See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Civil 3D vs Inroads

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    2009-06
    Posts
    18
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    Quote Originally Posted by SRBalliet View Post
    90% of the DOT use Microstation because Bentley gave it to them at little or no price so the firms that want to do DOT work had to buy the seats they needed.
    I was at a DOT when we first got into CAD. Most DOT's started with the mainframe based IGDS which ran on PDP 11's and then DEC Vax's. And most of us started not with InRoads but with AASHTO's RDS. We were using it on mainframes using CRT's for many years before CAD and when many DOT's looked at CAD, AASHTO had it ported to IGDS and that's why many DOT's ended up on MicroStation. One of the Bentley brothers developed MicroStation to read and write IDGS files.

    And when we started buying MicroStation to phase out the mainframe CAD, we bought if from resellers, just like the consultants who did work for us.

  2. #22
    All AUGI, all the time
    Join Date
    2008-03
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    509
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    Also worth note is that the DOT's have no profit motive. Really what do they care if anything goes faster or better.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    2009-06
    Posts
    18
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    More on the DOT comments:
    I forgot to mention - no one "gave" the DOT's any software. A VAX and IGDS terminals were very expensive and when we migrated to MicroStation and InRoads, there were volume discounts, but I also saw my private company receive those later in my career.

    As far as no profit margins, you cannot argue that point, but we had plenty of deadlines to meet. So speed and ease of use was still important to us.

    It seems that today, bashing government workers is all the rage. All I know is I've worked both sides and there are workers and slackers on both sides of that fence!

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    2010-04
    Posts
    4
    Login to Give a bone
    1

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    It's funny as we sit on the Canadian prairies our "DOT" is currently stuck on using CAICE, a software package that was bought out by Autodesk / Civil 3D and they no longer support this. People coming out of school with 5-10 years experience are forced to use this dinosaur age software to accommodate the DOT. People have mentioned the cost thing as a main reason why the US DOTs are using InRoads / Microstation, since they basically give this to the government and then they force their clients to use it. Very Vey clever. Autodesk maybe you should be more accommodating to the Public Sector.

    … Civil 3D is far superior in the end product, but when governments need to spend money on this when they have a “free” option is a no brainer. The argument about consulting firms needing to collaborate or use the software across many disciplines stands true, and is why Civil3D is superior. Very few companies only do work related to roads and is a main reason why most consulting firms use Civil3D to collaborate together, have lately started pushing inroads on their Road Design teams. Autodesk should wake up and purchase Section 3D a program that is very detailed and simple to use for Assembly and subassembly modelling. Their new Subassembly Composer is still a joke, just release July 2011. If Civil 3D over the next 5 years focuses on Transportation and less flashy stuff they will win the war.

    Myself and others come out of school drafting with AutoCAD, designing with Civil 3D…. Then eventually move to very detailed design with Civil 3D and producing plans comes quite natural with ease. I hear all these "Designers" complaining about how slow Civil 3D is and how much it crashes, at the same time I would bet that you couldn't take the time to use Xrefs and Data shortcuts to improve your working environment. People talk about 2000 acre surface or 10 miles of roadway / corridors. That's nothing...

    A few simple steps you must do if you are a designer with Civil 3D to avoid the Fatal Error syndrome. Create your OG surface in its own file and datashortcut it to your main design file. Reduce labelling, sampling, and corridor detail where you can, use separate corridor regions (reduce the complexity if possible). Create profiles and alignments in separate drawings, data shortcut them into the Main Design File. You can always xref these files into each other for a visual reference during the design phase. I suggest start your CAD people with data shortcutting these elements to a “Drafting” look Civil 3D file style it just as you need for production plans and use xrefs. One set of design files, one set of drafting files with the 100% styles in effect.

    Lastly consultants need to push back to their clients moving forward. Educate them on what matters, we can’t just say Ok we’ll give it to you in 1 file, that isn’t practical as the ideal working environment doesn’t warrant this. DOTs and private companies need to open the door to their consultants of choice to deliver their product in the best possible way with as little cost as possible.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    2009-06
    Posts
    18
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafRider View Post
    ... People have mentioned the cost thing as a main reason why the US DOTs are using InRoads / Microstation, since they basically give this to the government and then they force their clients to use it. Very Vey clever. Autodesk maybe you should be more accommodating to the Public Sector.
    Did you not read my last post? Nobody "gave" the DOT's any software.

    However, We were using reference files from day one in IGDS in 1989. When did xrefs come to AutoCAD. And when did they support non-rectangular viewports? And Networks?

    The Bentley product lines were always attentive to large organizations with large projects. If you go back, Intergraph was the company that started most of the products that are now Bentley products. And if they had not been hell bent on selling hardware, a lot more people would be using Bentley software.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    2009-07
    Posts
    6
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    How does the new Subassembly Composer tool compare to what Bentley uses to create their version of subassemblies?

