What is your opinion about QTO ?

[tonnot]

I'm astonished of what a bad tool is QTO. 

IMHO it lacks of a lot of functionality.

For example. highlight method to find which elements are or not linked to a pay item is a total madness.....

The imposibilty to evaluate corridor shapes ...... Oh my god. .....

What do you think ? 

Thanks

[neilyj666]

I don't use it as much as I probably should but the times I've used it I though it a bit clunky.

[michael.robertson]

I'm not a QTO user myself but I know we've had programmers create our own application to draw objects/place blocks with the pay item(s) data attached automatically and we are in the process of writing our own reporting application for pay item data.

This application is available for our in-house & consultant designers.

[Lisa_Pohlmeyer]

Have you looked at these tools?  I downloaded a trial, like what I see so far.

http://civil3dpowertools.com/c3dpt/Products/VisualReportDesigner/VisualReportDesigner.aspx

I'm very unfamiliar with creating these forms but the documentation is very clear.  I've just been playing, haven't used it on a project yet.

[MikeEvansUK]

Although cumbersome it is very powerful, I have written an app to automatically add pay items to a pipe network this date can then be targeted in navisworks or by the QS via dwfx to produce detailed costing. I could do it myself with the formulas but its not my job 🙂

Missing item for pipes depth reporting.

I have added surface construction types and layers to parcels then extracted the values from that but. It will not calc volumes precisely based on levels only area.

[Joe-Bouza]

---

< I have written an app to automatically add pay items to a pipe network >...

---

Hi Mike can't the payitem be part of the prototype part list?

[MikeEvansUK]

Correct Joe, of course it can but I we needed a solution for existing drawings and also I assign other aspects to manholes such as vortex controls, Non return valves etc which I wouldn't want directly from the generic parts list.

I also wanted to work out if it could be done 🙂 I Like making life difficult.

[Joe-Bouza]

kudos for that, Good job

[Cadguru42]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm astonished of what a bad tool is QTO. 

IMHO it lacks of a lot of functionality.

For example. highlight method to find which elements are or not linked to a pay item is a total madness.....

The imposibilty to evaluate corridor shapes ...... Oh my god. .....

What do you think ? 

Thanks

---

Do a search on the forums for QTO. You'll notice that it's pretty much uselss. It doesn't even do volumes correctly, even though the help files say they do. QTO treats all areas as 2d, even on corridor items. This makes using QTO useless for real quantities. About the only thing it'd be good for would be for counting and lengths, but since areas and volumes are mostly useless there's no point even bothering with QTO. 

The worst part is that Autodesk thinks QTO is fine. Once it was added to the software (forgot which version) they've never updated since. Like most features Autodesk adds to Civil 3D, once they're added, they're never updated again to fix any issues with them. 

[kevinjackman]

QTO is cumbersome and not intuitive to use. I tried using it a few times but it was more work than it was worth. I also found it lacking in its ability to calculate pipe depths, structure vertical mertres, curb types, asphalt thickness variations etc.

Don't waste your time.

In Autodesk Revit, a wall or a window is a type of basic element. The basic elements all have customizable properties. Any basic element can be quantified easily in Revit using the material takeoff tool, without a whole lot of time being wasted assigning the element to a pay item. Maybe Autodesk should look at infrastructure within Civil 3D in a similar way that Revit looks at it's building componants. For example a 'Road' would be a collection of basic sub-elements such as curb, asphalt, base materials etc. If this were the case, I think material take-offs would be so much easier to control, verify and analyze.

C3D 2013. Windows 7.

[Cadguru42]

---

@kevinjackman wrote:

QTO is cumbersome and not intuitive to use. I tried using it a few times but it was more work than it was worth. I also found it lacking in its ability to calculate pipe depths, structure vertical mertres, curb types, asphalt thickness variations etc.

Don't waste your time.

In Autodesk Revit, a wall or a window is a type of basic element. The basic elements all have customizable properties. Any basic element can be quantified easily in Revit using the material takeoff tool, without a whole lot of time being wasted assigning the element to a pay item. Maybe Autodesk should look at infrastructure within Civil 3D in a similar way that Revit looks at it's building componants. For example a 'Road' would be a collection of basic sub-elements such as curb, asphalt, base materials etc. If this were the case, I think material take-offs would be so much easier to control, verify and analyze.

C3D 2013. Windows 7.

---

That's a great idea. However, it exposes why Civil 3D isn't really a true BIM. The objects aren't relatable to each other unless a programmer at Autodesk makes it that way. Basic interactions between civil objects is missing. For example, a cogo point table cannot be related to an alignment. One of the problems is that the vast majority of the objects used in a Civil 3D drawing are basic Autocad objects. Polylines and blocks and MTEXT objects are still used much more than something like feature lines and civil annotation notes.

What Autodesk really needs to do is use another drawing engine other than Autocad, but that'll be very hard to do without considerable investment in another. I don't even know if Revit is double floating point precision, but starting with that as a base might be the way to go.

