WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406299, member: 6294 wrote: 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.
This may be one of the changes made from the original Civil3D version that I demoed. In that version, It appeared to me that the points were imbedded in the DWG file. That was an aspect that I did not care much for. It seemed like it wasn't very secure. A simple haphazard AutoCAD move, rotate or scale command would move processed points around willy-nilly without any warning of what you were doing.
So, is there now a separate Civil3D point database "file" that is kept secure? If so, are surfaces and alignments kept there as well?
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406302, member: 6939 wrote: This may be one of the changes made from the original Civil3D version that I demoed. In that version, It appeared to me that the points were imbedded in the DWG file. That was an aspect that I did not care much for. It seemed like it wasn't very secure. A simple haphazard AutoCAD move, rotate or scale command would move processed points around willy-nilly without any warning of what you were doing.
So, is there now a separate Civil3D point database "file" that is kept secure? If so, are surfaces and alignments kept there as well?
Points imported correctly through the survey database cannot be moved in the drawing. There are ways to unlock the points in the drawing for those special circumstances when you need to actually move a point. I can count on one hand the number of times i have had to do this, it is not common in our workflow. If they are moved in th drawing they remain in their original position within the survey database. The survey database points must be changed at the source.
Surfaces and alignments are stored in the drawing they were created in. This is their 'source' drawing. They are then data referenced to the project for use by all others working on the project. The only way to change them is to go to the source drawing. Even then, you can set 'locks' on them which makes them harder to change.
I am late to the party, but I'm certainly encouraged that there are surveyors like Jim in Az, Mark Mayer, Trundle, and especially WA-ID Surveyor who show that surveyors can and do use C3D. It's not a perfect program, but neither is Carlson. I used Carlson for 18 months and I would take C3D any day of the week. FWIW, I am back on the engineering side working for a small company that has no surveying capabilities. The surveys we do get from other companies are almost exclusively done in C3D. Ceteris paribus, I would rather have a survey that was done in C3D than any other software.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406302, member: 6939 wrote: So, is there now a separate Civil3D point database "file" that is kept secure?
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406331, member: 6294 wrote: Points imported correctly through the survey database cannot be moved in the drawing.
Points can be imported directly to the drawing. Or they can be imported via the Survey database. If you import them via the Survey database they can't be easily edited. If you import them directly to the drawing they can be locked as a guard against accidental editing, but anyone can easily unlock them.
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?
I do not use C3D to process my field data. Its easier for me to adjust in TDS. Now, my job sites are small, so I don't have a big need to do a lot of processing.
I would say that i really like how C3D handles points. I think C3D really handles points well. But it is built for engineers. I mean engineers dominate the scene so of course C3D would cater to them.
I also agree that it handles surfaces and topo extremely well.
If you're in a big office than yes, with lots of people 'touching a drawing', then using the survey data base can be a life saver. Extremely difficult to move your survey points using that method.
It is an expensive program so if you're a solo guy, I can see it being cost prohibitive. then add in all the extortion...I mean subscription fees...
BlitzkriegBob, post: 406354, member: 9554 wrote: I am late to the party, but I'm certainly encouraged that there are surveyors like Jim in Az, Mark Mayer, Trundle, and especially WA-ID Surveyor who show that surveyors can and do use C3D. It's not a perfect program, but neither is Carlson. I used Carlson for 18 months and I would take C3D any day of the week. FWIW, I am back on the engineering side working for a small company that has no surveying capabilities. The surveys we do get from other companies are almost exclusively done in C3D. Ceteris paribus, I would rather have a survey that was done in C3D than any other software.
So, what exactly would a Civil3D end user be missing out on working from a Civil3D database that was created using a LandXML Carlson surface, points and alignments? Once it's imported, how can you tell that it wasn't created using Civil3D? Are there other smart objects that LandXML is missing? The rest is just linework and blocks in the DWG.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406362, member: 6939 wrote: So, what exactly would a Civil3D end user be missing out on working from a Civil3D database that was created using a LandXML Carlson surface, points and alignments? Once it's imported, how can you tell that it wasn't created using Civil3D? Are there other smart objects that LandXML is missing? The rest is just linework and blocks in the DWG.
Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but when a surface is created using an XML file in C3D, it can't be edited since it keeps the reference to the XML file. Now of course I've stated before that I prefer to have my boss notify the surveyor if I feel a surface needs to be edited, but most of the time he will tell me to just modify it myself. I can do that if it's a C3D surface not tied to an XML.
For points, I don't think I've ever used an XML file. Normally we might get an ASCII file, but those are not really practical since we don't even have a description key file so everything comes in with the same point style, label style, and in to the same layer. If it's a C3D file with points, then I can work with those points if needed. If the files have point groups then I have those also, which I'm not sure would come through an XML file.
I can think of one occasion when I got an alignment from a surveyor, but we didn't use it. They had even labeled all the station/offsets for the topo but that was a wasted exercise for them. I personally think that setting an alignment is a design task and not a surveying task. I know when I was doing surveys that I never created an alignment. There was one company that questioned why we didn't supply one, but we just told them it wasn't part of the scope.
I'm not knocking working with XML files. I recently was working on a project that had one surveyor and four engineering companies sharing XML files. The surveyor used C3D, the prime engineering company and one sub used Microstation, and we and one other engineering company used C3D. We shared XML files for the surfaces, alignments, pipe networks, and proposed profiles. It worked fine, but was a bit of a pain sometimes. If everyone had been using C3D it would have made it much easier because the prime could have just supplied all the needed styles so that we would conform to their standards. Instead, I had to create styles that matched the desired format, then I shared those styles with the other C3D firm so that we could match.
As for smart objects...well I don't believe that what Carlson has are really smart objects. I know they have some dynamic capabilities, but it's not even in the ballpark compared to C3D. But let's say that someone is working in Carlson and has dynamic entities enabled. I don't know for sure, but would doubt, that the entities will come in maintaining the dynamics. I honestly haven't received a survey that I believe was done in Carlson so I don't know that for a fact. Would be interesting to test that out. I can tell that the surveys we get are done in C3D because the linework is done with survey figures and not lines and/or polylines.
I'm currently using Civil 3d on a sewer line strip topo project. The engineers I am working with begin to ask for the point data seperated by catergory. I found it easier to deliver the product on Civil 3d. I am still creating the break lines in Carlson and using point groups to separate points I need for the surface. I build the surface in Civil 3d which is easier than Carlson and general drafting is much easier using the full version of AutoCAD. I could probably do the break lines in Civil 3d but I find it easier in Carlson just because I already have field to finish set up on Carlson. Another thing is I create point groups in Civil 3d so the engineer does't have to spend too much time interpreting my descriptions. I know nobody seems to like the subscription but it gives an opportunity to use Civil 3d on occasion for certain jobs, it can be used a month at a time without the expense of full program.
billvhill, post: 406386, member: 8398 wrote: Another thing is I create point groups in Civil 3d so the engineer does't have to spend too much time interpreting my descriptions.
Point groups are great, but something else I've always done is create "layman" descriptions in the descriptor key. So, when you have point with a code "EP3" (which represents edge of pavement type 3, which is asphalt)...what you see on the screen in your drawing is "edge of pavement" (or whatever you want it to say). The coding doesn't change, just the description you see in the screen. That one move has probably saved me more client calls than any other.
Trundle, post: 406290, member: 12120 wrote: 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.
Sorry for singling you out, Trundle, but this is what I'm talking about. Your statement tells me nothing specific, why receiving a dwg, xml, etc, from someone using Carlson instead of C3D is more difficult for you to handle.
I am still utilizing LDD for property calculations and adjustments even it is at some point will be dead.
I export point file when I am done with property lines adjustments and import it into Civil 3D.
I had a lot of training at definitely know how things work in Civil 3D but never felt comfortable rotate & move points by utilizing AutoCAD commends even know how to do it.
I do like an idea having point database stored in separate location but the routines Autodesk created for dealing with point database is not friendly (at least for me). I think the main reason it is done this way because they didn't involve an experience LS to work on this matter and that is why everybody calls it "good software for engineers" which is exactly right.
However one day when LDD stop working on new OS the transition will be required and it is my hope that Civil 3D will be more tiredly for land surveyors.
