DougW:Starting with 2010, we've been pretty pleased with the speed, accuracy, and consistent high quality with which we've been able to use the software. But it took a fair bit of work to get there... We had to develop a good template first, and the earlier releases had a lot more problems that we had to fight. And of course, we use third-party tools, which have also been improving steadily this whole time. We've now developed quite a reputation in our area for being able to handle just about anything, and create fast, high-quality results. And unlike many complaints I've heard, we actually use the majority of the program, including things like Corridors (awesome calc tools), the Plan Production stuff (works great for large topos), and more.
thanks for the responses. I sort of want to stick with C3D because we already have it & have put a lot of time into learning & configuring templates & there is a benefit to the design folks getting a native format. But I was really dissapointed when I saw 2012 and they hadn't done anything with survey to speak of. but yes, it's the convoluted work flow that is so time consuming and tedius.
It seems like there are all these caveots (SP??). The SDB does seem hinder more than help. ever try to copy & paste a figure? or better yet, send it to an Architect? and yet figures are the only way to get FTF line work but if you need to edit them, well it's not too bad but then you have to update the SDB one figure at a time. But if you explode them, you can work with simple 3D polys but you loose any 3d curve data, something we've been wanting for years. And while I understand point groups & styles and the hierarchy of control & how they interact with the PDK, was there really anything wrong with a point and a seperate symbol, i.e. block? I have personally put a lot of time into this template and it works pretty well and some of our more CAD savvy surveyors have gotten it but some are really struggling with basic things like point display. I personally think the point groups & different ways of controling point display is pretty cool but does it really make surveyors more efficient? Ours are not.
Richard, I had a hunch you were Sinc of sincpac & confirmed it with google. I will give you a call here sometime next week & would like to talk to you.
Richard H: We are at that frustration level with C3D. I hate to switch gears with so much time invested but... at some point you have to consider cutting your losses and starting over.
Richard S: You say you supply a lot of firms with survey products, I'm assuming base mapping/topo for design firms? Do you not have issues with others being able to understand & work with point styles & symbols? We do most of our base maps for in house design teams & I keep it all in sync for that reason but we do sometimes supply other firms with base mapping. With Land Desktop they got (or could get if we skipped AEC contour objects) basic autocad entities that any autocad program using that file format could read and it wasn't to big an issue to save back. Now we have clients that simply can't read or don't know what to do with a point style or point groups even if they could. We have been using 2010 and have to jump through a bunch of hoops just to read 2011 C3D files. (wasn't BIM that big buzz word that had something to do with interoporability).
Also, how do you do your traverse adjustments? We have no consistancy in that area. some are trying to do it in C3D, others are having field guys do it in the collector & then some are doing it in Land Desktop & then exporting adjusted data to C3D.
And your description of remembering all the little places to change things, like point numbering vs. tag numbering, totaly inconsistant. One of our surveyors put it well: " We can figure all this stuff out but at the end of the day it's a huge collection of work arounds". And even the guys in the office full time, simply can't remember all the work arounds, so they call me. It's sort of job security but it's not efficient & it's costing us money on the bottom line.