[Lisa_Pohlmeyer]

Hello Infraworks... it's got a ways to go, but the writing's on the wall, don't ya think?

[neilyj666]

Infraworks has a very long way to go to do anything meaningful; at the moment it just seems to be for pretty pictures of conceptual designs.

[dgorsman]

Civil3D doesn't exist in a vacuum - others need to use the files.  If its done through Revit (which doesn't communicate directly with other software), how would you propose the consumers of Civil3D data to get their work done?

Not sure about your comment about the "... vast majority of objects used in a Civil3D are basic AutoCAD objects".  Not that I've seen.  Internally, perhaps; but from the point of AutoCAD almost everything is wrapped into Civil3D objects.  Otherwise, drawings would look virtually identical in vanilla or other verticals without the appropriate object enablers.

[neilyj666]

If you are trying to calculate earthworks quantities i.e. to the bottom of the construction thickness for projects that do not involve corridors then Civil 3D fails miserably. Whilst it can be done as a long winded workaround, it is such a basic requirement it is almost unbelievable this functionality is omitted from the software.

[tonnot]

in Autodesk Revit, a wall or a window is a type of basic element. The basic elements all have customizable properties. Any basic element can be quantified easily in Revit using the material takeoff tool, without a whole lot of time being wasted assigning the element to a pay item. Maybe Autodesk should look at infrastructure within Civil 3D in a similar way that Revit looks at it's building componants. For example a 'Road' would be a collection of basic sub-elements such as curb, asphalt, base materials etc. If this were the case, I think material take-offs would be so much easier to control, verify and analyze.

 Of course.

The main goal of a project is to know how much it cost. 

I have longed believed that s "Area Autodesk marketing messages simply are lying ?" 

oh oh oh,. 2014 and adesk suites are amazing tools or simply smoke and more smoke  ? 

(and only for the little amount of 14000$)

Thanks everybody.

[Joe-Bouza]

My boss would say to me .."if it were easy, I would do it"... I see it job security.

[Cadguru42]

---

@dgorsman wrote:

Civil3D doesn't exist in a vacuum - others need to use the files.  If its done through Revit (which doesn't communicate directly with other software), how would you propose the consumers of Civil3D data to get their work done?

Not sure about your comment about the "... vast majority of objects used in a Civil3D are basic AutoCAD objects".  Not that I've seen.  Internally, perhaps; but from the point of AutoCAD almost everything is wrapped into Civil3D objects.  Otherwise, drawings would look virtually identical in vanilla or other verticals without the appropriate object enablers.

---

You could say the same to Revit users. Why is Revit so widely used and between architects, engineers, etc.? It has great interoperability between the disciplines that use it. Revit can export to DWG very well and also import DWG as well as other formats. 

What do you use to show proposed edge of pavements, curbs, sidewalks, driveways, pavement markings, landscaping, etc.? Do you use civil objects for those or use polylines, arcs, MTEXT, etc.? That's what I'm talking about. The objects that are used to create a set of plans is still mostly regular ACAD objects. The civil objects are used for design with some having very robust styles that can be used for finished plans, but not every civil object can be used this way. Corridors are a good example of this. You could try to use the feature lines that are part of a corridor to make your final set of plans, but they won't look that good, especially curved areas. We can't use the profile view grid because there is no way to make a profile grid that meets TDOT standard. We use a profile view that has the grid turned off and use a block to display the grid. You can't use the pipe styles for a box culvert that has bends because it won't display the bend correctly. Those have to be shown as regular polylines. 

When most people need a drawing from those of us using Civil 3D we export it with AEC objects exploded for the same reason you mentioned about getting people our civil data. 

[Lisa_Pohlmeyer]

This is what I meant by "the writing's on the wall"

http://inthefold.autodesk.com/in_the_fold/2013/09/hitting-the-road-new-app-for-autodesk-infraworks-3...

[Cadguru42]

---

@LisaPohlmeyer wrote:

This is what I meant by "the writing's on the wall"

http://inthefold.autodesk.com/in_the_fold/2013/09/hitting-the-road-new-app-for-autodesk-infraworks-3...

---

I guess Autodesk changed the name of it yet again or did they make a cloud version of InfraWorks and call it 360 Pro? Anyway, while I agree that it seems like InfraWorks could be the future, I wonder how well that program would actually work. Is it double floating point precision? That makes a big deal when dealing with state plane coordinates and such. Also, there's no real design involved in it. You can't tweak an intersection in order to put low spots where you want them, nothing about handicap ramps, or drainage design. There's also the big elephant in the room: printed plans. You can have a great model and design, but unless a contractor can see it it's pretty useless. 

At the rate that Autodesk seems to be programing, it'll be 10 years before this would even be feasible as a civil design platform. Meanwhile, their track record for fixing bugs and adding features to their existing programs is horrible.