cptdent, post: 395092, member: 527 wrote: 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.
With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about me, my background, my company, our workflows, or the type of work we do, and you're making invalid assumptions. I'll leave it at that.
Lee D, post: 395140, member: 7971 wrote: With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about me, my background, my company, our workflows, or the type of work we do, and you're making invalid assumptions. I'll leave it at that.
Lee,
I think he knows a little bit about you. You post on RPLStoday, You are in Houma, La, you play the guitar, and you dont use field to finish.
I do agree there is a time saver in field to finish, it takes me less than 5 mins to have CAD draw my field to finish line work and insert the symbols, if you have points that do not need line work or symbols then why go thru that step. It also takes a second or so to add the 1, beg, pc, end to the codes, however I do that walking to the next point or while the rodman is walking so I do not consider that to add any time to field to finish.
I say again. The real benefit to F2f is not speed, but quality control. Who can't benefit from that?
Norman Oklahoma, post: 395163, member: 9981 wrote: I say again. The real benefit to F2f is not speed, but quality control. Who can't benefit from that?
This. It's six of one, half dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned relative to project completion. Spend longer in the field, less time in the office, but what you eliminate substantially is guesswork.
I like the way that C3D works as regards reusing codes, you can manually end a string(chain) on the last shot if you like (EP.1 E) but I rarely do because if you begin a code that is already running then it assumes that the last shot on that code was an end (EP.1 B------------EP.1--------EP.1-----------EP.1 EP.1 B----------EP.1----------EP.1). I only use the B (begin) code to break lines because all of my codes are in the figure prefix library so as soon as C3D sees one it automatically begins the string(chain) so rather than think about whether or not to end a chain on a given shot I make that decision the next time i want to use that code and either add a new one or begin the old one again.
Lee D, post: 395140, member: 7971 wrote: With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about me, my background, my company, our workflows, or the type of work we do, and you're making invalid assumptions. I'll leave it at that.
And you know nothing about me. I have been doling cartographic drafting, engineering drafting and survey drafting professionally since 1968. I have worked for the Corps of Engineers on active duty, Michael Baker Jr, Inc. for 6+ 1/2 years and Maptech, Inc. for 36 yrears. In that time I have mapped Viet Nam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, I have done topos of Guantanamo, Cuba and when Maptech was owned by Ballard and Associates, I worked projects all over Louisiana, from pipe line survey to topos, to right of way, to New Orleans Corps projects. I say all of that to say this; in ALL of that time I never saw ONE instance where field to finish would not have increased production and profits, not to mention providing a superior product to the client. And I'll leave it at that.
flyin solo, post: 395165, member: 8089 wrote: ...what you eliminate substantially is guesswork....
Also correct, orderly layer-izing and consistent point descriptions.
I just made the switch from LDD where I connected the dots to Civil3D about 3 months ago. I have a chief that came from a company doing F2F and knows how and is willing to properly code the project.
I have gone from days of connect dots and labeling text to hours.
With a little setup time of my drawing template now everything comes in drawn and labeled. Basically all I need to do is review the drawing, draw and evaluate the boundary, create a surface and move labels around.
It truly is a time saver and produces an excellent product. When I bring in a topo now all my invert elevs, MH, DI, every symbol has is appropriate label. It is Great.
The main thing with F2F is you have to trust your chief to care about the end product as much as you do. If your chief doesn't care when you import you will get junk. And have to connect dots.
My business partner's chief is that way and no matter what I say or do he will not change.
He no longer does any of my work.
flyin solo, post: 395165, member: 8089 wrote: This. It's six of one, half dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned relative to project completion. Spend longer in the field, less time in the office, but what you eliminate substantially is guesswork.
I disagree. Good F2F coding takes seconds longer in the field and saves hours in the office. I'd be lost without my fast data collection.
One of the beauties about FTF is You are in control. You can make it work to your customisation.
Different jobs can be respectfully treated the way you want the outcome.
I'm not suggesting each job is a free for all, rather different types of jobs for differing purposes can be coded and line joined to suit. That's if the need arises.
I'd suggest those that hadn't seen value in it give it a whirl and not just a brief frustrating fling.
You will be fortunate if you get it off pat first up. I still have minor hiccups. Mostly that's down to misunderstanding between my offsider and me.
On a robotic setup then you really are 100 in control.
