3D Modeling

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I'm asking the community for some suggestions.  I currently use Civil 3D in my work and think I'm marginally proficient.  I work for hydro-utility (hydroelectric dams), wherein we are wanting to make a 3D model of a concrete  arch dam.  I don't think Civil 3D can handle making a 3D solid with curve-linear geometry.  I'm thinking AutoCAD 3D solids would give us the option of exporting it in different file formats for other structural analysis programs and maybe even 3D printing so we could have a physical model for discussions with City/Utility leadership.

Are there such company or businesses that just do 3D modeling (AutoCAD 3D solids)?

What programs do you recommend do such curve-linear geometry of 3D solids?

Thank you for your time.

[ennujozlagam]

You can try the Revit software and can also be exported in AutoCAD 2d/3d mode. Thanks

[ParishSouthBdx]

if you dont need intelligent solids and just representative solids, AutoCAD right out the box would suffice.

[Anonymous]

Our team discussed using Revit, but Revit (to us anyway) seems so constrained.  We're trying to model concrete arch dam.  Where do you begin in Revit with something like that?

[Anonymous]

It seems regular AutoCAD can only do so much w/ 3D solids.  Our arch dam happens to be a 'double-arch' dam (it arches in both vertical AND horizontal and the bottom is obligatorily thicker than the top of the dam).

I was wondering if there was a more robust 3D modeling program or any companies that specialize in such things.

[ParishSouthBdx]

What's your definition of "robust"?  A program that is unique to dbl arched dams and all that is required is data entry?
With AutoCAD right out of the box, one may have to do a little strategizing regarding the approach, but the commands and options within AutoCAD can handle the geometry.

[Kent1Cooper]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

....  Our arch dam happens to be a 'double-arch' dam (it arches in both vertical AND horizontal and the bottom is obligatorily thicker than the top of the dam).  ....

---

This is easily within AutoCAD's capabilities.  A simple illustration:  On the left, the green is a POLYLINE cross-section outline in a vertical plane, EXTRUDEd along the red ARC as a path, to make the "dam" SOLID on the right that curves both ways.

Of course the outline can be as complex as you want, with things like roadway and sidewalk and guard wall at the top, and it can be vertical on the back or the thickening can widen both directions from vertical, etc., etc.  Pieces of the Solid can be carved out for water passages, etc., with SUBTRACT, and other 3D manipulations can be made.

[Anonymous]

I guess by "robust" I probably meant a program that could handle the complex geometry of the solid.

Bit of background: I work for a local utility and we have (7) hydroelectric dams.  Several years ago I had to make AutoCAD solids of (2) of them.  As I developed the solid, and gave it more detail/accuracy, the file became sluggish and huge, and eventually I just had to say good enough (I couldn't get the get the contraction joints made into the model so it was one solid arch, but I digress).  These (2) dams had a much easier geometry because like Kent1Cooper depicted in their reply, the dam profile was easily rotated about one central vertical axis.

I wonder if what really hampered the file/model was after crating the original arch (kinda like Kent1Cooper did), then I subtracted the earthen abutments to depict he dam's as-built foundation and key-way (hope you all followed that statement).  The underside of the dam, as you may imagine, was very faceted (to match/reflect) the underlying Civil-3D surface.

Perhaps my question to community should have included "what is better way to strategize/plan constructing AutoCAD 3D solid of arch dam?" 

When I did this before it was a HUGE undertaking that I did not enjoy.  This geometry is more complicated this time so maybe I'm just really afraid to do it have to do it again. 

[Anonymous]

Please see my reply to drafting2.

I did this method you depicted  on a couple of other arch dams in our system.  Which worked because their profile did stay the same as I extruded through the arc.  But then as you also mentioned, I used the SUBTRACT to remove for the abutments.  That's when the file and productivity really started bogging down.  I don't know if that because the mete-file (if that's the correct term) for the 3D solid arch dam just kept track of all those edits.

Perhaps my question should have been more framed like "is there a better way to build yada yada yada?"