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    2009-06
    Posts
    18
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    I am still mired in LD 2008/2009 and we are just starting with our Civil 3D - getting everything setup as for as modifying DWT's to match various client layer standards. So I do not know much about the Subassembly Composer.

    I've attached some images. The first is an image of the Template Editor. It uses an XML file and creates an internal folder structure as can be seen on the left pane. Except for the Point Name List, every folder and item name in it is 100% user configurable. Even the contents of the point name list is 100% user configurable.

    The preview on the lower left allows you to see one of the items that you can add to your template. You can drag from the tree list or from the preview window. When you drag from the tree list, the drag point is the point in the center of the cyan square. When you drag from the preview, the drag point is the point closest to where you click to begin your drag. Points have names but I turned them off for clarity. If you hover over a point or a segment a tooltip tells you the name of the point or component under the cursor.

    A component is like a sub assembly. But so is a template. Basically, any template can be one or more components and templates are built by drag and drop.

    In every template or component, there is at least one free point that can be moved. Generally, all other points are usually constrained to a parent point so that if you move the one free point, all others follow. When you are combining components to build a template, you can drag a component to a point on another components and it will snap to that point and also automatically merge the two points. Other points that happen to line up may merge, or you might need to use a right click menu on them to merge them.
    The second image is where I zoomed in on the template and then selected a point to edit. This shows the Point Properties dialog box, in addition to the closeup of the template. I also turned on the point name display. You can see the two constraints, parents and values and also the point is shown to me a member of the component "RConcrete SW".

    The last image is similar, except Ive moved on to a point that is a member of four components, and in the main window, I've turned on the display of constraints which turns off the display of components. This shows each point with a vector coming from its parent and there is a glyph on the vector to explain the constraints. I find this display more confusing than helpful, so I could not easily explain many of the glyphs - but they are explained in the help file.

    Just like in Civil 3D, pushing a template creates corridors and the points in the template create DTM Breakline Features and those Features can have Styles. Things are just not quite as dynamic, yet. However, Ive seen a presentation from Bentley's last conference that showed that the dynamic input and output is in the works.

    This template library is one of the samples delivered with the software. I am using a different set of standards that this one was created for, so everything appears white. When you use a template library with the correct standards, the components can be multi-colored - which they get from their styles. If the style also specifies a filled color, it will display with a solid fill.

    All in all, the interface for this can be taught in a few hours. At my last job, I was the primary trainer for the Template Creation, Template Editing and Corridor Modeling class which we covered in one very full day.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #28
    Woo! Hoo! my 1st post
    Join Date
    2013-05
    Posts
    1
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    Very true vkumar. The ender user does not eventually get the best value. That is why i like this new easy to use concept by EngOnCloud () for quick conceptual layouts of roads, highways etc

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    2010-02
    Posts
    13
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    It's 2014. Anyone still having issues with Civil 3D simply doesn't know how to use the software. As soon as I hear complaints about crashes and performance I can tell right away - new user. Microstation on the other hand is geared towards simpletons. It has a very simple learning curve, but is far less capable software. Now if you put the best microstation InRoads user up against the best Civil 3D user, microstation would fall short by a long shot.

  10. #30
    Administrator Opie's Avatar
    Join Date
    2002-01
    Location
    jUSt Here (a lot)
    Posts
    9,089
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Civil 3D vs Inroads

    Quote Originally Posted by ijathenickman View Post
    As soon as I hear complaints about crashes and performance I can tell right away - new user.
    My system still crashes using Civil 3D. I guess that means I am still a new user. BTW, I have been a Certified Professional in Civil 3d for a few years now.
    If you have a technical question, please find the appropriate forum and ask it there.
    You will get a quicker response from your fellow AUGI members than if you sent it to me via a PM or email.
    jUSt

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. InRoads .dtm files to C3D surfaces
    By jtgb in forum AutoCAD Civil 3D - Surfaces
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-05-28, 12:10 PM
  2. Se puede instalar civil 3D 2009 y civil 3D 2010 en un mismo Windows
    By wuari in forum AutoCAD Civil 3D - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2009-11-22, 03:27 AM
  3. Civil 3d/AutoCad and Inroads
    By jon.154370 in forum AutoCAD Civil 3D - General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-07-09, 08:10 PM
  4. bentley inroads
    By asspaula in forum AutoCAD Civil 3D - General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2007-09-01, 02:31 PM
  5. AutoCAD Map 3D and InRoads Compatibility Question
    By kathy.miller in forum AutoCAD Map 3D - General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2006-01-23, 10:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •