If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I don't expect to be provided all of my ingredients individually, I expect them to be assembled in the way they were ordered.?ÿ You wonder why some of the Engineers are cranky with that type of deliverable? Really?
So, the answer is.....because that's how I want it.?ÿ Really??ÿ
You know, you're making my point, about the childish and demanding.
Any text editor will change the order of N,E,Elev,Desc,Other stuff, etc, so&so into any order your system is setup for.
Carson XPort & SMI V7 Transfer will do the same thing.
Actually Carlson Cadd versions can be setup to import and export the data from and into whatever order, form and specific need.
So, the answer is.....because that's how I want it.?ÿ Really??ÿ
You know, you're making my point, about the childish and demanding.
Childish and demanding? I think not.?ÿ I live in the business world.?ÿ If the deliverable in the contract says you will provide a topographic survey in Civil3d 2019 format and you provide me with random survey components in a variety of formats, so I can prepare your deliverable I assure you your company will not be getting paid or another project.?ÿ It??s not about what they want it about what you??re contracted to do.?ÿ
We provide data in formats we despise to work in all the time. Why? Because the contract requires it.?ÿ To facilitate those formats, we spend a lot of $ and training to ensure we have the capabilities to provide every one of our deliverables efficiently and in accordance with the agencies we work for.
Since I made this statement early in this thread I've had some discussions with the engineering CAD staff.?ÿ It turns out they would prefer an AutoCAD only drawing product and a LandXML of the surface.?ÿ It's caused me to think this thing over quite a bit.?ÿ ?ÿ
I guess you can't define a typical engineering tech either. I am only including this quote, but the OP and others have also described the engineering side as not utilizing Civil 3D the same way I do. I'd rather have you provide me with a C3D surface. I'm not sure where the love affair with XML files began. Yeah sure, use them if you have to, but if you don't...then I'd rather not.
Addressing comments implying that we (I) might be stubborn or childish, as a designer, I would rather work with a good survey done in C3D than a great survey done in Carlson or the best survey ever done in Microstation. No matter who provides the survey, I am going to spend time adapting the drawing file. I will spend the least amount of time adapting a C3D drawing, followed by a Carlson drawing (only one surveyor that I know works with Carlson), and I will spend the most time working a Microstation drawing (which we get a lot).?ÿ Time spent adapting drawings is rarely factored in to the budget.?ÿ My goal is to make sure that projects are profitable.?ÿ The less time I have to spend on this task the better.?ÿ I can also more quickly resolve questions if I have a native C3D drawing. As Cameron has stated, single platform works best for me, and I don't think I am being stubborn for preferring a deliverable in C3D.?ÿ I'm just wanting to make money for my boss, because the more money she makes, the more money I make.
When you get a topo drawing in just exactly how do you use it in C3d? Do you insert the drawing into your design base map file, do you xref and data link it, or something else?
One problem with just using a C3d surface is that if you just try to insert it into another drawing file without also inserting the data it was created from there will be problems editing. And I think the guys find creating and maintaining data links a chore. So maybe its a training issue.?ÿ?ÿ
I take the topo drawing, create a data shortcut for the surface, xref the topo in to my design files, and create a data reference to the surface shortcut wherever it's needed, which would usually be my profile drawing, my cross section drawing, my corridor drawing, and my pipe network drawing.
Ideally, I wouldn't need to edit your surface. However, if for some reason I did need to do that, the surface should be edited in the topo drawing, then synced with any open drawings. For example, I create a pipe network in my pipe network drawing. I create a shortcut to the network. I create a data reference to that network in my profile drawing. I now have the network drawn in my profile drawing. I don't edit the network in the profile drawing. I go back to the pipe network drawing to make edits. The source file is listed with each of the data shortcuts. You can edit the network in the profile drawing, but you would have to promote the shortcut first in order to do that. I've never done it that way so I can't speak to the advantages or disadvantages of doing that.
I've never had any problems editing any data shortcut information, but I always do it in the source drawing. I also definitely don't look at managing shortcuts as a chore. Data shortcuts are a powerful tool.
Any text editor will change the order of N,E,Elev,Desc,Other stuff, etc, so&so into any order your system is setup for.
Carson XPort & SMI V7 Transfer will do the same thing.
Actually Carlson Cadd versions can be setup to import and export the data from and into whatever order, form and specific need.
