Do the contractor's need to have Civil 3D in order to use the engineer's CAD file to do their machine control?
Bowtie - That depends on how the contractor creates the data.?ÿ Sometimes the contractor has a machine guy that spends days entering all of the design data straight from the plans to create a 3d surface model.?ÿ IMO this is really scary but it is done at the contractor's sole and exclusive risk.
If you design things correctly in civil3d the 3d surface model is a simple land xml export of the FG surface.?ÿ
Unless you are contracted to provide a functional 3d surface for use in Machine Control you would be wise to not provide one.
As a rule, it seems they don't use Civil 3D for the machine control in our area, but I think they can read the file and use the surface from it. Most of them appear to be using some kind of Trimble software to use for their machine control.
As an engineer I've been using Civil 3D full time for the last 10 years, couldn't imagine life without it, and that includes an awful lot of topo surveys, and surviving the "dark ages" pre V2011 and 64-bit, and now I'm sure some form of award/reward is imminent from Autodesk, like a free lifetime subscription and/or a life-size statue (of me).
Maybe not a concern for the typical surveyor, but it is a non starter for me because it does not have geodetic functions.
I have used it. I can see it being preferred by large engineering firms with very compartmentalized job duties, but other wise, I think the higher cost and steeper learning curve?ÿ provide very little extra benefit for most independent land surveyors.?ÿ ?ÿ
Can Carlson accept these files and read all the?ÿsmart design elements in them without issue??ÿ As stated?ÿpreviously all of my design counterparts use C3D.?ÿ By using C3D myself I'm able to?ÿeasily take their CAD files and implement them with little or no manipulation.?ÿ Does Carlson allow for?ÿthat or do you need a LandXML from the designer to get the "smart" objects??ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ
The short answer is "Yes" per work that Carlson has been sponsoring for the past several years through the Open Design Alliance. This on-going work has resulted in the independent Import Civil 3D commands (such as Import Civil 3D -- All) which provides (in my humble opinion) some much needed redundancy and balance to the market. In fact, it reminds me of a thread from another board that will soon be closing down on 12/31/2018 and I am taking the bold assertion to quote the content again here because I believe it is important information for the market to keep in mind:
Posted by twdotson on Jan 11, 2010 10:24 am
Not trying to side track your thread, but I see a very serious problem developing with proprietary objects and their enablers. When they first started showing up, the answer was "no problem, just install the enabler". Well that begins to be a problem when they are no longer interested in producing an enabler for an older object when producing new AutoCAD versions.For example if you created an object in LDT2009 there is no enabler for AutoCAD 2010 to display it, unless the C3D enabler handles it? So what I see is the very real possibility that LDT data (as only one example) could become orphaned in a short period of time. While C3D may continue to read the data (for a while), even that may stop. So in summary it could mean that if you don't keep a valid license of LDT alive (also meaning you can't upgrade it) then you run the risk of having data that you might never be able to access in the future. Even C3D data could be a problem at some point when the next big thing comes along. One thing is for sure, the data is more important than the application that created it, and that data should belong to the user, forever.
To which I responded (again, bear in mind this was in 2010 so some of my predictions regarding the computer processors were slightly off):
Terry, You've made an astute observation and hit the nail squarely on the head. I'll go one step further. There is a marketing initiative out there that suggests whether you are building a building or building a road or subdivision, you should be placing all of this information into a digital "BIM" solution. This may sound good on paper but I tend to question if we as a market are ready to make this leap. I'd assert the success and reliance on paper plans to this point in history can be largely attributed to the fact that the paper plans can be retrieved and re-used into the life expectancy and "beyond" of "the build"... what ever it happens to be. If this period of time is 30, 50 or 100 years or more into the future, how can we be sure that our children, grand-children and great-grand children will be able to use the digital data sets we produce today? I've seen reports that consultants are struggling to move data around between even one or two versions of the a product they've been using. Maybe our market descendants will be smart enough to "crack the code" that eludes the market today but I also wonder if they'll even want to attempt it considering all the versions and permutations that have been flooding the market recently. I'm all for the modernization of plans, data sets and digital archiving of all this data into a standard, open-architecture format. However, placing the reliance to open this legacy data (e.g. LDT data created 4 years ago or C3D data created over the next few years) into a single organization/application puts a tremendous amount of power into the hands of that organization. This is one of the reasons?ÿIntelliCAD?ÿand the subsequent?ÿOpen Design Alliance?ÿcame into existence: Autodesk, Softdesk Settle FTC Charges; Divest Computer Aided Design Software Agreement Will Bar Acquisition of Competing CAD Engine.?ÿIt isn't difficult to imagine the future ramifications of the continual "moving target" of the DWG file format. Compounding the problem is the additional inclusion of proprietary and "moving target" object data within the DWG itself. The Open Design Alliance is now chasing two targets being introduced by Autodesk: the DWG format and the "design" data that is going into the DWG files.I see some tremendous obstacles for the market looming on the horizon. If we fast-forward to say, 2020, I'd say there'd be a very high likelihood that we'll be running 128-bit computer systems or better. I tend to question the reliance that the software in use then will continue to carry the legacy instructions to open and use the legacy data the market is producing today. I hope the cost to open this data in the future will be within the grasp of the society that wants to use it. Some might argue that the LandXML initiative solves this dilemma. I'd say that it does to a small degree. However, LandXML falls short in two key areas:
- It is a snap-shot/point in time data format. Any subsequent changes to an underlying drawing/digital data set would essentially require an updated LandXML file.
