Joe the Surveyor, post: 393593, member: 118 wrote: any videos out there y'all can point me to to see if F2F would work for me?
Go to Youtube and query "Civil3d Field to Finish". There are several good ones, no great ones. But in a hour or so you should be a lot smarter about F2F.
Oh - don't bother with any video 2011 or prior. There was a big change in the functionality (big improvement, IMO) with C3d2011, rendering older advise almost useless.
Mark Mayer, post: 393597, member: 424 wrote: Go to Youtube and query "Civil3d Field to Finish". There are several good ones, no great ones. But in a hour or so you should be a lot smarter about F2F.
Oh - don't bother with any video 2011 or prior. There was a big change in the functionality (big improvement, IMO) with C3d2011, rendering older advise almost useless.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I really haven't been out in the field in over ten years, but when I ran F2F, I ran all my lines at once. For me it wasn't that difficult to keep track. Worst case scenario for a boulevard section with monolithic curb and gutters and sidewalks is that you would have 4 BC lines, 4 gutter lines, 4 EP lines, and 4 SW lines, and a boulevard crown line. I always would do my topo from south to north, or from west to east, and would start on the left side, so for example on a south-north road my SW1 and SW2 were on the west side and SW3 and SW4 were on the east side. Tied everything as part of my cross sections, and never doubled back for anything.
My present company doesn't do surveying, but my last job I worked with five crews and they all ran their lines at once also, even if not as OCD as I did. There was one guy who struggled with it occasionally, but I suggested to him to do as Warren Smith said, which is to write it in his field book.
BlitzkriegBob, post: 393615, member: 9554 wrote: Worst case scenario for a boulevard section with monolithic curb and gutters and sidewalks is that you would have 4 BC lines, 4 gutter lines, 4 EP lines, and 4 SW lines, and a boulevard crown line.
I wish it were that regular around here. A lot of my topos are on a university campus, with flatwork and stairways going every which way, different styles of handicap ramps on every intersection corner, and trees, sculpture, buildings and parked vehicles necessitating lots of setups to get each linework feature. It's pretty slow going most of the time.
Getting off topic.
One aspect of topo surveys in urban areas is how much stuff we collect is really relevant?
Take a re-sheet or reconstruction of a road, pavement.
If kerbs and footpaths are going to be ripped out one can spend more time locating those to the cm than the whole job probably needs.
Maybe a centreline and back edge of footpath then stuff beyond.
Obviously services etc need locating.
I've done a lot of such jobs, laboriously located kerbs and footpaths when they just end up as road fill elsewhere.
One could argue in the big picture it's minor to the overall project cost plus "it's all the same rate", but I've better things to do than collect useless data.
Nowadays I quiz the recipient and we get to the crux of the job and the needs and outcomes.
There's a level of satisfaction that goes with a job that is tailor made to customers desires and outcomes.
I've just completed 1.6km road reconstruction survey that I'll also have input into design.
Talking with and working with clients who think beyond the box of conventions demands is very rewarding and refreshing.
So maybe kerb edge, kerb invert, back of kerb etc aren't always needed.
But when they are this is where a good template system built into the field collection software is an imperative menu item.
Dan Patterson, post: 392992, member: 1179 wrote: I know that is a Carlson term, but how many of you are doing this either through Carlson or some other way? A while back I created a pretty detailed FCL file for my data collector, but I kind of only used it to keep track of where I was on a job and stuff like that. Today I performed some as-built work with a lot of tricky angles of concrete sidewalks, curbs, pavers, etc. I took the time to carefully code the line features and I am amazed how good it came out. I think I may start using this all the time. I imported the DXF file from today into my DWG and the lines I wanted as 3D are 3D and the 2D ones are 2D. This is a huge time saver.
I always used to make the argument that it's not worth the extra time spent in the field, but it might be after all......I'll have to admit that I might have been wrong.....
We used to do this a long time ago through TDS, but it seemed a lot more clunky to me back then. I also realized I didn't have to code top of curb 17 and I could've just used the begin and end line command. I think with a bit of practice one could get very efficient with this.