It's not the order that is a problem. I don't think I've ever seen a file that wasn't PNEZD comma delimited. C3D has default formats for the order of the information and allows you to create custom formats.
The problem is the descriptor. If I gave you a text file with descriptors such as PBUS, PPWP, PTDS, PTCS, and PVAC, and you processed that file into a drawing with your F2F file, would you actually get a bush, a power pole, a deciduous tree, a coniferous tree, and a car wash vacuum? I'm more inclined to believe you would get a default point symbol in a default layer with no block for the point. That's what I have historically gotten with DCA, Softdesk, LDD, Eagle Point, C3D, and Carlson. Maybe I'm unaware of new developments in F2F capabilities.
Sorry, one last post. I have to say that I completely agree with the assessments given by Cameron Watson and Jim Frame. Spot on for both of you! I even pictured Cameron dropping his mouse and walking away as he hit the Add Reply button.
Also, just in case Ladd Nelson makes an appearance here, I do want to point out that Carlson offers an app, Carlson Connect, on the Autodesk app store. From the Carlson site:
A collection of routines for transferring and converting data between Autodesk?? Civil 3D??, and Carlson SurvCE and Carlson Survey, Carlson Connect 2018 runs within Civil 3D 2018 and uses the current Civil 3D data model.
Users can transfer point and raw data between Civil 3D and Carlson SurvCE data collection. They can import and export Civil 3D point data with the Carlson coordinate files and convert drawings with Carlson point entities to Civil 3D point objects.
I doubt I will ever have the need for this app, but it's good to know it exists. The surveys we get are about 60% Microstation and 40% C3D. The previously cited project is the only one that I have ever received in Carlson.
So....after all this, the answer is:
If you're just doing survey work with only a few engineers who'll put up with your crappy software and are willing to import a few extra files, then C3D is not worth the extra expense.?ÿ But if you're working with/for a lot of engineers, in-house and out, who want a product that they can just take and use with no extra steps, and are giving you enough good-paying projects to justify the extra cost, then it is worth it and provides value.
I think it's pretty easy to boil it down to?ÿsuch a flippant and sarcastic statement as that with the economy screaming along the way it is.?ÿ Putting my Clients at the center of my universe rather than myself is what carried me through from 2007-2012.?ÿ The Land Development world is so relationship driven.?ÿ Conversations with?ÿmy Clients and end users?ÿabout how I can deliver a better product to suit their needs is one of the ways I reinforce those relationships and leverage them into new relationships.?ÿ It's as much a business development strategy as it is?ÿa?ÿtechnical service strategy.?ÿ To each their?ÿown, you skin your cat and?ÿI'll skin mine. ? ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ
Relax, Cam.?ÿ There's only a small bit of sarcasm there.?ÿ?ÿ If you ignore it, what I said makes sense.?ÿ Those of us with different clients and demands use the software that makes our work tick.?ÿ?ÿ You're doing the same.?ÿ I was answering the question of the OP.?ÿ If you need it, it's worth it.?ÿ If you don't then any of the other software out can do the job, at a lower cost.?ÿ
Eight pages in the obvious answer is "there is no typical surveyor".?ÿ
Eight pages in the obvious answer is "there is no typical surveyor".?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
Ain't that the TRUTH!
Eight pages in the obvious answer is "there is no typical surveyor".?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
Ain't that the TRUTH!
Get off my lawn, both of ya! ??ÿ
It turns out they would prefer an AutoCAD only drawing product and a LandXML of the surface.
Which begs the question:?ÿ What do they want to see in the LandXML file??ÿ I got to thinking about what I would do if asked for such a thing, and started nosing around my software stack.?ÿ I use TBC for surface-related tasks (creation, contouring, volumes) and realized that I can export a LandXML file from it.?ÿ I tried it out on a couple of projects, using the Carlson Precision 3D demo to view the results.?ÿ The TBC export appears simply to reproduce the TIN used to create the TBC surface in LandXML-speak, which is pretty the same as importing the 3DFACEs from the TIN.?ÿ Is that all people need from a LandXML file, or do they expect additional information to come in with it?
They want a surface model from LandXML.?ÿ The connection between surface model and TIN is less direct in C3d than it is in other programs. I'd say that your TBC solution is probably a good one.
Engineering techs are going to build their design model out of "feature lines"- something very akin to 3d breaklines - and grading models,?ÿ and not points. Younger ones may not even know what a TIN is.?ÿ