- Government organizations seem to be requiring proprietary files and data sets from their contractors. Although this isn't necessarily a reflection on the reputability of LandXML, it does seem to indicate that government organizations and consultants are putting more faith in proprietary digital data without considering the potential long-term ramifications of a "closed" data environment. As the original poster indicated, he has "a LDD 2006 drawing" and is "trying to convert the points from AECC points to Carlson Points." Proprietary ARX-based will continue to pose data interoperability well into the future.
I don't know how we as an industry address this problem but you are exactly correct when you say
"...the data is more important than the application that created it, and that data should belong to the user, forever."
So, it comes down to this:
- We've all grown accustomed to changing DWG file types over the years and I believe the market evolved when Bentley proved they could read (and write) DWG and when the likes of the IntelliCAD products came to be.
- Within the DWG files are now "1-way version" objects. Yes, you can save DWG files to earlier DWG formats but the "object versions" contained within will always be at a version level that is/was the highest version that had saved the DWG. Anybody running an earlier version of the product will not be able to see the objects and would get the loathsome (at least as its been described to me) "proxy objects" alerts, messages and/or display. Now that there is at least one other application that can start to convert some of the main C3D objects?ÿwithout the need for C3D, it is my contention that we, as a market, should start to breath a collective sigh of relief that we have some additional choices when it comes to your data.
- What's next in this realm of keeping you and your data? I would say "Be wary of the Cloud." Suppose you're using a widget and it's the best widget for you and your company's work. Further suppose the widget offers you to move your content into the Cloud "for unparalleled back-up, convenience, collaboration and peace-of-mind" (free or extremely cheap, of course). So here it comes... you're using proprietary technology evolving to a subscription-only service that creates proprietary data being stored in/on Cloud services that you have to pay to access. Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy but to me, this seems like a recipe for "very difficult to leave" (dare I say... get your checkbook out and leave it open).
So, to the original question, yes, Carlson can make do with some of the "smart design elements" provided by Civil 3D and is working on other objects as they are made available by the Open Design Alliance.?ÿHowever, not all applications that are being used in the field today can take the size of C3D drawings (let alone the objects contained within those DWG files). It can make for some very challenging roads ahead of us if we're not careful.
In a word...NO!
C3D is a powerful design tool but it is too complex and far too expensive for most all survey related needs.
On another note, for those of us that could care less about catering to Engineers, We use microstation and eagle point, old stuff I know, but works for us. If we were to change to something more "modern", what is a good program to look at?
?ÿ
Thanks
I've watched this post with interest but refrained from posting simply because I am a?ÿBentley user.?ÿ But I would like to say something now.?ÿ One misnomer I've noticed is in the title of the original post; typical surveyor; and therein lies the "x factor".?ÿ I don't believe there actually is such a thing.?ÿ We all probably would like to think we are "typical".?ÿ I mean we all basically?ÿperform in a similar fashion.?ÿ We survey. But I think the comparison stops there.?ÿ
I can understand the need for?ÿsoftware compatibility with A&E firms?ÿif the bulk of your work is preparatory for those types of projects.?ÿ I have several colleagues that are strictly C3D users because their business model is slanted in that direction.?ÿ I also have colleagues?ÿthat do bang-up business, like myself, that have absolutely nothing to do with architectural or engineering clients.?ÿ While we are all surveyors,?ÿthe end-users of our data appear to drive what software we need, not our commonality as surveyors, and rightfully so.
I have noticed over the years that AutoCAD products have put a lot of time and effort into maintaining some sort of exclusivity in their products.?ÿ I am disheartened by the fact that all that time and effort seems geared more toward keeping their profits high than anything else. I would?ÿrather?ÿsee them?ÿproviding diverse products for a wider spectrum of users...
But I guess that's the American Way.?ÿ If you have something that everyone thinks they need...hike your prices.
Although this link below is survey related to Autodesk Infraworks, it does at the end mention a similar video for Civil 3D. These guys appear to be producing and sharing a lot of good stuff.
jawja wrote:?ÿOne last thing: someone pointed to the ability to import LiDAR data into C3D as a benefit. That benefit has been gone for 2 product years now, since the introduction of RECAP. They took away point clouds and moved it to another module that you have to buy to use. Autodesk is sneaky like that.
But again it is not C3D.?ÿ It is C3D plus something.?ÿ C3D can be great survey software, if you add Carlson Survey to it.?ÿ But it is not on it's own.?ÿ Dotsoft may be able to handle LiDAR (and it might do it the best ever) but Dotsoft is not C3D.
Getting costs for the yearly "update/subscription", they are very close to jumping the shark this time. It's outrageous!!!?ÿ
Getting costs for the yearly "update/subscription", they are very close to jumping the shark this time. It's outrageous!!!
The shark-jumping happened several years ago for me.?ÿ
I have learned how to live completely Autodesk-free.
