Carlson and Civil 3d

The best way to give me a surface (I use C3D) is to export a land xml of the surface, that way I can import it and assign whatever style that I want to it. As far as linework I'm pretty sure that using their .lin file and layers standards will work fine. Symbols are going to be the most difficult item to translate, C3D as such doesn't have a .sym file symbols used are blocks defined in the drawing and then assigned to points as a "marker style". You will need one of their topo dwg's and go through and find the name of each individual block that they use to represent their symbology. I don't use Carlson so I can't help from that end.

Randy

Everything Randy says is correct. If I were on the receiving end, I would want an xml file of the surface. If you have any alignments then an xml file of those are also nice.

The only issue with the linetype file might be that if they are using the upright text function (U=0) rather than the rotation angle function (R=0) to define a linetype. Intellicad does not recognize the upright text function, so if you get their linetype file you will have to replace the U with an R if they use that.

I personally would not care if the symbols you used were just blocks. Yeah, I'd rather they be a marker instead of a separate symbol, but it wouldn't be a deal killer for me.

I also would want an ASCII file of all the points. Here is where the issues begin. Civil 3D will not read Carlson points. How much time are you willing to invest? Do the companies you are working with have description key files? If so, would they want your point descriptions to match their files? If not, then any point that doesn't match their descriptions will default to one layer in Civil 3D. Unfortunately, description key files are not interchangeable with the .fld files that Carlson uses. When we switched to Carlson, I had to manually input all of the descriptors that I had in our description key file. If you are going to use their symbols, you would need to set up a new .fld file specifying their symbols and layers, and if you are doing that, then are you willing to spend that much more time inputting their descriptors? If you are willing to do that, then are you also willing to use different descriptors based on the client?

When we were still using Civil 3D, and we were doing surveys for engineering companies, we always requested their drawing template file that had their styles set up, along with other needed configuration files and field code lists so we could deliver a product that was done exactly they way they would do the job. Since we switched to Carlson, we have abandoned doing all that and now give them a product that, while still a very nice product, does not match their symbols, layers, linetypes, etc. So far we haven't had any complaints, knock on wood.

Again, I personally would want the points also, and I do provide an ASCII file to our engineering clients on their jobs. An advantage we have is that here in Indiana so many companies are wedded to INDOT work, and we use INDOT codes in the field, so it's possible that the point files I provide are actually usable for our clients. Not sure how that would work in your area, or if your clients are requesting point files. If they don't request them, then your biggest headache goes away.

Hope all this hasn't given you a headache!

I use Carslon, the CAD department uses C3D. I make a separate dwg file to send to them, and I convert all my points in the dwg to Softdesk points. They can read those in C3D.

I've sent them the surface by exporting xml, but they seem to just want the points, linework, 3d breaklines, tin lines. Probably just create their own surface from all that - don't know how much extra work that is.

BlitzkriegBob, post: 343327, member: 9554 wrote: Everything Randy says is correct. If I were on the receiving end, I would want an xml file of the surface. If you have any alignments then an xml file of those are also nice.

The only issue with the linetype file might be that if they are using the upright text function (U=0) rather than the rotation angle function (R=0) to define a linetype. Intellicad does not recognize the upright text function, so if you get their linetype file you will have to replace the U with an R if they use that.

I personally would not care if the symbols you used were just blocks. Yeah, I'd rather they be a marker instead of a separate symbol, but it wouldn't be a deal killer for me.

I also would want an ASCII file of all the points. Here is where the issues begin. Civil 3D will not read Carlson points. How much time are you willing to invest? Do the companies you are working with have description key files? If so, would they want your point descriptions to match their files? If not, then any point that doesn't match their descriptions will default to one layer in Civil 3D. Unfortunately, description key files are not interchangeable with the .fld files that Carlson uses. When we switched to Carlson, I had to manually input all of the descriptors that I had in our description key file. If you are going to use their symbols, you would need to set up a new .fld file specifying their symbols and layers, and if you are doing that, then are you willing to spend that much more time inputting their descriptors? If you are willing to do that, then are you also willing to use different descriptors based on the client?

