I've been asked to make recommendations to improve efficiency and profitability at a small engineering/survey firm. I am strictly on the survey side.
I am currently evaluating the software. Currently, the entire firm is using C3D. I come from years of Carlson use. Prior to that I date back to Softdesk, LDD and some local softwares that only those of us in New England would be familiar with. Benchmark or FOG anyone.. I am a huge fan of Carlson.
I understand the benefits of C3D for engineers but for survey it appears very cumbersome. I am leaning towards a combination Carlson and Autodesk. My question is in what combination.
There are two types of survey users here. One who works totally in 2D on strictly survey projects and the second who also deliver existing conditions complete with surfaces to engineering. For the first I'm thinking Carlson on vanilla Autocad or even Carlson with Autocad OEM. I've been using Carlson on Autocad for years and I don't really know the difference with OEM.
The bigger question is for those of you who use Carlson to work with C3D users. Is it necessary to run Carlson on a full C3D? </font>
Any other input would be greatly appreciated.
The Hack
Hi Carlson comes with Intellicad, try the trial version its much better than AutoCAD IMHO. then you don't have to pay extra for AutoCAD
I like the full functionality of Autocad. I just don't know how close to the OEM Autocad is to running on top of a full version.
For the work you described, I think you would get all the functionality you need, and maybe more importantly, none of what you don't need, by running Carlson on Intellicad.
We are Civil3d users because it's primarily what our clients use. This allows the deliverables to fit together seamlessly.
That being said, I know AutoCAD can be quite $$$$ so it makes sense for the smaller firms to find alternatives. Generally I'd say it depends on who your clients are and what kind of work you're doing in general.
Once you have your field data reduced to coordinates Civil3d is excellent mapping and modelling software. I use it. It has very little to get you to that point. So the question is how are you going to get to there? Carlson has a lot of tools for that - and we have it available to us - so its an option. I prefer to use StarNet to handle raw data and adjustments.
What kind of mix of instruments and data collectors are you using? Carlson or StarNet is a strong choice if you have a mix of vendors. If you have uniformity then a proprietary package may be the better choice.
I think you are right on point Norman. We are using Leica both GPS and conventional. Data collection is Carlson SurvCE. That is exactly what I ran at my own company. Always very satisfied with that workflow.
My main issue is finding the smoothest transition of the Carlson points to C3D for modelling and design. I don't think there is any question the 2D boundary work is superior in Carlson. I was astonished at what they are going through to just inverse between points in C3D.
If your primary concern is a smooth transition from Carlson points to C3D then the answer should be easy. As Norman pointed out, C3d works great with a properly structured field to office interface using csv files, that's all we ever export/import. Maybe your CSV file comes from your survey software instead of Carlson, but I would think Carlson supports csv exporting of points. I couldn't imagine using 2 different cad platforms depending on the end product. But, if you're small enough it could work.
Typically we are giving the engineers a boundary, existing conditions and a surface. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you and Norman are saying we should be able to do all boundary work in Carlson, bring final points into C3D and create linework and surfaces within C3D.
Correct, if setup property it would work just fine. Not sure what the benefit of adding Carlson into to the mix is though. If you already have Civil3d, why not use it? We create boundary and right of way base maps daily with Civil3d just fine.
You probably will want to be able to take linework and surfaces (DXF) as well as points (CSV) into Civil3D
"Typically we are giving the engineers a boundary, existing conditions and a surface. Unless I’m misinterpreting what you and Norman are saying we should be able to do all <s>boundary"</s> data collection "work in Carlson, bring final points into C3D and create linework and surfaces within C3D."
Also - there is some virtue in delivering surfaces and mapping to your C3d using engineers in C3d format but only if they are sophisticated enough to take advantage of those features. If they aren't those C3d features can be a hinderance.
Right now survey is creating the surfaces in C3D so i would think we will continue to. I am just finding the day to day boundary work seems exponentially easier in Carlson.
Thank you all for responses. I think you have me on the right path.
Currently we use Carlson Civil Suite on top of Civil 3D and almost all survey work is done using Carlson features. There is also about 20 commands in the Engineering portion of Carlson that are extremely helpful to have. You also get the GIS module as part of the Carlson Civil suite and that is very very useful. As to surfaces, my group does them in Carlson and exports them in an xml to engineering....no issues what so ever and keeps engineers out of my surfaces. Our other geomatics groups do their surfaces in civil 3D and the product is pretty poor and cumbersome in my opinion.
Another odd point, at my old company all the engineers came from civil 3D and switched to the civil suite on AutoCAD.....To a person, none of them would go back to just civil 3D as the carlson tools where just easier to use. Also once they figured out how survey created 3D polylines worked they were 100% sold on Carlson.
I haven't played with it yet, but I noticed the latest civil 3D has .tin selection in surfaces......so there may be a way for civil 3D to start utilizing the base Carlson surface format at this time.
At home I have Carlson running on intelliCAD and while there are some annoying differences, the cost savings way exceeds the annoyance.
