Converting Civil3d 2010 to Microstation V8

[_Hathaway]

We have a topo project that requires all files and surface data to be delivered in Microstation V8 version.  Currenly we are using Civil3d 2010 (we have 2011 and 2012 too, just havent implemented them yet).

We have done some initial exporting tests and things appear to show up correctly in Microstation. However, we do not have much background in Microstation and I fear we may be missing something.  What is the best way to export the surface to a usable microstation v8 format?

[Sinc]

Almost missed this...  Sorry, I've just gotten too busy to keep up with the forums.  But I try as best I can...

Key point... I was mostly trying to use Mcrostation (core product, v8i, r 2010)  to do asbuilts, e.g. minor modifactions to Corps DGNs. (nothing more than text edits), then reprint.  And the thing crashed constantly.  Would it have been better if I had really spent years learning, and tried to use all the funcionality of InRoads?

Not sure of the last release of MS I wa using.  It was definitely 8i, although I've very confused about how that relates in terms of Bentley.  I absolutely abhor Autodek's yearly release cycle, but I guess the "year nomenclature" does add a bit of clarity (at the expense of pissing off almost every existing user by the "yearly incompatibility" problmem..).

The one thing I'm sure of is that these vendors can no longer compete on "our enginei is better than theirs".  Intellicad is making incredible (pun somewhat-inteded) InRoads.  So the core CAD engine is becoming less-and-less interesting.  I personally think Autodesk still has the edge here, but it's eroding.  We're rapidly reaching the point where the "core engine" is becoming a commodity.

So as I see it, that's where Autodesk is way ahead of Bently.  DWG (as flawed as it may be, and a sad exmaple of a RDBMS system)  is becoming an "industry standard" database exchange format.  And "interoperability" is key.  We have too many problems working with Microstation stuff.  The only time we ever do it is for Army Corps stuff, where we're required by their legs.  But it sucks... From my "Surveyor" POV, it takes us much longer, and delivers no extra value.

I agree that DGN's "incorruptibility" is an advantage.  I view "DWG" as a pathetic attempt at copying RDBMS technology, which fails to learn some important lessons, but I'd say the same for MySQL.

So where does that leave us?  DWG = RDBMS without multi-user access.  DWG has some optimizations over RDBMS, but also gets corrupt, necessitating the "AUDIT" command, which should be a complete anachronism.  Yet Autocad is still the industry leader, so there must be some things they're doing right...?

Personally, I think Autodesk is doing tons of things wrong, and has no concept of what "multi-user access" really means.  But  the idea that I just don't know how to use MS, and that's why it crashes so much...?  Really?  Is that you selling point?

[mike.barkasi]

Sync,

If your "crashing consistantly doing Text edits with MicroStation" there is something conflicting with your set up or configuration... Im kinda surprised you havnt logged a support call (editing Txt is elementry 101 and should never cause a crash). feel free to contact mee at my Bentley email and I will be glad to look at it.

As for AutoCAD being an Industry leader... I suppose that depends on the industry your in... funny while at AU I watched several presentations (all civil related) where projects were completed with MicroStation and InRoads or MicroStation / GEOPAK.... only to be "Re modeled" with a combination of products (Civil 3D, Navisworks, 3D studio)... when in reality the exact same process could have been expanded on in the original design application (MicroStation) without an "redesign necessary" additionally I see these same projects in marketing materials put out by Autodesk. To me this is a bit deceptive. Why not simply use a large project designed and modeled with C3D? or are there none out there?

BTW shame we didnt meet up at AU, I would have liked to introduce myself.

AutoCAD does have a large user base... people value what they know. At one time obtaining a lic code (legal or illegal) to run AutoCAD gave new users the ability to easily access and learn the software its not that way today. IE can you simultaniously open AutoCAD on more machines than you have licenses for?  We wont get into licensing models, however if you still have a seat of MicroStation on Select you know where the advantage is here.

