Carlson Vs 3D

[cootis]

We got a Carlson seminar today, and it seemed pretty amazing. We have been extensively been using Civil 3d for the laast many year, and have put it into full scale production for the last 2 years. we obviously had to invest a great deal of time training and creating styles etc like many other firms.
Carlson seemed lot easier to work with, intersection design, inbuilt storm sewer design, grading tools (like the old LD tools).
Does anyone have a firm opinion which is worthwhile.
we understand money means everything. 3D is expensive ...slightly cumbersome initially ...lots of training for new hires, downtime so to speak...
Carlson ..so they say is cheaper, works well with construction crews etc ...realy seemed cool, fast, interactive, dynamic at most times, stable (very important)
we decided to buy 3 licenses anyway to test it. get the hydrology module with it.
if anyone could voice their opinion if they have dealt with both software's, that would be appreciated.
thanks

[Anonymous]

Those are some of the BIG plusses to C3D Mark..no question about it. It just
comes down to: is it worth the additional cost? I won't argue about the cost
of training as to me that will pay for itself in productivity in the longer
run. For me the BIG issues are compatability, stability and performance. So
far I think the big downsides to C3D are: it is slow to make updates to
changes in the design (particularly updating edits to gradings and
corridors), stability ( it crashes easily when using gradings), hardware
requirements (it is a resource hog), outright cost (high price per seat,
high maintenance cost if we don't stay with the upgrade path) and
compatibility (each new release is not compatible with older versions). I
think these issues are the core of the debate and Autodesk knows this. They
seem content to let capitalist economics reign. Unfortunately their
resellers suffer the consequences along with the smaller companies they
support. Eventually captalist economics will balance things out as other
developers will eventually gain some marketshare, in theory. I'll bet they
are looking at the success of Microsoft: there are too many users depedent
on their stuff to defect. It may be true, as I've discerned from the mindset
of those who won't consider alternative solutions.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4420 (20090912) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[ThatCADGirl]

It's not the case, but even if Carlson could do NONE of those things, I'd still choose Carlson because, in my opinion, it's a better value for the money.

I apologize for being harsh but your first question, "1. Possibly pipe network functionality." shows that you are so hell-bent on defending Civil 3D that you didn't make one visit to Carlson's or my site to see whether Carlson has a Hydrology module. That's intellectual laziness.

Carlson actually DOES do several (and it may do all) of the other items in MSpatz's list. I just think it misses the argument to compare bells to bells and whistles to whistles without comparing associated costs.

For a rough cost/benefit analysis and just mentioning a couple features:
Carlson has a full Hydrology module that provides stormwater analysis directly from your surface including gutter and bypass flow analysis along with much more. It dynamically updates when changes are made to the associated roadway or surface model. Optionally, it includes Hydrocad which you can also use. It sells for about 16% of the cost of Civil 3D and the optional annual maintenance (subscription) is $125 per year. Training costs to learn all this are negligible.

Survey or Civil provide full subdivision layout including cul-de-sacs, round-abouts and lot sizing based on area, setbacks and/or multiple building footprints. Civil provides full roadway design and grading (including round-abouts). You can get either of these for roughly 18% of the cost of Civil 3D and the optional annual maintenance is $150 per year. Training costs to learn all this are negligible.

Jennifer
www.thatcadgirl.com

[mspatz]

Hey, I'm not the one going on the CarlsonConnect website making posts like Civil3D vs. Carlson to persuade folks.

At a minimum, if you wanted to do that - to gain a bigger market base or settle a grudge with Autodesk - have some videos we can see that prove your point. I'm not interested in a personal demo. I have used Carlson in the past and believe Civil 3D is better for what we do at my firm, for may other firms, and has a bigger potential for the future. The road and parcel videos are a good start. I was just trying to highlight some other things folks may want to conceder.

In the end. I still think Civil 3D is more powerful than Carlson. I was stright forward with that in my first reply and it has not changed. Yes, it does cost more to purchase. No, I don't think it is any easier or harder to learn or use. Yes, I do think Carlson makes it easier to share files between firms. Etc, Etc... This could go on for days...

In the end it is just CAD. A tool, nothing more or less. There is about a thousand other things that have a much larger impact on a firms bottom line that are more important. Also, following this thread is starting to cut into my beer drinking time.

Now that is a real problem that can effect the bottom line!

Edited by: mspatz@hrg-inc.com on Sep 13, 2009 11:07 AM

[ThatCADGirl]

> {quote:title=mspatz@hrg-inc.com wrote:}{quote}
>
> At a minimum, if you wanted to do that - to gain a bigger market base or settle a grudge with Autodesk - have some videos we can see that prove your point.


