Displaying 3D models / viewports in a Civil 3D drawing = massive lag

[m_kingdon]

Hi all,

In my never-ending quest to make my life more complicated, I decided to try modeling some stormwater details using the AutoCAD 3D tools.  I was happy with the end result; I think the detail looks great and conveys much useful information.

The problem I am having is this viewport that shows the 3D object seems to be causing a huge lag in my drawings.  I am not overly familiar with folks who use AutoCAD for 3D modelling full time, but I can’t imagine this viewport lag is normal.  My theory is having a 3D viewport in the same drawing that contains Civil 3D stuff (surfaces etc) is a huge resource drain.  Just wondering if anyone has had the same problem and whether there is a solution.  I tried placing the 3D models onto a separate layer and viewport freezing everything else.  This helped a bit I think but the drawing is still unacceptably slow.

My wetland outlet detail.  Looks nice but the time cost is frustrating.

Regening, switching tabs, plotting can cause my workstation to lag for up to a minute.  Normally these tasks barely take a second.

[fcernst]

Most details now in construction documents are referenced PDF’s. Plot to PDF and reference..

[m_kingdon]

Hello A.I, we meet again.

[m_kingdon]

You make a fair point, but I don't think that is the standard here in New Zealand. Either way I prefer to avoid the document trail. I have found some subcontractors prefer to just freewheel a design if it requires seeking out documents that are not immediately at hand.

[fcernst · Accepted solution]

I meant as a PDF Underlay reference for plotting the detail on the official construction documents (plans). 

If the CAD drawings are actually going out to the contractor you can eTransmit to grab everything. You could also try to Import the PDF from the Insert or contextual PDF tabs.

[m_kingdon]

thanks for the clarity, I understand the workflow now.  Is there no way to have 3D viewports in a typical Civil 3D model without causing huge lag?  This would still be my preferred option.

[RobertoJJoaquin · Accepted solution]

@m_kingdon  Hello, i hope you are doing wel.... The 3D isometric window is always a headache in layout mode and also in model space, in my experience I have a workflow that is the following, when the 3D model is finished, I print in pdf as I want to see the 3D in the layout, having the PDF, I export to JPG and with that I can then attach them using ATTACH or with an OLE type image, this process helped my team to reduce printing and editing times in LAYOUT MODE.   

[m_kingdon]

Cheers very much for the solutions.

I was hoping for a different solution but I guess one has to reside within the limitations of the software.

I was trying something new at our company to make our drawings look more detailed and professional but I think the extra complexity of having to model 3D details in a separate drawing and then PDF them into the production drawings would make me fall out of favour with the engineers / directors.

[ChrisRS · Accepted solution]

The solution that @RobertoJJoaquin suggested can be done in a more Aoutodesk centric way.

1. There are benefits to doing complex details in their own drawing.
   It is certainly easer to share across multiple drawings and projects.
   I will assume that the detail is in its own drawing.
2. Print the completed detail to a DWF file.
   1. DWF is a vector-based image format.
      Printing to DWF is available in other Autodesk products like Revit and Inventor.
      You detail can be drawn in the best product.
   2. You attach a DWF like an XREF or Image file. 
      If you change the source drawing and overwrite the DWF with a new version, it can be synchronized in the detonation drawing.
   3. This is supposed to be very "lightweight."
3. Use named views.
   1. Create a named view in the source drawing and save.
   2. Use Sheet Set Manager (SSM) to add the named view to the destination drawing.
      This creates a linked paper space viewport showing the named view.
      The linked named view stays in sync with saved changes of the source drawing.
   3. Known Issue: You need to save, close and reopen the destination drawing before you can modify the linked named view.
   4. This is supposed to be "lightweight." 
      I cannot verify this. I have trouble seeing how this is more lightweight than an XREF. You will need to experiment.
4. Do you isolate you heavy work into separate file then assemble in sheets you will publish?

The named views approach seems easier to keep in sync dynamically during design.

The DWF approach looks good for common shared static details.

I experimented a little A file is attached. Feel free to share your findings.

Good Luck!