I definitely don't know all the pros/cons of various 3D actions/commands and approaches....my background is in Civil-3D.

That being said, do you think too complicated/detailed foundation and subtracting it so detailed from the arch is what made it so 'boggy'?  I think I'm fairly proficient at making Civil-3D surfaces, perhaps too detailed of a TIN and made too many faces /facets to the underside of the arch 3D solid?

[ParishSouthBdx]

that's an all too familiar scenario.  Committing to AutoCAD to move forward only to encounter the inevitable.  The point where the sluggishness of the program is unacceptable.  that is overshadowed by the thought of the committment and maybe too far to turn back.   or God forbid one begins to encounter "solid model error ######"  wherein the solid wont play nice any longer.  that is a frequent experience for me.  In AutoCADs defense, the program is user friendly, and is widely used and I personally have saved a number of small mom/pop shops money by taking AutoCAD where no man has taken it before.  ah ah h .... no but really i ended up putting into place a solids design/drafting routine and drawing production by way of intelligent views, etc.  But since 1988 when I cut my teeth on AutoCAD, and solid modeling around 1992, its always been the same ole issue.  performance.  always performance.  I've come to believe its the actual modeler that Autodesk uses that is the issue.  I've seen many others, including myself, install monsters of desktop systems.  Major high end GPU's, motherboard from hell, SSD'S that are as fast as memory, all the memory one can pack into a system, fast buses, etc  AND STILL HAVE AUTOCAD DRAG and not play nice with solids.

[Kent1Cooper]

It may [just guessing here -- I haven't experimented] help to split the Solid into pieces.  SLICE with a plane as slicer and keeping both sides would be able to separate the convoluted-around-the-abutments base and perhaps ends from the more straightforward and regular parts.  Then when you make changes in the straightforward parts, you won't be hauling all the convolutions along.  You could even put the convoluted parts that you're not working with on a frozen Layer so AutoCAD doesn't even think about them as you work on other parts, or even write them off to another drawing file entirely, to bring back in only when needed.  If you need the whole thing as one Solid for some kind of analysis, you can always UNION it all back together for the purpose, even if you then SLICE it apart again for further work.

[Anonymous]

"solid model error ####"

So much this!

When I did this last time I had so many backup copies; did a saveas any time I was about to to do some major operation/command/edit.  It seemed when this error would happen, I would go to the back up copy and do the same operation again, only maybe more segmented, breaking up the solid in question into smaller and smaller parts then UNION-ing them all back together to get back to to original (not so) small part.  Sometimes the order in which they they were UNION-ed together would make a difference.   Sometimes the order in which parts were SUBTRACT-ed would make a difference.

You and Kent1Cooper seem to be on the same track... sounds kinda like what/how I had to do it last time.  I guess I was fishing for a better way from the community, but it sounds as if we're all working w/ same AutoCAD tools/tricks and we're all coming at it from about the same perspective w/ about the same expectations.

I always use Civil 3D and have always wondered if I asked too much of it when I created those solids before.  That's probably what I meant by "robust" when I should've asked if there was more "appropriate" program.

[ParishSouthBdx]

I think it's safe to say that all of us when we were "out the gates" initially wanted to WORK with the model looking sweet, shaded and maybe some additional spotlights here and there.  and of course shadows.   thats just not realistic.  I work as much as possible in wireframe mode until such a time like design reviews, to let the shading, etc do their thing.  Subtracting?  I don't believe it's a significant culprit.  but it certainly a part of the whole, and adds to the data the model has to have handy.  

things i utilize:

