@rover83 ?ÿVery interesting. ?ÿSo say I do a topo for design. Bring in everything in TBC do the line work and of course the adjustment etc. Do you do the surface in TBC or export and what have you found the best way to export and finish up in civil 3d. So our engineers and such have a great product to design from. ?ÿSounds like you have figured out which tool does which better and have a great process down. ?ÿThank you. ?ÿI will take all I can info and recommendations for sure. ?ÿDeveloping good processes and streamline helps allow others in the flow more time to learn knew things to grow. Right now our cad person is swamped. ?ÿHe is doing adjusting f2f in civil 3d and its how its set up can??t do double coding which drives me nuts. ?ÿLike ep1 and ?ÿep2 st or begin etc. ?ÿdon??t know why but they say it cant be done. So were back to shooting something a few ?ÿtenths away all over the sites. That is time consuming for a drafter. ?ÿ To attach all of the lines. I figured if i build tbc i can use there existing code list and also assign all the line types and layers blocks etc to match there current civil 3d. Just import them in to the tbc feature code library. Saw some video on that. ?ÿ ?ÿ
. ?ÿLike ep1 and ?ÿep2 st or begin etc. ?ÿdon??t know why but they say it cant be done. So were back to shooting something a few ?ÿtenths away all over the sites. That is time consuming for a drafter. ?ÿ To attach all of the lines. I figured if i build tbc i can use there existing code list and also assign all the line types and layers blocks etc to match there current civil 3d. Just import them in to the tbc feature code library. Saw some video on that. ?ÿ ?ÿ
This definitely CAN be done in Civil3D.
There are some explanations in this thread.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/software-cad-mapping/civil-3d-point-description-coding/
?ÿ
Now my question is f2f before going to cad or just straight to civil 3d cad. ?ÿAnd do f2f there.
I've run it both ways. Both have their pros and cons.
C3D will do elevated curves, which I really like. There is an "on curve" line command that will automatically find the PC/PT and entry/exit tangents; I really wish TBC had the equivalent.
But setting up the survey database and linework processing can be a major pain, and if you have to fix codes or line commands, reloading the points and redrawing the lines is way more annoying than TBC. Sometimes it doesn't redraw correctly. In the end, most engineers/clients don't like survey figures, so those nice 3D curves are getting exploded or LISP'd into polylines, which is a whole 'nother step that can throw a wrench into surfaces and foul up deliverables.
The FXL feature code library you use in Access is designed to work with TBC; it's also more flexible if you need to modify your codelist.
If you're doing your QC in TBC, I would recommend processing linework there as well. Modify a code or line command, and just hit F4 to recompute and watch the lines redraw. Modifying in TBC is much easier than doing it in a CSV.
Using attributes and the optional free entry fields (Description1 and Description2) allows for three extra fields to be exported out of TBC and put into C3D to be displayed as additional labels for the Cogo Points. I add lots of notes and extra info during post processing so I barely have to refer back to the field notes during drafting. We have just about dialed in the attributes for our various codes so that monuments, vaults, signs, etc. have descriptive dynamic labels on import. Cuts way down on copy/pasting dozens of multileaders and manually typing in labels.
If cad techs are exploding survey figures, they are using a hammer to cut vegetables. Survey base maps should only be referenced in.?ÿ
"should" ?ÿ reality
Clients and engineers lift things from survey bases all the time. It may not be ideal or best practices, but it's common. If they're paying the bill, they often have at least some say in what they get.
It's also not always due to someone trying to copy/paste out of a survey base. Several of our larger clients (both public and private sector) can have staff with a mix of Autodesk products, from LT to C3D. It's not uncommon for us to have to explode/burst cogo points just so certain staff members can do their jobs with our deliverables, whether or not they are simply Xrefing them in.
On the flip side, some might argue that civil drawing files should only be referenced in by surveyors. But I lift surfaces, polylines, blocks (DATAEXTRACT) and even grading lines (directly to profiles which are QC'd and exported to XML/RXL for staking) all the time. I wouldn't want someone to give me a drawing file that I can't dig into and pull info from.
This definitely CAN be done in Civil3D.
There are some explanations in this thread.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/software-cad-mapping/civil-3d-point-description-coding/
Agreed. I prefer TBC, but C3D can certainly hold its own on the line coding front.
TBC is excellent at handling mixed data.
"Mixed data" meaning coming only from devices within the Trimble ecosystem, or from non-Trimble devices as well??ÿ When I looked very briefly at bringing SurvCE data into TBC for adjustment I didn't see an obvious path for accomplishing that.?ÿ I didn't spend much time trying to figure it out, as I settled on another solution, but if someone has already figured this out I'd like to hear about it.
I had a look at it when i tested the Carlson brx7 and found the RW5 export from the Carlson software had a lot of raw data that was visible in TBC after importing there. (Land)xml is probably another option.
?ÿ
@rover83 your experience, which is not done that way where I work. I??m sure there??s a lot of sloppy file and cad technique etiquette out there.
I am checking to see if any of y??all actually calculate the RPP and allowable RPP on ALTA Projects for the monuments/corners etc. ?ÿI read the standards and based off what I read ?ÿcreated a spreadsheet to perform the calculations long hand then compared them with the ALTA report in TBC and the numbers were the same. I also took the same traverse data and had it adjusted without the rtk data just total station data i. Civil 3d and performed the RPP and Allowable RPP from that data. It was not exact but the semi major axis didn??t come out exactly the same either. ?ÿI need to investigate what error weighting they have in civil 3d pre sets. ?ÿBut what I understand is one way to do it is if the correctly weighted minimum or unconstrained least squares is performed and is good. Then taking the semi major axis and squaring it plus the squares of any other point or points you want to ?ÿtest and the square root. This gives the actual RPP on that line or lines tested. Then I take the .07?? and add this to the scaler of 50ppm or 50/1000000 * the distance between the two said points being tested and that is added to the .07??. This gives the allowed RPP error then its just a ratio between the two RPP vs Allowable RPP. ?ÿIf TBC is correct and the way I read the math problem and dug through some old books TBC has made life easy. ?ÿBecause doing this in a spreadsheet and testing all corners of a property with many could get time consuming. I figured the better way for civil 3d would be to write some macros and pull from the adjustment report ?ÿand there is not just one report in civil 3d. ?ÿIf I am wrong on alta calcs please beat me down so I learn. ?ÿLol. Trying to get all this squared away so I can move this into production.?ÿ
@bobwesterman Yes, this can be done.?ÿ We run multiple codes?ÿ like EA1 EA2, or LP EC1 B EG3 EA4 etc....all day long every day with 95% of the linework autoconnected.?ÿ Point data is brought into TBC then exported as CSV files then imported to Civil3d.?ÿ Appropriately coded survey figures are turned breaklines, points are auto-populated into the surface point group and the surface is created. It's really quite seamless when all parts from field to office are in-sync.
I am checking to see if any of y??all actually calculate the RPP and allowable RPP on ALTA Projects for the monuments/corners etc. ?ÿI read the standards and based off what I read ?ÿcreated a spreadsheet to perform the calculations long hand then compared them with the ALTA report in TBC and the numbers were the same....?ÿ If TBC is correct and the way I read the math problem and dug through some old books TBC has made life easy.
Yes TBC has the correct calculations, I've tested them before as well.
But I would bet a year's salary that if you polled surveyors doing ALTAs, you would find less than half of them actually run the computations to confirm they meet RPP.
I find that strange since the ALTA certification says we are "in accordance" with the minimum standards, not "we might be in accordance if we bothered to check".
@rover83 well I believe you. ?ÿThey only read half the problem or definitions that the alta standards state. ?ÿI was told that because the alta states can be derived from least squares then that??s good enough. ?ÿWell it defines fairly clear how I approached it and if my old not very smart self came up with what Trimble has and now what you state is correct I reckon i am on the right track. ?ÿI was told by one company that they just look at the semi major axis and if it is less than .07 the. Its good. I said well thats not testing the error at both ends of the line between two points. ?ÿAnyway I feel comfortable now in my approach. I will continue to research and test TBC network adjustment until I am ready to place it in production. ?ÿI still looking to get a bit of training soon on it for sure. Thank you all.?ÿ