Training Preference: Civil 3D or TBC

It partially depends on just who is providing the training. But all else being equal I'd go for the C3d. That's the one you are likely to use the most.

we are having trouble getting TBC to do what we want. TGO did it, but TBC doesn't, or requires more steps. We havent jumped into Carlson full bore yet, but what we have tried, carlson has been more intuitive, has given us what we needed, and required much less effort on our part.

Those two, even when combined, are hardly field-to-finish.

I would be wanting training in both.

But if you are processing GNSS data you will be using TBC before feeding your numbers into Civil3D.

So TBC would come first for me.

Just my $0.02

If you already have a lot of people using C3D but no one who knows TBC then I would think that TBC makes a lot more sense. You can do FTF in either one of them, it's just a question of how you set it up and your workflow.

Yes, FTF is easier in Carlson, but I didn't see that presented as one of the options.

TBC will do almost everything TGO did, and the things it won't are relatively minor. TBC will also do a LOT of things that TGO won't. The number of comments I see disparaging TBC tells me that there is definitely a bad need for TBC training out there... maybe I should reconsider a consulting business.

Lee D, post: 382761, member: 7971 wrote: If you already have a lot of people using C3D but no one who knows TBC then I would think that TBC makes a lot more sense. You can do FTF in either one of them, it's just a question of how you set it up and your workflow.

Yes, FTF is easier in Carlson, but I didn't see that presented as one of the options.

TBC will do almost everything TGO did, and the things it won't are relatively minor. TBC will also do a LOT of things that TGO won't. The number of comments I see disparaging TBC tells me that there is definitely a bad need for TBC training out there... maybe I should reconsider a consulting business.

I haven't found anything TGO did that TBC doesn't do.

But it does them differently, and often requires more steps to get there.

It's also glitchy, very very glitchy.
I spend a lot more time checking, writing numbers down on paper to make sure nothing gets changed.
Yes, I think you should consider that consulting business

I would go with the tbc training. There is a lot more info on the internet youtube etc on civil 3d.

TBC rightfully earned itself a bad reputation when it was released. They rushed version 1.0 to market because they came out with the GNSS receivers and TGO couldn't handle GLONASS data; it really couldn't do anything except baseline processing and network adjustment. Version 1.11 was the first one that was even decent, but with every subsequent revision they made substantial changes. They could still do a much better job with certain things; I'd love to have a long conversation with their product manager. I also wish they'd figure out that we don't use meters in the US and that if my project units are set to US Feet then I want EVERYTHING exported and reported in US Feet. By no means is it perfect, but neither is anything else.

I have to second the TBC training route. There is so much material for civil3d available online, through coworkers, books, etc

jim.cox, post: 382733, member: 93 wrote: Those two, even when combined, are hardly field-to-finish.

I am a little surprised that they are not "field to finish"? How so? I do not like that term very much, Some people think it means a person that can work in the office and field.

There's no question that you can do "field to finish" with either of them, it's just a question of how much time and effort you want to put into setting it up. To me, FTF means layering, drawing and labeling lines, and drawing and labeling symbols. Both TBC and C3D will do all of the above.

Mark Mayer, post: 382715, member: 424 wrote: It partially depends on just who is providing the training. But all else being equal I'd go for the C3d. That's the one you are likely to use the most.

I echo Mark's Sentiments. TBC has many little details and workflows for what you need it to do. make sure your training includes and is tailored to what you want. Make sure their is post training Q and A allowed from the trainer and a good set of step by step workflows provided. I would recommend communicating back and forth with the trainer before hand to make sure the class will have all you need.

TBC over Civ 3d. There are lots of Civ3d training materials out there and at it's core it is Autocad so there is a work around for most things if needed.

The best scenario for TBC training - at least if it's me who's doing the training - would be for you to submit a list of what all you currently use it for (with any questions you have) as well as a list of what you'd like to be able to do with it. That at least gives me a starting point. You don't want "training" from someone who has a canned presentation that may or may not suit your needs.

Thanks for the input guys. I'm still kind of on the fence since I see the pros and cons for learning each software. But you've given me more to think about that will help with my decision.

BOTH! I use both daily and It is very important to understand what TBC is "doing" before taking the data to C3d.
As far as the field to finish, C3d training is a must. My $0.02 though, use some sort of standard. From field codes to layer names and symbols. Using C3d, standards will only make things easier. Also, use the power of C3d, don't explode things to "make them work". Embrace the ribbon, it's not going away anytime soon.
Good luck either way!
T