Autodesk Civil 3d 2009 vs Carlson Civil Suite 2009

[nmoxey]

I know this is a touchy subject, but the company I work for is currently using a mix of Land Desktop Development 2004 and Carlson Civil Suite 2009. We are looking to upgrade our Land Desktop Development to either Civil 3d 2009 or Carlson Civil Suite 2009 and I was wondering if I could get some input from the members to the pros and cons of each program.

Our company is a civil engineering company that does alot of commercial and residential subdivision development. Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks

[rustysilo]

I've never used any program outside of Autodesk products so I have no idea about Carlson. I recently saw a post about MicroSurvey (http://microsurvey.com/products/mscad/) at theswamp. It looks like it might be another option to consider as well. Uses Intellicad so it should be similar to AutoCAD which cuts down on the learning curve.

We have Civil 3D and I love it although it has some quirks here and there. It is similar enough to Land Desktop/Civil Design, but is dynamic in nature so no more rebuilding surfaces, then rebuilding profiles, etc. You make a change to your surface data, the surface updates, the profiles update, etc.

[BIGAL]

As an ex dealer for another brand of surveying engineering software I would have to say that there is some better software out there to do surveying and engineering functions vastly simpler than Civ3D and often with more detail.

The trade off though is the CAD drawing side even though they have spent a lot of time improving there cad ability.

I would expect the majority of engineers etc here in Australia have two packages Autocad and something else.

Yes we run Civ3D but we run the Australian ARD on top of it to make it equal to what we were used to. ie two packages. What I am trying to say is that add ons to Autocad can only make it better and fill in holes in the original product.

[rkmcswain]

P&P Sheet production is in it's infancy in Carlson, but Carlson's modeling of roads and intersections, etc. is far beyond C3D.

The best thing to do is get together a sampling of your daily tasks and ask Carlson to demonstrate how to do them in Carlson. They will either come to your office or do a Webinar for you.

[rustysilo]

And I bet you wouldn't have to deal with a subscription using Carlson...

What makes their roadway modeling so much better than C3D if you don't mind me asking?

[rkmcswain]

And I bet you wouldn't have to deal with a subscription using Carlson...

Carlson does have a similar model, but the costs are very reasonable.



What makes their roadway modeling so much better than C3D if you don't mind me asking?

Specifically, intersection design. You don't need all those alignments like you do in C3D. I'm pretty sure they have some demo videos you can watch on their website if you are interested.

[rustysilo]

Downloading one now. Thanks for the info. I see the cost is a bit less expensive that Civil 3D. I've seen that there are a few intersection add-ons for C3D that are supposed to make it a bit easier, well not that it's hard to model an intersection in C3D. Just a little time consuming due to all the alignments and profiles.

[rustysilo]

Wow! It does the intersections for you! That's pretty cool.

[rustysilo]

I went back to find some of the other intersection add-ons and see that now caddapps has a "lite" version for free.

http://www.civil3dtools.com/index.html

[sinc]

I was talking with some surveyors at a seminar today, and they said they finally dropped C3D and switched to Carlson. They said they've been far, far happier and more-productive since doing that.

They said it's much easier for them to "work with others" now. They said they can even extract data from Civil-3D files. Meanwhile, they had a lot of issues in this regard with C3D. The other big problem they had with C3D was the constant crashing. Not sure what they're talking about. o:)

[rustysilo]

Yeah sure you don't.

[Gravytrain]

I have worked with "Autodesk" software for years.....way back when it was called "softdesk". I have worked for 10 plus years using AutoCAD with Eagle Point software. I have also used both LDD and Civil 3D over the past couple of years.......and then I got the chance to try Carlson Civil 2008 and I was blown away on what they had. For years I had been complaining to Eagle Point about the lack "newer & better" software.......with very little change seen. Don't get me wrong, Eagle Point with AutoCAD is a good software, but not the best. Civil 3D changed things when it finally introduced the ability to make changes automatic and update everything at once.....although not as easy as they like to speak about, it did work. But then I got the chance to use Carlson Civil 2008 on a subdivision project and could not believe how simple they made it. FINALLY......someone out there gets it!! When working with subdivisions......intersections, cul-de-sacs, knuckles, and even roundabouts are a huge part of the design, not to mention turn lanes. Carlson Civil has made the disign of these items take only minutes, not hours or days like with Civil 3D or other software........it's all automatic and super easy. I would go to the Carlson website and download a "full use" trial version of it or even watch some of their "FREE" webinares that show you how it works. Carlson Civil 2008 or 2009 is the best software on the market in my opinion.......I wish more Civil 3D users had the chance to try it.

