Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406546, member: 6939 wrote: The breaklines are just used to help build the surface. Once the surface is built, why do you need the breaklines?
IMO a surface is comprised on points and breaklines which generates 3d faces and then contours. Without all of the surface components your just left with a bunch of triangles that the end user cannot review or evaluate with any type of confidence.
Does a landxml conversion create a surface? Yes. Does it create a true surface...not IMO. We would never ever use a landxml surface.
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 406615, member: 6294 wrote: IMO a surface is comprised on points and breaklines which generates 3d faces and then contours. Without all of the surface components your just left with a bunch of triangles that the end user cannot review or evaluate with any type of confidence.
If you don't trust the 3DFACES, why would you trust the points and breaklines used to generate them?
Jim Frame, post: 406627, member: 10 wrote: If you don't trust the 3DFACES, why would you trust the points and breaklines used to generate them?
I am just speaking for me and my firm when saying we will not simply use a landxml surface from others. Obviously, others have different ways of working and are comfortable with it. A landxml surface is not a file we would ever specify as a deliverable to us or from us.
I guess we Carlson folks will just have to charge the extra http://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad-civil-3d/subscribe&apos ;">$265 for Civil3D to import the LandXML file for them and then deliver the submittal.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406639, member: 6939 wrote: I guess we Carlson folks will just have to charge the extra http://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad-civil-3d/subscribe&apos ;">$265 for Civil3D to import the LandXML file for them and then deliver the submittal.
We would know that's what you did. Unlike Carlson, C3D keeps track of how the surface was defined. Your provided surface would have no other definitions other than the XML file. :p
BlitzkriegBob, post: 406651, member: 9554 wrote: We would know that's what you did. Unlike Carlson, C3D keeps track of how the surface was defined. Your provided surface would have no other definitions other than the XML file. :p
If the concern was the accuracy of the translation of LandXML surface, it would allow the signing surveyor to review the Civil3D surface deliverable that they would be certifying.
I watched a couple of Civil3D training videos showing how you can query each point that shows the raw angles and distances (maybe vectors) that generated that particular point. Do you have to process your raw survey data through Civil3D to get this information in the survey database? Do most Civil3D survey users do this or just dump ASCII points in from their 3rd party survey data processing program?
thebionicman, post: 406431, member: 8136 wrote: Why on God's green earth would I enable my competitor?
The problem I have with ACAD is they've absorbed and killed competitors (VANGO, CAiCE, et. al.) and kept a lock on interchange standards to stifle competition since the '80s. Their first XML release transfer sucked. ACAD is a bad business partner to join, and I hate how the government agencies have mandated their formats to work for them only. Also, they convince you you've got to spend $5,000 per seat and more bucks for the subscription. Land surveying just ain't that complicated; control, boundary, topo and stakeout is all we do.
Mike Marks, post: 406680, member: 1108 wrote: The problem I have with ACAD is they've absorbed and killed competitors (VANGO, CAiCE, et. al.) and kept a lock on interchange standards to stifle competition since the '80s. Their first XML release transfer sucked. ACAD is a bad business partner to join, and I hate how the government agencies have mandated their formats to work for them only. Also, they convince you you've got to spend $5,000 per seat and more bucks for the subscription. Land surveying just ain't that complicated; control, boundary, topo and stakeout is all we do.
I hear you Mike. Never said I liked them, but facts is facts. I really miss r14...
Totalsurv, post: 406464, member: 8202 wrote: What a load of nonsense. The not much else bit.
Why do you say so?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
The last time I had to edit a T.I.N. was in AutoCAD 10 before I bought Carlson SurvCADD. If you use breaklines, the TIN should follow the breaklines and never cross them. I have not generated and saved a TIN in the last 27 years.
Paul in PA, PE, PLS
Jweiss, post: 406687, member: 11740 wrote: Why do you say so?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
probably because he knows- like many more of us- otherwise.
(roughly 6 acres in town. shot in about 3 days. maybe 30 minutes between edited raw file dump and completion of surface editing.)
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406546, member: 6939 wrote: The breaklines are just used to help build the surface. Once the surface is built, why do you need the breaklines?
