Can't see many compelling reasons to rush out and upgrade to 2013 based on the currently available info - looks more like a service pack type content upgrade.
Perhaps the Civil 3D 2013 enhancements/new features will make it more worthwhile ....
neilyj (No connection with Autodesk other than using the products in the real world)
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
So you noticed the lack of any real improvements too?
Yeah my next project will be trying to do the site stuff as a pilot project in Revit, so C3D 2013 will be Revit 2013 for me. The architects say that's where all the improvements are happening, and that it's ready for sites now.
In concept I like the idea - true BIM, one model with the building.
We'll see if it works. I'll keep you posted.
I've not heard that Revit can do site modeling. Is it really as capable as C3D for that?
Not sure yet. There are a few add-ins from Eaglepoint that add to site functionality. It seems to be weak on corridor modeling, so if we make the switch we might need to keep a few C3D licenses around for those--and import back and forth (sort of like how we have a few Autoturn licenses for when we need to look at trucks.)
But it can do surfaces, assign cross-sectional pavement zones to them, generate subgrade surfaces, and work with curb, sidewalk, fence, and tree entities. It can generate sections anywhere (not just corridors like C3D), and it can create quantity calculations and link keynotes to specs. It shares the model with the architects, and Revit MEP can do manholes, valves, bends, and tees--as well as conduits, lights, and duct banks. Plus Revit Structure can handle utility tunnels. We have in-house MEP and structural engineers, so our learning curve should be more manageable than if we were a site-only firm.
I haven't started on it yet (it's probably a month or two away), and I'm sure there will be hiccups, but it is very intriguing. Especially given that we work with in-house architects on most of our projects, it would be nice to share one model for everything and take advantage of true BIM, rather than the half-BIM that is C3D.
Will it fully work? I don't know--we're going to run the pilot to see what the limitations are, and whether it's yet "ready for primetime". If not yet, I think it will be soon, in a year or two. Aaron Maller's posted quite a bit about it on the internet, but I haven't seen anybody else recommending it as fully as he does yet.
I'm not find any comprehensive info on Revit for Site modeling. If you can post a link or two I'd appreciate it.
Neil
Siteworks (hardscape + grading)
http://www.eaglepoint.com/products/siteworksforrevit/
LandCADD (landscape and amenities)
http://www.eaglepoint.com/products/landcaddforrevit/index.html
As for the piping - we're relying on our MEP Engineers who have looked at our plans and said "it's easy to do that in Revit MEP. We have sloped pipe, manholes, valves, bends, and wyes in buildings too." They've agreed to help with the site piping and setting up part families on the pilot.
Can the pipe modeling tools handle pressure pipes (i.e. water & forcemains) where there can be any number of profile VPI's without a junction in plan view?
I see that as 3 questions:
1) Can it (Revit MEP) handle pressure pipe? Yes - absolutely.
2) Can it handle bends and PIs and PVIs? Yes - absolutely.
3) Can it make the PVIs not show on plan view? I don't know. My guess is there's some way to get them to not show, but I won't know until I do the pilot. Worst case I figure I'll make it some sort of different looking thing and not label it--I figure it won't HURT to show PVIs on plan view so I'll live with it, if I can take advantage of all the other Revit benefits.
My question was in regards to comparison with C3D's pipe tools which require a plan view node for every profile PVI. It is impractical for modeling pressure pipe networks.
Looking at the links you posted it appears the site tools are not intended to be as comprehensive as C3D's modeling tools, but I can see how it would be useful for the architects to generate realistic site models for preliminary designs and concepts.
Certainly that's what the brochures say. Our architects, on the other hand, say they've taken plazas and things to construction documents with it. And regarding C3D's modelling abilities, I'd have to ask: What does it really model? When you get away from the roadway corridor, all it's making is a TIN and a pipe network, and there are no solids or other objects that it's making--just polylines and hatches. If there's something else that will model solid objects, I'm ready to give it a try.
Will it work? We'll find out. If it doesn't we'll just have to keep waiting for Revit Civil to really come out. I'll keep you all posted once we get going on it in a month or two.
While it is true as you say that C3D only creates TIN models, it also provides comprehensive tools for creating, manipulating, analyzing, and documenting those models and dependent components dynamically. I am skeptical that Revit will be equal to all the tasks involved, but let us know how it goes.
One of my complaints about C3D is the inability to get a formation model easily if you are not using corridors.
If you have several hatches defining paved areas play areas etc etc and you know the construction depth then its a bit of a serious workaround to reduce the areas by the construction depth to obtain volumes. In other software you can define a construction thickness for the hatch and the volumes are calculated to the base of this depth (if desired).
This is one of the things that C3D should be able to do in its sleep but the development seems to be concentrating on the "sexy" things like 3D views etc etc rather than the stuff that is really needed to price work accurately
neilyj (No connection with Autodesk other than using the products in the real world)
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
You are right on about the inability to apply depths to gradings. That is one of many deficiencies in C3D's grading paradigm. I am not a fan of C3D at this point and prefer a competitor's product, but if I am to maintain my marketability as a designer I have to be proficient with it.
Lately I wish I were in a different profession.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.