This morning, I noticed a job posting from a local survey looking for a Civil3D drafting tech. It made me wonder why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
I do have to admit that I myself that my exposure to Civil3D is limited. I demoed Civil3D when it first came out to see how we would transition from the Land Development Desktop that we were using at the time. I could see the benefits Civil3D would have for the Engineering department, but with the survey tools I was not impressed. We decided to go the Carlson route which gave us a continuity with our workflow from field (Carlson SurvCE) to finish (Carlson Survey). If the engineering department wanted it in Civil3D, we would just export our surfaces, points and alignments into a LandXML file for them to import and away they went.
So, why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
It does everything I need to do...
Civil3D is a blend of awesome and horrible. I agree it is less Survey friendly than any prior version of CADD. If we worked on nothing but boundaries I wouldn't use it.
In the end I can't justify using more than the 2 packages we already have. Both are commonly called out in specs, so we figure it out. So my answer is, as long as I'm feeding Engineers it will be Civil3D...
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406244, member: 6939 wrote: I demoed Civil3D when it first came out....
C3d 2017 is a very much more mature product than the earliest iterations of it were. You might want to take another look. If you are thinking about moving from LDD to C3d there is now a huge F2f upgrade in C3d which were introduced c2011. Yuuuge.
There are point cloud tools in there that may be of use to some.
Mostly a surveyor uses C3d because the engineers he is producing maps for is using it. It does have very good F2f and surfacing functions. Other than that it is not surveyor friendly at all. FWIW, neither was LDD. Nor Softdesk.
Most of the job postings around here list certain software or equipment requirements, which I think is dumb. You are limiting your applicant pool to either people with the specific experience or people who are willing to lie about it. A software program is just a tool and a good surveyor will be able to learn to use that tool. Just my two cents
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406244, member: 6939 wrote: This morning, I noticed a job posting from a local survey looking for a Civil3D drafting tech. It made me wonder why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
I do have to admit that I myself that my exposure to Civil3D is limited. I demoed Civil3D when it first came out to see how we would transition from the Land Development Desktop that we were using at the time. I could see the benefits Civil3D would have for the Engineering department, but with the survey tools I was not impressed. We decided to go the Carlson route which gave us a continuity with our workflow from field (Carlson SurvCE) to finish (Carlson Survey). If the engineering department wanted it in Civil3D, we would just export our surfaces, points and alignments into a LandXML file for them to import and away they went.
So, why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
I've fed engineers Carlson files for over 5 years without a hitch. You give a consistent- and consistently good- product to engineers and they won't care what software you use. I'd rather work in something where the designers at least had me in mind than in something where my needs are no more than an afterthought. I can drive nails with a shoe, but a hammer works much better.
flyin solo, post: 406253, member: 8089 wrote: You give a consistent- and consistently good- product to engineers and they won't care what software you use.
I would word that "You give a consistent- and consistently good- product to engineers and they will put up with file conversion hassles." Until they find someone who will give them good service, product, and a file format which doesn't require conversion.
A dwg doesn't require conversion. A TIN has to be imported as xml, but that's pretty much true unless you're working in exactly the same version of the same software your client/engineer uses. An XML export/import is like an extra 5 seconds of work- I fail to see how it even qualifies as conversion. Maybe I've just been working with engineers who are easy to please, but I don't think so.
No problem with Carlson, it will take it's perfect files and muck them up for anyone else's software to use.
Paul in PA
Mark Mayer, post: 406248, member: 424 wrote: Mostly a surveyor uses C3d because the engineers he is producing maps for is using it. It does have very good F2f and surfacing functions. Other than that it is not surveyor friendly at all. FWIW, neither was LDD. Nor Softdesk.
Civil 3D has some very powerful engineering tools that are second to none. An engineer who is doing design work can use a civil 3D topo and hit the ground running with no conversions or potential for potential for data to be "lost in translation"...something no possible with Carlson drawings.
I also think the idea that C3D isn't surveyor friendly is a myth - a myth (unintentionally) created by Autodesk. I find Civil 3D far more user friendly for surveyors than Carlson ever could be. There are a ton of tools, shortcuts, and features that make drafting and calculating a streamlined, efficient process free of most errors. The problem is that Autodesk buries these features, or puts out official "training programs" that make the process FAR more complicated than it is.
After attending several Autodesk Civil 3D training sessions, I taught myself easier, better ways to do the survey drafting I needed to do - using the features included in the program (but not advertised, and in some cases buried).
It does everything we need it to do such as field to finish automatic linework and breaklines, stores all my survey data in a easy to find and track system, it's surface creation tools are 2nd to none IMO, it creates structured and formatted legals and most importantly it is compatible with every engineering firm we supply data too.
Does it have it's flaw, yes. Does it take alot of setup? of course! Does it work well once it's setup? Of course.
If i was just doing boundary type work i would definitely not recommend it as it is very expensive. But surveyors do such a variety of work that one style does not fit all and once must figure out what works best for them. For us, it is Civil3d by a mile!
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406259, member: 6294 wrote: Does it have it's flaw, yes. Does it take alot of setup? of course! Does it work well once it's setup? Of course.
The setup is actually one of the strengths of the program. You can create a few styles, then add more, or edit them easily if the need arises (which changes everything globally!). And once you hand the drawing off to clients, they can "drag and drop" their own styles in the drawing so they are seeing data in the way they are used to seeing it - which is great marketing/customer service of nothing else.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406244, member: 6939 wrote: This morning, I noticed a job posting from a local survey looking for a Civil3D drafting tech. It made me wonder why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
I do have to admit that I myself that my exposure to Civil3D is limited. I demoed Civil3D when it first came out to see how we would transition from the Land Development Desktop that we were using at the time. I could see the benefits Civil3D would have for the Engineering department, but with the survey tools I was not impressed. We decided to go the Carlson route which gave us a continuity with our workflow from field (Carlson SurvCE) to finish (Carlson Survey). If the engineering department wanted it in Civil3D, we would just export our surfaces, points and alignments into a LandXML file for them to import and away they went.
