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: 

Large surfaces in C3D?

49 REPLIES 49
Reply
Message 1 of 50
akbowbender
489 Views, 49 Replies

Large surfaces in C3D?

I have a LDT project for 65 miles of new road. The terrain models are from LIDAR gridded to 15'. The largest tin file is just over 300mb. Can C3D handle this size file?

Autodesk seems to be hanging it's hat on C3D, so I guess I can't expect much improvement in stability or new features in LDT. It can handle the large surface files, but it does have stability problems at times. If C3D can handle large surfaces, I may give it another try.
49 REPLIES 49
Message 41 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Hi Mike,

The interface is shown here. The program is Civil 3D R2007 specific and to
run it, you must have a drawing with at least on one alignment. Other data
in the drawing is simply ignored.

The user needs to know which columns the Easting and Northing data is held
in.

The program searches for non-integer characters in the first line of the
data file and presumes the first such character found is the data divider.
It then replaces the divider with a single space, so that all output files
are space separated with the same column data and column order as the
original file.

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au

"Mike Norton" wrote in message
news:5259095@discussion.autodesk.com...
You've got my attention, Laurie. The program sounds ideal for my LIDAR and
SONAR shoots. My pipeline guys rarely need surface data beyond a relatively
narrow swath.

I work with a group here shooting point clouds to create as-built drawings
for offshore facilities to facilitate new construction. Do the point clouds
you mention include co-planar points.

--
Mike Norton
Total CAD Systems, Inc. - Houston, Texas
"Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
news:5258556@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hi Mike,

We are currently quality control testing a program to filter a Point Cloud
based on an offset from an alignment.

At its simplest level of operation it will create one new file with all
points within a user nominated corridor half width.

At its most complex level of operation it will copy the original data file
into 31 segments:

Points not opposite the alignment
10 chainage ranges left of the user nominated corridor half width
10 chainage ranges right of the user nominated corridor half width
10 chainage ranges within of the user nominated corridor half width

This should allow the user only to work with relevant data.

The program should be ready for release to www.civil3Dtools.com within a
week or so.

By working logically you should be able to create data sets which are
relevant to a specific area.
We have run the program on 2,800,000 points over a 140km alignment (time
under 10 min on a midrange computer)
It is currently with a client who has a 30,000,000 point cloud and I'm
awaiting his report.
While under development I used a 100,000 point cloud which was processed in
18 seconds.

The program does not lose any data. We are considering an algorithm for a
"lossy" process which would create DTM suitable for site planning - as
distinct from design where the output of the current program should be used.

The sort of thing I have in mind is to throw the data into a data base and
use SQL queries to extract cells of information and compute the centroid for
each data set.

I would not expect any real development in that field for several months due
to other commitments as CADApps.


--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au
"Mike Norton" wrote in message
news:5258321@discussion.autodesk.com...
My math may be a bit off but assuming they shot a 500' swath we're talking
about less than a million points here. I didn't think the ceiling was that
low.

Maybe my machine just isn't up to the task (Dell Precision M70, 2.3 ghz, 2.0
gb RAM) but I just attempted to build a surface from 2' contours (39,000+)
and crashed in just under 40 seconds. (I think with a bit more processor
speed I can get it down to under 30.) Nothing else was running and I even
disabled all options for minimizing flat areas.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not at all really interested in who can come up
with the most extreme dataset but this is a definite problem in the
petroleum industry and increasingly becoming a problem with advancing
"normal" survey technology. Can you share with us the prognosis (if any) for
future releases and/or service packs?

--
Mike Norton
Total CAD Systems, Inc. - Houston, Texas
"Anthony Governanti" wrote in message
news:5257672@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ok folks, I got the LIDAR point file from "akbowbender" and was able to get
it to work pretty well. its a 55 MB text file of XYZ coordinates. here is
what I recommended:

Ok, so I was able to work with the surface and get an alignment and profile
generated.



Here are some best practice suggestions when working with large amounts of
data:

1.. Use the Point File option for building the surface
1.. Create a new surface in a new drawing
2.. Use a Styl
e that just displays the Border (no contours or triangles)
3.. Expand the surface definition, then right click on the Point File
collection
4.. Choose Add.
5.. Select the appropriate file format (if there isn't one that matches
you can define one) - in this case, I used ENZ (XYZ) space delimited
6.. Browse and select the point file
7.. Select OK
2.. Once the surface is built (this took ~10 minutes on my machine) zoom
extents an
d save the file
3.. Optional step - close Civil 3D to clear out the memory on the system,
then reopen that drawing.
4.. Change to a style that displays you Contours - I used both 25'/125'
and 5'/25; intervals, and was able to get the display to come up in about 30
seconds
5.. Create your alignment
6.. Sample for your profile
7.. Create a Profile View - use a style for the profile view that has the
Minor grids turned
off, and doesn't Clip the grids to the profile. Clipping
takes up some memory, and will cause a delay, and sometime a lock up if the
system runs out of physical memory.