When we were still using Civil 3D, and we were doing surveys for engineering companies, we always requested their drawing template file that had their styles set up, along with other needed configuration files and field code lists so we could deliver a product that was done exactly they way they would do the job. Since we switched to Carlson, we have abandoned doing all that and now give them a product that, while still a very nice product, does not match their symbols, layers, linetypes, etc. So far we haven't had any complaints, knock on wood.

Again, I personally would want the points also, and I do provide an ASCII file to our engineering clients on their jobs. An advantage we have is that here in Indiana so many companies are wedded to INDOT work, and we use INDOT codes in the field, so it's possible that the point files I provide are actually usable for our clients. Not sure how that would work in your area, or if your clients are requesting point files. If they don't request them, then your biggest headache goes away.

Hope all this hasn't given you a headache!

Whut????

Exporting a Carlson .CRD file to an ASCII.txt file is a one button operation. No issue at all
If you are smart, the FIRST thing you will ask for is a copy of their .dwt file. 50% of your problems solved.
Generally our clients do not care what descriptors I use. (I usually send them a print out of the FLD file so they can see my set up.) The trick is to let your field crews use the same descriptors no matter who the job is for. So, yes, I make a separate field file for each client. I set it up with my codes, their layers, linetypes and symbols. Remember this will be a "one time" deal and converting a copy of your .FLD file is much quicker than starting from scratch.
IF this is a major client, spending a weekend setting all of this up will more than pay for itself.
Remember, Autodesk will go to ANY length to keep their software from being 100% compatible with any other software so these issues will only grow until the ONLY vendor is Autodesk. Obviously that is their ultimate goal. The end user's needs are WAY down the corporate totem pole.
WE have been sending Carlson drawings to engineering firms for years with no negative feed back. The gurus at the bigger companies we have worked for tell us that rebuilding a surface from a Carlson drawing is no real issue at all. They get Carlson data, Microstation , Geopac, Eagle Point and SelectCad data all the time, so dwg conversions are a matter of routine.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote: Whut????

Exporting a Carlson .CRD file to an ASCII.txt file is a one button operation. No issue at all

I never said it was an issue. I know how to export an ascii file. I suspect most people do.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote:
If you are smart, the FIRST thing you will ask for is a copy of their .dwt file. 50% of your problems solved.

Yes, asking for their template file is a good thing, and I mentioned doing so, but I don't think it solves 50% of any problems. Unless, of course, they are using the exact same layers and blocks that you are using. There's always that possibility.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote:
Generally our clients do not care what descriptors I use. (I usually send them a print out of the FLD file so they can see my set up.)

As someone who has been the client, I would definitely care if you sent me an ascii file with descriptors that do not match the descriptors that I use. Even if you gave me a printout, one of us has to change the descriptors in either a description key file or an fld file to make it work for both of us.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote: The trick is to let your field crews use the same descriptors no matter who the job is for.

Again, it does matter to some of our clients. Your clients are obviously less fussy.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote: So, yes, I make a separate field file for each client. I set it up with my codes, their layers, linetypes and symbols. Remember this will be a "one time" deal and converting a copy of your .FLD file is much quicker than starting from scratch.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying to do. While you only have to do it once, the one time you do it you are starting from scratch.

cptdent, post: 343677, member: 527 wrote:
WE have been sending Carlson drawings to engineering firms for years with no negative feed back.

I didn't say I have received any negative feedback from anyone. The latest file I sent out did elicit a call from the engineering company. We did a couple of surveys for them last year using Civil 3D. The guy calling me said he thought we used Civil 3D. I told him we didn't any more, that we had switched to Carlson. He responded "Oh yeah, you surveyors like Carlson." He was disappointed that he would need to create some new styles to match our work (it's a long trail and we are doing half the design as the prime and they are doing half as the sub) and would have to rebuild the surface, but so far that's been the only disappointment anyone has shared with me.

It seems as though you took my post to be critical of Carlson. No part of my post that you quoted is critical of Carlson in any way. I'm sure most people who read this forum are aware that I am not a fan of Carlson, just as they are aware that you are perhaps their biggest cheerleader. I was merely offering my perspective to the original poster's question regarding the interaction between Carlson and Civil 3D.