Gotta Run... Have a good Christmas to all

Michael Barkasi

Bentley Civil

[david.dixon]

Hi Mike,

Are there any good training books available for purchase for InRoads Site like there are for Civil 3D?  I can't seem to find anything on Amazon or B&N.  I need to begin my 2012 learning InRoads Site Suite for some upcoming Corps projects that require a Bentley BIM deliverable.

Thanks,

[mike.barkasi]

Feel free to contact me at my Bentley email and I can point you to some reference materials.

[_Hathaway]

Seems my thread has been hijacked! No worries.  We competely abandoned any possibility of trying to convert a civil3d 2012 topographic survey into Microstation.  We could get portions, like the TIN to work but in the end it just wasn't complete in the way that our local govermental agency requires.

With that said, we bit the bullet and did the entire 34,000 foot topo within Microstation and Inroads Survey with Zero training.  The lack of training may be evident in the remainder of my post but sometimes the only viable option is to jump in and see what we can do. Luckily I have 25 years of experience with multiple cad type platforms to aid in the venture.

I must say the way miscrostation handles popup windows is absolutely attrocious.  All the windows stay on your screen until you close them which oftens leads to doing the same thing 2-3 times (window stays open like nothing happened so you click on the function again, when in reality it did work the first time yet there is very little obvious feedback that it worked)  Maybe longtime MS users are used to this but I find this interface horrid.  Maybe there's a setting somewhere?

The version of MS that we originally used had virtually zero surface editing features such as swapping edges/fliping faces (we now have a more current version that appears to be much better in this regard).  Adding topo to an already completed surface was almost like starting over again.  We checked with Bentley on this issue and we were sent a 2 page long workaround for this seemingly common surface editing function.

Ok, enough of the MS bashing.  It is just a completely different program and interface. We were able to complete our project and defintely learned alot about what to do and what not to do both in the field and in the office when working with MS. 

Our newer version of MS does seem a bit more intuitive, albeit still not very surveyor friendly. 

[mike.barkasi]

You should be sure your allways comparing the latest software to the latest.

Im guessing you were actually using an older version of InRoads Survey... These dialogs do not interface directly into MicroStation as InRoads also runs on AutoCAD. Though MicroStation different from AutoCAD will ALLWAYS have a command active.

To be sure your looking at the latest version of Survey check out the Data Acquisition videos from Be Communities site.. once there key in "Data Acquisition Support Clip"

Data Acquisition was recently selected over Civil3D by a state DOT (not sure Im at liberty to name the state) purely bsed on Survey function. The agency had access to both Bentley GEOPAK and AutoDesks Caice so cost did not factor in

Mike Barkasi

Bentley Civil

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Neilw_05]

Hello Mike H,

I am curious about which version of Microstation you are using.

With regard to your comments about the dialogs, the behavior you describe has plusses and minuses. For the most part, MS uses modeless dialogues which means that a user can invoke multiple tools or commands without having to close the current one. In Autocad usually a user has to close the current tool to invoke another. As you noted, in MS a user can become lost if there are too many tools active, so it does require some getting used to.

As to the plusses, I think it is well demostrated with the recent advent of a modeless layer dialog in Autocad which I have wished for years. In the past if you wanted to change a layer state you had to close the current command, invoke layer manager, make the changes, close it and hope you got it right, then invoke the previous command again. Now you can keep the dialog open and change layer states on the fly. MS has been that way all along. The same capability applies across the board in most cases. Personally I prefer the modeless tools in MS although as you say, it can be annoying when you get too many open. In spite of that you might come to like it once you got used to it.

[_Hathaway]

Neil,

I can see where the modelless style would have some really good functionality.  The lack of feedback is what gets me, hard to tell if you actuall did something or not.  But like you said it will just take some getting used to....which won't really happen around here since we only use MS because the local agencies require it.

