AutoCAD Civil 3D

[#1]

We are interested in your specific feedback.

http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/civil3d_corridor_solids/

Does this work on not work for you? We have already received a request for solids instead of body objects. What else? Your feedback shapes teh future of our technology.

[#2]

Scott, I have already sent my comments to Dave S. In case you have not seen them, I am posting here as well:

1. No object to represent 0-thickness links? How about a
surface (not TIN, but Mesh, etc.) for those parts of the corridor. Daylight
slopes needs to be modeled so they can be used in Navisworks and it's a lot of
work to make a TIN surface of just those catch slopes. Dave suggests using the subassembly editor to create a subassembly that has a minimal thickness. That's an easy fix, but I would still like to see this issue handled by the program. Many end-users do not use the subassembly editor, so the program handling the zero-thickness items would make for an easier-to-use interface. Fewer steps, happier customers.

2. The add region function allows me to span corridor
regions, but only picks up info from one. The slider should stop at the end of
a corridor region if this is going to be the functionality.

3. Shape names in the interface need to match the shape
names from the subassemblies. Although my corridor shapes have names like
Pave1, Pave2, Base, and Subbase, the solids extractor shows Shape-0, Shape-1,
etc.

4. There needs to be a way to de-select those shapes we do
not want to solidify. I might only want Paving, and not base. It is, however, nice that
you can remove subassemblies you do not want modeled.

5. The page that allows setting layer names only allows you to select multiple shapes within the same subassembly. If I want to set Paving for all subassemblies to be on layer Paving, I have to do them one at a time.

Scott, I don't know if you're looking only for opinions on the new solids tool in Civil 3D or if you want to hear opinions about how Civil objects are handled inside Navisworks. If so, please read on.

The Corridor Solids tool in Civil 3D creates Body objects. As I explore my project through the Selection Tree in Navisworks, it would be easier if the object had a name that corresponded to its function within the corridor. Just being called body makes you pick and look to see if you're getting the correct object, unless you take the time to separate everything by layer. It would be far easier if you saw Pavement, Base, Subbase, etc. in the Selection Tree as an automation performed by the NWCOUT command.

Catch 22: The Find function does not allow wildcards in search by layer name, so you don't really want to separate everything by layer. It causes more work to create the Navisworks selection sets.

Anyway, this is a cool idea. The only reason I would like to see solids instead of bodies is because I can use Massprop to get volumes from solids.

One last idea and I'll sign off. It would be efficient if there was a QTO column in the Corridor Solids dialog. It could take the work out of the hands of the Civil 3D specialist and into the hands of a lower-cost technician.

Of all my blather, the first thing I would fix is inside Corridor Solids dialog so that you see the Shape names instead of Shape - 0, etc.

Best regards,

Tim

[#3]

---

tcorey wrote:

The Corridor Solids tool in Civil 3D creates Body objects. As I explore my project through the Selection Tree in Navisworks, it would be easier if the object had a name that corresponded to its function within the corridor. Just being called body makes you pick and look to see if you're getting the correct object, unless you take the time to separate everything by layer. It would be far easier if you saw Pavement, Base, Subbase, etc. in the Selection Tree as an automation performed by the NWCOUT command.

---

Hammer that Autodesk team!  They're creating a lot of great things, but they don't seemt to actually use their own software, so they often don't seem to realize when they overlook something and create so much work that we lose a lot of the time savings we should be getting!  That's not only frustrating, but it inhibits the adoption of some software that offers some truely amazing benefits in other areas.

[#4]

I have no expertise with solids in ACad, but some quick research suggests that these body objects will be harder to modify than ordinary solid objects.

It seems to me that  your tool is aimed towards creating nice looking presentations and for exporting to other software instead of design and analysis, which is what I use Civil 3D to do.  If I cannot actually use these solids or bodies as part of my work then this tool is of limited use for me.

