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: 

QTO Issues

41 REPLIES 41
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 42
Jasono2009
2394 Views, 41 Replies

QTO Issues

Alright, getting back to wanting to use the QTO utilities after a 2 year hiatus. As of version 2010 QTO was virtually useless. If you tried to calculate volumes from your corridor by assigning Pay Items to your code syles either the wrong volume was reported or nothing was reported. Now I am using version 2012 and getting the SAME PROBLEMS! I must be losing my mind but don't tell me Autodesk has not fixed this big mistake? Please show me where I am wrong, but I realize it's too much to ask them to offer more than one free haul range in the mass haul utility (rendering that useless) but now they've failed to repair the QTO still? What are they doing and why should I continue to pay for a faulty product?

 

Jason

41 REPLIES 41
Message 2 of 42

Those dialog boxes for corridor quantities can get confusing. Are you sure you imputed the information correctly? When I don't get results it's usually because I didn't correctly give the secret handshake Autodesk was expecting me to use.

Civil Reminders
http://blog.civil3dreminders.com/
http://www.CivilReminders.com/
Alumni
Message 3 of 42

As far as I can tell. My software provider is verifying as we speak but what a hoax. Why don't they make these things useful? If it's the case that the code assignments fail to calculate volumes, limits of disturbance, etc. and that you have to manually tag each item under that pay item code then I'll bypass the software for Bentley.
Message 4 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: Jasono2009

So a call from our support today confirmed - the Civil 3D QTO manager is a piece of garbage. I wonder if the Bentley folks look at it and laugh? It is also confirmed here http://cife.stanford.edu/wiki/doku.php?id=granite:3dmodelling:qto#c3d_qto  (which was raised elsewhere on this forum). Autodesk needs to correct this issue now. Pathetic its dragged on for 4 - 5 releases now. Time to wake these people up!

Message 5 of 42
BrianHailey
in reply to: Jasono2009

What quantities are you expecting to see and what quantities are you seeing. What method are you using to calc the quantites and to calc the expected quantities? Can you share a drawing with us to confirm that the issue does happen. Can you tell us what the issue is so we know how to avoid it?

Brian J. Hailey, P.E.



GEI Consultants
My Civil 3D Blog

Message 6 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: BrianHailey

What quantities do I expect to see? Correct volumes (everyone has been wrong) Correct areas (only manual tagging polylines in sq. yards has worked thus far.) Correct centerline lengths (wrong distances in every instance). In summary I expect a software that does what the purveyor markets it as. Thanks
Message 7 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: Jasono2009

Drawing file is too large for attachment. PM me and I can forward.

 

I need to assign pay items through the Corridor Codes. Manually tagging them is useless -  it speeds nothing up. By all accounts the code method does not work and has not worked for 4 releases: http://cife.stanford.edu/wiki/doku.php?id=granite:3dmodelling:qto#c3d_qto 

 

It's called false advertising.

Message 8 of 42
BrianHailey
in reply to: Jasono2009

When I run your numbers, I get the numbers I expect. Your road is 3,909' long. You've applied a pay item to your crown point code that has units of STA. What's a STA? Well, I have no idea so I used something else. When I used a pay item that used feet as the unit, I ended up with 7,835.88. This is more than twice what you want. Why is it doing this? Well, I applied the pay item to the Crown code and your corridor has two crown codes, one for each lane assembly. But if I divide this number by 2, it's still longer than the 3,909' that your alignment is. If you extract the crown featureline and list it, you'll see the length of the feature line is 

 

2D Length : 3908.7'
3D Length : 3917.9'

 

Mulitply the 3D Length by two and you get the number QTO gave you, exactly what you asked it to give you. No error whatsoever. Just not what you thought it would give you. How do you get just the length of one of the crown featurelines? Turn off the crown point in one of your subassemblies:

 

 

Now, let's talk about the volumes of your materials. The QTO command won't do anything with volumes and corridors because it can't determine the thickness of the materials. It will only report to you the area of the base links. If you want to use that compute a volume, you'll need to add a formula that takes the area computed and then multiply that by the depth of the material. The pay item you assigned to it was "Select Topping" and it has a unit of CUYD. What does the CUYD unit do? It takes the amount calculated and divides the number by 27 (convert cubic feet to cubic yards). The number you calculated was not a volumetric number. When I take the length of your alignment (3909') and multiply that by the width of your road (26') I get 101,634. Divide that by 27 and you get 3,764 and that is the number you are getting in payitem report.

 

Once again, no error with the program. Just not what you thought it would give you.

Brian J. Hailey, P.E.



