridor training they give you is a simple set width road at normal crown.
Im coming from being out in the field running the TSC and Tablets checking grade and supervising a crew, to now building files. Very little experience with any Software.
For corridors and highway design I prefer using Microstation w/ InRoads. For site design I prefer using Carlson TakeOff w/ AutoCAD oem. I use TBC only to convert files into Trimble format.
Each of these cost nearly $10k, plus yearly maintenance. I've been building models since 1993. There is no magic bullet.
This a a very steep learning curve for anyone with years of CAD experience.
I think it would be more important for to get proper training, or mentoring.
leegreen, post: 362600, member: 2332 wrote: For corridors and highway design I prefer using Microstation w/ InRoads. For site design I prefer using Carlson TakeOff w/ AutoCAD oem. I use TBC only to convert files into Trimble format.
Each of these cost nearly $10k, plus yearly maintenance. I've been building models since 1993. There is no magic bullet.
This a a very steep learning curve for anyone with years of CAD experience.
I think it would be more important for to get proper training, or mentoring.
"I think it would be more important for to get proper training, or mentoring."
Absolutely the best advice you can get - this is not something you want to learn on your own (and your superiors should not allow you to.) You need to learn these skills from someone who knows what they are doing... the stakes are too high.
I don't fully understand what your specific roll is in this process. Are you on the design team, earthwork contractor team, survey stakeout team? Is there not already a design for what's trying to be built? It seems like maybe you're on the earthwork team and trying to build a model to load into and use in the mass excavation machine control. My work flow would be to take the design from the Civil Engineer which in our area would be native Civil 3D or Microstation. I don't work with Microstation but if it were in Civil 3D I would use the Trimble Link functions to export the files appropriate for the task at hand.
I'm not sure I would assume the liability of creating a ground up model of the design from paper plans but I don't think I understand enough about what you have going on.
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 362648, member: 11407 wrote: I don't fully understand what your specific roll is in this process. Are you on the design team, earthwork contractor team, survey stakeout team? Is there not already a design for what's trying to be built? It seems like maybe you're on the earthwork team and trying to build a model to load into and use in the mass excavation machine control. My work flow would be to take the design from the Civil Engineer which in our area would be native Civil 3D or Microstation. I don't work with Microstation but if it were in Civil 3D I would use the Trimble Link functions to export the files appropriate for the task at hand.
I'm not sure I would assume the liability of creating a ground up model of the design from paper plans but I don't think I understand enough about what you have going on.
Who do you think should assume the liability of creating a model from paper plans? Say he works for a contractor using machine control with several complicated projects. Contractor has a few people working on creating models. Terramodel was discontinued a few years ago so they are trying to figure out the best software for the future. Paper plans and basic digital files are the only design data available.
eddycreek, post: 362724, member: 501 wrote: Who do you think should assume the liability of creating a model from paper plans? Say he works for a contractor using machine control with several complicated projects. Contractor has a few people working on creating models. Terramodel was discontinued a few years ago so they are trying to figure out the best software for the future. Paper plans and basic digital files are the only design data available.
Personally I think the design professionals hired to create the design should be tasked with taking the liability for the design...see other recent post about the lack of benchmarks called out on plans. Too often I think we take on more responsibility than we should because in general, our profession is filled with people who just want to get it done. I am certainly one of those and always have to check myself to make sure I'm not only within the limits of my professional expertise but within what my PL insurance will cover.
If your example is correct and paper plans and basic digital files are the only design data available then the discussion is:
1. do we use machine control and assume the liability of the models we create from those forms of data or;
2. don't assume the liability/risk from 1 and have it staked traditionally by a surveyor.
I'm afraid that more often than not the answer will probably lie with profit margin...
The answer to number 1 is that the contractor has already invested a few hundred thousand dollars in machine control and is going to use it. They have the contract to perform the work. The model creator is an employee of the contractor. The contractor is the one responsible for completing the job, so whatever liability there is lies with him. If there's a screwup, he can fire the guy who created the model, but the contractor is still responsible for it.
As for number 2, see answer to number 1.
I'm all for the designers being responsible for providing better information, but things always end up getting built whether the plans are chicken salad or chicken s(xx)t.
The question as to the best software for creating complicated models is still out there.
I draw my comments/opinions from personal experience. Do I own total stations and GPS gear? Yes. Do I take on construction projects? Yes, many of them. Does taking on that work make me liable for each and every stake I put in the ground? Yes, it absolutely does.
Do I take on the liability of interpreting the design intent of the Engineer that stamped and signed the plans I'm working from? No! or at least I try my very best not to. If I or one of my employees do that and get it wrong, regardless of whether I fire them or not, I'm liable for the cost implications.
Given the litigious nature of society today AND all of the ADA requirements I've recently chosen to stop and ask questions when the plans are chicken s(xx)t rather than press on and "figure it out."
To answer the underlying question, I think Civil 3D is the most powerful tool available for civil modeling but as the saying goes...with great power comes great responsibility.
I didnt go to school for any of this. My degree was in Graphics Communications Management (The design, layout, and printing practices for books an media) That is a dying industry do to all the e-readers. I was blessed in getting an opportunity to work for the company that 3 generations of my family has worked for. I have started from the bottom 5 years ago watching barrels along the interstate to now be given the opportunity to learn to build models.
I have gotten so far in business center but would like to see if there would be another program that i may be able to use more fluently than BC. Regardless of whether the State has provided more than enough information or they send you the paper plans and an existing ground .xml, BC training offers only an overview of what the whole program does, not advanced corridors or advanced site training.
