Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AutoCAD usage by DOTs

140 REPLIES 140
Reply
Message 1 of 141
BWYarger
9674 Views, 140 Replies

AutoCAD usage by DOTs

I am trying to figure out how many DOTs use AutoCAD, plain or C3D.  It appears that almost all state DOTs are using Microstation to the point I am worried I am getting left behind using C3D exclusively.  The problem is that Microstation with all the bells and whistles is very expensive even before talking about training costs and learning curve.  I find that my private clients use AutoCAD products, but I am wondering about just the DOTs, federal, state, and local.

 

Brad
LT, C3D 2005 - 2024
Windows XP, Vista, 7, 10, 11
140 REPLIES 140
Message 121 of 141
Neilw_05
in reply to: tshulbert

Sean,

 

Have you seen the new Civil Geometry tools in SS3?

Neil Wilson (a.k.a. neilw)
AEC Collection/C3D 2024, LDT 2004, Power Civil v8i SS1
WIN 10 64 PRO

http://www.sec-landmgt.com
Message 122 of 141
tshulbert
in reply to: Neilw_05

I have not, and unfortunately ODOT plans on SS2.  We will be investigating the offerings and are truly a dual platform shop.  I wish we had more collaboration and support, and less Ford vs. Chevy!  (although I find my self slipping into the one is better argument; I learned AutoCad and DCA first so with that migration path I PREFER PERSONALLY Civil 3D.

 

 All software has human programmers.....Just like all roadway designs have human designers....It is all an iterative process!

Sean Hulbert
Message 123 of 141
Sinc
in reply to: tshulbert

I'm also a fan of having Bentley + Autodesk (and don't forget Carlson) battle it out, as I think the competition makes all products better.

 

But I have to admit, I hate having to deal with ANYTHING created in a Bentley product.  And as an Autodesk expert, I find Bentley products very foreign.  I'm getting better with them, but I find it takes me FAR longer to do anything in them.  And I see an aweful lot of crashing, reminicent of Civil 3D 2007.  C3D still crashes too much for my taste, but the 2012 version crashes FAR less often than I see with Bentley products.  Maybe that's a sign that I just know how to avoid the crashes in C3D, and simply don't do things that I know will crash C3D.  But it's feeling less and less like that.

 

As a software engineer, I tend to feel that NO product should crash.  I know that's an impossible goal, but it should be the goal, none-the-less.  There's nothing worse for a new user than to have the program crash, even if the core problem is unexpected input from the user.  The program should, at a bare minimum, attempt to identify the problem and give the user a sane error message explaining what's wrong.  A silent crash is the absolute worst result.

 

After all, how often do you see Word or Excel crash?  Or Camtasia Studio, or Photoshop, or Paint Shop Pro, or Sonar, or any other major Windows-based applications?  In my experience, none of them crash anywhere near as often as either AutoCAD or Microstation.  BOTH applications seem to need a lot of work in that regard.  Although again, maybe because I have years of experience in AutoCAD products, I see a lot fewer crashes in C3D than in any flavor of Microstation (even the core product).  And I'm still not a fan of Intellicad - makes me feel like I'm using R14 at best.  (Haven't yet tried BricsCad, although I've heard claims that it's better than IntelliCad.)  I've been impressed with some features in Carlson, but only on an AutoCAD platform, and all-in-all, I feel I can do more with Civil 3D, except in certain areas where Carlson outshines C3D.  In other areas, though, Carlson makes me feel like I'm working with clunky out-dated software that is still using 1990's paradigms.

 

I like the race...  Keep it on, all of you!  We ourselves (at Quux Software) are taking advantage of the Civil 3D API, and continuing to add EVEN MORE functionality to that product.  C3D is expensive, yes, but we tend to feel it's the most-powerful, assuming you know how to use it.  Part of that is because it's the most-extensible, and lets third-party developers like us add even more to the mix than the core dev team can come up with on their own.  Coupled with the new App Store, which lets each individual user custom-taylor C3D 2013+ in specific ways, we think it's leading the pack.  Just our opinion, of course.  But I know that at least all of us at Quux Software (me, Jeff Mishler, Christopher Fugitt) are also end-users, doing production work with C3D at the same time, so the tools we add are geared toward making this software as productive as we can possibly manage.  And there are other developers doing the same thing.  NONE of the other core software packages have an API that lets us do what we can do with C3D.  So all of us third-party developers are now starting to be able to use C3D as a core platform, just as al the I-Phone and Droid developers have been able to use their core platforms to create all kinds of neat stuff.  So...  I think you AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN YET!!!!  It's just going to get better from here on.

