I'm talkin major revisions....alignment shifts, entrance relocations, lot dimension changes...completely efecting the drainage/utility design. This happens often...client decides...lets try 85' lots to the west. Municipality decides...lets shift the entrance 100' to the north. Easy to state in a meeting....
My thoughts....Holy SH@$
By the way davevoith:
Mark Spatz, P.E.
Staff Professional / Associate
The Associate is due in part to taking the bull-by-the-hornes and making C3D happen for the company. Failure is not an option. You can't "try to use Civil 3D". You need to make it happen!
Besides, Engineers are responsible for design and Civil 3D helps do that design faster (like stormwater software does...). So how is that a waste of time?
Our EIT's and PE, along with power design users have the most success in C3D and unerstand it's importance; they are the driving force. Maybe that is the different between success and failure with Civil 3D; MENTALITY!
Thanks for questioning my mentality Mark. I assure you that my shortcomings with the software have nothing to do with my mentality, it has to do with the way the software is designed. I'm not a P.E. currently, but maybe I will be in the future.
I too was asked in a small firm of 3 designers to be the "power user" and be responsible for rolling out Civil 3D. I have been using the software for over 2 years now. I'm the one everyone goes to with their issues with the software and most of the time I'm able to come up with a solution, other times I'm very frustrated to not be able to find an answer.
OK, so you are saying the changes are SO drastic that you start over because it is essentially a redesign? I still don't think I would do that with everything. Maybe only the parcels and grading but it has to be a VERY drastic change. No way would I start over for Alignments, Profiles, Corridor, Pipe Networks, etc...
Question, do you break up your files like: Layout Base - file with layout linework (lines, arcs, plines, hatches, text, etc... "simple AutoCAD linework") and Parcels.
Grading Base - Grading base file that contains Featurelines and grading objects to build your FG & E&S surfaces.
Pipe Network Base - Pipe network base file. This file contains just the pipe network. NO pipe alignments or profiles. ("[type]" would be "STORM", "SAN", etc...)
Pipe Alignment \ Profile Base - Pipe profile base file. All pipe alignments and profiles would be pulled in this base; NOT in the Pipe Network base. ("[type]" would be "STORM", "SAN", etc...)
Road Alignment \ Profile Base - Road centerline base file. This file contains road alignments and design profiles.
Corridor Base - Road Corridor base file. In this file you data reference in the road centerline alignments and profile and create you corridor off the data-references.
Cross Section Base - Road cross section base file. Cross sections would be pulled in this base and NOT in the Corridor base. To transfer in the corridor information simple xref the corridor base into this file.
No, Vault was a waste of time and money for virtually all our usage. We never rolled it out into production, and have not missed it, except for maybe the Point Management features in Vault. But that was not deemed worthwhile enough to warrant the rest of Vault, and a Vault server, etc.
Getting a previous version of something out of the Vault would typically not help us in our line of work. The stuff that stays the same is generally in other drawings and data-referenced in. Or, more often, the real thing we are dealing with is Parcels, and Parcels leave much to be desired in C3D no matter what you do. (Remember, we're Land Surveyors.)
There are times when I'm helping our sister engineer company, and doing"what-if" grading designs. For that, I might get a drawing up to a certain "base" point, and then copy that drawing to begin each "what-if" grading design. But again, this does not require Vault, and Vault does not really help with it.
Sorry, I did not mean to state in an offensive way but it is something to consider. Saying EIT, engineers, or P.E. should not be using design software is a little bit on the wrong path in my opinion. But maybe I'm wrong...
"Do your P.E. use stormwater software or still do calcs by-hand?" To me that is a very to-the-point and fundamental question, of which the answer I already know. All I'm saying is the same path applies to Civil 3D. Right now our industry is going through a shift to model based design. There are going to be growing pains by software and users skill levels. We have users that frequently crash and others that don't. So again, the difference is the users in most cases. The users that crash, once they learn more they crash less until hardly at all. It is NOT exclusively the software...
For your support concerns:
Are you on subscription were you can dump support to Autodesk and free up your time? It is a huge help...
Do you have support from your reseller? Again, a big help...
Do you have others that help you with support at your company? Helps getting everyone going ...
My overall theme to this post topic is for success in Civil 3D you has to have a lot of things come together. Planning for proper training, supported by upper management, and software support for post training is critical. Even with all that coming together you are going to have tough days that you get all mad and post bad things on this discussion group
...And yes, the software could be better. But it is production ready. Just not perfect...