Volume words of warning

Tonites post is a result of some work I was doing the other day. I was trying out the brand new corridor volume tables. I was a little confused by some of my results so I thought I would pass along what I learned. Basically what happens is this: the volume table is dynamic all the time. What do I mean by that? Well my montage of images should paint the picture. If you have a corridor model that is not set to automatically rebuild(Like me because I can't stand waiting all the time for rebuilds). Anyways on with the show. In this first image you can see the corridor volumes and the model. The second image shows the alignment having been moved, the out of date corridor in prospector and the new volume numbers. When I saw this some alarm bells went off in my head, the corridor isnt rebuilt but the volume table is showing new numbers, wrong numbers! What I was able to deduce is when we move the alignment the sample lines move with it, and update based on their new postion within the corridor surface. The problem is the corridor needs to be rebuilt. Now those folks in manchester do have the event viewer pop up and warn us with the message that the corridor is out of date, but I got a little tired of the event viewer myself and set mine not to pop up so I missed out on the warning. Last screen shot. In this one you can see the volumes have changed again, the corridor has been rebuilt. Everything is back to being correct. So what was the point of all this rambling? Make sure you rebuild your corridor while making volume edits.

Help my corridor surface isn’t being built properly!!

We will see if this one makes it through the nite without James posting ahead of me. Enjoy Nick So to wrap up my little discussion on how Civil 3D handles corridors I am going to explain how the surfaces get built from your corridor model and the impact of your assembly on the surface. In the last post I briefly mentioned codes, what I failed to mention is all the pieces of the corridor model get assigned a code, both the points and the links are coded. A lot of you might not even realize it is happening, but if you scroll all the way to end of the help topic for any sub-assembly you will see what is called a coding diagram, its is the most important piece of information you have in troubleshooting problems with corridor surface creation. If I had my way it would be the first diagram shown, but I think the bookend position is also a hold over from CAiCE because every CAiCE fragment help file I have seen also had them at the end. I have included a sample from the help file below. At any rate when we build a surface from our corridor model there are two possibilities presented to us, both are dependant on codes. The first option available is by links. This builds the surface by connecting similar coded links and then triangulating between those links. The other option is to build based on feature lines, this is more akin to adding a bunch of breaklines in to build a surface model. I won't debate which is better, a lot of times I try both just to see which result I like better. So after 2 pages of ranting and rambling I am finally going to talk about what prompted this post. Someone in the newsgroup was having a problem with a sub-assembly not creating the datum surface properly to get accurate earthworks volumes. The answer to their problem lied in the information I gave you previously. The sub-assembly in question was the urban curb and gutter series, in the attached screen shot I have shown how the datum was being generated with the assembly as designed. As well is a picture of the assembly. Now that you have seen the problem here is the resolution, by looking at the coding diagram for the two sub-assemblies involved here we can see both have the datum code applied(I have labeled my images for simplicity, when the software is working from the centerline outward it gets to the bottom back of curb and then the datum surface flies upward, this is because the software although nifty and intelligent isn’t a mind reader, it operates on pretty simple logic which states if you find a sub-assembly with the datum code the surface needs to hit it. The spiking here is caused because no decision can be made if it should be connecting to the upper sub-assembly or the bottom of the curb sub-base, the surface just ends up bouncing between the two. My correction for this problem requires an extra sub-assembly be used, in this case one without the datum code applied. As I need a simple link at grade I have used a generic link at slope, for codes I have applied only a top code to the link. In the screen shot you can see the surface generation problem has been resolved. I am not going to document this one but another common cause of these problems is stacking two basic lane sub-assemblies ontop of each other, while the software will often manage to connect them properly, in corners it will very often get confused and result in similar spikes. This is because you end up with 2 sets of point codes that are identical just separated in the z direction. Hopefully this helps you get a little deeper view into how a model is built and lets you make some better choices when you are building your assemblies.

Set Your Template!

