Section 3D

[Anonymous]

Few months ago someone from cad microsolutions talked about their Section 3D
add-on for Civil 3D.
Is here in this newsgroup anyone who uses it? I am especially interested for
railroad design and how section 3d works with that. With new railways or
existing railway reconstruction.
If so, I would like to hear some impressions about that package

Thank you

Domagoj

[ebarlevi]

Domagoj

I use Section 3D. The software is excellent. It is far better then the subassemblies that Autocad 2011 uses.

You can build any section you have in mind.

It takes some time to master the software , but once you get it, its a piece of cake.

Also, the support you get from the developer is superb.

If you want more details you are welcome to write me

ebarlevi@gmail.com

[c3dlearner]

For more information visit www.section3d.com

[brendanbutt]

I'm using Section 3D with C3D 2010/2011 for rail design. I tried every out of the box approach and even the new Subassembly Composer technology preview, but Section 3D is the only way to do rail corridors propery in C3D, and a much better way to do anything else.

It provides complete freedom to program cross section templates for anything you can imagine. It adds the missing capabilities of subassemblies and the very poor section viewer/editor, allowing C3D to truly compete on par with InRoads/Rail Track/MX. If Section 3D was integrated into Civil 3D it would be the ultimate solution.

[projekty.jacko]

I'm using S3d almost 2 years and I'm very happy with...

I tried to use Subassembly Studio and Subassembly Composer, but it is much more difficult. S3d point is simply brilliant. You can do everything, own coding etc.

In my opinion it is optimal for railways. But we're doing with a lot of main/village roads without problems.

Little disadvantage is that S3d is not directly inregrated into Civil and uses different principle than "Civil Subassembly".

But if you understand principle it is without problems. In addition S3d included some great utilities such as corridor report, without which I couldn´t be. If you have any question, you're welcome to email me (stanislav.vyskocil@gmail.com)

Stan

[dnl999]

I concur with others on Section 3D.   Initially we had some doubt about the application but everything became very clear after understanding the logic and seeing the result.  Now we use Section 3D quite often from retaining wall to road rehabs.  It took me a few days to learn how to use the software from the downloaded tutorials but it was well worth my time.  Building corridor was much much easier with the full control on the behavior of all subassembly points, links and shapes.  We had some issues with the transitioning of shoulder superelevation and stripping/earthwork calculation but Section 3D solved it like a piece of cake without any programming.  I am impressed.

Andrew

[LeafRiders]

Why doesn't Autodesk cut these Section 3D guys a deal and replace the terrible Subassembly Composser just released? Come on Autodesk get it together or eventually InRoads will take over. If i could reproduce the complexity of our governments requirements for road design with the Autodesk Subassembly Composser, I would. It can't be done, and quite possibly Section 3D might be the only "Perfect" answer! In all fairness Autodesk this is detailed design, not a bunch of fluff.

[mathewkol]

Can you explain in a little more detail one scenario that the SAC can't do that S3D can? Maybe include sketches?

[onsionsi1]

ya Matt I concur with you.

Can someone explain what is the difference between S3D and SAC or by other word what S3D can do and SAC can't do.

Thank you.

[LeafRiders]

I don't think I will waste my time explaining what Civil 3D can't do. Or the work arounds you might need to do in exact order to get your corridor design perfect. If there was a better method to communicate to Autodesk (Civil 3D developers) what we need from the out of the box subassemblies this would help. Also, the subassemblies explanation within the help menu sometimes seems to get lost in translation, not to mention they won't print worth a penny for one to have as reference material.

Autodesk could start by taking all the out-of-the-box civil 3D subassemblies and make them .pkt files so we can edit everything within the SAC. Then give me a tutorial on how to make changes to those subassemblies (as a .pkt) in ways the general population of designers often need to make changes. This doesn't exist. Why not?

Once you hit a point that with Civil 3D where you can't get what you need, people look for an option. Section 3D should be your 1st option as it's very flexible. The complexity of design standards dictate what you need to do in a Detailed Design environment.  Civil 3D is restricting in more ways than 1.

The SA Composer may be limitless for those who understand coding and how to program. Where as Section 3D you actually work with the points, links, relationships, associations on a station by station basis and apply to a range of stations, then insert to an assembly marker prior to building your corridor.

[ebarlevi]

Please note,

I use Section 3D on a complex road of 25KM (15.6 MI) in ONE file (Alignment and Profile are connected via data shortcut)

There are 1250 cross sections! + 45 cross sections for culverts.

Try to do the same with Autocad SA. Especially use "edit section" command !

[dnl999]

IMHO those who say "What S3D can do that SAC can't do ?" is missing the point. 

The question should be how well each solution works on a given a scenario as the project task & section editing become more complex.   I use S3D simply because I can still outperform the SA/SAC experts and finish my job with a better result in a fraction of time. 

[raptorsi]

Zdravo Domagoj,jesi li dobio informacije o section3d. Ako jesi,javi mi, pozdrav

[raptorsi]

I want to tell that i aquarre S3D. I can tell that software is amazing after you learn how to use it. It is easy and quicker and flexible to edit corridor than Subassembly composer.