I also have used carlson for at least a decade and never had a problem feeding engineers
if i were to go and build my ideal surveying software it'd be some mish-mash of carlson, C3D, and geopak. carlson for the meat and potatoes, C3D for the labels and aesthetic capabilities of it, and geopak for surfaces/surface editing. that would be extracting maximum value out of each, as far as i'm concerned, having used each extensively at times. but insofar as i neither want nor have the aptitude to do so, the one i'll settle on is carlson.
all that said- i did just get out of the business of owning the surveying division of a civil company, precisely because i'm sick of working with/for engineers.
JPH, post: 406408, member: 6636 wrote: Sorry for singling you out, Trundle, but this is what I'm talking about. Your statement tells me nothing specific, why receiving a dwg, xml, etc, from someone using Carlson instead of C3D is more difficult for you to handle.
Fair enough - I am kind of re-iterating what WA-ID Surveyor and blitzkrieg Bob said here.....
Carlson data can be imported into C3D with xml,but it isn't the same...I'll try my best to explain why:
None of the entities in Carlson are "smart", or "dynamic". A line is a line and nothing more. With civil 3D, the line can be turned into an alignement, feature line, etc... The reason that is important is revisions became almost automatic. Need to move your alignment slightly? All the offsets move with it automatically. Need to raise your curbs 0.3'? Feature lines let you do that automatically. Accidentally used the wrong datum and need to lower the surface in your completed topo drawing? A few clicks can update the entire drawing, including contours, labels, etc.... If you used a pipe network (a little cumbersome to set up but a huge time saver once you get the hang of it) - all the inverts and rim elevations update as well.
Don't like the symbols in your drawing? Or maybe the city requires a certain symbols, while the Feds require another? A few clicks can change all your symbols without re-running F2F.
Need to make edits to the drawing? Rod bust? Point miscode? Lines connected to wrong points? Fix them in the drawing (where you can visually see exactly what you are doing) and move on - no need to edit point codes or continually re-run a F2F (or any other processing routine).
Have a complex surface with retaining walls, multiple elevation changes, etc... Civil 3D handles that better than any other program on the market, IMHO. The engineer decides the 25' grid you topo'd needs to be 10' instead? You can easily update a surface with the additional data without re-doing or mucking up the rest of the surface/drawing.
With Carlson, you get regular plain entities than can be used....but they don't have any of the "smart, dynamic data". Every time you make an edit, you have to export an xml and send it off again. An engineer can use a Carlson .dwg, just like they can technically use a paper copy survey. But the features and tools of C3D let the engineer overlay his design directly onto your base drawing, and use your data without extra clicks, conversions, or work-arounds.
Carlson is great for those doing lot surveys and Boundaries, and not much else. But for topographic surveying, especially topo for design, Civil 3D is the best program on the market I think.
Trundle, post: 406426, member: 12120 wrote: Fair enough - I am kind of re-iterating what WA-ID Surveyor and blitzkrieg Bob said here.....
Carlson data can be imported into C3D with xml,but it isn't the same...I'll try my best to explain why:
None of the entities in Carlson are "smart", or "dynamic". A line is a line and nothing more. With civil 3D, the line can be turned into an alignement, feature line, etc... The reason that is important is revisions became almost automatic. Need to move your alignment slightly? All the offsets move with it automatically. Need to raise your curbs 0.3'? Feature lines let you do that automatically. Accidentally used the wrong datum and need to lower the surface in your completed topo drawing? A few clicks can update the entire drawing, including contours, labels, etc.... If you used a pipe network (a little cumbersome to set up but a huge time saver once you get the hang of it) - all the inverts and rim elevations update as well.
Don't like the symbols in your drawing? Or maybe the city requires a certain symbols, while the Feds require another? A few clicks can change all your symbols without re-running F2F.
Need to make edits to the drawing? Rod bust? Point miscode? Lines connected to wrong points? Fix them in the drawing (where you can visually see exactly what you are doing) and move on - no need to edit point codes or continually re-run a F2F (or any other processing routine).
