Will AutoCad Map do what I need?

[dave5701]

I have been given the task of getting a new mapping system for our telecommunications company.  I have narrowed down my selections to ArcGIS and AutoCad Map.  I need a dB functionality in that I can import in aspects/features of points I locate with a GPS in the field into the mapping dB.  I also need to be able at some point to pass dB attributes of the mapping system to our billing software (what these are yet, I dont know) and to receive dB attributes from the billing system into the mapping software.  I also need to be able to layout my fiber cable on the map, show handholes, pedistals, splices, splitters etc...  Also to be able to draw up diagrams of all the fibers in the cable by color, where they go, where they are spliced over to other cables, tracing of each fiber.  Seems that ArcGIS provides good GIS  and dB but not so good in diagrams, AutoCAD Map is the opposite, seems to be good at diagrams and some GIS but weaker on the dB side.  SO, can anyone give me their two cents worth on what they know about these things?  I am really leaning toward AutoCad Map, but need better feelings about dB capabilities.  I know this is a big topic and there are many things for me to consider.  Maybe some offline discussions are in order.  Can ArcGIS and Map be married together???

[ChadRoberge]

I would use Autocad to create the diagrams and GIS, but you are right as far as creating dB it is not the strongest.  Autocad is great at connecting to other dB though and linking to your Features.  So as long as you have some common ID, I work with municipalities and this usually is the Parcel ID, that you can connect dB to your are golden.  I dont think ArcGIS would be worth the money if you want the design structure you seem to be outlining.  Autocad Map 3D is more than capable.

[dave5701]

Thanks Chad, what you said is confirming what I think I should do.

[nwray]

Hi Dave,

Just ran across this post, sorry I didn't get in earlier.

I work for a City and use both Cad Map and ArcGIS pretty extensively.  I have found that CAD is much better at making the drawings, particularly if you want any sort of spatial accuracy.  You don't get as much database interface in CAD, but it is not at all hard to link your data to external databases, and there are a wide variety that you can link to.  I would guess that you already have some sort of databases in place, so there's no real need for you to make new ones anyway.

Aside from differences in the drawing process, I have found CAD to be much less buggy that Arc.  Whenever I have to work on anything major in ArcView, I have to constantly save as it has a tendency to crash often, sometimes even taking down the whole system (needs a computer re-start).  CAD will definitely crash sometimes, but not nearly as often, and usually not as bad.  Another thing that helps is that CAD takes full advantage of multiple core processors, 64 bit OS's, and large amounts of RAM.  If you look through the official Arc help files on those things, you will find that Arc will operate on a multi core PC, or in a 64 bit OS, but it cannot address any cores beyond the first, and it only actually functions as a 32 bit system even on a 64 bit platform - which also means any RAM beyond the first 4 GB is wasted on Arc.

For my money, I would take CAD Map over Arc any day.

Norm

[sduncan]

Hello,

I am wornderiing if you still feel the same about Cad vs Arc?
We are in the process of buying one or the other for tracking our Fiber optic network.
thank you

[ChadRoberge]

Absolutely,

They have gotten even better at connecting with spatial databases.

[sduncan]

Thank you for the quick response!