Carlson to C3D

How about talking them into a seat of Carlson? Tell them, or maybe show them on a demo, how much time it will save them in training, etc. Just a thought. It's not expensive when compared to C3D, and would give them some versatility, maybe an edge?

SV,

1. Best Book for the money:
http://www.ascented.com/courseware-solutions/autodesk/courseware/autocad-civil-3d/2015/autocad-civil-3d-2015-for-surveyors-(imperial)

2. The Help Section of C3D has really good Tutorials. Really.

3. The best Forum to get fast answers:
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-General/bd-p/66

Dave

Try Sincpac. It adds a lot of surveying functionality to C3D for very little money.

> How about talking them into a seat of Carlson? .....
It just may be a good move to make a personal investment in a copy of Carlson and load it onto the company's C3d.

I second Dave's recommendation of AutoCAD Civil 3D for Surveyors.

I have been with firms like that and although C3D is a cool program with lots of cool features for site design it sucks for surveying. It is not nearly as user friendly as Carlson. If there is an addon to help the surveyor manipulate points and translate and rotate it might be a much better program. I never got to that point..I gave up and went back to what I know.

I think the "bible" is the mastering civil 3D book.

As for the suggestions to add Carlson, or add just your own copy... I can not agree with those, not even a little bit. A shop that has made the switch to civil has made an INCREDIBLE investment in time, money, and training. Certainly if your new shop has engineering that survey is feeding.

I made the switch it civil at release 2006 - before survey had even been released.

If an employee ever loaded a renegade install of Carlson on my systems they would be fired on the spot.

My recommendation is to learn civil, buy the book, and hang on!

It's different, yes. In mixed shops, it eventually saves time and money.

"3. The best Forum to get fast answers:
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-General/bd-p/66 <" That one's OK, but I prefer www.theswamp.org It's made up of real users and some really good programmers and they are not as "opinionated" as some on the Autodesk sites.

I'm so glad to not work at a place where I would be fired for wanting to use software that I can be productive with. Carlson and C3d can work fine together. It would be worth just having it to transition towards C3d and remain productive while learning.

Unless you are a principal or have the authority, it's really not your call what software you use. It's the companies call.

Ok, sorry. That came out a bit harsh. My apologies.

But the point in trying to make, If a shop makes a decision, the best tow the line, the average complain about it, and the worst try and "work around it."

civil 3D is not the devil, and once the operator is proficient at it, they can be just as effective and efficient as a Carlson operator. The true value of civil 3D is in it's engineering and design side, no argument about it.

I'm just tired of hearing about the bellyaching. Would you folks ever put up with a fresh-on-the-crew 20 something who started complaining about the difficulty in the field having to cut line, drive stakes, carry equipment, maintain the equipment, etc etc?
Of course not! When a kid signs up to be a crew member, they are expected to do the job or there's the door.

Why should we pander to the office crew just because they "don't like the new software" ?

It's absolutely my call. Or I don't work there. But that is just me. I'm long past listening to others decide for me. The cost to the company of training or transition would be miniscule in this case.

Here's the deal; if they are in total lock step with C3D and yet they hired you knowing that you were basically a Carlson user, then the onus is on them to get you the training that you need.
The days of teaching yourself are LONG gone and the idea of buying a book and having at it simply takes too long. C3D has become a very complex software package, with the "styles" thing just being the tip of the iceberg.
Training is critical with today's software. There is a difference in being able to do something and being able to do it correctly.
Most large firms now have "in-house" training set ups. They use the "Train the trainer" concept and send their sharpest crayon to formal training and he comes back and trains up everyone else.
I have never thought that it was right to expect my guys to but their own training materials. It shows initiative true, but when they spend bucks to train themselves, they tend to be more receptive to offers from other firms. I would much rather have loyalty rather than misplaced initiative.

I agree with Craig on this one. You work for ACME Engineering, they use a certain software, that's what the deal is. Go in with an open mind. They can pay for training and they can pay for the cost of transferring your skills set from one software to another.

If company let new employees dictate the choice of software, next week there will be a guy that wants TerraModel, the week after MicroSurvey, the week after LISCAD and so on. Can you imagine the problems that it would create for the stability of the company?

There's nothing wrong for a company to use multiple software that complete each others. But this should not be an off the cuff decision, but part of a business plan.

My advise is go in with an open mind and learn the software. It is a pretty sweet deal, they are not going to expect any real production from you for the next 18-24 months, thanks to the magic of the software. Either that or seek employment with a firm that already uses the software of your choice. The third option is to sell the idea to management. Easier done if management have known you for a while.