Have a complex surface with retaining walls, multiple elevation changes, etc... Civil 3D handles that better than any other program on the market, IMHO. The engineer decides the 25' grid you topo'd needs to be 10' instead? You can easily update a surface with the additional data without re-doing or mucking up the rest of the surface/drawing.
With Carlson, you get regular plain entities than can be used....but they don't have any of the "smart, dynamic data". Every time you make an edit, you have to export an xml and send it off again. An engineer can use a Carlson .dwg, just like they can technically use a paper copy survey. But the features and tools of C3D let the engineer overlay his design directly onto your base drawing, and use your data without extra clicks, conversions, or work-arounds.
Carlson is great for those doing lot surveys and Boundaries, and not much else. But for topographic surveying, especially topo for design, Civil 3D is the best program on the market I think.
most of what you state carlson won't do it will/can. i haven't done enough topo in C3D to speak with any authority, so i won't argue with you. but i suspect the same can be said for you in regard to carlson. i've done EXTENSIVE topo work eagle point, every autodesk product between R12 and the first iteration of C3D, microstation/geopak J and 8, and carlson since 2007. like i said above, for topo i'd take geopak if given the choice. problem being the rest of microstation is so clumsy it kills its usefulness. but in 20 years of doing this, i've ZERO complaints with the functionality and features of carlson topo. and i fail to see why it's a shortcoming with carlson that it doesn't "automatically" talk to autodesk products. i mean, i get that those with market share dictate standards, but maybe with all that money that autodesk extracts out of their subscribers they could take a little responsibility and figure out how to read carlson files...
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406362, member: 6939 wrote: So, what exactly would a Civil3D end user be missing out on working from a Civil3D database that was created using a LandXML Carlson surface,
Transfer of surfaces between CAD platforms using xml is about 99.9% accurate. There will be the occasional triangle that isn't flipped the right way in the transferred DTM. You just have to hope that that 0.1% doesn't happen in a critical area. Murphy's Law says it will.
flyin solo, post: 406429, member: 8089 wrote: ..., but maybe with all that money that autodesk extracts out of their subscribers they could take a little responsibility and figure out how to read carlson files...
Why on God's green earth would I enable my competitor?
thebionicman, post: 406431, member: 8136 wrote: Why on God's green earth would I enable my competitor?
not suggesting they should- just saying that IF there is some problem with communication between the two formats (which to me sounds like a whole lot of nothing), it doesn't strike me that it would be incumbent upon carlson or its users to solve it. as would seem to be a subtext of the "carlson is inferior" argument.
flyin solo, post: 406429, member: 8089 wrote: most of what you state carlson won't do it will/can. i haven't done enough topo in C3D to speak with any authority, so i won't argue with you. but i suspect the same can be said for you in regard to carlson. i've done EXTENSIVE topo work eagle point, every autodesk product between R12 and the first iteration of C3D, microstation/geopak J and 8, and carlson since 2007. like i said above, for topo i'd take geopak if given the choice. problem being the rest of microstation is so clumsy it kills its usefulness. but in 20 years of doing this, i've ZERO complaints with the functionality and features of carlson topo. and i fail to see why it's a shortcoming with carlson that it doesn't "automatically" talk to autodesk products. i mean, i get that those with market share dictate standards, but maybe with all that money that autodesk extracts out of their subscribers they could take a little responsibility and figure out how to read carlson files...
You are right, I have only used Carlson a handful of times and I hated every minute of it. Part of it is that Civil 3D is the "devil I know" and no one really knew how to use all the features. I also know most engineer's don't take full advantage of all the tools in C3D (because they don't need them, or don't know how, or...).
The type of work you primarily do probably plays a huge part in deciding what kind/brand of equipment you use, including drafting programs.
If your clients are happy, and you understand how to run the program - I don't see why you'd want to change.
Mark Mayer, post: 406430, member: 424 wrote: Transfer of surfaces between CAD platforms using xml is about 99.9% accurate. There will be the occasional triangle that isn't flipped the right way in the transferred DTM. You just have to hope that that 0.1% doesn't happen in a critical area. Murphy's Law says it will.
I wish I had a nickel for every time this happened to me. Although in my experience I'd say the xml conversion is more like 98% accurate....