I believe In Civil 3d, the break lines, points, boundarys and edits are not just used to build the surface but are part of the surface and used every you make a change and rebuild. This allows adding or removing features without losing edits.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406671, member: 6939 wrote: I watched a couple of Civil3D training videos showing how you can query each point that shows the raw angles and distances (maybe vectors) that generated that particular point. Do you have to process your raw survey data through Civil3D to get this information in the survey database? Do most Civil3D survey users do this or just dump ASCII points in from their 3rd party survey data processing program?
As a civil engineer using Civil 3D since 2007, I got (back) into surveying maybe 8 years ago, starting with topos using a garmin handheld gps for horizontal position and an optical level for elevation. Then a Sokkia Set3B maybe 4 years ago, and I put together a HP Ipaq with ascii data logger for it to make it useful. Exponentially since then we got RTK, then in the last 2 years robotic total stations. All our work is done in Civil 3D and in all that time we have only ever "processed" our surveys by just importing points as ascii - point number, northing, easting, elevation, description (PNEZD). We don't do traverses/adjustments etc and certainly not in Civil 3D, we just cross check our data before and after importing it. There's a lot I could write about Civil 3D, having in the last 10 years or so been to hell and back with it, but to put it into perspective now that it is 64 bit and stable (we can run say 2 or 3 days without a crash) we could run our 3 licences (in a company of 25 people) 24/7. I certainly agree that for just doing boundary work, that would be using 5% or less of Civil 3D's capability. I'd say in our civil engineering we use Civil 3D to maybe 70% of its capability, and most often the limit is actually the limit of one's imagination. I'd also like to say that typically any issue you have with Civil 3D, has a resolution in the online forums (not the Autodesk stuff), no matter how obscure the issue is.
In regard to using DEM from other surveyors/software - we don't really care, just give us the 2d plines with elevations, 3d faces, tin, etc and we can pump it into Civil 3D. Just make sure it is a correct representation of the ground, we can quickly tell if it isn't.
Richard Imrie, post: 406750, member: 11256 wrote: .....just give us the 2d plines with elevations, 3d faces, tin, etc and we can pump it into Civil 3D.
In other words you are fine with the surveyor delivering no DTM at all. I shudder at the thought. While I know that this is common practice it will not happen in my office. The DTM is an important quality assurance step.
If you are delivered all the points, breaklines, TIN and a topo you have enough to create your own DTM if that is what you need. I would not create and deliver a Digital Terrain Model because it is a fiction. Field points, breaklines, a TIN and topography are all facts based on the specifications. TOPO lines have a specific horizontal and vertical tolerance. Give an engineer a DTM and all of a sudden he thinks all those digital points are now facts. You want a DTM then give me the specs and I will cross section the site till hell freezes over. That is your expense. Give you a DTM and then the owner or contractor sues me for an excess half a foot of fill, No Thank You, NOT!
Paul n PA
Mark Mayer, post: 406789, member: 424 wrote: In other words you are fine with the surveyor delivering no DTM at all. I shudder at the thought. While I know that this is common practice it will not happen in my office. The DTM is an important quality assurance step.
The points I am making in that last paragraph are:
1. Civil 3D can handle pretty much anything, be it importing native files from other software or just a DEM of something as basic as 2d polylines with elevations.
2. It's easy to see if things are not correct.
Richard Imrie, post: 406830, member: 11256 wrote: 2. It's easy to see if things are not correct.
Sure it is. If one looks. When it is my a$$ in the sling you better bet I'm going to be the one doing the looking. I'm not going to rely on your Engineering Tech to save my bacon. And, furthermore, I'm not too sure about any Surveyor who would.
Still, I get your larger point that all things are possible. But if all other things are equal and one surveyor delivers a correct DTM in your favored format, and another delivers lines and points, aren't you going to prefer the former?
Seems nobody is concerned that surfaces generated by a Civil3D workflow come from what appears to be unadjusted (I.e. open, non-redundant) observations.
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 406836, member: 6939 wrote: Seems nobody is concerned that surfaces generated by a Civil3D workflow come from what appears to be unadjusted (I.e. open, non-redundant) observations.
Positions by Garmin gps would be a bigger issue I would say.