We are currently using V8i (select series 2) - Version 08.11.07.443.  No idea how current this is.

[Neilw_05]

One setting that you might find helpful is to apply transparency to the dialogs. Then the active dialog should appear more prominently. I haven't used it so I don't know how well it will work. The setting is found under Workspace Preferences.

[Sinc]

---

@mike.barkasi wrote:

Data Acquisition was recently selected over Civil3D by a state DOT (not sure Im at liberty to name the state) purely bsed on Survey function. The agency had access to both Bentley GEOPAK and AutoDesks Caice so cost did not factor in

---

If I had been drinking anything, I would've done a "Jon Stewart" spit at that!  CAICE?  Really?

I do agree with Neal, though...  The two CAD products do work in very different ways.  There's a different basic user paradigm at work.  I personally think Autodesk's "command-based" paradigm is much more user-friendly, and more consistent with most other software available in the world today.  And that means it's more user-friendly, and easier for most people to learn.  But I've used Microstation enough to discover that it works, as well...  but I'm probably alreadly biased in that I used Autodesk first, and greatly prefer its paradigm.  I've heard others, who started with Microstation, say the exact opposite.  So I won't commit, either way, on that point.

One thing I'm sure of is that the core CAD engine is rapidly becoming a non-selling-point.  This is probably upsetting to both Autodesk and Bentley.  As things like Intellicad and BricsCad get better and better, a major differentiator has been disappearing.  I'm not entirely happy about that, as this seems to mean the industry is consolidating on using the incredibly-flawed DWG format, but it seems to be the direction the industry-at-large is headed...

Switching to Microstation (any flavor, be it In-Roads, GeoPak, or PowerCivil) is not as easy as you seem to claim.  There are TONS of incompatibility problems, as Mike Hathaway mentioned.  It makes it impossible to do Corps work in anything other than Microstation, even though I find C3D is better, in my experience.

And that's the real "gotcha".  I admit we don't have the experience in MS that others have, so we find it much harder to use that platform than anything.  But if we were to throw away all our years of experience with AutoCAD and switch to MS, we wouldn't necessarily be better off.  Your package crashes just as much.  And while it's superior in some areas, it's inferior in others.  There's frankly not enough benefit for us to even consider switching, given the fact that we are INCREDIBLY productive with C3D, all our clients (except the Corps) use Autocad, and we have years of experience with Autocad.

The only thing that makes us want to use MS more is when we have to do asbuilts for the Corps.  And the fact that they require us to use MS to do that is, frankly, idiotic.  There's no reason for that, except for the established government beaurocracy and the Corps regulations about how "record drawings" must be created, so they can avoid doing "design surveys" when they start a new project (a very bad idea, IMHO).

[Sinc]

---

@mike.barkasi wrote:

BTW shame we didnt meet up at AU, I would have liked to introduce myself.

Michael Barkasi

Bentley Civil

---

 Oh, and BTW I'm easy to find at AU.  For the last few years, my company Quux Software has had a booth in the Exibition Hall, and we'll be doing that again next year.  You can find both me and Jeff Mishler there, during Exhibit Hall hours.  And maybe even Christopher Fugitt (aka C3DReminders), since he's now joined us in working on the Sincpac-C3D addon for C3D.

That's another area where it makes it hard for us to even consider MS....  Autodesk has a far more evolved API for their software, so even when Autodesk can't quite make something happen, people like us can add additions to their software that WILL make it happen.  Bentley's software is at least one-generation behind Autodesk in this regard, if not more, now that all of Autodesk's products are starting to get "App Stores"....

[Neilw_05]

Hello folks,

I am kicking myself for not copying my comments to the clip board before posting and losing about an hours worth of typing when my post failed.

So rather than start over I just want to say that both companies have been in a game of leap frog for a long time and each has had certain advantages that were overcome by the other in time. I will say that Civil 3D currently has definite advantages over Bentley's products with it's custom object technology but it also is very costly and disruptive to implement and there are serious interoperability issues.

