Civil 3D to Inroads Magic- Need a VBA, procedure or just tips

[Anonymous]

Hi Folks

I have had decent success getting Civil 3D dwgs into Microstation with
Inroads.

However, there is always work to be done with hatches, linetypes, text

Here is what I am currently doing:

Export LandXML of entire Civil 3D dwg/project
Export Civil 3D.dwg to Acad.dwg
Cleanup Acad.dwg
Run layer translator that we made (changes NCS layer names into the local
DOT level numbers/colors)
Export through Map>tools>export to .dgn

Open .dgn in InRoads/Microstation
Import LandXML


Then, the Microstation people have, say 85% useable information. But they
need a lot of cleanup

Does anyone have a customization to assist with this?

My goal is that my clients that work with DOTs will be able to do most, if
not all, of their design in C3D. Then, we will have a great way to get
things looking right in Bentley without much pain. They will always want to
open in Microstation for the final prep and check, but I want to make it
easy.

And all of this is just model space- the design in this case is the only
thing that matters (not sheets.layouts, etc)

I will pay in money or fresh vegetables.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

Hi Dana,

Unfortunately, I feel you are wishing for something akin to Israel and
Palestine sending a combined and friendly team to the Olympics.

The crazy things is that LandXML should have been designed and implemented
such that the design data is independent of the Drafting program and thus
all that should matter is that the design can be build from the information
in the Land XML file.

However, I.T. Department intrangience with the need to protect their
fiefdoms, plus the partial implementations of Land XML make the concept
difficult to implement.

We have a similar idiocy here with our Title Approval Authority refusing to
accept plans which are not labelled to their specific length based precision
requirements (and just in case that was easy, the whole layout has to be
adjusted such that it closes with the rounded values.)

We have had to write some fairly serious Civil 3D customisation to label the
parcel segments in accordance with these requirements


--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au

"Dana Breig Probert" wrote in message
news:5244177@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hi Folks

I have had decent success getting Civil 3D dwgs into Microstation with
Inroads.

However, there is always work to be done with hatches, linetypes, text

Here is what I am currently doing:

Export LandXML of entire Civil 3D dwg/project
Export Civil 3D.dwg to Acad.dwg
Cleanup Acad.dwg
Run layer translator that we made (changes NCS layer names into the local
DOT level numbers/colors)
Export through Map>tools>export to .dgn

Open .dgn in InRoads/Microstation
Import LandXML


Then, the Microstation people have, say 85% useable information. But they
need a lot of cleanup

Does anyone have a customization to assist with this?

My goal is that my clients that work with DOTs will be able to do most, if
not all, of their design in C3D. Then, we will have a great way to get
things looking right in Bentley without much pain. They will always want to
open in Microstation for the final prep and check, but I want to make it
easy.

And all of this is just model space- the design in this case is the only
thing that matters (not sheets.layouts, etc)

I will pay in money or fresh vegetables.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

Sigh.

I am unfortunately quite familiar with the craziness of submittal agencies.

we have one county down here that requires the sewer projects to be on state
plane. That's cool, no problem.

But not only do they require the e-submittal model space and coordinate
files to be in state plane, but the sheets must be set up on the state plane
grid as well, with no overlapping match lines. So if you have a manhole
that is right on the corner of a grid, it can show up on a layout, right up
high in the corner, with NOTHING else in the entire viewport.

The only thing we can figure is that they want to make a giant paper map of
the entire county. Get out the glue and scissors, boys!

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net

[Anonymous]

It seems to me the agencies wanting submittals should not expect the data in
digital format unless they are willing to take it in whatever format the
submitter has available. As long as they get the hard copy the requirements
will have been met. If they want to update their digital archives, that is
their problem.

[Anonymous]

neilw wrote:
> It seems to me the agencies wanting submittals should not expect the data in
> digital format unless they are willing to take it in whatever format the
> submitter has available. As long as they get the hard copy the requirements
> will have been met. If they want to update their digital archives, that is
> their problem.

I agree with you on principle, but that's not the case. Our state DOT
requests DGN files for every project, done to their specs. Their CAD
manual that they send to consultants states that you will work their way
or not work for them at all - kid you not.