AFreeman444, post: 362757, member: 11122 wrote: I didnt go to school for any of this. My degree was in Graphics Communications Management (The design, layout, and printing practices for books an media) That is a dying industry do to all the e-readers. I was blessed in getting an opportunity to work for the company that 3 generations of my family has worked for. I have started from the bottom 5 years ago watching barrels along the interstate to now be given the opportunity to learn to build models.
I have gotten so far in business center but would like to see if there would be another program that i may be able to use more fluently than BC. Regardless of whether the State has provided more than enough information or they send you the paper plans and an existing ground .xml, BC training offers only an overview of what the whole program does, not advanced corridors or advanced site training.
I am a Terramodel user and am gradually moving over to TBC. I just went through a 3 day data prep class from a guy that was one of the original Terramodel users and it was very useful. The latest version of TBC has some very good tools that can speed up data prep if you bought the data prep module. I needed the class because it is a very different thought process than Terramodel and I couldn't have taught myself. With this guy I was able to ask "in Terramodel I did this", and he understood and showed me the TBC way which was usually less labor intensive. With that said, without the experience and knowing what makes a good surface, it doesn't matter what software you use. The time in front of the screen and then going to the field to see how your surfaces are working in the field only comes with time, and that can't come from a soft ware package. Hang in there and be patient. Keep plugging away and watching what the end product from your surfaces looks like. Engage the operators and supervisors, they will give you very valuble information on what's working and what's not. In the end, if you are a Trimble user, invest in TBC, get training and learn it, it's here to stay. If you use a mixed bag of brands, then use the software available and learn it. All brands have free software to export their flavor of files from simple import/export options.
the best software is the one being used in your office, it's free (or paid for by your boss) and you have free instructors to answer any questions you may have..
Back in the mid 1980s the company I was at got the contract for staking the south end of a US highway and another company got the contract for the north end of that same US highway.
When we met up in the middle our control was 1ft different from their control. After a couple sets of level loops from one end to the other was found we were both right according to each set of plans and there was a foot bust on the north end.
They decided to use a quarter mile and transition together.
Forward to present, a new overpass was designed for a loop on the north end over train tracks and the 1ft error showd again and they had to do another transition to cross the tracks.
Another big hoopla occurred between the RR and DOT when the real problem was that when the error was found in the 1980s that nothing was updated to the control for the north end of the US highway plans.
Sometimes it is the breakdown in communication between field and office and all parties involved and in this case no communication to the head office of the problem led to the latter problem with the RR crossing.
Glad I was sitting back and had nothing to do with this more recent event as heads rolled after the short skirmish.
Steve Emberson, post: 362764, member: 181 wrote: I am a Terramodel user and am gradually moving over to TBC. I just went through a 3 day data prep class from a guy that was one of the original Terramodel users and it was very useful. The latest version of TBC has some very good tools that can speed up data prep if you bought the data prep module. I needed the class because it is a very different thought process than Terramodel and I couldn't have taught myself. With this guy I was able to ask "in Terramodel I did this", and he understood and showed me the TBC way which was usually less labor intensive. With that said, without the experience and knowing what makes a good surface, it doesn't matter what software you use. The time in front of the screen and then going to the field to see how your surfaces are working in the field only comes with time, and that can't come from a soft ware package. Hang in there and be patient. Keep plugging away and watching what the end product from your surfaces looks like. Engage the operators and supervisors, they will give you very valuble information on what's working and what's not. In the end, if you are a Trimble user, invest in TBC, get training and learn it, it's here to stay. If you use a mixed bag of brands, then use the software available and learn it. All brands have free software to export their flavor of files from simple import/export options.
We have AutoDesk Infrastructure and am currently installing it and watching videos through their website. I already love the amount of support and videos that AutoDesk produces. With BC you find very little pertaining to what your working on. The intersection tool is great but it doesn't work for tying a side road into the eastbound lane, for example, of a four lane with a turn lane on the inside.
Im not a person that has zero experience with road work or designing a road, just looking for the program that best suites me. I feel that with AutoCad, as with TerraModel, you are able to draw more lines than in BC, you enter tables and spreadsheets to get a line.
Anyway, thank you for your input!
A Harris, post: 362767, member: 81 wrote: Back in the mid 1980s the company I was at got the contract for staking the south end of a US highway and another company got the contract for the north end of that same US highway.
When we met up in the middle our control was 1ft different from their control. After a couple sets of level loops from one end to the other was found we were both right according to each set of plans and there was a foot bust on the north end.
They decided to use a quarter mile and transition together.
Forward to present, a new overpass was designed for a loop on the north end over train tracks and the 1ft error showd again and they had to do another transition to cross the tracks.
Another big hoopla occurred between the RR and DOT when the real problem was that when the error was found in the 1980s that nothing was updated to the control for the north end of the US highway plans.
Sometimes it is the breakdown in communication between field and office and all parties involved and in this case no communication to the head office of the problem led to the latter problem with the RR crossing.
Glad I was sitting back and had nothing to do with this more recent event as heads rolled after the short skirmish.
Thats the same with this project im working on. There is a total of 8 miles, divided into 3 sets of plans. The first 6 miles (2 sections) were designed by one company, the last section (the one im working on) was designed by another. It has a station equation at the beginning of the project at the end of a spiral curve. And to top it all off, the section at the end, that we have previously constructed, was designed by another company that wasnt aware of where these new 3 sections were going to tie in.
So needless to say, its a heck of a first project to start out on while learning the modeling end of it.
