C3D 2018 Create Point Cloud no longer supported?

[Neilw_05]

It appears we can no longer create Point Clouds within Civil 3D as of 2018 release. The workflow now is to use Recap to create the cloud and then attach it to C3D. I tried to create a Point Cloud in Recap using the 3 Elevation formats available from the National Map (Grid, Float and IMG). None of these formats are supported in Recap. So what is the workflow to get the elevation data sets into C3D? I know we can add a grid file to a surface in C3D but we need to filter the data first to make the resulting surface usable. 

[ksorsby]

Pretty much all I need to do is bring a point cloud in from large asc files and generate surfaces in particular areas. Doing this under the DEM definition in Surfaces means bringing the entirety of the huge datasets in then dataclipping, which takes forever because you can’t move your cursor across the surface without it hanging.

I use QGIS a bit and am looking at that for exporting certain areas as smaller point files.



Cheers,

[TerryDotson]

The asc file is a common format in the uk (not sure of other places).

Personally I wish .ASC and .TXT would go away forever as they are no standards whatsoever.  Files of these extensions could contain anything, including the contents of this paragraph.  Even though the .CSV file indicates Comma Separated Values, even that might not contain a header record and might allow N/E values to be backwards, etc.  In short all these formats are data soup and you don't have a clue what's contained until you drop it into a notepad or hex editor.

[ksorsby]

I'm with you on that, Terry. I hate asc but the reality is that this is the format that by and large we get from the EA in the UK, most of the data providers, outputs from tuflow, etc. and I'm just stunned that Autodesk have reduced functionality of C3D on the sly yet again then try to paint the picture that a buying 2 more bloated packages with limited functionality in themselves and a convoluted workflow is actually an improvement.

Cheers,

[TerryDotson]

... the format that by and large we get from the EA in the UK ...

Could you post a link to one of the smallest files you have downloaded from data.gov.uk (I assume)?  That would allow Autodesk (and the rest of us) to see what your source data is so the workflow could possibly be improved.

[ksorsby]

Ok, thanks Terry. This is typical of EA data which is used nationwide. This is fairly small, I have other tiles which are 40-odd Mb each and you might need several spanning a project. Hence why point clouds are useful.

Cheers,

[TerryDotson]

Okay, that is an ESRI Ascii Grid export and as a grid file (like a DEM) some applications might not consider that valid input (it's rigid rows/cols not random sweeps).  It's not listed on Recap's Supported formats.  Assuming you are limited to Autodesk supplied software I suppose you will need to create a grid surface from DEM and choose these types of files.  Then when (as you say) there are multiple ASC files covering an area, you have more hoops to jump through.

There are much simpler and better ways to handle this problem (inside Civil3D alone) using our third party add-ons.  And it's nice to be able to carve the AOI out of a massive collection of files and never bring Civil3D to a grinding halt.  This past weekend I carved out four corners of four massive LAZ files (6gb and over 450 million points total) to extract less than 10 million points needed and built a usable surface (on a 32gb machine).

[Kevin.Spear]

What I think is missing from this discussion is the view outside the forest. We've all been in the forest for so long, we don't know what is happening outside the forest, and why some trees in the forest are disappearing and others appearing.

Ramesh mentions TWO very good points about WHY the trees are disappearing; speed and efficiency. Maybe it's time to step back and see the larger picture that's happening across the AEC collection. While Autodesk has provided visibility to the roadmaps for various applications and them public, there is not a clear message as to why these things are on the roadmap. Also, as technology has morphed over a shorter cycle than we are accustomed, owners and users need a clear picture "in the forest and outside the forest".

Maybe try the tools in IW for point clouds. See what happens. Mikey liked Cherrios, maybe you'll like Infraworks?

Context is always important...

Kevin

[BlackBox_]

---

@Kevin.Spearwrote:

What I think is missing from this discussion is the view outside the forest. We've all been in the forest for so long, we don't know what is happening outside the forest, and why some trees in the forest are disappearing and others appearing.

Ramesh mentions TWO very good points about WHY the trees are disappearing; speed and efficiency. Maybe it's time to step back and see the larger picture that's happening across the AEC collection. While Autodesk has provided visibility to the roadmaps for various applications and them public, there is not a clear message as to why these things are on the roadmap. Also, as technology has morphed over a shorter cycle than we are accustomed, owners and users need a clear picture "in the forest and outside the forest".

Maybe try the tools in IW for point clouds. See what happens. Mikey liked Cherrios, maybe you'll like Infraworks?

Context is always important...

Kevin

---

Context: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-civil-3d-forum/c3d-2018-create-point-cloud-no-longer-supporte...

Cheers

[sfore]

I knew InfraWorks required cloud credits, but are you saying using Recap 2018 alone will also require cloud credits?