Sad, but they act that way because they can...

--
Jason Hickey

Civil 3D 2007, SP1A
Dell Precision M70
2 GIG RAM, 256 MB nVidia Quadro FX Go1400
Intel Centrino 2 gHz Processor

http://beneaththelines.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

Jason:

That would only be consultants "employed" by the DOT, would it not?
At least that is what our state does, I think.

Bill

"Jason Hickey" wrote in message
news:5244933@discussion.autodesk.com...
neilw wrote:
> It seems to me the agencies wanting submittals should not expect the data
in
> digital format unless they are willing to take it in whatever format the
> submitter has available. As long as they get the hard copy the
requirements
> will have been met. If they want to update their digital archives, that is
> their problem.

I agree with you on principle, but that's not the case. Our state DOT
requests DGN files for every project, done to their specs. Their CAD
manual that they send to consultants states that you will work their way
or not work for them at all - kid you not.

Sad, but they act that way because they can...

--
Jason Hickey

Civil 3D 2007, SP1A
Dell Precision M70
2 GIG RAM, 256 MB nVidia Quadro FX Go1400
Intel Centrino 2 gHz Processor

http://beneaththelines.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

wfb wrote:
> Jason:
>
> That would only be consultants "employed" by the DOT, would it not?
> At least that is what our state does, I think.


Not here. Almost all DOT design is done by outside private firms.
Those firms must provide digital files as well as paper files for all
projects. We can't figure out hwy, but that's the way they demand. I
believe our DOT possibly originated from Germany in the 30's if you get
my drift 😉


--
Jason Hickey

Civil 3D 2007, SP1A
Dell Precision M70
2 GIG RAM, 256 MB nVidia Quadro FX Go1400
Intel Centrino 2 gHz Processor

http://beneaththelines.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

they don't take drawings on stone tablets, either.

You want to build sewers in my county, you submit electronic drawings for
GIS. Period. It is the citizens of the county's problem.

The case I am specifically talking about here is work that is subbed out by
the DOT to private consultants, but the projects are owned by the DOT. In
order to even get on the bid list you must provide your Bentley serial
number. They want to be able to edit the data in house if the project has
to change.

Their project, their call.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------
"neilw" wrote in message
news:5244949@discussion.autodesk.com...
It seems to me the agencies wanting submittals should not expect the data in
digital format unless they are willing to take it in whatever format the
submitter has available. As long as they get the hard copy the requirements
will have been met. If they want to update their digital archives, that is
their problem.

[Anonymous]

Our Highway group works in Missouri and Kansas.
All files submitted are to be Microstation V8 along with the Geopak project file.
Just the way they do business.

John Postlewait
IS Department
George Butller Associates, Inc.

[nzeeben]

Up my way its CAiCE designs and all the accompnying data or nothing.

Nick
wrote in message news:5245166@discussion.autodesk.com...
Our Highway group works in Missouri and Kansas.
All files submitted are to be Microstation V8 along with the Geopak project
file.
Just the way they do business.

John Postlewait
IS Department
George Butller Associates, Inc.

[Anonymous]

The good old DOT! Sounds like the good old boys club!

Here in my neck of the woods the DOTs of both MN and SD all insist that you use GEOPAK/Microstations. And you must submit you serial numbers also! This is something that I along with about 90% of everyone here (if we could poll this I bet it would be higher) would agree this is a bunch of BS!

Back when we had just LDT to combat GeoPK there wasn't much we could say; GeoPK/MS was a better package (just my opinion). But now with the advent of C3D I feel we have a legitimate software that we could now attack the DOTs and get them off their forcing Consulting firms having to use GeoPK in order to win bids. (Misery loves company)

Now keep in mind this won't happen over night, and it won't happen if we try to convince the DOT that GeoPk/MS is not the way to go. What we need to do is talk to our local state Representatives (find someone on the Transportation committees) that want to rock the boat. And then what we need to do is prove to them that the state can save Millions by switching. Period……… Speak money and they will stop and listen….

