Tech Preview of Corridor Solids for AutoCAD Civil 3D Available on Autodesk Labs

[scott-sheppard-autodesk]

The Corridor Solids Technology Preview for AutoCAD^® Civil 3D^® 2012 software provides functionality to create AutoCAD^® solids from AutoCAD Civil 3D Subassembly shapes that are contained in an AutoCAD Civil 3D Corridor Model. By creating solids from subassembly shapes, representative real-world objects such as tunnels, retaining walls, and pavement layers can be more easily used for visual analysis, design verification, and construction coordination through enhanced model sharing between various project team members who are using applications such as Autodesk^® Navisworks^® 2012 products, Autodesk^® Revit^® Structure 2012, Autodesk^® 3ds^® Max Design 2012, and the new Autodesk^® Infrastructure Modeler 2012 software.

http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/civil3D_corridor_solids/

[BrianHailey]

Oh, I'm looking forward to checking this one out!

[taralis]

Once again - no help file, no usage details, not a single picture or video.

Same was with Cartogramma Extension.

How to start this thing, how it works, where is the help file, at least video tutorial on tube or smthng...?

Are all these lab software pieces made by lab insiders for lab insiders? 

What's the purpose of displaying it for public testing when the command list or overall functionality that should be tested is not available for public?

[peterfunkautodesk]

There should be a new toolbox entry for the command. We'll work at posting some videos for the tool.

Regards,

Peter Funk

Autodesk, Inc.

[dsimeone]

Just to add a bit more detail... Videos are in the process of being posted now. We've created a bunch that show usage of the tool, some best practices, how you can use the solids in a BIM workflow, etc. I expect that they'll all be posted today.

Until then - After you install, you'll find a Labs icon in your C3D toolbox. The new utility is located under this. Going forward, i'd like to host future Labs tools here so there's a consistent acces point. It may not make sense with some of the larger tools (aka, those that have larger UI where a Ribbon is needed to effectively use the tool).

Thanks

Dave Simeone - Civil 3D Product Manager

[JamesMaeding]

How about solids from surfaces?

Corridors are nice, but heavy too.  Much of the design on all but highway projects will be the grading in between the roads.

Might that be in the works also?

[dsimeone]

Agreed - Unfortunately i can't share much on our plans at this time, but it's something that we are actively researching. Hopefully we can share more info including technology preview in the not too distant future.

Thanks
DAS 

[JamesMaeding]

but why can't you discuss it?  No promises are being made on your end.

I never sit back and say "we can't discuss my idea for how to simplify a surface", or other topics, as the ideas are not new.

Its the implementation (coding) that is to be protected, and that happens automatically by not sharing code.

If things are that sensitive, using the word BIM in association with C3D is about as dangerous as it gets, and that is being done.

The implications of that word are clear to anyone familiar with the architecture world, and would mislead anyone looking at buying C3D.

So why get secretive on just discussing an idea I can already deatil out ways of implimenting?

If you have some new entity in mind, just don't tell us, you would still likely be fulfilling any wishes we would come up with here.

[dsimeone]

I can't discuss future technology / product plans without everyone being under non-disclosure. That's a accouting rule that public companies must adhere to. I like and encourage the idea of folks (including us) talking about the the pros/cons of having surface solids. i think they'd be very benficial in cross-product workflows, handling of vertical/overhang elements, etc. We can also start to do some cool things with QTo, reporting, etc.

Others are welcome to jump in - What are some reasons for why you'd want TIN surfaces saved as solids? How would you use them? What new things do you want to do?

Many thanks

DAS

[JamesMaeding]

Dave,

I understand, I'm just saying what we are discussing is not under the umbrella of a future feature.

You never said it was a promised item, and we are not expecting it to be fulfilled, so not sure how much safer things can get.

Its all what if....

Glad you are asking for ideas though, that's what I was shooting for with my previous reply.

Good things about solids:

1) no object enablers needed for ahraing with other acad users

2) Direct import into 3d modeling progs (from what I know, not my forte though)

3) possibility of extracting volumes using solids commands - no need to deal with boundaries on volume surfaces.

4) better visualization for things like soil removal

5) Possibility of direct export to 3d printing

6) Possibility of taking advantage of the simplification routines available to the 3d modeling world, something the delunay world is missing.

thx

[TerryDotson]

What are some reasons for why you'd want TIN surfaces saved as solids?