So, why would a surveyor want to use Civil3D?
If you are exporting XML surface and point files for use by your engineering department you are severely limiting your firms ability. It's kind of like a marathon runner cutting off his right foot. Sure, he will finish, but he will finish slowly and out of form. The beauty of Civil3d as it relates to Survey and Engineering data is that the data is updated constantly and the engineers are always using the current topo, surface and base map. Data References are how this is accomplished. By using data references any updates to the surface(and many other file types) are reflected automatically on the engineers end.
Under your scenario, what happens when the engineer wants more topo or if you need to revise your surface? You create and export the files all over again, this is a waste of time and has a high chance to produce errors and future liability for the firm. Using data references allows all the data to be updated automatically between drawings, it works great and has elimated a ton of QA/QC on our end and had drastically increased our overall workflow.
C3D generally does what I want it to but I know I can't get the traverse balance routine to work well, if at all. We don't use it very often so I have given up and just balance the traverse in my HP48 and then key in coordinates.
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406262, member: 6294 wrote: The beauty of Civil3d as it relates to Survey and Engineering data is that the data is updated constantly and the engineers are always using the current topo, surface and base map. Data References are how this is accomplished. By using data references any updates to the surface(and many other file types) are reflected automatically on the engineers end.
That sounds like it would be advantageous especially if survey and engineering are both in-house. Around these parts, the engineers and surveyors often operate separately. How would that work? Would the Engineering Company have to allow the Survey Company access to their network and files?
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406262, member: 6294 wrote: Under your scenario, what happens when the engineer wants more topo or if you need to revise your surface? You create and export the files all over again, this is a waste of time and has a high chance to produce errors and future liability for the firm. Using data references allows all the data to be updated automatically between drawings, it works great and has elimated a ton of QA/QC on our end and had drastically increased our overall workflow.
i've revised, updated and added to topo plenty, and never had a problem with info to the engineers. proper file management on both ends goes a long way in and of itself.
i have no doubt whatsoever that Civil3D could be utilized in a highly effective manner by myself- if i felt like spending more than double what carlson costs and also sitting through dozens of hours of training. and i came out of 12+ years in an LDD shop and actually transitioned into the first round of C3D. only way i would choose C3D at this point is if i was employed by a company that mandated it. that said- i wouldn't take that job if it were the case. (luxurious attitude i know, but i've afforded myself the ability to have it.)
David Livingstone, post: 406284, member: 431 wrote: C3D generally does what I want it to but I know I can't get the traverse balance routine to work well, if at all. We don't use it very often so I have given up and just balance the traverse in my HP48 and then key in coordinates.
That was another question I had.
How many surveyors use Civil3D to process their field data? Do you use its Least Squares Adjustment routine (I assume it has one)? How does it stack up against say STAR*NET and SurvNET?
Also, with the Civil3D point database being in the DWG, is there any data collector on the market that reads that database natively?
C3D/Autodesk has done its best to put the scare into people, about the myth of incompatibility, along with the other fears that are mentioned above: ".....no conversions or potential for potential for data to be "lost in translation"...something no possible with Carlson drawings."
With Carlson, it's all there, and everything that an engineer or draftsman needs can be sent to them, either as xml, dwg, txt, csv, dxf, etc.
I was a long-time LDD/Softdesk, user, but went to Carlson around 2004, and have never looked back. I get the occasional gripes from C3D users when they first see that I'm not using C3D, but when asked to be specific about the issues, it usually ends up being just whining.
The problems only occur when receiving a C3D dwg from others, where they don't do or provide anything else, and some of the points, labelling, etc, don't come through.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406285, member: 6939 wrote: That sounds like it would be advantageous especially if survey and engineering are both in-house. Around these parts, the engineers and surveyors often operate separately. How would that work? Would the Engineering Company have to allow the Survey Company access to their network and files?
One of the key features of C3D is that a surveyor can draft an ALTA/topo and visualize that data (on the screen, or printed out) any way he wants. After handing it off to an engineer, they can use the program to visualize that same data any way they want (which may or may not be the same way).
The engineers/surveyors don't need to have the same cad standards or setup - they can use whatever system works best for them. Same goes for the client.
flyin solo, post: 406286, member: 8089 wrote: i've revised, updated and added to topo plenty, and never had a problem with info to the engineers. proper file management on both ends goes a long way in and of itself.
File management is key, without it we all fail. What happens when you have 2, 3 or 4 survey techs preparing surfaces and maps and you are working with an in-house staff of 10-15 engineers and 10-15 engineer techs. This is where the beauty of Civl3d shines because we are all using the same data all the time without worrying if engineer A and Tech B have the most recent files. In smaller firms your scenario works perfectly, in larger ones....not so much.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406287, member: 6939 wrote: That was another question I had.
How many surveyors use Civil3D to process their field data? Do you use its Least Squares Adjustment routine (I assume it has one)? How does it stack up against say STAR*NET and SurvNET?
Also, with the Civil3D point database being in the DWG, is there any data collector on the market that reads that database natively?
We import CSV files with automatic linework setup in Civil3d and it works great and is highly efficient. if we need to edit the raw field data we edit it in TBC. We adjust 1, maybe 2 traverses per year and when we do we use Starnet or TBC as that is not a part of Civil3d we have tried to master.
The Civil3d database in not in the DWG, the database is external and IMO works great. We can efficiently keep track of daily imports/exports and the data is never lost, you can import points seemlessly between drawings very quickly and efficiently. Frankly, i dont know how we ever lived without it.