My two cent tip for the day. You know how much I hate technical posts (that's why Nick is so great!), but this one is simple, it's easy, and it will save you time. Set your default template! How many times have you started working in a C3D session and realized you don't have any styles? I do it all the time when I get to a new user's machine, or when we're setting up labs. The default template used by C3D is not quite, but close to, useless. A poster in the NG suggested the C3D team should change this, and I tend to agree. Since the setting Default Template File Name for QNEW is actually the template used at session start, I like to change it to be something useful. Saves a few clicks. A few clicks here, a few clicks there, and soon we're talking about real money. Stupid simple, but worth the 30 seconds it should take you to change this! Go to Options, then to the Files Tab. Expand the Template Settings, then the Default Template File Name for QNEW. It should look like this. If not, your CM has changed it...dont' change it without talking to him or her! Now, click the Browse button, and find the file named _Autodesk Civil 3D (Imperial) NCS Extended. Or better yet, find the template made just for your firm, with your styles and settings built in. Select it and click Open. The path should now show your change like this one does. This is a dead simple change, but you'll thank yourself in the long run. If you're implementing C3D, this should be on your checklist to complete either during installation image creation, or via scripting.

Get a Beta Testing Box for Free

VMware Server has been changed from a pay product to FREE (as in beer). Most of the more serious beta testers and consultants out there use VMWare or VirtualPC from Microsoft to maintain multiple versions of Acad, C3D, LDT, etc on different OS configurations without taking a chance on ruining their main computer. I run Vault on a XP SP2 Virtual machine on my laptop, and have two more seats of C3D running in Virtual Machines upstairs on my 2003 Server. That gives me the ability to have two Vault and three C3D computers all running at once, testing out all the configurations I can dream up. It's a testing lab in two computers! This is the perfect solution for testing out 2007 products if you're not up to date, or for checking out that latest newest build in the Autodesk Beta programs. Check it out!

Why is Vault Better?

Dang, didn't see Nick's sweet post on points, links, and feature lines. It's worth a read, click here to jump down the page...then come back to read my Vault commentary.

It's been going a few days in the Discussion Group, and I've waited to chime in to see what others thought. It's Friday night, I'm still wound up from a Soccer game, so here's my $0.02 to throw in the mix. Vault is better than LDT's project management because it comes with C3D. That's an obtuse way of looking at it, but it's also the right one. If you try to compare what we (as a Civil industry) need to what Vault delivers, you'll throw out Vault and stick with LDT. Definitely a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. While I am teaching a class on Vault at AU, I do not like Vault. Let's look at what's not to love: 1. Backup and maintenance procedures are completely unacceptable to most IT departments. Six 9s uptime is the goal. Any process that requires shutting down the service for routine maintenance is flawed in the modern IT age. Additionally, if you are willing to shut it down, you have to store a mirror image of the Vault to back it up, then pull that image offline. Triple the storage space, and a completely boneheaded approach. Most CE firms already have backup plans in place. These plans have served these companies well, and typically combine a mix of storage mediums, rotation periods, and instantaneous restoration tools. Most of these can be done while the primary system is up and running. Want to restore Vault? Kick everyone out, the system is going down. As a former IT Manager, this one alone sends me into conniptions every time I talk about it. 2. Most Civil firms are relatively small operations. You would probably be surprised by the percentage of C3D seats that belong to firms with less than 20 seats. A firm of that size typically does not carry a full time IT staff, making even the relatively minor IT requirements of Vault implementation a scary beast, and leads to... 3. Vault requires additional maintenance and infrastructure. It cannot tie to Active Directory, nor does it play with Novell in any supported form. Novell is an accepted player in the IT marketplace, and Autodesk forcing a SQL box into the mix is arrogant beyond words. On the other side of the network OS divide, if you're going to hitch yourself to Windows, do it. Let IT use their existing AD and other security tools instead of creating yet another login and permission set to deal with. 4. Assuming you'll buy my argument that versioning and backup are not required in a project management tool from Civils, then the hardware requirements of Vault are insanely high. At _least_ two times the project storage you're currently maintaining, assuming a full implementation. More if you're not willing to shut down the Vault every night to purge the multiple versions sucking up disk space. Additionally, most places will need a new box in some shape or form. If you're a small business, and on MS, chances are you have Server SBE. SBE doesn't play nice with Vault. Pick up a new server and CALS to go along with it. Oh, and don't forget the IT guy to install it.