This was done several days ago: http://discussion.autodesk.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=6251843#6251843 and they have been available on my website for over a year. But, again for the cheap seats...

http://thatcadgirl.com/resources.html#techdocscs

[ThatCADGirl]

>Hey, I'm not the one going on the CarlsonConnect website making posts like Civil3D vs. Carlson to persuade folks.

>At a minimum, if you wanted to do that - to gain a bigger market base or settle a grudge with Autodesk - have some videos we can see that prove your point.
I didn't start it, but I'm happy to have the discussion. I personally own two seats of Civil 3D myself and this all affects me as much as it does the clients I support.

And, of course I'm trying to persuade, but I'm looking for answers and am willing to be persuaded as well. Otherwise, I wouldn't have pointed out Arthur Miller's positive post on www.civil3d.com or asked for other positive cost/benefit analyses.

If I simply wanted to "settle a grudge with Autodesk", as you suggest, I'd have been up on this DG years ago. But I never posted until someone linked to my website. I posted my thoughts and you chose to engage. Should I apologize for defending my points?

[mspatz]

I know, I'm not "intellectually lazy" - you getting all mad at me because I dare to counter question.

I reviewed those last month. Out of the listed content I really only see videos for LotNet, RoadNet and Project Folder and File setup that show some power features of Carlson. I even looked around Carlson's website and couldn't find anything more. That was why I asked in a previous reply before posting my list.

How about some videos on the topics I listed? If you want to compare cost you need to compare power - apples to apples, right? That was all I was trying to ask and now I'm getting slammed. WSUP! 🙂

Of course Civil 3D is going to be more costly if it is the only true 3D modeling software (pipes, corridor, grading, etc... all being 3D elements that you can turn and look at). There is current power and a big potential there. I'm anticipating more and more analytical power as it is developed. Much like the mechanical world. First parts were modeled in TRUE 3D. Now they can do finite analysis. What will be the future for Civil 3D... we will just have to wait and see.

Firms should take this into account before making a rash decision for the now. There is a big difference between software that runs lisps to manipulate AutoCAD objects compared to a software that has true 3D parametric parts and modeled objects.

As Rich would way: "Just say'in..." Edited by: mspatz@hrg-inc.com on Sep 14, 2009 7:47 AM

[ThatCADGirl]

Hey Mark,

Maybe "slamming back" is a better way to say that... But really, just trying to address your points. And I apologized in advance for being harsh 🙂

The "lazy" comment was simply because you were asking broadly whether Carlson could do pipe networks without even looking to see.

From the first couple readings, it wasn't clear that you'd seen the videos posted. I see now that you have, so apologies for that, too. Carlson has a lot of hour-long demo webinars and several are on drainage and stormwater design. I just don't think any are specifically on the labeling aspects. To be honest, someone evaluating Carlson doesn't usually ask about the features you're asking about - hence the lack of videos. They're more concerned with the actual design functionality. The labeling may not be as dynamic as Civil 3D but it's dynamic enough and easy enough to figure out, they don't ask about it.

The 5-min demos I put together are for marketing only and really only focus on, as you noted, the "hot" features. I don't have any on Hydro and I probably need to add something.

[Anonymous]

mspatz@hrg-inc.com wrote:
>
> The Carlson dialogs have 5-gazillion check-boxes and settings. Not easier to use.

Speaking of...
Did anyone else here catch the Carlson 2010 webcast this morning?


--
R.K. McSwain
http://cadpanacea.com

[ShaneMcDaniel]

Is there any legitimacy to the argument, "We use Civil3D because we are an engineering firm and it makes sharing files with other design firms easier."?  

I have heard that argument many times before, but, until this year, hadn't had any experience with C3D in a production setting. Now working for a civil engineering firm forcing the survey department to make the switch from Carlson to C3D, I am struggling just to keep productivity from tanking. The biggest reason is the file/drawing compatibility with other design firms. I don't recall ever having any issue opening and manipulating the data I needed when I received a file from the civil engineer, architect, or other surveyors...

[Cadguru42]

---

@ShaneMcDaniel wrote:

Is there any legitimacy to the argument, "We use Civil3D because we are an engineering firm and it makes sharing files with other design firms easier."?  

I have heard that argument many times before, but, until this year, hadn't had any experience with C3D in a production setting. Now working for a civil engineering firm forcing the survey department to make the switch from Carlson to C3D, I am struggling just to keep productivity from tanking. The biggest reason is the file/drawing compatibility with other design firms. I don't recall ever having any issue opening and manipulating the data I needed when I received a file from the civil engineer, architect, or other surveyors...

---

C3D 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 are all backwards compatible. 

[Neilw_05]

File sharing with other C3D sers can be very powerful but it also can be problematic when compatabilty issues are encountered as you have noted. The data shortcut paradigm also gets to be a challenge when you exchange design updates.