[Gravytrain]

I see that a lot if not most users of LDD are making the move to Civil 3D and I am wondering why?

Is it just that Autodesk is forcing them to switch with them no longer going to support LDD (or offer it at all)? I'm confused as to why so many firms out there are blindly switching to Civil 3D just because they think that everyone else is so they better do it too.

Now is when a firm needs to look at other options and not just be the typical "follower". There are other options out there......and they can still use the "standard" cad platform of AutoCad! I have spoken to several firms and was told that they are switching or will be switching from LDD to Civil 3D "ONLY" because they are basiclly being forced to by Autodesk.....no other reason, and 95% of them have never even looked at the option of switching to something else.....that I can't believe. You would think, if they had to switch programs that at least they would look to see what other software was out there, maybe finding something that works better for them.....maybe not, but at least take a little time and see.

Why is this happening?

[rustysilo]

Because all the little Autodesk demons have their grasp on the market.:twisted:

[rkmcswain]

I see that a lot if not most users of LDD are making the move to Civil 3D and I am wondering why?

Why is this happening?

Some thoughts...

1) If you have a lot of users who have been using LDT for many years, then migrating them to C3D is going to be easier than to Carlson.
2) If you have many seats of LDT, you probably upgraded to C3D a long time ago (when it was free-to-cheap) - even if you kept using LDT. This is a big investment to just throw away.
3) Last I checked, it cost $$ per-seat to downgrade C3D (or LDT) to Map or ACAD. I know Carlson runs on C3D or LDT, but if the goal is to drop those packages, why would you want all that overhead loaded?
4) Carlson's sheet creation is light-years behind C3D. Many clients still have a deliverable requirement of plan and profile sheets. You can do all the design you want, but you don't get paid until sheets are delivered.

[Gravytrain]

Civil 3D and LDD are not even close to being the same product. Switching from one to the other is no more easier than switching to some other software and if you think they are the same.......your crazy. I understand for those firms that carry a subscription........changing may not be an option, but for those who don't, than changing is an option.

I'm not sure if I would say that civil 3D plan & profile sheets are that far ahead of Carlson, I have used both, but what I do know is that no other software on the market compares to Carlson Civil 2009 when it comes to subdivision layout and street design. They have made it simple......Civil 3D is not that hard, but is very time consuming when it comes to intersections, knuckles, cul-de-sacs, roundabouts and turn lanes and that more than makes up for the sheets. Watch some of the webinars they provide (for free) and you will see what I mean. Carlson even offers hydrology.....something Civil 3D doesn't offer. Carlson offers super "real" support (for free).....and they never stop offering support for a product they put out.....unlike with Autodesk. Don't get me wrong......I'm a huge AutoCad fan and have been using it for 20 years......I just think that when it comes to speed (time is money) Carlson is easier and faster.......not to mention a lot cheaper! Carlson has been around for the past 25 years.....they too know what they are doing......don't be a follower!!!!

[rustysilo]

Switching from Land Desktop to Civil 3D was more or less a breeze for me once I understood the differences in how they work.

There are tools you can get to make doing intersections, etc. quicker.

[rkmcswain]

Civil 3D and LDD are not even close to being the same product. I never said they were.

Switching from one to the other is no more easier than switching to some other software Of course it is. Going from LDT to C3D, the workflow is very similar and the terminology is virtually the same. Remember, I didn't say it was easy, only easier.