GEI Consultants
My Civil 3D Blog

Message 9 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: BrianHailey

"When I take the length of your alignment (3909') and multiply that by the width of your road (26') I get 101,634. Divide that by 27 and you get 3,764 and that is the number you are getting in payitem report."

 

Wait a minute...

 

3909L x 26W = 101,634 sqft  (this is Area not Volume)

 

Where's depth?

 

Dimensional Analysis:

 

 101,634 ft2*1CY/27ft3 = 3764 CY/ft

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 10 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: fcernst

It's still a piece of garbage. What use is having Corridor codes that can link to a QTO code style, yet not be able to use them? Surely this was not addressed in 2014. No, instead we learn at beingcivil.com that we have extra tabs that we can see.... what? Lightweights all.

Message 11 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: Jasono2009

Are you seeing that the QTO areas are 2D projectional areas also?

 

If the software is not using the 3D length of the links to compute the QTO areas, this has huge implications, the steeper your links are, as in concrete lined channels, other channel bank lining materials, etc.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 12 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: fcernst

There are numerous problems with the QTO that render it useless. It's just sales gimmick and it is false advertising. By the way, this issue is not resolved so whoever labeled it so needs to fix it. There is nothing solved with QTO since it came out 4-5 years ago.

Message 13 of 42
Cadguru42
in reply to: Jasono2009

The QTO system in C3D only does counts, lengths, and areas. If you want volumes you have to use formulas. Some of your issues aren't the software, but some are.

 

The problem with this is when you have a corridor with, say, two intersecting roads. One road might have a subbase of 6" and the other 10". It's the same material, but you can't use the same pay item formula in order to have the QTO manager calculate it. The only solution I've come up with is to use multiple pay items that are really the same, but have different formulas used for the calculation.

 

Until Autodesk figures out a way to use the solids in a corridor model to help with the QTO output, you're stuck either doing volumes manually or use mulitple formulas and multiple pay items. 

C3D 2022-2024
Windows 10 Pro
32GB RAM
Message 14 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: Cadguru42

This is fine. I have even added Specific Weight parameters to my SAC assemblies for QTO to read in to not only compute volumes but also Tonnage. Materials will have different Specific Weights also along with different depths.

 

The real problem I am seeing, is QTO is using the 2D projected plan area for the Item Area. This has huge implications the steeper your roads and areas are, as in channels and benched slope design.  This needs to be addressed ASAP.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 15 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: Cadguru42

 "It's the same material, but you can't use the same pay item formula in order to have the QTO manager calculate it. The only solution I've come up with is to use multiple pay items that are really the same, but have different formulas used for the calculation."

 


Yes, you can use the same formula. You don't have to hard code in a "Depth". QTO can read in any of your Subassembly Parameters and use them in the Pay Item formula.

 

Capture.JPG



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 16 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: fcernst

Since when can QTO run a volume off a corridor with a subassembly depth not equal to 1? Never saw it done.

Message 17 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: Jasono2009

Do you understand the QTO formula application process?

 

Divide your Corridor into Regions as needed for different Material Depths.

 

I have one Corridor Region using an Assembly with a PaveDepth of 1.0', and the next Region uses an Assembly with a PaveDepth 0f 0.5'. QTO computes the pave quantity across the Regions correctly (except for using the 2D projected area part!).

 

The same Formula, the same Link Code.

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 18 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: fcernst

I know it runs volumes off a 1.0' depth, and perhaps 0.5' depth, but try other depths, say .67, 1.35, etc. I have not been able to run voumes, nor anyone else off most depths, supported by this

 

http://cife.stanford.edu/wiki/doku.php?id=granite:3dmodelling:qto#c3d_qto

 

From here:

 

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D/Civil-3D-2010-Pay-Items/td-p/2545888

Message 19 of 42
fcernst
in reply to: Jasono2009

I am simply astounded....speechlesss.

 

You're correct. I just tested with your depth numbers and others, and it not returning correct quantities with values other than with my 0.5' and 1.0' initial test values. 

 

This is simply amazing. This is clearly false and deceiptful advertising then...It appears from the research that Autodesk has known about this issue since around 2009 or so.

 

Autodesk sells and markets Civil 3D by listing and promoting Product Features such as this.. 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 20 of 42
Jasono2009
in reply to: fcernst

Yeah, this and the lack of more than one mass haul range renders the QTO and Mass Haul useless. It's no use offering these things if they do not work. The issue of the QTO manager is absurd when you consider they could simply change the algorithm, based upon the Stanford study. But I am done helping them evolve their software. If they aren't interested in fixing it then why should I waste time showing them how?

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report