John. Birner, post: 393555, member: 12084 wrote: Being fairly new to f2f. I understand he concept, but my problem is trying to remember what bc, top, toe,eg,ea line # im on.
A little late, but you don't really need to number your lines, if you don't feel like it. I've been doing F2F for 20 years, but only recently tried the numbering thing, doing cross-sections. Mostly I'd begin a line and run it to it's end, then start another one, so the old line would end when I began the next, and there's no need to number. I'm not a really young guy either, but feel that I can topo a site faster than most, even doing it this way.
There is no need to do a line from start to finish, for instance street cross sections.
Think of a template, starting at the end of the street:
Ground, outside of sidewalk, back top of curb, front bottom of curb, gutter line if needed, center line, etc.
Coded G1 W1 T1 B1 L1 C L2 B2 T2 W2 G2 then G2 to G1.
F2F will string all your G1 shots as the numbers increment.
Anything not in the cross section you shoot normal ING, INT, SMH, WV, GV, FH, UP.
Now a driveway you can string all together, and break up at the end of day:
D at drop curb, D at line break in ramp, D at back of sidewalk, D at distance from street along the G line.
OR you could string each driveway separately using D plus the house number, D326 for as many shots as it takes.
similarly you could string sidewalks to houses, S326 etc.
If it is only occasional do not even worry about a code table in the directory, let the CAD software connect the dots.
For more than 90% of survey work, more than one page of code is overkill. Street cross sections require only a business card.
I set up my first F2F in 1992. I told the boss it would cost him a couple of hours and a couple of pizzas. Filed crew, draftsmen engineers and surveyor around the table. When the pizza was gone the list was done. Anything that had to be added was up to the field crew, but occasionally one had to ask to find out that DC meant dead cat.
Paul in PA
By setting up sequence codes for typical cross sections, you'll only need to use one code for all shots. For example a 9 shot road section comprised of SW1, TC1, FL1, EG1, CL, EG2, FL2,TC2, SW2 can all be shot with one code that I'll call R9 for a 9 shot road section. You can still break off and shoot poles, valves trees etc. and then come back to your sections. The only thing to watch is make sure you have the exact number of shots coded R9, one too many or one too few will mess it up. You can customize it to to how you shoot them too, starting at the 1 side of the road and then 2 side and then 2 side to 1 side or always 1 to 2 sides. Sequences can be as simple as two shots and no upper limit . . Works for me.
The sites I typically work don't lend themselves to automated sections - there are too many trees and other obstructions that get in the way. Instead, I usually run out feature lines, sometimes getting full sections where I can, but more often not.
I also find that things look better when run in lines. Sometimes the linework looks a little choppy and things are missed sometimes when people do it in sections.
I think that just doing it in lines, and not spending the time thinking about how you're going to do it, might be part of it.
Now if we're talking a ditch or stream in thorns or thick brush, yeah, then I'll do it the other way, so I don't have to take multiple trips back into it.
I've spent the majority of the last 2 weeks trying to rescue a poorly collected project. mostly collected as GRND, 14000+ points, 2300+ chains (1200 of them duplicates)..... 6.5 miles, ... I figured I was close to done so today I built the .tin and contours check.. I see I still have some stuff to connect.
My feelings on coding in the field......
It depends; started using f2f in the mid80s, still use it and have been for a long time, but there are jobs where it's not the best way. Just staked two from topos that were not f2f collected, it would have been slower to code it that way.
Rankin_File, post: 396378, member: 101 wrote: I've spent the majority of the last 2 weeks trying to rescue a poorly collected project. mostly collected as GRND, 14000+ points, 2300+ chains (1200 of them duplicates)..... 6.5 miles, ... I figured I was close to done so today I built the .tin and contours check.. I see I still have some stuff to connect.
My feelings on coding in the field......
Seems a bit odd, all of your contour elevation labels have 4 digits, are you on some kind of assumed datum? :8ball: lol
:restricted::copyright::restricted:
Rankin_File, post: 396378, member: 101 wrote: I figured I was close to done so today I built the .tin and contours check.. I see I still have some stuff to connect.
I've done just enough Microstation/Inroads to really appreciate the DTM editing functions of LDD and C3d, which Inroads lacks.
Randy Rain, post: 396438, member: 35 wrote: Seems a bit odd, all of your contour elevation labels have 4 digits, are you on some kind of assumed datum? :8ball: lol
:restricted::copyright::restricted:
I was thinking the same thing... many surveys I do end up having negative contours. ..
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk