I think there are some real benefits to using Civil 3D, but Carlson is pretty good, too, and is probably an easier move from Terramodel.
There may also be significant benefit to running on Map 3D, as opposed to AutoCAD or Intellicad (and I'm pretty sure Carlson will work on Map 3D). Although Carlson is starting to do much of the same stuff, and does a few things better. I DEFINITELY find a lot more value in running on AutoCAD, as opposed to Intellicad, but that comes at a big price increase, too. There's probably no reason to run Carlson on Civil 3D.
It all depends on how you wish to work, and what you do. Civil 3D has benefits, with greater power and flexibility, but at the cost of a greater learning curve. And there are some aspects of Civil 3D Survey that are brain-dead. Those problems can be worked around, but we shouldn't have to do that in a package like Civil 3D.
My son is a CE and started using AutoCad civil 3d in Jan. HATES IT. Other engineers in the company call it "virtual" 3d.
And at $6k/seat per year it ain't cheap.
Many on the autocad blog site complain that they are paying good money to beta test autocad's programs.
Many commands from the earlier versions are either gone or require 3-4times as many keystrokes to do the command.
forget stand-alone ACAD and get the Carlson with ACAD embed if you must have it. Then spend the remaining $7500 on travel, accomodations and training at Carlson HQ for a week. You may still end up with enough money to hit Disneyland or Vegas. I admit my bias, though; I have been a Carlson (acad embed) user since 2004. We also have, and use terramodel in our office as well as Boston Harbor which runs on stand-alone Autocad. I would seriously consider, then reconsider any decision to purchase stand alone Autocad. I just don't see it unless you are needing multiple licenses for it anyhow, and which would be used by architects or mech engineers. We recently upgraded to Carlson Survey 2012 from 2006 and we are very pleased. I demo'd both ICAD and aCAD embed. My reason for the Acad over Icad was familiarity. Besides the salesman, talk with Jim Reinbold (sp?), the Carlson rep. and discuss these issues with him. He is very responsive.
> Many on the autocad blog site complain that they are paying good money to beta test autocad's programs.
HAH! Autocad has been in a virtual state of beta-testing since its inception. I love how they have tried to dry up the 3rd party markets over the decades by purchasing and subsequently ending support for them.
It's not $6K/seat/year...
In fact, I think the $6K is ONLY when you first purchase the Infrastructure Suite... You can get plain C3D for less. I can't give you exact numbers - you'd have to talk to a reseller for that.
But then in later years, you DO pay about $1K/seat for your annual "subscription fee". And yes, you end up being an unpaid beta-tester... Something I constantly rail at Autodesk about. The 2013 release is a good example... 2012 was pretty good, but people have been finding lots of bugs in the 2013 release. I know someone who ONLY uses the even-year releases, and skips all odd-year releases, because this pattern has gone on for a while...
C3D is something of a beast to learn, especially if you're trying to do it without training. But once you "get it", you can do INCREDIBLE amounts of work in very short periods of time (FAR faster than in earlier programs), to a higher degree of quality and consistency, and much of it actually ends up being fun. It all depends on your approach and attitude (and ability to get over that initial learning curve).
They show signs of changing that attitude. These days, they're focusing on the "App Store" paradigm. They're starting to view C3D as the "core platform", then setup a C3D App Store where 3rd-party developers can extend the software in various directions. This is geared toward making a more-affordable "core platform", yet allowing individual users to customize C3D in any way that 3rd-party developers can envision. You can just add-on the apps that help YOU. It's a far-more economical paradigm (for end-users) than trying to include every possible feature in core C3D, and raising the price of C3D to account for it, when many users may find no value in many of the features.
Some corporate or marketing idiot at Autodesk may eventually butt in and ruin this, but it seems like the direction most Autodesk personnel are heading these days. So hopefully it will last.
> Carlson does not support the *.LSP file format.
Just a quick clarification...
Carlson Survey with Embedded "OEM" AutoCAD does not support the addition of custom LSP routines (or any other customized routines) per contractual obligations with Autodesk regarding the use of the AutoCAD OEM engine.
However, Carlson operating with "production" versions of AutoCAD and/or IntelliCAD DO allow customized routines (including LSP) to be added into the CAD environment.