From what we've seen, users want to add a flat base (skirt) at a specific elevation or second surface to form a solid for visualization.  They also may want to export to STL for apps like Flow3D.

http://www.dotsoft.com/images/mwsursoldia.png
http://www.dotsoft.com/images/mwsursolgra.png

[BrianHailey]

Personally, I would love to move away from the TIN in general (specifically the limitation enforced on it because of the Delaunay triangulation algorithm). A TIN is not a true 3D object, it's a 2D object with elevation not much different than a raster image (it's a 2D object with a color). I had a client that was doing some work up in Rocky Mountain National Park that scanned a rock wall next to a road they were reconstructing and they wanted to show it in their cross sections. Since it was a very rocky/vertical surface, you can't make a TIN from that information.

I'm really hoping, with the recent advancements made in incorporating point clouds in Civil 3D, that we can move beyond these limitations soon. Corridor solids is a start in the right direction though and one I'm looking forward to trying out (I think I may have already said that).

[JamesMaeding]

In all this talk, there is still no mention of a standardized schema for civil BIM objects.

And you don;t make that up in a vacuum either, it takes a lot of talk in the industry, or you must have had that variety yourself to know what would the foundational features be.  Once you get that schema, you will likely see the need for a solid made up from either two surfaces, or a cloud of points.

Sony missed the mp3 standard, will Autodesk miss the Civil Bim standard?

[neilyj666]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I can't discuss future technology / product plans without everyone being under non-disclosure. That's a accouting rule that public companies must adhere to. I like and encourage the idea of folks (including us) talking about the the pros/cons of having surface solids. i think they'd be very benficial in cross-product workflows, handling of vertical/overhang elements, etc. We can also start to do some cool things with QTo, reporting, etc.

Others are welcome to jump in - What are some reasons for why you'd want TIN surfaces saved as solids? How would you use them? What new things do you want to do?

Many thanks

DAS

---

There is a good example of the use of solids in the paper by Robert Marschallinger at AU 2009 (CV9200-1 Engineering Geology with AutoCAD®: Go Solid!). He uses a lisp (face2vol.lsp) to convert to solids but even Google throws up a blank when searching for this lisp.

[BrianHailey]

I wrote up a blog post when I worked at a different company about converting surfaces to solids. Hopefully this will help.

http://cadcafe.blogspot.com/2007/04/you-want-solid-from-your-surface.html

[neilyj666]

I tried that and it fails in both 2011 & 2012. It creates 1 solid and then reverts to a window polygon selection method?!?!?!

[JamesMaeding]

Brian,

I saw that a few days ago, and looked at the lisp.

While the idea of making lofts and solid unioning them is effective, it is far too slow for the surfaces we deal with.

I also wonder how heavy that final solid would be for surfaces with 250k faces for top and bottom.

Someone would have to write it in .net for both surface access to triangle verticies, and creation of lofts and union.

You still have the problem of the final solid maybe being too heavy in memory and display speed.

Like, I might get what I want fast, but do I really want it even though i think I do.

Anyone tried on a larger surface, even if the lisp must run all night?

note that the lisp might need tweaks for new acad version, but they would be trivial.

The concept in the lisp is fine and can easily be fixed, i'll give it a try.

[dsimeone]

Here are a couple images of surface solids in C3D - one for EG and one for proposed top surface. Is this the type of thing ya'll want to create?

[JamesMaeding]

For me, I am looking for the volume bounded by the two, so run a union to get it.

In addition, I would want a separate solid for "cut" and "fill" areas.  The order gets taller 🙂

Also, be sure to try on surfaces with 500k faces.  I can supply them offline if needed.

I think anything that will do this, will need to have the ability to simplify the surface.  I know the 3d animation guys maintain simple frameworks, then apply textures (height maps) that wrap over the frame, to get the efficient final 3d model.

I think they call that baking the texture or something.  We may need to explore that to handle the large amount of info involved in a surface.

[BrianHailey]

Dave,

I think that's what was wanted in the previous bit of the conversation (and basically what that lisp routine I shared would do). Having the ability to quickly and easily create those types of solids would be benificial.

The original reason for my blog post on converting surfaces to solids was for the purpose of incorporting them into a 3D printer for a landscaped project. I don't know what else they would be good for however. Perhaps if the others posted their reasons for creating the solids perhaps that super secret command you considered incorporating into the software would be a more appropriate alternative to the solids and it will be included in 2014.

On a side note, do you know of any surface creation algorithms that are an alternative to the Delauney Triangulation method? Perhaps one that would allow multiple elevations at a single location. Maybe instead of using circles through the three points, using a sphere? My gut says that wouldn't work though.