I was able to get a working drawing with these steps. Now we can further
improve performance by taking advantage of the Projects and data
referencing, but for now, I think this should help.





I've attached two screen shots - one of the contours at 5'/25' interval; and
one on th
e profile - Alignment length is 97,977 feet! Drawing size is 121
MB, but it opens it less the 30 seconds.



AG

"Anthony Governanti" wrote in message
news:5255646@discussion.autodesk.com...
I want to test this for myself. Can you send me a text file of the points
gridded at 15'?

anthony dot governanti at autodesk dot com

AG
wrote in message news:5253912@discussion.autodesk.com...
I have a LDT project for 65 miles of new road. Th
e terrain models are from
LIDAR gridded to 15'. The largest tin file is just over 300mb. Can C3D
handle this size file?

Autodesk seems to be hanging it's hat on C3D, so I guess I can't expect much
improvement in stability or new features in LDT. It can handle the large
surface files, but it does have stability problems at times. If C3D can
handle large surfaces, I may give it another try.
Message 42 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Hi James,

You're embarrassing me - I don't know much about AutoCAD drafting, but here
goes.

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au
"James Wedding" wrote in message
news:5259805@discussion.autodesk.com...
Picture please? I think I missed a step, Laurie.

--
James Wedding, P.E.
Engineered Efficiency, Inc.
Civil 3D 2007
XP Tablet, SP2, 2GHz, 2G
www.eng-eff.com
www.civil3d.com
Message 43 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Perfect illustration of what is being discussed.
As I tried to tell Dana in her blog, if you edit it you own it.
If you are basing your design upon data supplied by others you better use it.
As it appears Laurie you just trim the unneeded edges but retain all that is applicable.
Something to think about, can you make it station range specific?
In other words can it be widened plowing though the mountain and narrowed up going through the plain?

John P.
Message 44 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Hi John,

As it stands now you would do a multi run.

If you break the source file up into say:

10 chainage ranges and output all files you will have 31 output files. Left
of corridor, In corridor and Right of corridor over each of 10 chainage
ranges, plus the outside alignment file. Any of these files can be
processed again as needed to get a 'local widening - or narrowing. The
tutorial which comes with the program does this to show how it works.

One thing is that the file naming convention I've used will lead to very
long file names by the time you get to the breakdown file of a breakdown
file of a breakdown file particularly if you have high chainages in the
alignment.
Here's a typical file name produced by a first pass of the program from a
file named "Point Cloud.txt". Note I haven't included the alignment name
and that the program retains the original file extension.

"Point Cloud LeftSide 250m 3600 to 4500.txt"

and after a pass on the file above to get widening data out to 800m
"Point Cloud LeftSide 250m 3600 to 4500 All 800m corridor points.txt"

You can also use other alignments and run the program on the already split
files - again the tutorial does this.

The

"Point Cloud OutsideAlignment.txt"

file is over written each time you run the program on the original data set.

I haven't tested a loop alignment, this may be feasible.

As you break files up, the typical file (with the 10 option) will be less
than 5% of the original data set, so processing times of those files will be
far smaller.

We can make it station range specific quite easily. All we need to do is
add a toggle to do this, add two text boxes to allow the user to input the
limits and add that to the filtering algorithm. Currently, you can also
create separate alignments for the ranges of interest and filter each at
different widths.

If we get sufficient requests after the program has been used in practice,
then we will do it, but work priorities may leave that some time away.

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au
wrote in message news:5259818@discussion.autodesk.com...
Perfect illustration of what is being discussed.
As I tried to tell Dana in her blog, if you edit it you own it.
If you are basing your design upon data supplied by others you better use
it.
As it appears Laurie you just trim the unneeded edges but retain all that is
applicable.
Something to think about, can you make it station range specific?
In other words can it be widened plowing though the mountain and narrowed up
going through the plain?

John P.
Message 45 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Is this some kind of code? I have no idea what you are saying.

can you explain in english for me johnny?

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------
Message 46 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

ok, i reread it.

I think that MY point is not to edit data, but that MERELY BY BUILDING A
SURFACE FROM CONTOURS WE ARE INADVERTENTLY EDITING THE DATA. Because the
contours aren't really the data at all in the first place.

(sorry for the shouting JP)

But we fool ourselves into thinking we had preserved it.