1. ---viewres at 100 (until segmented circles and arcs are not acceptable, like for an office discussion with an associate.
2.   i set the ISAVEPERCENT to 25 or lower even.  it may result in longer SAVES but I am at least navigating around the   3d environment as lite as possible.
3. i've learned the hard way to respect the 3 golden rules--1-SAVE 2-SAVE 3-SAVE
4. I run AUDIT and allow it to correct errors it finds
5. I save ALL drawings with LAYER AND SPATIAL INDEXES.
6. i periodically run TREESTAT, and keep an eye out on AVERAGE OBJECTS PER NODE to remain at 1.0 or less (under the MODEL SPACE BRANCH.  if it goes 0ver 1.0 i adjust TREEDEPTH.  the default is 3020, 30 represents the model space branch (OCT-TREE DEPTH LIMITS) and 20 the paper space branch (quad-tree depth limits).  Its the first two digits that i'm interested in.   i move the value in increments of 10.  thus 4020.   treedepth 4020.  and then I check the AVERAGE OBJECTS PER NODE again. and keep doing this until the value is <1,0.  this is ESPECIALLY useful when using XREFS.
7. i use OVERKILL as needed.
8. MAX computer on time without reboot, 1 week.]
9. set WHIPTHREAD to 3, or per the no. of cores.
10. if you keep SOLIDHIST, keep good housekeeping on it.  when necessary perform a BREP.
11. PURGE.  
12. IF using layer states, housekeeping applies there also. i've seen them pile up and make a very heavy load
13. computer housekeeping temp internet files, temp files.......gone

[Anonymous]

You and drafting2 seem to be on the same track... sounds kinda like what/how I had to do it last time. I guess I was fishing for a better way from the community, but it sounds as if we're all working w/ same AutoCAD tools/tricks and we're all coming at it from about the same perspective w/ about the same expectations.  Sometimes the order in which they they were UNION-ed together would make a difference.   Sometimes the order in which parts were SUBTRACT-ed would make a difference.

"Solid for some kind of analysis, you can always UNION it all back together for the purpose, even if you then SLICE it apart again for further work."  ....This!

Sometimes I found I had to go to a back-up copy several steps (saveas's) earlier and slice parts differently, and then make the solid parts AGAIN (and a few more back-up copies along the way), but in different order of operations or slicing differently (usually to make it smaller than what I thought I could get away with previously).

[Anonymous]

"PURGE.
IF using layer states, housekeeping applies there also. I've seen them pile up and make a very heavy load"

Probably not run Civil 3d either so that I don't have all those Civil 3D layers that won't purge?

That was list of good stuff you have there.  I hadn't seen those pearls of wisdom before (except wireframe and BREP...was familiar w/ those).

[dgorsman]

---

@ParishSouthBdx wrote:

I think it's safe to say that all of us when we were "out the gates" initially wanted to WORK with the model looking sweet, shaded and maybe some additional spotlights here and there.  and of course shadows.   thats just not realistic.  I work as much as possible in wireframe mode until such a time like design reviews, to let the shading, etc do their thing.

---

Switched to using Navisworks for real-time shaded navigation a long time ago, haven't looked back.

[ParishSouthBdx]

Thanks for your kind words.  I'm sure there are some measures one can take for performance that I'm not aware of.  But because performance is a very real item when trying to generate deliverables competitively, Its a big part of my research.  Lead time delivery expectations, in general, have edged out the ability of the software to realistically meet that expectation.  do users play a role in that trend? Absolutely.  We give it our best given the environment of COVID, reduced staff, reduced wages, and the folks that remain, are operating at full speed consistently.  And I'm not whining or blaming, it is what it is.    And it is.

[Anonymous]

"Lead time delivery expectations, in general, have edged out the ability of the software to realistically meet that expectation. do users play a role in that trend? Absolutely. We give it our best given the environment of COVID, reduced staff, reduced wages...."

You aren't "whistling Dixie'!  When you do something that hasn't been done before and succeed, using something that really wasn't meant to do that;... "So.....  it can be done?   Then we're you're going to do it every time."

I believe this where the term "No good deed goes unpunished" derived from.

[ParishSouthBdx]

"..... Sometimes the order in which they they were UNION-ed together would make a difference.   Sometimes the order in which parts were SUBTRACT-ed would make a difference....."

I just realized you stated this Kent.   SPOT ON"!!!!!  pain in the butt but its a work around.