Sinc
Message 124 of 141
mike.barkasi
in reply to: Sinc

Sinc,

 

I believe your statement "But I have to admit, I hate having to deal with ANYTHING created in a Bentley product" nolifies any objectivity you could have. (BTW I struggle with the latest release of camtasia)

 

I would suspect Bentleys products do feel foreign if you spent your carreer working with AutoDesk then halfheartedly tried to use MicroStation for a year... For those that do commit to learning it  the pay-off can be huge.

 

I have offered numerous times to look at the "crashing" you mention in MicroStation. To date you have not contacted me or support, If your having issues it is not the program, but most likely a conflict with video or some other program  or resource that is specific to your machine.

 

Neils reply earlier in the post gave a much more objective analysis of MicroStation.

 

Funny, your comment about competition- givin the Caltrans only let AutoDesk compete... Most recent "competition" was in Michigan for Survey, Bentleys SS2 Data Acquisition w/GEOPAK won out

 

Since Survey is where it all begins, I see a move to using more and more point clouds, Is C3D up for this? ... have some fun, load in a small (800 meg)  point cloud file into C3D (note not AutoCAD) then load the same into MicroStation... If you dont have one email me.

 

Take Care

 

Mike Barkasi

Bentley Civil

 

BTW- I did respond to Peters post directly through e-mail to "correct" some things. If he chooses to correct them, that is up to him.

Message 125 of 141

Looks like Peter was right about New Mexico:  HERE

Brian J. Hailey, P.E.



GEI Consultants
My Civil 3D Blog

Message 126 of 141
Hammer.john.j
in reply to: BrianHailey

Randy Tardy, the late Guy Nesin, Mike Cavanaugh, and Tom Inzinga have a lot to offer on this discussion but i'll try to sum it up:

 

the real answer to the question is these states are Autodesk states:  CA, GA, WI, WS, CO, IN, MA, ME, NH

 

here is why

Autodesk bought out CAiCE and Infrsoft/MOSS around the same time Bentley Acquired inroads and geopak, a huge misstep on Autodesks part because insodoing adobted those FEW states while Bentley or whatever it was at the time GOT THE REST.

 

these states may not have .dwg as the standard "format" but they were clearly Autodesk friendly... 

 

CAiCE Visual Roads (3D) – CA, GA, WI, WS

Infrasoft/MOSS (3D endorsed by Autodesk) – CO, IN, MA, ME, NH

 

Mike seems to be a real bentley proponent, so how about a list of universities and trade schools with Microstation as part of the curriculumn and while you are at it, list the ones that require civil 3d.  Also, how many hollywood companies use bentleys solution for movie productions....?

 

Here is an abbreviated version of the backstory on why Bentley, formerly IGDS, formerly, M & S Computing owns the DOT market. MDOT (Michigan) was the 2nd dot to M & S Computings IGDS system using a .dgn format developed on PDP mini-computers in the the 1970's... preceeding AutoCAD .dwg by 10yrs plus and a specific project forced them into a new solution and this was it.

 

MDOT success on that project made them the icon of the transportation community. By the late 1970’s, 6 DOT’s were using IGDS. 

 

A cooperative formed by AASHTO hired by C.W. Beilfuss (and Associates) developed and distributed the FHWA funded Roadway Design System (RDS) governed by a Steering Committee of users. The RDS users funded the development of IGRDS combining engineering and IGDS. RDS/IGRDS licenses enabled states to justify acquisition of Intergraph Systems which included IGDS licenses at no additional cost

 

In the 80's As IGDS migrated to Microstation the free IGDS was replaced with a MicroStation license. AASHTO presented the issue to Intergraph. AASHTO discounted all licenses to all State DOT’s.  This Public Private Partnership (P3) cemented the relationship and continued the growth of Microstation in the DOT community.

