Map 3D vs Arc GIS 9

[guyver1]

Hi, I've just started voluntary work for a local charitable organisation in my area.

What they do is a little bit different from my normal work (im a civils technician, highways, drainage etc) and they produce alot of maps for the local area for countryside rejuvenation projects.

They currently use Arc GIS 9 and Autocad Map 3D 2008.

From my 4 weeks there so far I get the impression they have bought 2 competing bits of software and not 2 complimentary pieces of software, is this a correct assumption?

It would appear that Map 3D is supposed to do everything Arc GIS does but in the AutoCAD environment?

Can anyone shed anymore light on this for me so that i can get a better understanding of this, as when i joined the staff seemed to think that there was some sort of 'interoperability' between the two.

From what I've seen its a case of 'one or the other' as they both do the exact same job?

[Jmurphy]

I would not say the EXACT same thing, each has it's pro and cons. Map3D can work with cad engineering data better along side with GIS data, if you are using both CAD and GIS then Map3D has a better advantage out of the box. Where the ArcGIS applications may be better at using the data, especially over Map3D2008, (2010 version has new features for this) however the ArcGIS apps require multiple modules to be purchased to do some of the things that Map3D can do, for example the 3D viewing of a surface (DEM) Map3D can do it out of the box, ArcGIS requires the 3D analysis to be purchased.
The other thing to take into account is if you have used AutoCAD for years and know the way around a dwg then you will be more comfortable using Map3D and production will be quicker.

[nightNday]

We do the same thing where I work. I've used CAD for almost 10 years and Arc for about 3. I've found that if data is native to Arc, it is best to keep it there. Map 3D has been an awesome supplement because I feel it can be much more accurate. It can also be amazing when transferring CAD generated data (such as building floor plans) to Arc as you can create attribute tables in CAD and input the desired data. We also use it to automatically generate shapes with attributes that can be imported and rectified in Arc, which is an amazing time saver.

But, when it comes to mapping specifically, Arc has been the way to go, in my opinion. The major drawback to Arc is the lack of multiple layouts (you can purchase a plug in that is supposed to do this, but I still can't get our company to justify 2500$ on top of, what, 15K for a plug in).

In all, its up to you and whatever you feel more comfortable with (as Murph stated). Usually one tends to work more efficiently in software they are comfortable with, no matter how 'easy' the other software is supposed to be.

Good luck!

[Ed Jobe]

It also depends on what kind of maps you need to make. For example, at work, we do geometric networks of our electrical distribution system and our fiberoptic system. Map doesn't do geometric networks. But if your maps are simpler, just points, lines and polygons, Map is much cheaper than ESRI.