A new client recently noted that the DWG I provided had been "flattened" such that all the linework was at elevation zero, and asked if I could restore the elevations so they could design their site plan. I responded by saying that the contours were at their respective elevations, and that a TIN and all breaklines were available on separate layers in the file. I haven't heard back, so I assume they were able to work with that, but now I'm wondering if my old-school 2D-plus-elevations style of drafting a topo is no longer the way things are done. Is it common practice now to draw linework in 3D?
Civil 3d featurelines and survey figures are 3d by default. In the early versions of the software the problem was that you couldn't display special linetypes with them, so people tended to make a 2d copy for display purposes. Now that most of those issues have been resolved we're seeing more and more drawings produced in 3d.
Jim Frame, post: 403169, member: 10 wrote: A new client recently noted that the DWG I provided had been "flattened" such that all the linework was at elevation zero, and asked if I could restore the elevations so they could design their site plan. I responded by saying that the contours were at their respective elevations, and that a TIN and all breaklines were available on separate layers in the file. I haven't heard back, so I assume they were able to work with that, but now I'm wondering if my old-school 2D-plus-elevations style of drafting a topo is no longer the way things are done. Is it common practice now to draw linework in 3D?
" Is it common practice now to draw linework in 3D?"
Not here - although it is the default in AutoCAD. You can change it using the OSNAPZ variable, but it defaults to 3D mode every time you open a drawing. I hate it (you can't draw a line perpendicular to a 3D line, linetypes don't display correctly, et al.) so much that I added a little line of code into the startup file that sets the OSNAPZ mode to 1 (horizontal).
I have my field-to-finish set up to run 2 sets of line work. One is 3D while the other is 2d.
I'm considering setting up a f2f that is just 2d for my smaller surveys. That way I don't have to even look at the 3D lines. It gets frustrating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jim Frame, post: 403169, member: 10 wrote: Is it common practice now to draw linework in 3D?
It's common, not universal. I've got an idea that your client's CAD man ignored your surface and went to creating his own, and was frustrated by your 2d linework. A lot of surveyors do not supply DTMs - to the point where engineering techs assume there is none.
One of my larger clients receives my drawings with the understanding there are 3d and 2d levels. All the surface features (including break lines) are on the 3d levels. One unique aspect that has caused a little trouble with newer techs over there is that my paving features are 2d, but the actual surface is still defined by contours and breaks. I also supply a dtm. Some folks over there use it, some don't. I guess it's just a throwback to the days before 3d arcs and the like. Every one and a while someone calls and I tell them which levels to turn on and which to freeze.
I hate to sound like an old man but most of the confusion comes from some younger folks that are not experienced enough with adequate information. They seem to cling to the process they learned "at the place they used to work" and resist generic info being supplied. I always tell them "nobody's gonna be cutting the crust off your bread for you anymore".
Jim,
My SOP is to draft planimetric feature in 2D. It is just way easier to fillet and hatch in 2D. For features that can be used in the creation of DTMs, such as break lines and curbs, I include a 3D version of the line work on separate layers. Since most of my clients are engineering firms I also include the DTM lines and supporting info in my submittals.
In our part of the world, it is common to use survey figures as breaklines, all at elevation. I have had clients ask me to flatten linework, on occasion.
My normal topo workflow these days creates presentation linework in 2D, but each 2D linework feature is accompanied by a duplicate* breakline in 3D. That plus 3D nodes at all surveyed points and a complete TIN rounds out my design deliverables, so it sounds like I'm not far off of what others are doing.
*Mostly duplicate. I run almost all my topo with a dirt shoe on the pole, so for things like curbs I offset the 2D line by 0.10' to account for the shoe width. The 3D polyline gets created through the actual surveyed points.
This was our standard practice up until about 2010. We used SDC for breaklines, then off to LDD! Be prepared for more ignorant (not meant as an insult) engineering firms to request linework at elevation. This makes their job MUCH easier.
I should add; a lot of new draftsman don't know any other way to develop or utilize a surface. Survey figures are now what is being utilized and taught.
Hoggster, post: 403200, member: 12065 wrote: a lot of new draftsman don't know any other way to develop or utilize a surface.
This is the reason I supply a surface in the form of a TIN composed of 3DFACES. That way they don't have to mess with the linework when they want to create a proprietary surface.
I'm back to doing engineering work again, and I don't understand why anyone would need 3D linework to design. If I need an existing ground elevation, I do an inquiry of the surface. I always provided a surface when I was doing surveying work, and I always assume the surveyor is providing a surface now that I'm in design. Really, as a designer, why would I want to create my own surface and assume liability for my boss when someone else is already taking responsibility? Even if I find something in the surface with which I disagree, I prefer to let my boss know so they can contact the surveyor and give them the choice to either incorporate my suggestion or ignore it.
I guess what I'm saying, Jim, is that I would be happy with what you are providing. Especially if you provide an XML file of your surface. I know you use Bricscad and utilize your own lisp routines to do your work, so you may or may not have that capability.
We draft everything in 3d. A few of our clients model/render for site plan presentations. On the Civil3d side they work in full 3d by default. They can create corridors, templates, profiles, alignments, cross sections, etc. from the 3d line work. I think it all works into the Infraworks work flow as well. Microstation is fully 3d and has been for a long time if not forever.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
John Putnam, post: 403194, member: 1188 wrote: Jim,
My SOP is to draft planimetric feature in 2D. It is just way easier to fillet and hatch in 2D. For features that can be used in the creation of DTMs, such as break lines and curbs, I include a 3D version of the line work on separate layers. Since most of my clients are engineering firms I also include the DTM lines and supporting info in my submittals.
John,
That's exactly how we do it. What annoys me is that routines like "Create line by point # range" draw in 3d mode. I have the "Flatten" command icon in several places to counter it...
Geez and here I am basically still drawing contours by hand..... and I'm a young guy that's very good with technology! With carleson I haven't fiddled with anything 3D. I don't create DTMs or TINs. I wonder if I would have to collect the data differently as well. Considering my professional career has just begun, it's something I should start to learn.
But I must add that in my area I don't think people are using or supplying 3D yet. Everything is 2D. At least for the small lot survey work I'm involved with.