Once we have there attention, (remember all the Reps care about is saving money so they can spend it somewhere else). Now its time to get them to think, we do this by showing them some simple facts about MS. One easy one is to show them just how few Colleges and Universities are actually teaching MS. In ND it is zero; in MN it might be two, maybe two? (Need to get the proof but that’s not as hard to do as it sounds, most of your local colleges have listings of just what is being taught in at any of the state run schools). Now also show them how many are teaching AutoCAD, and if you really want to show them how many are teaching LDT/C3D. (This in ND and MN is just about every college that teaching Civil Techs)

Now you ask so what? Well think about it, we have two state funded institutions; one the DOTs and the other the State run colleges and schools. One is teaching software that the other doesn't run???? Now think about the money the DOTs are wasting retraining their new hires how to run software the colleges don't teach! I taught for three years at a local college (Civil Techs) and one time during my first year I had an advisory meeting of local employers and during this meeting I ask them (two of the 10 were from the local DOTs; ND and MN) if they wanted us to add a MS class to our curriculum and they both said no that wouldn't be necessary, they teach there new hires themselves! Must be nice to be able to afford to hire someone new and then turn around and spent valuable state money on retraining them to run software that only they use! (And there consultants)

This is the stuff we need to tell our state reps! I’ve actually had consultants willing to donate to hire a lobbyist! Now keep in mind C3D is about 90% there as far as being a complete DOT package. (They need to add more functionality to the quantity takeoffs, read some of my previous wishes) But it is getting real close!

You don’t have the Feds telling tax guys that they all need to use a certain tax program in order to submit to the IRS? Then why should DOTs have the power to tell consultants to run MS. (microstations).

We have a saying around here; “Consultants are in the business of making money! DOTs are in the business of staying busy!”


Bill Neuhauser P.E.

p.s. Think about the yearly fees being paid by the DOTs to use MS V8 that came out in 2001! Five year old software! Could you imagine the uproar here is everyone was on subscription and they we still only had Autocad 2002! or LDT 1................... and had been paying for it every year and not gotten anything for their yearly subscription.......

[Anonymous]

Admirable rant Bill.

I would like to offer a few points to ponder.
The V8 that we use released 235 is about 2 years old.
The Geopak 2004 that we use, don't remember the release number is approx. the same age. They are extremely stable and capable of doing about anything the Highway designers want to do.
Weak on 3D visualization kind of stuff, but producing 600 sheet sets of plans, it's good stuff.
I'm not real sure the DOT's would be interested in getting into the yearly upgrade rat race.
The DOT's recently spent a ton of money rewriting standards and details to go from J to V8 and I'm not real sure they want to try to include Civil 3D.
What are you going to tell them about Vault, that they will want to hear?

You are correct that 3D is getting closer to getting back in the Highway game but IMO it's not there yet.
And the last thing you want to do is try to get back in that game before the product is ready.

John P.

[Anonymous]

dude, i don't care what they use. I just want a way to get what i do, in
whatever program i choose do it, in a form they can use.

it's gotta be possible. even if it takes legwork

prepwork in c3d
translation
prepwork on the bently side


as long as i can write it down, i might be able to VBA it.

I just dont know enough about the bently side.

i have a former bentley vba guy i can potentially tap into.

i'll keep ya posted.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

Yes, at 1 in the morning it is tuff not to rant!

Since I've been away from the consulting side for 4 years I just assumed that since they still called it V8 it was the same software I used in 2001....... ass..u..me..d....

But that was at 1am.....

I do agree with Dana that if the DOTs want to use GeoPK/MS the so be it, but they shouldn't have the power to force the general public to use software that they wouldn't use otherwise! Software that the state schools don't even teach to the public...... remember the schools only teach what their advisory committee members tell them to teach and their committee members are telling them to teach AutoCAD based software not MS base software. Why because that is what everyone is using (besides the DOT and the chosen few consulting firms).

This is where the political pressure needs to be applied. Yes C3D is not quite ready, but we are just designing roads and bridges, not the Space Shuttle. It wasn't but 20 years ago (or less) everything was done by hand on the boards.....

As for Vault, I know your take on Vault. Do you remember how many 5 1/4" disks DCA came on and how many DVDs C3D comes on now? Taking up space is all part of the big picture! 😉 I think all of the big software companies have stock in hard drive companies....