The ability to to produce a proper 3d representation of the materials in the Civil design world, and then manipulate and interact with them as part of the design process would be a significant improvement on the current state of the software.  It would be interesting to see Autodesk Labs start developing tools for this.  For example:

• Tools to assist with creating triangulated surfaces from survey data of near vertical objects, overhangs and point clouds, then converting these triangulations into solids.

• Tools for creating solids from the volume between two TIN surfaces. 

• Grading objects and daylight subassemblies that can target solids instead of surfaces.

[#5]

Howdy - I wouldn't read too much into the decision to use AutoCAD bodies vs. ACIS solids in the first rev of the tech preview. There are a number of benefits to having ACIS solids including having access to more of native AutoCAD's cool 3D modeling and interrogation tools (volumes, slice, subtract, etc).

The only question I have is whether people feel we need a user option to control whether the utility creates ACIS solids or bodies. I've looked at how both type entities transition and behave into other apps (mainly 3ds Max Design, Navisworks and Revit) and there isn't much difference. Do we need an option or should we just be creating solids?

Looking forward to your experience with the pros/cons of both...

Thanks
DAS

[#6]

Has anyone tried to use the corridor solids in conjunction with Navisworks for construction planning/coordination? One goal of the utility was to enable you to easily break the corridor up to match construction regions (rather the design regions that are used to properly model the corridor in C3D).

I'm very interested to hear about what's working and what we can/should improve to make this process easier.

This video (there are others on the Labs tech preview site) gives a quick overview of the workflow...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oJCfJ88FCI

Thanks

Dave Simeone

Senior Product Manager - Civil 3D

[#7]

Dave, the Corridor Solids Add Region function will break a design region into multiple segments, but it will not span corridor design regions. I would like to see it do that. Also, using "Construction Zone," just "Zone" or some other nomenclature would prove less confusing than using "Region" as that already means design region.

Regarding asking whether a user would want the option to select Body or Solid, I don't see any reason. Provide Solids and no one will care that they can't create a Body.

And please make the interface show the shape names instead of Shape-0, Shape-1.

Also, the interface does not save my settings. If I set layer names, colors, etc., create solids, then have to do it again later, my settings are gone and I have to set it all again. As Yoda would say, "Pain in the rear, this is."

Are the solid objects going to be dynamically linked to the corridor? I know it will add more programming, but since that's the way most of Civil 3D works, users will expect it.

Best regards,

Tim

[#8]

Hi Tim - good points. I'll add them to the list of improvements that we're tracking.

"I would like to see it do that. Also, using "Construction Zone," just "Zone" or some other nomenclature would prove less confusing than using "Region" as that already means design region." - Dave S... Make sense.

"And please make the interface show the shape names instead of Shape-0, Shape-1." - Dave S - Definitely an issue for usability and downstream use of the model.

"Also, the interface does not save my settings. If I set layer names, colors, etc., create solids, then have to do it again later, my settings are gone and I have to set it all again. As Yoda would say, "Pain in the rear, this is." - Dave S - There is a new Command Setting that controls this. it'll show up in the Corridors command settings - ExportCorridorToSolids. Note that it' a bit funky now... after launching C3D, it doesn;t always show up until you run the command to create solids.

"Are the solid objects going to be dynamically linked to the corridor? I know it will add more programming, but since that's the way most of Civil 3D works, users will expect it."  Dave S - Sadly, not now. Definitely where we need to go.

Best regards,

Tim

[#9]

I haven't used this add-on yet, due to one reason:  The solids are only created in corridors.  When we're doing site development designs, and even when doing road designs, not everything is in a corridor.

This tool is of limited use if it can only create solids for a portion of our designs.  If it expands to cover the full site (perhaps linking subassemblies to irregularly-shaped hatches of pavement or lawn), then this would be a tool I would consider using.

--Jeremy

[#10]

Jeremy, you should check out the Interactive Terrain Shaper on Autodesk Labs. This is a possible new tool that can create solids from surfaces.