I'm not sure if I would say that civil 3D plan & profile sheets are that far ahead of Carlson, I have used both, but what I do know is that no other software on the market compares to Carlson Civil 2009 when it comes to subdivision layout and street design. They have made it simple......Civil 3D is not that hard, but is very time consuming when it comes to intersections, knuckles, cul-de-sacs, roundabouts and turn lanes and that more than makes up for the sheets.

You are mixing apples and bananas. I never said that layout and design were more difficult in Carlson. In fact, I said just the opposite in this very thread.

Read more carefully. Taking a finished design and creating P&P sheets is virtually impossible in Carlson for us. I was at the Carlson User Conference, I saw the demo, I asked the questions, and it was clear that this part of the software is way behind even LDT.



Watch some of the webinars they provide (for free) and you will see what I mean.
See above.


Carlson even offers hydrology.....something Civil 3D doesn't offer. Carlson offers super "real" support (for free).....and they never stop offering support for a product they put out.....unlike with Autodesk.
I never argued any of these points, although some hydro is available for C3D.


Carlson is easier and faster.......not to mention a lot cheaper!A common myth.
Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500



Carlson has been around for the past 25 years.....

Yes I know, I was there for 4 of them.

[StykFacE]

Yes I know, I was there for 4 of them.
And a walk-off home run with that quote. :wink:

[Gravytrain]

your are trying to confuse the others.......plain and simple. No way no how does Civil 3D even come close to Carlson when it comes to intersections and what not...........gp ahead, buy the add on software that makes it easier to use Civil 3d....that makes it better. Whatever makes you feel better.

Face it ........if you used Civil 3D 2009 verse Carlson Civil 2009 (alone) there would be no comparison. I simply say that given the same subdivision design that I could complete the final design hours ahead of you using Civil 3D......no problem.

Give me a break.......are you trying to tell people that Civil 3D is cheaper than Carlson Civil Suite?........you must be kidding. You get three programs, civil, survey, hydrology, and gis with Carlson.......and you are wrong when you said that Civil 3D offers hydrology.....it does not.

Eagle point and Civil 3D are about the same when it comes to sheet set up, but clearly, civil 3D has a long way to go when it comes to subdivision design and general site design.......they are way behind.

Fool all that you want to......all they have to do is look at the webinars provided by Carlson to see what they offer......oh......too bad civil 3D doesn't offer the same!

In conclusion, if you want to be a typical follower and not a leader than by all accounts, use civil 3D.......be like all the rest.....a follower!!!!

If you want to produce CAD in a faster and easier format, than have a look at Carlson Civil.....you won't be wasting your time.

In the end......Civil 3D sucks and is a huge waste of money. Save time and waste by using Carlson Civil.......if you think I'm wrong, please, take the time to compare the two, you will be surprised!.

[rkmcswain]

your are trying to confuse the others.......plain and simple. No way no how does Civil 3D even come close to Carlson when it comes to intersections and what not Please show me where I said that C3D is better than Carlson at "intersections and what not"? I have never said this. In fact, I have said the opposite three times now. I said that C3D is way ahead when it comes to P&P production - which is still the name of the game around here. Contractors around here do not care about a 3D model - they need construction plans to build.



Face it ........if you used Civil 3D 2009 verse Carlson Civil 2009 (alone) there would be no comparison. I simply say that given the same subdivision design that I could complete the final design hours ahead of you using Civil 3D......no problem.

We have used them both.



Give me a break.......are you trying to tell people that Civil 3D is cheaper than Carlson Civil Suite?........you must be kidding. You get three programs, civil, survey, hydrology, and gis with Carlson.......and you are wrong when you said that Civil 3D offers hydrology.....it does not.

What part of that math are you not understanding?
Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500
They both cost about $7500, period.

Regarding the hydrology in C3D, see the table in section 1.2 in this PDF:
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/autodesk_civil_eng_solution_qa_customer.pdf



Fool all that you want to......all they have to do is look at the webinars provided by Carlson to see what they offer......oh......too bad civil 3D doesn't offer the same!

Autodesk has been presenting live webinars on C3D since long before Carlson even thought about it. I have many of them archived on DVD from 2005 and earlier.