Bill

[Anonymous]

The DOT scenario is understandably different than what I had in mind in my
comment. The DOT is contracting the design and has the right to demand how
the finished product is to be submitted. What I had in mind was the
government agencies (city, county, etc) that expect private consultants to
do their "legwork" when providing the data electronically for their mapping
and archives.

"neilw" wrote in message
news:5244949@discussion.autodesk.com...
It seems to me the agencies wanting submittals should not expect the data in
digital format unless they are willing to take it in whatever format the
submitter has available. As long as they get the hard copy the requirements
will have been met. If they want to update their digital archives, that is
their problem.

[Anonymous]

these days, though, it isn't for mapping archives but for 911, live data
sets, and other things that we the tax payer pay for.

If the consultants have already done the work, why should I, the tax payer,
pay again?

Let the developers and engineers figure out how to meet the requirements of
submittal.

As I said, my county requires electronic copies of the plans so that they
can be dropped into GIS, and they require a certain layer standard.

Now, of course, those standards should be reasonable and ideally
synergistic.

But the reality is that most engineering firms in my area are perfectly
capable of providing things like .dxf, .shp, running a layer translator,
etc. But many of them don't realize those tools even exist. They have
spent $$$$$ on software that they use like an electronic pencil.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net

[Anonymous]

In my opinion it is a courtesy on the part of the consultant to provide the
data to the agencies in question. As I indicated originally the consultant
can offer the data "as is" if requested. The agencies should have the
resources to convert the data to suit it's needs. After all, that is what we
are paying the taxes for.

"Dana Breig Probert" wrote in message
news:5245667@discussion.autodesk.com...
these days, though, it isn't for mapping archives but for 911, live data
sets, and other things that we the tax payer pay for.

If the consultants have already done the work, why should I, the tax payer,
pay again?

Let the developers and engineers figure out how to meet the requirements of
submittal.

As I said, my county requires electronic copies of the plans so that they
can be dropped into GIS, and they require a certain layer standard.

Now, of course, those standards should be reasonable and ideally
synergistic.

But the reality is that most engineering firms in my area are perfectly
capable of providing things like .dxf, .shp, running a layer translator,
etc. But many of them don't realize those tools even exist. They have
spent $$$$$ on software that they use like an electronic pencil.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net

[Anonymous]

I guess my big grip is that the DOTs are insisting consulting firms use software that may be very powerful, but the overhead in software setup and training does not justify the added ability to setup 600 sheets!
The DOT of MN once had one there training schedule on the web, the time it took a new student to go from beginning with MS to the last adv. module of GeoPK was about a year and half with a total of 6 weeks of training! They had criteria setup that you couldn't advance to the next level until you had been using the previous level in the office for x amount of time. The State of ND took 1.5 years to setup there GeoPK standards before they pumped out one set of plans!

This is what just burns me! Sure this stuff might be a bit more powerful, but for a small consulting firm this is just way too much overhead! This is one reason that many small consulting firms just don't do DOT projects! And the bottom line is that this is costing us the tax payer millions of extra dollars just because the software can handle 600 sheets! I've talked to consultants and they all say that they have added extra to their DOT projects just because they have to do it in GeoPK.........

What did the DOTs do before GeoPK? It's amazing they got anything done! Did they tell the consultants back then that they had to use a certain #2 pencil.....

rant rrraannttt.....

Bill Neuhauser P.E.

Just remember if the DOT didn't have anything to do why would we need them?

"Don't work yourself out of a job"

[Anonymous]

billneu wrote:

[--snip--]

> What did the DOTs do before GeoPK? It's amazing they got anything
> done! Did they tell the consultants back then that they had to use a
> certain #2 pencil.....

[--snip--]

Just about. I did work for FDOT and the US Navy back in the board
drafting days, and the design/drafting requirements were just as
onerous. With the Navy at the time, all of their construction plans had
to be photographically reduced to microfilm (or some such media) so the
text height were huge. This isn't a problem for CADD (or leroy for that
matter), but hand lettering was a pain.

[Anonymous]

EDSC / EaglePoint was being required in some states in the early & mid 1990's.