My son works for an engineering company in Central Texasish and he says they love it. If you topo for a living, it's gotta be great. [USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER] showed me years ago theirs and I watched it import the raw data and draw all the linework with just a bit of tweaking he was done. Not too shabby. For me, I can't get my crews to use the descriptor files so we do it slightly different and no F2F here. We don't topo for a living though.
Mostly what we do is we topo like hell for 8 hours, quit, go back, I reduce the data and draw the breaklines that evening and see the holes. When I walk off the job the last day I'm done (and I know I'm done). Takes about an hour a night to reduce and draw about 1000 shots the way we do it.
I just now stopped one of our techs from drafting point to point. Even a gps text file can be run through F2F in civil 3d as long as it's coded right. 5 minutes versus an hour. Use the extra 55 minutes to make sure the boundary is right!
I always kind of liked keeping up with the line codes. It gave my mind something to do during a monotonous topo survey. I watch the screen to make sure things draw correctly. It's a powerful tool.
I use different data collection now that draws lines and curves in real time without needing codes. The draw back to this approach is that you typically want to draw out an entire feature before switching to a new one. It's not mandatory, but it's easier. The upside is that there is no coding required. For a route survey, I think line codes would probably be superior. For a site topo, I think the codeless approach is better.
Either way, I got to a point that I didn't keep any field book with F2F. I carried one for a few years and never used it. Then I just decided to quit carrying it. Now I keep a field book with me, but it's really just a rugged notepad for jotting down a sketch or a note when needed. Nothing like what I did pre F2F
Kris Morgan, post: 393633, member: 29 wrote: Mostly what we do is we topo like hell....
Your method is, of course, mostly what all people who aren't using field to finish do. I have no doubt that you connect the dots pretty quickly. But if you are achieving uniformity in your CAD standard it is because you have rather highly trained and dedicated individuals doing all the work. It is going to be difficult for new hires to catch on to your process or your CAD standard -ie/ both the look and the underlying organization of your drawings - is going to suffer. Is it possible that you are not doing more topos because your clients are finding the CAD standard of your work product disorganized? Or are you spending loads of time doing that organization manually?
Field to finish is just not that difficult. A few weeks of effort and pain to implement. Years of benefits. By the time you've completed your 3rd topo using it you will regret not having done it sooner, IMO.
I appreciate the symbols being drawn almost as much as I do the linework being connected. I can see what everything was by the symbols. I also have a generic symbol that I draw for things I don't have a code for so that I know I need to address it when I get back to the office.
[USER=424]@Mark Mayer[/USER] I totally agree that is shouldn't be that difficult. Years ago, I'd made up a descriptor file. Showed the crews how to use it yadda yadda yadda. Today, the files are still in there and the job I'm working on, with the same IMan, has 4 different descriptors for 1/2" steel rods found. Why? I can yell, bitch and even fire the guys, but at the end of the day, it's still going to be this way. New hires get special training on them and before long, I get the same thing.
I'd love to have accurate descriptors so I could implement F2F for topo, asbuilts, et cetera, but I've yet to be able to figure out the paradigm shift that needs to take place to have the crews fix it. Sad but true. I'm sure most of it is my fault for not pushing, but it's just a job, it's just a descriptor, I don't topo for a living, and life is short, so I don't fight unless I have to.
Kris Morgan, post: 393666, member: 29 wrote: [USER=424]@Mark Mayer[/USER] I totally agree that is shouldn't be that difficult. Years ago, I'd made up a descriptor file. Showed the crews how to use it yadda yadda yadda. Today, the files are still in there and the job I'm working on, with the same IMan, has 4 different descriptors for 1/2" steel rods found. Why? I can yell, bitch and even fire the guys, but at the end of the day, it's still going to be this way. New hires get special training on them and before long, I get the same thing.
I'd love to have accurate descriptors so I could implement F2F for topo, asbuilts, et cetera, but I've yet to be able to figure out the paradigm shift that needs to take place to have the crews fix it. Sad but true. I'm sure most of it is my fault for not pushing, but it's just a job, it's just a descriptor, I don't topo for a living, and life is short, so I don't fight unless I have to.