 

there were 3 reasons why AutoDESK even had a chance

1.  Bentley was fighting with Integraph

2.  DOT's realized they were pigeon holed

3.  Bentley rested on their client base instead of seeing Autodesk as a threat... because Autodesk rejected Intergraph’s InRoads during the dispute with Bentley and could've re-written history.  Instead, they absorbed Infrasoft/MOSS, failed, acquired CAiCE used by CALTRANS, failed, developed Civil 3D and modeled it after InRoads

 

Bentley is losing Market Share and will continue to lose market share as DOT's downsize and privatize their work.  Autodesk is schooling them in the playground of primary, post secondary, and trade school education market share.

 

http://www.cadalyst.com/cad/bentley-systems-reports-10-growth-2011-14347

 

John Hammer, LA/CADD Manager
Message 127 of 141
mike.barkasi
in reply to: Neilw_05

Not sure why I should even care to respond to this...

But to set the record corrected.
Bentley has increased market share where the two (autodesk and Bentley) companies compete (AEC Industry) it seems the world recession had a greater impact on Autodesk here... Also DOTs outsourcing work allows new consultants to use Bentleys software, this is a positive.

Concerning the names dropped... I know a couple and they know me.
I funny I see no mention of GEOPAK..

I will give you this .. Bentleys software is the primary source for design of the largest infrastructure projects worldwide...so while I drive down a stretch of highway and over bridges designed using Bentleys software, my kids are watching a cartoon created using Autodesk software... So in a way the two software have something in common.

Regards
Mike Barkasi
Bentley civil
Message 128 of 141
Bill.Neuhauser
in reply to: ballen

So Mike, hows the local resellers doing with your Bentley products? Or should I ask how many local resellers are there outside FL? And like was asked before how many local colleges and or high schools teach your Bentley products?

 

Training? What training? You either fly yourself to the Great C3D state of Florida or you beg your local DOT to let you in to one of their classes!  Or you pay big bucks and have one of your lonely Bentley trainers fly in from FL.

 

Ask Eagle Point users what they are using now?   Mike I have news for you that light at the end of the tunnel, is not what you think it is! Just ask an Eagle Point user!

 

"Run Forest Run"

 

Bill Neuhauser P.E.

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

Message 129 of 141
tshulbert
in reply to: BWYarger

Good Day Everyone,

 

Just in case we forgot, Mike works for Bentley.  So it only makes since that he defends the products. I still believe they, Autodesk and Bentley (oops forgot Carlson again) keep each other honest!

 

 

 

 

Sean Hulbert
Message 130 of 141
Bill.Neuhauser
in reply to: tshulbert

Mike,

Simple question for you?  Just how much (MSRP) is for your software if you want to do the following design project?

 

1) .Roads

2.) Underground Utilities.  ie. layout and design

3.) Pond design

4.) Conceptual 3D. of both pre-design and post

5.) Initial Survey/TIN

6.) Final stake out of your design.

7.) Any iPad/droid apps for field use.

 

How many different Bentley softwares would be necessary to do all this? Initial MSRP and also yearly subscription.

 

And then how many weeks of training for each and the cost on a weekly basis for such training. And finally where would I have to go for all of this training?

 

Give me your final answer? Show me the moneyyyyyy

 

Bill Neuhauser P.E.

 

 

Message 131 of 141

We have just started using Power InRoads. Which was acquired by taking advantage of Bentley's Portfolio Balancing. We had MicroStation and InRoads - some just Survey, some just Site, some Suite. With iModels, we can do all of your list except Sanitary and Water distribution design. But we also use Civil 3D. Generally, its client driven.

The costs are pretty comparable.

I also saw mention of the Free/at no cost urban legend. I was a CADD Manager for the largest department among CADD users at one of the smaller state DOT's during our early days of IGDS. We had been using RDS for a number of years befor I started and about ten years in was when we began getting CAD. While it is true that IGDS was provided at no cost, you had to buy an Intergraph PDP or VAX to get this "at no cost" software. And you needed Intergraph terminals or Workstations to access IGDS on the VAX. These workstations we $50K a pop and that is an average. The 2 VAX's we had were purchased before I got into CADD management, but they were purchased at whatever the going rate was. Anyone who talks about free stuff from Intergraph was not on the budget side of the equation. And they are blowing smoke up your skirt!