5. And it's a change in a workflow that most firms find works pretty damned well. C3D is enough of a disruption to their plan production scheme, why would you add this in with no appreciable direct benefit to the end user? So you're saying, "Wow, why the hell would I install Vault?" Because Vault is the price of admission to the C3D universe. Vault is the only way to use project data and references effectively in C3D 2007. Shortcuts were crippled unexplainably, so Vault is the way to go.

Look past the feature set of Vault, consider the design process from start to finish, and Vault is the winner of the LDT .mdb vs Vault 5 contest, hands down.

I don't like it, but we can make it work, and we can show you how to make money with Vault in place. Curious? Contact us to talk more.

Holes, Nuts and Bolts

Today I am going to talk about how the software puts together a corridor model. I am not talking about the fact that I need to have an alignment profile and assembly to build a corridor, I am going to go delve deeper, or maybe shallower depending on your point of view. A corridor model has three basic parts that make up its construction, points, links and feature lines(There is a fourth component called shapes, but the model can be built without those so we will come back to them later.) Cross sectionaly the model is constructed by points(whose location is determined by the VBA sub-assembly), those points are then connected together by links. Along the profile direction the model is built out by placing the assembly along the PGL at a specified spacing Civil 3D calls frequency. The rest of the model is then built out by playing connect the dots from point to point, these connections are called Feature Lines.

The software connects the dots of like coded points along the gaps, if no matching code is found(Such as when you make a transition from having sidewalk to just a grass buffer at roadside) at the next frequency specified branching control determines what choices the software will make. There are two options for branching: inward or outward, just like it sounds inward branching forces the feature line to connect to the next inward point it finds, outward the opposite. The branching control is found on the feature lines tab of the corridor properties dialog box.

I think my rambling has gone long enough for another post. Check back in for the exciting conclusion, if I haven't already made you fall asleep at the keys.

CAD Apps Australia

In a great show of filling the voids left by the software, the folks at CAD Apps Australia have release Stringer Connect as a free utility for converting various DC files to Autodesk Fieldbook files. This tool is a subset of their Stringer design program which also runs on C3D. Check out their site, www.civil3dtools.com, for a good collection of great add-ons, including the most comprehensive intersection package out there, Advanced Road Design. If you haven't seen the demo, I highly recommend it. Thanks Jon, Peter, and the rest of the CAD Apps team.

A History Lesson

My first post!!! I do apologize for the delay in getting this up here. Some unplanned and previously planned travel has kept me more or less off the computer for a week. Staying in hotels with crumby wireless internet is not my idea of a good time, the free cooked to order breakfast and free evening happy hour didn'’t hurt though. Anyhow on with the show.

Today is the start of a 3 post series, I am a rambling man what can I say. These were prompted by a discussion in the news groups a few weeks back about sub-assemblies not modeling surfaces correctly. Todays post like the title says will be a bit of a history lesson. The corridor model in Civil 3D while a brand new concept and idea to a lot of people out there isn'’t entirely new. About 3 years ago after Autodesk had purchased CAiCE software corporation I got the chance to attend some training on this new product. I learned many things, one was CAiCE was a huge leap forward in terms of road design and what LDT could do. What would have been hours of cross sections edits in LDT could be accomplished in mere minutes using intelligent building blocks to form a typical cross section. CAiCE called these building blocks fragments. If the concept sounds a lot like sub-assemblies inside of Civil 3D it should because this is where the corridor concept was spawned. When I first got my hands on a version of 2005 and it had corridors and sub-assemblies I was amazed, the development team had managed to take what was CAiCE's core strength in the design market and put it into Civil 3D. Better still they had taken what was CAiCE's core weakness IMHO and make leap and bounds improvements on it, the weakness was the User Interface(I wish I had a copy around just to take some screen shots). So now that you all know where the technology came from(even if you didn’t care) I will be following up with some discussion on how the software actually goes about building the corridor model and some of the common reasons why the resulting model or surface doesn’t always behave like people feel it should. That'’s enough for now, according to the definition of a blog this is supposed to be a short bite sized bit of information and I am rambling. Look for another post or two in the next few days. It'’s already written but I have to get you all to come back somehow. I am including a couple of screen shots I don'’t have CAiCE so I apologize for the low quality of the example but, as you can sort of see the CAiCE model and the Civil 3D model look pretty similar.

Civil 3D Corridor

CAiCE Corridor