One thing about using descriptions is you can have four different codes go in and have only one come out, I code my jobs and sometimes I use DCL for ditch centerline or I may use CLD another day, but in the end they both windup the same in the drawing because I have both codes in the descriptions.
Ed
ekillo, post: 393692, member: 773 wrote: One thing about using descriptions is you can have four different codes go in and have only one come out...
BINGO!
I have everything defined as an alpha code, and also as a numeric code.
A few years ago, I worked for a surveying company (as a cad tech) processing data from the field crews. We had software (forget which package) to do the line work for us in the office.
Typically I would find that two line segments would not meet due to the shots being taken in slightly different spots. I asked if I should connect the lines, told "no, it's good enough the way it is".
To me, that is sloppy work on the drafting end of things. Of course the field crews can not get the connecting shots exact, they will be off hopefully less than 0.1'.
John, post: 393703, member: 791 wrote: A few years ago, I worked for a surveying company (as a cad tech) processing data from the field crews. We had software (forget which package) to do the line work for us in the office.
Typically I would find that two line segments would not meet due to the shots being taken in slightly different spots. I asked if I should connect the lines, told "no, it's good enough the way it is".
To me, that is sloppy work on the drafting end of things. Of course the field crews can not get the connecting shots exact, they will be off hopefully less than 0.1'.
It helps to double code those shots, Like EA1 TD1 or EC1 EA1
John, post: 393703, member: 791 wrote: Of course the field crews can not get the connecting shots exact, they will be off hopefully less than 0.1'.
I run into this a lot when I have to end a line because I can't continue it from a setup due to site line limitations. It may be hours or days before I can pick it up again from another setup, so it doesn't make sense to leave the line open. Even though the two shots may only be a few hundredths apart, I take the time to join the linework once back in the office.
Jim Frame, post: 393727, member: 10 wrote: I run into this a lot when I have to end a line because I can't continue it from a setup due to site line limitations. It may be hours or days before I can pick it up again from another setup, so it doesn't make sense to leave the line open. Even though the two shots may only be a few hundredths apart, I take the time to join the linework once back in the office.
We use the Carlson Surveyor + data collectors and if you leave a line open, it will treat it as a ended line. In fact I leave more lines open then ended.
What I usually do is use the same number for lines. Like ESW100, BC100, FL100, EP100 ect. It is easier to remember. If I have many breaklines I use numbers in sequence. I usually start at 100. Using Survey Pro as you type in descriptors the smallest come first, so you can use 099, 098 ect. and if you have a line that only has a few shots 101 102 ect. I am a beginner on Civil 3d and haven't used the F2F other than to play with data, I liked the point on curve feature. Many times in the field if you pick the PC and PT, then when you get to the office it doesn't look right so you have to fix it manually anyway. I am doing the line work in Carlson right now and cutting and pasting the 3d polylines into Civil 3d for my surface model.
Lee D, post: 393018, member: 7971 wrote: I think it just depends on your business model and the type of work you do; it doesn't really make sense for us in most cases.
Really?? If you really knew how to use it, you would have a different opinion.
I have NEVER seen any case where it did not make sense to use F2F. I've been drawing maps for 44 years now and F2F is simply the most powerful tool I have been offered in all of that time.
No offense, but, if you do not know how to use the software, doesn't mean that the software is bad. I would strongly suggest that you get That Cad Girls book on F2F or the books from cadapult .com by Rick Ellis. Those will give you a good start. Then find someone locally that can train you on the specific tasks that you use. It will be well worth the money.
Anyone in the Mississippi area can call me for training services. I'll even slide over into East Louisiana or West Alabama.If you have any software package and don't really know how to use it, you have wasted your money. Look, I a, a 69 year old, Jabba the Hutt looking, Mississippi Red Neck, and if I can figure this stuff out, ANYONE can.
Scott Ellis, post: 393730, member: 7154 wrote: We use the Carlson Surveyor + data collectors and if you leave a line open, it will treat it as a ended line. In fact I leave more lines open then ended.
I tend to reuse line designators (e.g. EP1, EP2) so if I don't end a line there's a good chance that I'll inadvertently continue the line when I reuse the designator later. If I leave it open but don't reuse the code it's not a problem.