...if you think I'm wrong, please, take the time to compare the two, you will be surprised!.

As mentioned, we have used both. Carlson does not currently work for us, period. If it works better for your company, that is great. But statements like "Civil 3D sucks and is a huge waste of money." and "Save time and waste by using Carlson Civil" are purely opinions. Let's stick to the facts.

[rustysilo]

Gravytrain, are you a Carlson reseller? Cuz it sounds like it.

What about commercial site development? Would you say Carlson is better than C3D at that too?

I've seen the Carlson video's showing how quick it is to do intersections. I agree, it looks like it is much less complex and quicker, however someone who refines their process in Civil 3D can do them fairly quickly too. Maybe not quite as fast as Carlson, but by the time the user finishes their intersection modeling and has it cut their plan/pro sheets for them where are you at with Carlson? Still cutting sheets or complete?

There's nothing wrong with liking Carlson more, but sheesh man, calm down a bit. Both programs have pros and cons and each office will produce different results and have different levels of efficiency based on their use of the program(s).

[BOB'27T]

Civil 3D 2009 also has a complete hydrology program.

[rkmcswain]

Civil 3D 2009 also has a complete hydrology program.

I was not sure about the level of hydrology content. Thanks for the clarification.

[rustysilo]

Autodesk actually bought out another company to give Civil 3D that functionality. It comes in the form of C3D extensions. Here's the link:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=11351378

[StykFacE]

Autodesk actually bought out another company to give Civil 3D that functionality. It comes in the form of C3D extensions. Here's the link:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=11351378
Ahhhh, free market capitalism at its best. How I love America.... :)

[stein1977]

Ahhhh, free market capitalism at its best. How I love America.... :)


Civil 3D 2010 now has interstion design module so it is now on the right track. C3D is the way to go, dynamic design, P&P sheets, etc.

[sinc]

Some thoughts...

1) If you have a lot of users who have been using LDT for many years, then migrating them to C3D is going to be easier than to Carlson.
2) If you have many seats of LDT, you probably upgraded to C3D a long time ago (when it was free-to-cheap) - even if you kept using LDT. This is a big investment to just throw away.
3) Last I checked, it cost $$ per-seat to downgrade C3D (or LDT) to Map or ACAD. I know Carlson runs on C3D or LDT, but if the goal is to drop those packages, why would you want all that overhead loaded?
4) Carlson's sheet creation is light-years behind C3D. Many clients still have a deliverable requirement of plan and profile sheets. You can do all the design you want, but you don't get paid until sheets are delivered.

1) I'm not so sure about that. C3D is very different from LDD, and it's a lot of relearning to switch to either product. In our experience, though, it is much easier to figure out how to use Carlson than to figure out how to use C3D. C3D has even more complexity than Carlson, but it also has more power and flexibility.

2) The LDT subscription simply became C3D subscriptions. We had no option or say in the matter.

3) If you use C3D as the base for running Autocad, it creates a Carlson profile, and does not load the extra C3D stuff. So if you are a shop that wants to use both products, you can use C3D as your base for Carlson, and you do not need a seat of Autocad.

4) Surveyors don't do P&P. That may be why so many Survey firms are going the Carlson route.

[sinc]

A common myth.
Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500


This is somewhat misleading. We have to consider total cost of ownership. Civil 3D requires higher-end machines to run satisfactorily. It takes a lot more training. We still lose a lot of time to C3D's bugs (although that problem has gotten a LOT better over the years).

But it's true, switching to Carlson right now doesn't necessarily save much money, if you need to keep running it on Autocad. The thing that people are really looking at is the version that runs on Intellicad. This version still isn't good enough for most people, but it's improving dramatically every year.

I think there are a lot of firms right now that simply cannot afford to pay anything. So many of them may simply decide to stay on whatever they are using right now, and wait to see how things develop over the next couple of years. That gives a bit more time to see how Carlson and C3D are developing.

[sinc]

In the end......Civil 3D sucks and is a huge waste of money. Save time and waste by using Carlson Civil.......if you think I'm wrong, please, take the time to compare the two, you will be surprised!.