--
Ladd Nelson
> HAH! Autocad has been in a virtual state of beta-testing since its inception. I love how they have tried to dry up the 3rd party markets over the decades by purchasing and subsequently ending support for them.
Witness their CAiCE purchase a few years ago. They swore they'd integrate CAiCE into ACAD pronto, but all they did was end support for CAiCE (and made the original CAiCE developers, who were operating out of a garage, rich); leaving firms with huge investments in CAiCE with software that's become obsolete.
Not that that's a bad thing, CAiCE was a ridiculously overpriced unstable piece of crap from the get-go.
It is interesting, this software debate. I enjoy reading your posts Richard, you are fair, give credits to manufacturers where due and the other side of the medal too.
Anyway, it's a huge investment for an office, a CAD software.
- Do we purchase a piece of software as a promotional tool or as an investment for a more productive CAD environment?
- Do we clearly define our scope of work in order to come to the conclusion that: "Yes, this is the software we need and those are the reasons why" or do we simply keep up with the Jones.
- Do we need a said software in order to achieve quality and consistency; couldn't we obtain the same by following standard operating procedures.
- Will our software choice have a negative effect on our health? (Seems to be a recurring comment by posters)
- Will these great bells and whistles be used often or once in a blue moon?
- Is our final choice in agreement with our business plan?
Final decision should be well thought.
The purchase of CAiCE was more like a decade ago. And yes, they did pretty much kill it, in favor of C3D.
>
Definitely, you should go with a more-productive CAD environment. NEVER believe the hype. But that makes your work much more involved, as there are lots of software manufacturers who hype that their new product is the "best". And while some are good for some users, it depends on what YOU do, as well as your level of expertise. Something like Civil 3D can be very beneficial, but it can also involve a significant level of training. Some other software isn't as capable, but it might not involve much training, and if it fills your needs, then it is clearly a better choice. The difficulty is in discerning the difference, without learning every piece of software available. Will you REALLY use C3D...? Or will something like Traverse PC do you just fine? Or do you want something like Microsurvey, which just acquired Star*Net...? Or should you split the decision, and go with Carlson? It's a difficult question for most to answer.
>
That's the best way, but as I said above, it can be very difficult and time-consuming to come to a real analysis of what all the different packages can do. And if you choose the wrong solution, you may find yourself losing so much time in "data conversion" that you lose any benefits you may have gained from buying a low-priced solution.
>
In a way... But that's one of the great strengths of Civil 3D. It involves a hefty learning curve, and an investment in creating all your Styles. But once you achieve a certain point, the software itself encourages consistency, and tends to force everyone to create drawings to the same standards automatically, without them even realizing it. Standards become "automatic", because it's such a pain to create new Styles all the time. So once you have all your Styles set in your template, it's far easier to just use the existing Styles. That results in automatic standards compliance. If you have to train your users to comply, then that's a whole different story. It also helps that the C3D Styles give you an incredible amount of flexibility at the same time, so you can create some REALLY NEAT looking drawings, with a high level of control over appearance, at the same time as enforcing "automatic standards". This is one of the benefits of getting over that C3D learning curve.
> Final decision should be well thought.
Yep... I think C3D is the most-powerful, but it has its drawbacks as well, and may not be the right choice for everybody. I view Carlson as close behind, and can do several things better than C3D (just as C3D can do several things better than Carlson), not quite as flexible and powerful, but easier to learn, and slightly cheaper (much cheaper, if you want to go with the Intellicad version, and forgo all the neat time-saving AutoCAD features that are missing from Intellicad). Then there are other choices that are even cheaper, and may serve you as well, depending on your desires and line-of-work. There is no one answer that serves everyone.
It can be a difficult decision to make.
It's not really a difficult decision.
(1) Will the software do everything I need to do?
[a] Yes
{b} No
(2) Of all of the above, which fits the budget better?
The final call is all about the Benjamins in today's economy. Buy the package that fills your needs. No need to buy an expensive package that contains tools that you will never use.
Sure, it's cool to be able to say "I use Product X, like everyone else", but when you are saying that in the unemployment line because Product X was so expensive that your company went bust, then that ain't too cool at all.