I did a search, but didn't find an recent answer, but I apologize if this has already been covered.
I'm a machine control nerd, so not really a surveyor, engineer, or CAD tech by any means but I work with them all. I'm looking to dabble into model building. When I say dabble, I mean just that. Not do it full time, but just learn more about the process of how everything comes together. What works best, what doesn't, etc. Quality models really make or break the experience with some of these machines, and quality in = quality out.
I have Autocad and Civil3D, but very minimal skills with them, and not even sure if they will do what I need. I tried to take an evening class at the local community college to get started but after 3 weeks of drawing building floor plans by hand, i got impatient and withdrew.
Is there a better software solution to do this with that is beginner friendly, possibly a free demo? Magnet? TBC? Carlson? I've heard of people using Agtek but it seems most of the model data issues that I see come from Agtek more than any other.
Pic for attention. I would like to be able to better articulate on why you don't need 800,000 triangles the size of a matchbox on 50 acres with a 70MB file size, when 60,000 with a 5 MB file size does the exact same thing. I find myself constantly sending models to a third party to check for holes, simplify tin surfaces, etc. and it creates a long response time, when I could just learn to do things myself.
My two cents? Site prep and modelling is less about the exact software package and more about attention to detail. Workflows can be quite different across software packages, so it's all about committing to a tool and getting good with it.
Civil 3D does modelling well enough, although it does have issues with larger surfaces. It's the same software used for design, so more seamless than other options.
TBC is excellent at modelling, especially with the Site Prep/Site Modelling edition. We don't do a lot of machine control prep, but we make use of the same tools to prepare staking data for our crews.
Not do it full time, but just learn more about the process of how everything comes together.
I find myself constantly sending models to a third party to check for holes, simplify tin surfaces, etc. and it creates a long response time, when I could just learn to do things myself.
You are contradicting yourself. Checking and critiquing the work of others calls for the most experienced and capable person available - not a dabbler. Frankly, if you don't have the time or patience to learn basic CAD skills you aren't going to get to the point of being anything other than a nuisance as a model reviewer.
Civil3d is an excellent DTM modelling software. But if you are going to be reviewing the models, it would be best to do it in whatever software is used to produce them.
You might want to reread what he's saying. Or maybe I need to, because I have a completely different interpretation of what's written than you do.
Like it or not, Autodesk and Civil3D are far and away the biggest players in the market. Their wont be many engineering firms doing civil design that dont use their products.
But Civil3D is rated poorly (or very poorly) as Survey software. Yes you can manipulate field-data in it, but pretty much every surveyor uses other tools.
In most cases those other tools come from the maker of the hardware they use - be it Trimble, Leica or Topcon. There are others that play in this space like 12D. For most surveyors these tools will do everything they need and then some.
I would say that you need to be looking for tools that suit your needs and your workflows. Your machine control designs have probably come via Civil3D and I would be looking there to begin (despite the learning curve).
I would also expect that wont find everything you need in any one place, and that you will end up building your own tools. Obviously they will be tailored by the workflows and data you have to hand - but I would be trying to keep such tools flexible and generic. Think 'concepts' as well as 'details'
Just my $0.02
=J=