I have to disagree with most of your statements (although I only quoted the last one).

I don't agree that Civil 3D "sucks"... It's got a lot of problems, but it's also incredibly powerful. It actually CAN do most of what you say, it just takes a fair bit of time and effort to learn how to make C3D sing.

If you compare individual features, there are some where Carlson wins. There are also some where C3D wins. Overall, I think C3D has more power and flexibility than Carlson. But if Carlson does everything you want and need, Carlson may be a better choice.

I really do not think one program is inherently better than the other. But depending on what you do and how you do it, you may find one program is significantly better for your needs than the other.

Now sorting out which product is the best choice for YOU... That's a tough one, and it's something I've been trying to figure out for a couple of years now. At Edward-James Surveying, I think we've decided we'd like to stay with C3D, but we're not sure we can afford it. With market conditions the way they are, we're thinking we can't afford ANY software purchases right now, and we're looking at possibly being stuck on C3D 2009 for a number of years. Then maybe four or five years from now, we'll check out the state of things, and make a decision at that point.

[sinc]

Contractors around here do not care about a 3D model - they need construction plans to build.

Actually, we would prefer the model. We still have to have plans, because those are legally binding. But having the model, too, saves time and reduces potential for introducing new errors. We actually now require electronic files in all our contracts, although usually we get old-style DWG files generated from older software, and rarely get a model. Or we get stuff done in Microstation, and can only convert raw linework, and lose the model (except for the pieces we can get via LandXML). But when we get a C3D model, it's kind of nice. It can be painful grabbing just the data we want out of such a drawing, and getting it into one of our in-house templates with all our familiar styles, but overall, it's nice to have.

The big thing we have to worry about when we get a C3D model is that sometimes the person who created the model didn't know how to use C3D very well. And sometimes the model is such a mess that we really have to ignore it. But a well-built model is the best deliverable we can get.

Unfortunately, we may hit the point where we can't get models anymore. We're stuck on C3D 2009 for the indefinite future, so we can't even open drawings created in later versions of C3D. If we get any new projects done in C3D 2010, we'll have to have them exported to LandXML and Autocad 2007 format (ugh!).

[rkmcswain]

2) The LDT subscription simply became C3D subscriptions. We had no option or say in the matter.When did this happen? Last time I checked, if you were on subscription for LDT, you had to *upgrade* (at a cost) to being on subscription for C3D. Autodesk just didn't roll it over at N/C. The end user does have a say so.



4) Surveyors don't do P&P. That may be why so many Survey firms are going the Carlson route.

Absolutely. C3D is overkill for your average simple surveyor.

[rkmcswain]

Contractors around here do not care about a 3D model - they need construction plans to build.
Actually, we would prefer the model.

I'm not saying that having a model is bad, but it's certainly not required or even wanted at this time, around here.

[sinc]

When did this happen? Last time I checked, if you were on subscription for LDT, you had to *upgrade* (at a cost) to being on subscription for C3D. Autodesk just didn't roll it over at N/C. The end user does have a say so.

All I know is we had Land Desktop, and started getting C3D in addition to Land Desktop. Maybe it was it because we started buying our subscription seats shortly before 2007 was released, and Autodesk gave us C3D seats even though we were asking for Land Desktop? We never asked for C3D; we just got it.

[dent]

That's the way ours worked too. Starting with LDD2005, we got a civil disk, then with 2008 and 2010 it all went to C3D with a LDD companion or built in. We were not asked, it just came that way.

[rkmcswain]

All I know is we had Land Desktop, and started getting C3D in addition to Land Desktop. Maybe it was it because we started buying our subscription seats shortly before 2007 was released, and Autodesk gave us C3D seats even though we were asking for Land Desktop? We never asked for C3D; we just got it.


That's the way ours worked too. Starting with LDD2005, we got a civil disk, then with 2008 and 2010 it all went to C3D with a LDD companion or built in. We were not asked, it just came that way.

I don't think so. Talk to your subscription manager. LDT subscriptions just didn't "turn into" C3D subscriptions. Even if there wasn't a cost involved (way early on, like 2004, Adsk were virtually giving away the upgrades), somebody had to approve the differences in the contract, because it's always been possible to stay on LDT and never upgrade to C3D.

