AutoCAD Civil 3D

[#1]

---

mike.barkasi wrote:

As for Infrastructure modeler... with SS3 I can create a better prilimanary design using the Civil design tools in virtually the same ammount of time - and the Rendering and annimation outputted would be the same quality as 3D studio...

---

Really? You think that a Bentley product can render as good as 3ds Max?  Does it have Mental Ray?  Can its renderer use caustics and physical based lighting?  Can it do lighting analysis?  Does it support other renderers like Vray?

[#2]

Bentley uses Luxology... for the anmation and rendering required for Civil Design microstations rendering is right on PAR. If your making disney movies, adding special effects, use something else...

The biggest bonus is there is NO extra cost... it is in MicroStation... Last I looked I couldnt play the 3dstudio annimation in civil3d, and I certainly could not play the annimation in a pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIHVbixS7cg&feature=related

[#3]

I don't know much about rendering but in case you were not aware of it, Bentley began integrating a Luxology rendering engine in Microstation about 2 yrs ago. Do you know how the Luxology rendering engine compares with 3DS Max? It may not do everything that can be done in 3DS max but it should be more than adequate for site models and it doesn't require any file conversion. I would think it is certainly superior to the rendering capabilities that come with Autocad.

[#4]

jumping in on this thread, but I see people comparing rather advanced features of C3D and Bentlet products, but the issues with C3D are much more fundamental.

For instance, the data sharing method of civil 3D is horrible. Xref of data limits what you can lebel via expressions, and dref of data is super cumbersome (no batch way to make drefs).

The bentley products have external databases which accomodate sharing easily.

How will the DOT crowd deal with that? I don;t see how productoin speeds can come close to a prog that uses an external database for data. Carlson and others use external databases too, only C3D is odd on this.

Dynamic behavior is not worth any such comproimise, you must have easy data sharing first.

[#5]

---

mike.barkasi wrote:

Bentley uses Luxology... for the anmation and rendering required for Civil Design microstations rendering is right on PAR. If your making disney movies, adding special effects, use something else...

The biggest bonus is there is NO extra cost... it is in MicroStation... Last I looked I couldnt play the 3dstudio annimation in civil3d, and I certainly could not play the annimation in a pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIHVbixS7cg&feature=related

---

What about the lighting analysis?  That is a very neat AEC feature that has a lot to do with site design in this post-apocolyptic world full of carbon that we're trying to spend billions of dollars "fixing".

As for the Disney line, I'm not talking about the modeling aspect of the software, I'm talking about the actual renderer.  From what I've read about modo, which I'm assuming is the same as what MS uses, it does have basic rendering features like textures, specular maps, ambiant occlusion, etc.  But from what I've seen, just using the default daylight settings for mental ray provides a much more realistic rendering, most likely because of the caustics and photon system as well as the daylight system.  I don't consider them on par at all.  I haven't even talked about Vray, which is a very good renderer also.

Also, who would watch the animation in the software that renders it?  The animation should be in a format that's easy to view to anyone, like Youtube or an AVI, which means the person(s) whom you're trying to convey the design to won't have the design software in the first place.  Your statement that you can't view the rendered animation in the software has no actual real world value.

[#6]

We have a saying around here: 'Consultants are in the business of making money, the DOTs are in the business of staying busy!"

So if Geopak/Inroad/Microstation was so great then that is all they would own! Otherwise why have both software's in house?

Also another quote! Misery loves company!

Personally I wish that all DOT's would just say use whatever you want to use, just send us the plans when you are done and they should look like this.....  when you buy a book or magazine do you really give a hoot on what software they used to create it?  Really why should it matter! If company A thinks they can do the job using Gepack and company B thnks they can do it in Civil 3D then great........ send me your bid and prove it! If you're the lowest bid and you can do it as per specs, then who cares what software was used????

Bill Neuhauser P.E.

[#7]

Guys I'd love to keep talkin... but....

Bill in a way is right but he is short sighted, when he says we should be able to use what we want... Standards are key, and as I mentioned what good are they if after 5 yrs a program isnt supported.

As for lighting analysis... look into Hevacomp (Bentley owned), if your not happy with the solar lighting and shadows produced with MicroStation Luxology...

As for why view the annimation in a design package? if you have to ask you never modeled anything... its nice to run the animation in the same package your using to model ... that way any edits in the model can be made easily...

Youtube videos are cool but an intelligent 3D pdf with annimation where a user can stop the annimation change the display style, query the properties of the civil content... Now that is useful... all within adobe reader, installed on 99% of the of all computers.

I'll give you all last word

[#8]

Mike,

You ahve yet to answer my questions or at least the important one? How many weeks/months of training does it take to just design roads? Not even counting the two weeks to learn Microstations....... come on Mike tell us how many days in Florida is it going to take me to learn how to design roads? Don't forget all the stuff needed up to roads either! Your words......easy stuff!  HOW MANY WEEKS????

[#9]

Bill

For you... email me (mike.barkasi) at bentley dot com,  and I will send you a video... you seem like a pretty bright guy... I would think within a week you could run roadway designer...and the really cool thing is you will love our Templates... and SS3 gets even easier.

Mike

[#10]

---

mike.barkasi wrote:

Guys I'd love to keep talkin... but....

Bill in a way is right but he is short sighted, when he says we should be able to use what we want... Standards are key, and as I mentioned what good are they if after 5 yrs a program isnt supported.

As for lighting analysis... look into Hevacomp (Bentley owned), if your not happy with the solar lighting and shadows produced with MicroStation Luxology...

As for why view the annimation in a design package? if you have to ask you never modeled anything... its nice to run the animation in the same package your using to model ... that way any edits in the model can be made easily...

Youtube videos are cool but an intelligent 3D pdf with annimation where a user can stop the annimation change the display style, query the properties of the civil content... Now that is useful... all within adobe reader, installed on 99% of the of all computers.

I'll give you all last word

---

My degree is in digital media with an emphasis on visualization, so I know a thing or two about rendering and modeling and I don't appreciate being told that I've never modeled anything.  What I've been talking about is the renderer, which you completely ignore in your responses.  You keep going on about the animation in the software while I've been talking about the rendered output, which could be a still shot or an animation.  Even with 3ds Max and Civil 3D I can make a single export out of C3D  and it automatically shows up in 3ds Max, so again, your point is moot about being able to see the animation in the software.  What matters is the deliverables and the renders from MS cannot compare to 3ds Max.  They aren't bad, but they're no where near the quality that 3ds Max can do (or Maya for that matter).

Back to the topic:

Basically, what it boils down to is the fact that DOTs are slowly migrating away from Microstation toward Civil 3D while the private sector has mostly always been with Autodesk in the first place.  My boss has a sister that is an engineer for a company that just switched from Microstation with either Geopak or InRoads (can't remember which) to Civil 3D.  At first she hated it, but now she's a complete convert and says she'll never go back to Microstation.  If she can say that after using Microstation for over a decade, then that means something.