--
Dana Breig Probert
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/
CADapult Ltd
Empowering Design With Innovative Solutions
www.cadapult.net
----------------------------------------------
Message 47 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Yeah, that' a very good point, one I nglected to mention. Editing can open
you up to all kinds of potential liabilities. Improperly applied weeding and
mishandled topographic information is now of more common causes of errors
and problems I see come across my desk.
For eampl, Dana mentioned 3% volume error in her blog due to weeding. The
acceptable volume margin of error in precise grading on projects i deal with
is 2%. If I already have 3% error in my topo, I'm up the creek without the
paddle.

wrote in message news:5259818@discussion.autodesk.com...
As I tried to tell Dana in her blog, if you edit it you own it.
If you are basing your design upon data supplied by others you better use
it.
Message 48 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

Hi Connie,

2% accuracy in Volume errors !!!!

The cost of survey to create this level of accuracy would be far greater
than the cost of moving an extra few percent.

I've never heard of a Contractor who won't advance the argument that the
number of truck loads multiplied by the volume of the truck isn't the moved
volume.

It's extremely rare that you can get good volume factors and, to me,
specifying that volumes (as solid volumes) will be accurate to 2% should be
labelled the "Lawyers Benefit"

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au


"Connie B" wrote in message
news:5259860@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yeah, that' a very good point, one I nglected to mention. Editing can open
you up to all kinds of potential liabilities. Improperly applied weeding and
mishandled topographic information is now of more common causes of errors
and problems I see come across my desk.
For eampl, Dana mentioned 3% volume error in her blog due to weeding. The
acceptable volume margin of error in precise grading on projects i deal with
is 2%. If I already have 3% error in my topo, I'm up the creek without the
paddle.

wrote in message news:5259818@discussion.autodesk.com...
As I tried to tell Dana in her blog, if you edit it you own it.
If you are basing your design upon data supplied by others you better use
it.
Message 49 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

That would epend on how the srface was built, and what it was built from.
When building a surface from contours (elevated 2d polylines) i notice I can
introduce unnaceptable amount of error if I don't create contours as
breaklines in my surface. So with no intentional data editiong, I can end up
with a result that has ben edited beyond acceptable.

I just had a project where due to topo oversimplification the developer and
a grading contractor got into a lawsuit over 300,000 CY of dirt. This
amounted to about half a milion dollars. developer got pissed at the
Engineer and named them as a defendant in a lawsuit, because their 'volume
calculation was negligently innacurate' and resulted in maerial damages to
the developer in excess of half a milion dollars.

When I ran the volume calc of the original topography, vs. the simplified
one, I came up with a difference of 175,000CY. Still looking for the other
125,000 that the contractor claims they dug up. So, most likely, the
Engineer's insurance company is going to want to settle the case beore it
actually goes to court, and his already expensive errors and omissions and
general liability insurance is likely to go up... probably enough to buy a
dozen or so copies of civil 3D.

I think that may be what John P. is getting at when he says if you edit it,
you own it..


"Dana Breig Probert" wrote in message
news:5259855@discussion.autodesk.com...
I think that MY point is not to edit data, but that MERELY BY BUILDING A
SURFACE FROM CONTOURS WE ARE INADVERTENTLY EDITING THE DATA. Because the
contours aren't really the data at all in the first place.
Message 50 of 50
Anonymous
in reply to: akbowbender

>"Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
> >news:5259876@discussion.autodesk.com...
>Hi Connie,
>2% accuracy in Volume errors !!!!
>The cost of survey to create this level of accuracy would be far greater
>than the cost of moving an extra few percent.
>I've never heard of a Contractor who won't advance the argument that the
>number of truck loads multiplied by the volume of the truck isn't the moved
>volume.
------------------
Hehehe, don't I know it. Been in many of the meeting.
And those are exactly the arguments we're up against. Developers have gotten
more savvy and less tolerant of unpredictable cost overruns due to dirt
volume estimates, especially since there's a thriving cottage industry of
dirt contractors inventing the dirt where there isn't any, or double
charging for moving it, because there's no checks and balnces to what they
haul around. There's a clampdown on those pratices, at least in our area of
business. Especially fter some lawsuits in recent years, and after
contractors started bragging about GPS controlled grading. it opened the
door to to their paying customers (land developers) to be able to keep a
closer watch.
------------------
>It's extremely rare that you can get good volume factors and, to me,
>specifying that volumes (as solid volumes) will be accurate to 2% should be
>labelled the "Lawyers Benefit"
------------------
I'm not not sure what you mean by good volume factors? Are you talking about
soil expansion and shrinkage factors etc?
Getting very accurate volumes is one of the things we specialize in. Often
get hired to do third party evaluation of the dirt hauling cost squabbles.

2% is the margin of error due to shortcuts taken during calculations, like
when determining the appropriate spacing on the end area average volume, the
spacing should not be such to cause an error largr then 2% due to
approximating the mathematical model. Prior to applying soil expanion or
shrinking factors.

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report