At one point, we had two shifts going to increase our utilization because the bean counters cut our budget because we were not using these things enough. Never mind that once a project went onto CAD, you were no longer able to revert to manual drafting in a crunch. Nor that for an office with over 100 drafting tables, we had maybe 6 workstations. At the time, we only felt safe using CAD for one-off drawings, details, schedules.

Oh, BTW, RDS & later IGrds was also not free - we paid an annual fee to AASHTO for its license. When we started buying UNIX workstations and then NT PC's, we eventually purchased them from 3rd party vendors. As well as the MicroStation and InRoads to run on them. As it turned out, InRoadswas cheaper and worked better than IGrds anyway.

Am I more comfortable working on a Bentley product, yes. Are there features of Autodesk products I like, yes. Each has its stengths and weaknesses.

Having them in competition makes both products better in the long run.

When I crash in MicroStation, I rarely lose work. And if I need to take a design back to an earlier version, I can save as to that version in most cases.

In Civil 3d, open and save a file in a newer version and you can't go back. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

AKA CaddCop
Message 132 of 141
MSBryan
in reply to: JOVO85

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/en/CADD.html

 

"Beginning July 1, 2014 the NMDOT standard CADD software will be AutoCAD/Civil3D 2013 and will be required for all in-house and consultant design projects. Until that time and including contractual agreements, the NMDOT will continue to accept MicroStation V8i (SELECTseries 1) and InRoads V8i (SELECTseries 1) based deliverables."

Message 133 of 141
Hammer.john.j
in reply to: BWYarger

Any updates?  Wonder if Mike is ever going to reply to the request?

John Hammer, LA/CADD Manager
Message 134 of 141
bzobell
in reply to: BWYarger

I've been a Bentley User for for over 10 years.  However using SS4 and talking to other users in the state and outside the state, there are many issues with SS4 and it seems restarting numerous times is common.  For personal reasons, I'm exploring Civil 3D for personal business.  It seems there is much more free information on youtube for Civil 3D as well as affordable licensing.  From other users it appears that there is less crashing with Civil 3D.  However until I try Civil 3D I cant' comment on the sucess or failure from a personal level.  I will say I'm getting feed up with the problems in SS4.

Message 135 of 141
AllenJessup
in reply to: bzobell

When you're ready. You can download the full Infrastructure Design Suite for a 30 day trial. A major consideration in purchasing is that Autodesk no longer sells licenses of their stand alone programs. You have to rent them for specific time periods. Packages like Infrastructure Design Suite will be sold until July 31, 2016. If you purchase a Permanent License before then you can continue to use it in to the future and if you keep it on Maintenance you will receive updates. You can learn more HERE and in THIS forum.

 

You can check the different levels of the package HERE. You would need Premium or Ultimate to get Civil 3D.



Allen Jessup
Engineering Specialist / CAD Manager

Message 136 of 141
jmayo-EE
in reply to: bzobell

One file, one task. Use xrefs and dref's to build the models and sheets. If you don't overload files with data C3D will run fine and be stable on any decent computer. Read the Best Practices manual on the topics you need. this will set the foundation to learn the new tools and workflows.

John Mayo

EESignature

Message 137 of 141
bzobell
in reply to: BWYarger

I'm a test subject for UDOT and we are considering it.

 

Message 138 of 141
JoelW7
in reply to: bzobell

I work in one of the few states that have transitioned from CaiCE/microstation to Civil 3D/Autocad. Here are a few things users have seen from the transition. This comes from a person with an Inroads, CaiCE, and Civil 3D background.


A user with a CaiCE only background is going to like Civil 3D as it is an improvement while a user from Inroads is going to feel like it is a step backwards in terms of functionality and stability.  We have noted Civil 3D 2016 is less stable than SS4 (We still use SS4 for other state DOT work).
 
Things users have quickly noticed are:
1.) Microstation/Inroads handles large surfaces, huge CADD files, etc much better. A surface that takes 10 minutes to load as an xml into inroads takes 3 hours to load into C3D. The format in inroads allows for the software to handle much larger files versus C3D where the data you want (and the data you don't want but is required to process corridors, etc) is in the file slowing down C3D.