We have Infrastructure Design Suite for 2016 and 2018. We don't have the AEC Collection due to the way our license and plan is setup. Our maintenance plan expires in August 2018. I'm assuming we need to keep our maintenance plan and bypass AEC Collection upgrade.

I've read on this thread where people are using InfraWorks and Recap just to attach a point cloud to build a surface in Civil 3D 2018. Why is Infraworks required??? I've never used Recap because of the unit thing plus Civil 3D has always handled Lidar data for what I needed it for. I've never used InfraWorks either, but it seems to be pushed by a lot of re-sellers.

All the demos I've seen for InfraWorks paints pretty pictures to push the product which require purchasing of additional cloud credits. Well, I work in the real world and have to produce construction plans. InfraWorks does not interest me because it is NOT a design tool!

I've used C3D since 2006 and currently using C3D 2016. I was about to make the switch to 2018 soon and build a dwt and migrate our styles and settings forward. I didn't realize they took out Point Clouds until I saw this thread and opened up 2018 to see for myself. This is a huge disappointment for us and now I'm really on the fence about making the switch to 2018. Please advise.

[Anonymous]

I am not averse to change, and I think Recap has some great potential.  We used it this year for a Drone Imagery project and it worked fine.

The concern is that it is  NOT a replacement for what I had in Civil 3d one version ago.  Nor is Infraworks.  Nor is the combination of both of them. Nor do I think I need to process a processed LAS file using cloud credits.

Baby trees need to grow up before we can use them.

Progress is wonderful, but it needs to be functional.

Thanks,

[BlackBox_]

First, you're not dependent on ReCrappy, or InfraSucks... See Terry's tools earlier in this thread.

My office took the CAD bait and upgraded from IDSP (Perpetual) to AECC (Subscription/Rental) when we had several new hires so we'd all be on the same apps, and from app installation to cross-product round-tripping of project data, I couldn't be more disappointed.

Go ahead and expect to triple (or more) the time required to download, prepare deployments, and implement apps & updates... First as a result of the removal of the wonderful Suite-like installer you used to get with IDS... Second, because of the unnecessarily rushed app updates, that are often not ready, or offer very little, and end up themselves being pulled down and replaced with a corrected version of the update.  Also, Autodesk isn't very good with words... Some 'updates' are really full-versions, that require you first uninstall the app you have, but the redundant stand-alone deployment creation software for each app (duplicate overhead) isn't smart enough to know that, so will let you add the 'update' as an update to your original deployment, and only after you've babysat the installation process (you have to babysit the entire process, manually click OK buttons, can't just walk away)

Then comes all the fun bits you've read in this and other threads - main issue is Autodesk doesn't have someone in a 'CAD Czar' position, who oversees how all Collection apps will work well together, so you get some work as expected, and others that don't. 

As example, consider Civil 3D & InfraWorks: InfraWorks will bring in Objects from a Civil 3D DWG, and once you get past the fact that C3D Pipe Networks == IWX Pipelines, C3D Structures == IWX Connectors, and the fact that C3D & IWX use completely different Part Catalogs (which means duplication of work to get them to look the same), and C3D Pipes while able to be imported into IWX don't come in with C3D-assigned Pipe elevations (they're all flat, and there's no Field to elevate them from.

Basically, they gave a completely different team the go ahead to build and all new interface, and API code-behind without using the matured Civil 3D API as a starting point, which is why IWX looks and feels like a completely disparate environment (it is).  Despite how handy some of the conceptual functionality is, it doesn't round-trip C3D data successfully, which is a deal breaker for our shop, as we don't have a 'make it pretty' line item in our project contracts... But we do have a 'finish plans production early bonus'... Which would you choose? Haha

Cheers

[Kevin.Spear]

I hear your frustration. You have a project, went to use the tool and it wasn't there. That's infuriating. We used to do a "what's new" class all the time. Folks don't even seem to have time for a webinar over lunch for this kind of thing. Now I have no idea if PC tools will exist in future versions of AutoCAD products. I have used the tools that were in AutoCAD to make an indexed point cloud and the "tools" in Recap to index a point cloud. I've used both point clouds in AutoCAD. The performance isn't close.

For me, Recap is a point cloud engine that handles the mass of data so AutoCAD does not have to. And as noted, when it did, it struggled. Was it nice having it all in one place? sure.

So today, you can import a recap point cloud into c3d and make a surface out of it like before. Some don't like what happened to the process of making a surface from a point cloud in c3d. That's fine.

That's where Infraworks comes into play. It's point cloud tools to process data into a surface from ground data, to classify point types, and generate break lines work well and its v2 of those tools. You can export from Infraworks, but the better solution is simply to open the Infraworks model in c3d and consume data that way. 

