Civil Engineer needing help

Hello All,

I'm new to this forum and would like to say hello and appologize for potentially asking a question that my have already been asked. 

Well, let me dive in.  My company has recently purchased a surveying company that has outdated software and hardware.  I am tasked with helping them update their software to be compatable with our Civil Engineering needs.  We use Autodesk Civil 3D.

Here's what the surveyors currently have:

1.  Vanilla Autocad (think 2004 or later)
2.  DS World (Im told this is used to locate benchmarks)
3.  Active Sync (used to connect to a data collector - TDS Ranger Data Collectors)
4.  TerraModels (creates 3D models for dozers/graders)
5.  Pathfinder (used to download info from GPS)
6.  Site Vision (create 3D models)

My question is this:

We are planning on updating their Autocad to 2011 or higher.  Should we stick with autocad and pair it with a land surveying software or should we just upgrade their software to Civil 3D.  The reason that I was chosen (the Civil Engineer) is to make sure their software is providing us with "Smart Data" that the Civil Engineers can use with our Civil 3D software.  We need AECC Points and AECC Contours (not mtext points and exploded lines) to create profiles, recognize tree's, etc.  I'm told that eagle point is crappy, Carlson is pretty good, and Terra is ok.  What is the most cost effective, user friendly land surveying software that will work with our Civil 3D needs on the engineering side?  Providing the surveyors with Civil 3D is expensive and isn't a user friendly program.  Obviously, we want to minimize the learing curve as much as possible for these guy's.

Your input would be GREATLY appreciate.

Thanks in advance,

William O.

I’m not sure there is going to be an easy straight forward fix  but coming from a small surveying company that does its own design work, I would recommend Carlson’s Civil/Surveying for both the surveyors and the engineers in your firm. Where there will be a learning curve for everybody, I believe Carlson will be easier to learn than Civil 3D and give you a common platform for everybody to cross train on.

You don't say what survey drawing software other than ACAD 2004 that the surveyors have or how many of them.

With no other info, I suggest one full blown 2011 Carlson Survey to the Survey section "gateway person". The others can be Carlson Survey with Intellicad. A new Carlson Survey package can be installed over whatever they have in ACAD 2004.

Don't cringe when I say "gateway person". All survey to engineering to survey drawing contact should be through that one person. Otherwise every engineer will request his personal standards. Surveys are mostly data, input into engineering drawings. "Surveys" should never ever be edited or modified by the engineers, period. They should only add to it in engineering drawings.

That being said and seeing what the engineers are using it is encumbent to discipline your engineering staff and I mean slap their hands to never rotate a drawing, period. They must learn to use twist screen or it's equivalent and nothing else.

Until an engineering project is complete almost all information goes one way. Once it is complete the information should come back to the surveyors as a complete package, not a trickle.

Paul in PA, PE, PLS

Well EaglePoint no longer exists as a standalone package, just as an add-on to Civil3D.  I think your big task is to get everything setup with buyin from the surveyors.  The corporate powers at my old firm announced one day a few years ago we were all going to LandDesktop, no setup, no code files, field books or templates.  10 years of EaglePoint workflow with custom field codes, design templates, ... out the window.  Needless to say the office manager stomped that down when he saw the financial impacts of starting from scratch with LDD with active projects running both in design and construction layout.  A few years later, corporate said we are all going to Civil3D, again no setup help, no code files, ...

There is alot to be said for defining a basic workflow that works and makes money.  What is easiest for the civil engineer might not translate to increased productivity for the crew in the field.  Sure the software will let me run a breakline for EOP, CL, Back of Curb, edge of sidewalk LT and RT, but is it faster to just connect up the linework back in the office with good fieldbook notation?  Most of the time, yes.  Seriously, really drill down to find a good balance.  Imposing a piece of software without support and planning will certainly create a problem.

I hear many firms running with Carlson instead of Civil3D.  Might be worth a peek.  I can't speak for "live" Civil3D points or exploded ploylines.  As mentioned, civils really shouldn't be tinkering with the survey file anyway.  We always used an XREF to the surveyed basedrawing.  That way Mr. Surveyor can update his fieldwork all day long and Mr. Civil just types update XREF in his drawing, even works between offices using FTP, the Cloud or diskette mailers.

As far as I know, the only thing that will data reference directly with C3D, is C3D (but only the version you are working with).  I've had to convert Carlson, Eagle Point, Microstation, LDD, and even C3D (different versions) for our engineers, in order to make the data work for them (when they get outside survey).  A good thing about C3D is that working with surfaces is pretty easy, so recreating a surface in C3D (from tin lines or xml) is really fast.

Paul:
As far as I know, the only thing that will data reference directly with C3D, is C3D (but only the version you are working with).  I've had to convert Carlson, Eagle Point, Microstation, LDD, and even C3D (different versions) for our engineers, in order to make the data work for them (when they get outside survey).  A good thing about C3D is that working with surfaces is pretty easy, so recreating a surface in C3D (from tin lines or xml) is really fast.

 

You are right there.  Even going between EaglePoint AutoCAD and MicroStation, we always had to TIN the TIN until XML.  By then we had been so used to TIN'ing the TIN. we just kept on doing it.

I'd ask Woneal, how much of the post field survey workflow does the survey-side need to do before the handoff to engineering?  A roadway centerline is usually independent of a sectionline, so leave the survey work in an AutoCAD base drawing that the engineer's XREF into their C3D project drawing and "no touchie" from there forward.

I watched a large interstate project get corrupted by another office's engineering group.  I'm an engineer myself, but our office had been working from a copy of the original 3D survey drawing in MS EaglePoint rather than their corrupted MS GeoPak 2D base drawing.  Somewhere along the line, existing underground utilities dropped out of their drawing.  WTF?, I get called to the carpet for connecting inlets to non-existing storm sewers that their folks had deleted.  Nope, I'm looking at the original point file in the drawing showing EX INLET, what your drawing shows nothing?  Hmmm, which office gets to eat the rework?

Woneal, if I understand your situation correctly (and maybe I don't ?) the survey office has an existing workflow, that works but is just not the latest and greatest AutoDesk C3D?  I assume they make money at what they do?  How hard would it be to let them keep doing what they're doing and let them hand you the following:
(1) AutoCAD base drawing (no AECC elements, but a generated TIN mesh that C3D can TIN from)
(2) a single ASCII point file, exported from their final drawing all blessed from the PLS, so your office can import the points as AECC points

Your office could then XREF the survey drawing into engineering's C3D base drawing.  Engineering generate a C3D TIN from the surveyor's TIN mesh in your drawing and import the single ASCII point file as AECC.  Done with little to no dollars outlaid and a LOT of headaches spared.