2.) Roadway modeling is much more efficient in Inroads than in C3D.
a. Even using conditional assemblies and multiple baselines in C3D, it still is cumbersome to get a corridor together. Everytime you have a change (ex: changing the steepness of a slope on the side of the roadway, driveways, side roads, a change in pavement/base depth, change from ditch to curb, etc) you have to change subassemblies. Inroads you are not going back and forth between multiple subassemblies everytime you make a small change. This is the bread and butter of roadway design; C3D is very clumsy in this area.

b.  In rural areas we are always changing slopes from a 1:3 to 1:4 to 1:6, etc  Inroads creating the transition is as simple as adding a station range.  In C3D there is no easy way to make the transitions in the corridors, you have to basically use the surface editing tools or do tricks using superelevation parameters to make these side slope transitions in your side slope transitions.
 c. In urban areas especially where the buildings abut the back of sidewalk it can be a nightmare. You want to create less sections in your corridors to keep you file size down but you need more sections to get your corridor to match into these buildings. It’s a catch-22. On our end, it is more important to get more out of the corridors versus surface edits since we see so many larger design changes, it is much easier to update corridors versus hundreds of surface edits. Had an urban project that was a half mile long with this situation and we had 3 corridor files to prevent C3D from bogging down. Inroads can handle urban projects much better than C3D especially with the drainage features in inroads (more below on this one).
 d. Had an 8 mile rural 2 lane reconstruction project (horiz align and profile changes) recently that required us to have 12 corridor files. Users do use data shortcuts for everything (surfaces, alignments/profiles, and pipe networks) and xrefs for all non-corridor required information in a file. Computers have i7 processors, 12Gb of Memory, 64 bit windows 7 on C3D 2014. Inroads did not need 12 separate files and gave a surface that requires much less edits for machine grading.
 e. We have worked on massive projects (4 level flyover interchanges, 5+ lanes in each direction, multiple lane ramps, etc). To make it even worse in roadway modeling, these are urban with retaining walls, noise walls, etc. C3D requires the user to have many assemblies/subassemblies due to sections changing frequently. This pushes up file sizes fast requiring users to break up corridor files. This adds risks for errors as one must make sure they match between the files. Also since the software only accommodates 4 lanes for superelevation (2 on each side of the alignment), it is requires an intensive workaround to add automatic superelevation to the 5th lane in an undivided roadway or a 3rd lane in a divided roadway when you alignment is on the left inside edge.
 f. Note these are more generalized comments and there is certainly more if a person were to dive into the details. The problem we find is that we have to use multiple work arounds to get simple things to work that inroads is a direct setting that can be changed.

3.) Drainage capabilities in inroads are much better than hydraflow/Storm and Sanitary Analysis
a. Inroads you do not have to “export/import” out of the software to use to drainage package. The drainage component of inroads is integrated in as a part of the user interface in inroads. You can work directly from mirostation/inroads.
b. Pond analysis is very cumbersome in Storm and Sanitary Analysis versus Bentley Pondpak.
c. There are many storm systems in our projects that have multiple outfalls or tie into existing undersized systems. Hydraflow does not account for multiple outfalls, which forces a user to work with Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA). SSA's interface between C3D and the software is better than hydraflow's but is more time consuming and resource intensive. Both drainage packages are not as powerful and easy to use as inroads storm and sanitary where is the direct interaction (versus import/export from C3D for Hydraflow/SSA) is an incredible asset and time saver in roadway design. Every designer who has done an urban project with storm sewer or a rural project with complex drainage design understands drainage drives roadway design in many situations. The direct integration of the drainage software in inroads is a huge plus versus C3D.

d. We have had many issues with hydraflow and C3D storm/sanitary importing/exporting back and forth with C3D while retaining the proper infromation.   Usually we lose some data between importing/exporting between pipe networks and hydraflow/storm and sanitary in C3D.
 