I also know that Bentley has been developing new technology that I believe will soon rival C3D's dynamic corridors as well as provide superior grading capabilities. When combined with the intrinsic units and georeferencing capabilities built into Microstation and use of native CAD elements to achieve these capabilities, the technology will have far fewer interoperability issues and surfaces, alignments, gradings, survey data etc. will all dynamically transform to any project coordinate system and units when used as references. In this regard the CAD engine is indeed a selling point.

Only time will tell how well it all works and what deficiencies there will be, but you can be sure that the game of leap frog will continue.

[mike.barkasi]

Neil

Leapfrog would indicate one passes the other... However in X number of years since Civil3D has been out it has not replaced any of Bentleys Civil applications where a State had previously standardized Using a Bentley Civil App.

In fact I question how many if any large projects have been completed using the Civil3D software when their marketing (IE Zoo interchange) consistantly point to projects designed using Microstation and InRoads or MicroStation and GEOPAK..

In fact  one state that recently switched to Civil 3D switched their CAICE licenses that the survey group was using (FDOT) Though with this switch the maketing material was very misleading....... so I can agree that in at least one area Autodesk outdoes Bentley Civil.. Marketing.

Regards

Mike Barkasi

Bentley Civil

[mike.barkasi]

Sinc,

Not sure what you meant by your comment below;

"If I had been drinking anything, I would've done a "Jon Stewart" spit at that!  CAICE?  Really?"

To be clear the benchmark was between GEOPAK and Civil 3D. (who is Jon Stewart?)

Mike

[AllenJessup]

---

@mike.barkasi wrote:

 (who is Jon Stewart?) 

---

Possibly: Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz

[mechamb]

David, you could check out our website for InRoads training manuals. They were writtenusing USACE example projects.

http://envisioncad.com/courseware/inroads-v8i-selectseries-site-design/

HTH,

Bob Mecham

[Neilw_05]

Mike,

To clarify my statement, I was not implying that C3D had supplanted Bentley in any way. What I was saying is that the two companies tend to overcome their technological disadvantages in time. Right now C3D has a technological advantage with regard to it's dynamic relationships. What I had in mind is the upcoming dynamic corridors, alignments and profiles in SS3 which I consider to be comparable to C3D's corridor object. I realize it is not the same underlying technology but the end results are comparable.

[GonePhishing]

Hey all -

I figured I'd post in an already created forum for questions.

We're supplying deliverables in both Civil 3D (2013) & Microstation V8i.  All of our work was generated using Civil 3D (surfaces, survey data, linework, labels, etc.) and after the .dwg's were set up in PS, we 'dumbed' them down to convert to V8i.

By dumbing down, I mean we removed all surface data, alignments, points & point groups etc.

Our Problem?

Linetypes have changed, giving us wierd '$' symbols where the 'W' or 'G' should be.  V8i also thaws layers (levels) that shouldn't be on, etc.

Has anyone successfully 'converted' files w/o it changing the final product?

Inquiring minds want to know.  

P.S. - why doesn't Autodesk & Bentley play nice together?

Thanks in advance gang.

-Ron

[jmayo-EE]

"Linetypes have changed, giving us wierd '$' symbols where the 'W' or 'G' should be. V8i also thaws layers (levels) that shouldn't be on, etc." Do you see the changed linetypes when you open the file in Civil 3D or when you open the file in Microstation?

[GonePhishing]

Hi John - maybe you could stop by my desk when you get a chance.

In all seriousness - I'm enclsing 2 .pdf files that give an example.  The files are exactly the same.  But if you check out the profile, the stationing is completely removed in the Microstation file & the elevation font is a different size.  The trees (plan view) have also been thawed in the microstation conversion.

There are LOTS of addl. 'little things' that haven't translated well.

Again, any help is GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks ans have a great weekend gang.