Recap, to my knowledge, does not require cloud credits to register laser scans. Recap photo does require credits if you took nadir drone photos and want to make an ortho or point cloud. Infraworks only needs cloud credits for Watershed Analysis, Profile Optimization, and Traffic Simulation.

I'm sorry things are as you expect. Surely your reseller is more than a salesperson to your firm. They should be able to do a lunch session about these different tech pieces that isn't a sales show.

[ksorsby]

Hi Terry,

Yes, it is an asc grid. I don't like them but they are widely used in the UK, for anything to do with flooding or where topo isn't available. Civil 3D does support them however and did support them as a point cloud in v2016/7. Which is what is infuriating to me.

Autodesk just don't seem to have any kind of joined up thinking and have removed functionality to push Infraworks. I get the reason for offloading processes to another package, although I don't agree with their rational, but at least support the same formats.

I've seen your tools before and they do look exceptionally good, I agree, and I wish I could but I can't convince management to spend £000's more on new software because Autodesk crippled their own software. I had a hard enough time convincing them to keep Civil 3D after Autodesk broke the Windes import tools in 2017 and UKIE assemblies in 2018. We are seriously putting a case together next year to move to different 3D software and I know of 2 companies that have done just that.

Cheers!

[ksorsby]

Infraworks simply isn't mature enough as a professional design tool. I wish it was.

Obviously not speaking for everyone but I don't know anybody that uses it seriously, certainly in the UK. We looked at it briefly in 2016 and concluded that it's confused, clunky and not near being design level. I'm not even sure if it's supposed to be a design level tool. Which is part of the problem, I'm not sure Autodesk do either.

Now the nerd in me likes it but again we won't buy it because for our projects, and we're a regular nationwide infrastructure consultancy, it is not usable on serious projects in a way that Civil 3D is.

Cheers,

[ksorsby]

---

@BlackBox_wrote:
...

Go ahead and expect to triple (or more) the time required to download, prepare deployments, and implement apps & updates... First as a result of the removal of the wonderful Suite-like installer you used to get with IDS... Second, because of the unnecessarily rushed app updates, that are often not ready, or offer very little, and end up themselves being pulled down and replaced with a corrected version of the update.  Also, Autodesk isn't very good with words... Some 'updates' are really full-versions, that require you first uninstall the app you have, but the redundant stand-alone deployment creation software for each app (duplicate overhead) isn't smart enough to know that, so will let you add the 'update' as an update to your original deployment, and only after you've babysat the installation process (you have to babysit the entire process, manually click OK buttons, can't just walk away)

Then comes all the fun bits you've read in this and other threads - main issue is Autodesk doesn't have someone in a 'CAD Czar' position, who oversees how all Collection apps will work well together, so you get some work as expected, and others that don't. 

As example, consider Civil 3D & InfraWorks: InfraWorks will bring in Objects from a Civil 3D DWG, and once you get past the fact that C3D Pipe Networks == IWX Pipelines, C3D Structures == IWX Connectors, and the fact that C3D & IWX use completely different Part Catalogs (which means duplication of work to get them to look the same), and C3D Pipes while able to be imported into IWX don't come in with C3D-assigned Pipe elevations (they're all flat, and there's no Field to elevate them from.

Basically, they gave a completely different team the go ahead to build and all new interface, and API code-behind without using the matured Civil 3D API as a starting point, which is why IWX looks and feels like a completely disparate environment (it is).  Despite how handy some of the conceptual functionality is, it doesn't round-trip C3D data successfully, which is a deal breaker for our shop, as we don't have a 'make it pretty' line item in our project contracts... But we do have a 'finish plans production early bonus'... Which would you choose? Haha

Cheers

---

This. 

[Kevin.Spear]

Unless I am missing something, add the data clip first before you bring in the data. That will make it much quicker.

[Anonymous]

<kevin> 

what do you mean by data clip? are you referring to someone else's comments?

[Kevin.Spear]

Someone else already blogged about it. I am referring to a boundary type for surfaces that gets added FIRST before data is added. Civil 3D then does not calculate/triangulate any data outside of a data clip. You may still need an outer boundary to clean things up a bit. Here's the link:
http://beingcivil.typepad.com/my_weblog/2014/03/trimming-tin-surfaces-with-data-clip.html

[ksorsby]

Yes, you can dataclip first (and we do) to reduce to the area of coverage but it doesn’t alter the fact that large lidar datasets are basically unmanageable in C3D. Which was why point clouds were so useful in C3D itself.

Try dragging your cursor over a surface with lidar data in it, even without snap on.



Cheers,

[Kevin.Spear]

Agreed. That's why if you compare a surface built from the old PC tools in C3D with the PC tools in IW and open that surface in C3D, it's not even fair. The C3D created surface will be 1000x dense than the surface created in IW and brought into C3D. You'll get the same fidelity at 1/1000 the cost. 🙂