4.) Sheet production for plans, particularly for cross sections, is much better in inroads than in Civil 3D.
a. When a user prepares a plan to be sent to utility companies, cross sections are a nightmare in marking these utilities. C3D requires the user to turn each utility line into an alignment and assign a profile. Then when the user puts the markers into the sample line groups through the profile grade markers they have to select the marker type for each alignment. Not a problem when you have 10 utilities but when you have 500+ on these massive highways projects in major urban areas this is extremely time consuming. Inroads took 1 hr to do this versus 3 days in C3D. This is also an issue in all cross section sheets for final plans as right of way, easement, reference line, and wetland markers are required to be included as well.  You can use feature lines but that process takes a significant amount of time as well.
b. The sheet set manger in C3D is terrible when trying to produce many sheets. The user has to limit their sheets to 60 cross section sheets at a time when plotting (to PDF) otherwise the software crashes and it also takes about 20 seconds per sheet. 60 sheets may seem like a lot of sheets but it is not. The massive projects in the state can have 1000+ cross section sheets once you include staging and final cross sections. Microstation there never was a noticeable limit in sheet production that would cause the software to crash. It would take 10 minutes for 500+ sections but always plotted. We had to create a macro that directly prints out of the software to avoid this issue.  Another option is to use Trueview, that seems to speed things up (but it's another program to install on all computers).
c. The batch print manager in Civil 3D is nowhere as versatile as the batch plotter in microstation. Using projectwise interplot manager from Bentley a user in microstation can assemble all of their sheets into one plot file and plot to PDF or a plotter. The convenience is if many sheets in a plan set are updated (It happens frequently due to plan changes and plan reviews) microstation involves a few clicks to print a new plan.
d. Quantity take off's in microstation/inroads are incredibly powerful and easy to use once the bid items are added to the software. C3D's do not work as efficient and we have had difficulties getting them to work properly as they do not account well for our bid item measurements.

5.) Training for conversation from microstation to autocad is a huge undertaking that not only has taken the state more money and time than they expected but firms around the state all have increased costs. Particularly consultant costs have jumped since many are not sure how many hours they need in this new software to complete projects. Our first time doing a project in C3D we were low on our estimation because we did not anticipate the hours it would take to complete the work. After 3 years our rates used for C3D are still higher than inroads would be because it is not as efficient. A major problem statewide is that since we are one of the first states to take this on, there are plenty of firms that know civil 3D but most have not done extensive DOT work. It was the intention to bring in many firms to help smooth the conversion over (in terms converting the thousands of blocks (microstation cells) and files, setting up workflows, setting up training, etc). That has not happened as the state has not been able to find firms to come in and do so. There has only been a few that have the capabilities to do so.

 

Want more examples?  Message me.  These are just some of the things we have had to overcome.

Message 139 of 141
Neilw_05
in reply to: JoelW7

Hi Joel,

 

Great information. While i don't do highway work I have exerienced many of the issues you raised in working between Geopak Power Civil vs. Civil 3D. We have held off from implementing Civil 3D due to the performance issues, lack of functionality and other reasons. However we have not implemented Bentley's products either because the new civil technology is still in a hybrid state where you have to translate your models into legacy formats for plans production and all other functionality not yet in OpenRoads.

 

Since you mention you are using SS4, what is your experience with the hybrid workflow? It must be a nightmare to keep everything synchronized when changes are made to the models, especially on complicated projects like you mentioned. We can discuss off forum if you care to.

Neil Wilson (a.k.a. neilw)
AEC Collection/C3D 2024, LDT 2004, Power Civil v8i SS1
WIN 10 64 PRO

http://www.sec-landmgt.com
Message 140 of 141
safadi200
in reply to: BWYarger

I just came across this discussion and I'm trying to understand this big push for Microstation.

I discovered, like in US, some municipalities in Canada have joined the Bently Municipal License.

 

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/city-of-toronto-canada-joins-bentleys-municipal-license-subscr...

 

I read an article where the writer made a comparison between Bently and a used car sales person.

I can see now the analogy considering the mentality of Bently is "let's practically give it away to municipalities which will force others to buy it".  A method that has more of a "hijacking the market" feel to it.

 

I wouldn't worry about learning it considering, from my experience, it's a more primitive software than other engines out there.  I think of it doing in Paint what should be done in Photoshop!

I'm only experienced in Microstation.  Haven't worked with InRoad yet to see the difference but I'm hoping to one day.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report