[sinc]

We did not have an LDT subscription. We had a single standalone seat of 2004, and bought three subscriptions (upgrading the standalone and getting two new seats) when the 2006 line of products was current. We did not ask for Civil 3D - we asked for Land Desktop with the Civil and Survey modules - but we got Civil 3D with Land Desktop Companion.

[rkmcswain]

We did not have an LDT subscription. We had a single standalone seat of 2004, and bought three subscriptions (upgrading the standalone and getting two new seats) when the 2006 line of products was current. We did not ask for Civil 3D - we asked for Land Desktop with the Civil and Survey modules - but we got Civil 3D with Land Desktop Companion.

Then your reseller upgraded you to C3D. LDC was delivered at part of the deal.

[sinc]

That's what I said. We asked for Land Desktop, and we got C3D.

[rkmcswain]

That's what I said. We asked for Land Desktop, and we got C3D.

And that is what I said, your reseller (whether you knew it at the time or not), made the choice to upgrade you to C3D. That was the right thing to do, if your future plans at the time included eventually moving to C3D, because the LDT->C3D upgrade price has increased ever since, and you could keep on using LDT (LDC) under the license terms of C3D...

[dent]

I don't think so. Talk to your subscription manager. LDT subscriptions just didn't "turn into" C3D subscriptions. Even if there wasn't a cost involved (way early on, like 2004, Adsk were virtually giving away the upgrades), somebody had to approve the differences in the contract, because it's always been possible to stay on LDT and never upgrade to C3D.


Reseller or not, it is all a moot point now, There is no more LDD, just Civil3D.
But Sinc is telling you how it all REALLY happened. For the longest time we got LDD and a Civil companion then we got both, then we got Civil3D with a LDD companion, now it's JUST Civil3D.
I am the one who orders our software. I am fully aware of what I did or did not authorize or what I was ASKED to authorize.
And NOW it is no longer possible to stay on LDD, because it is gone. Thus the switch to Carlson.

[rkmcswain]

Reseller or not, it is all a moot point now, There is no more LDD, just Civil3D.
Of course Land Desktop (LDT) is still around. Many people are still using it, including us. True, you cannot purchase it from Autodesk any longer, but is certainly was not ripped out the hands of existing customers.



But Sinc is telling you how it all REALLY happened. For the longest time we got LDD and a Civil companion then we got both, then we got Civil3D with a LDD companion, now it's JUST Civil3D.
I am the one who orders our software. I am fully aware of what I did or did not authorize or what I was ASKED to authorize.
Both you and sinc know your particular situation better than anyone else. I just don't see how a subscription for LDT turned into one for C3D without some sort of approval on the purchasers behalf. Maybe Autodesk started upgrading people at no cost...? If so, a lot of people who had to pay for this privilege earlier got ripped off.... :wink:

Regarding the shipments of media... For example, we were on LDT subscription until 2005, and only received the LDT product. About that time, we "upgraded" to C3D (with no intention at all of using C3D). Future shipments contained the C3D media and the LDC (Land Desktop Companion) media. If we had not upgraded, we would not have started receiving the C3D and LDC packages, only LDT.



And NOW it is no longer possible to stay on LDD, because it is gone.

I know of many people still on LDT. Your statement is only true if you require that you stay on the same version as the latest AutoCAD. Not everyone does that. Trust me, there will be many people using LDT2008 or 2009, in five years from now.

[sinc]

So has Autodesk given a clear answer on what happens to people who had a C3D subscription and installed C3D 2010, but then dropped their subscription?

From what I know, if you drop your subscription, you are only allowed to use the last version you have installed. That locks you into the 2010 product, and you cannot activate 2009 products any longer. So what happens to people who never really started using C3D, were only playing with it, and are still trying to use Land Desktop, but have their license locked down to the 2010-version only?

This question came up on Autodesk's DG's, but I don't think it was ever answered.

[rkmcswain]

So has Autodesk given a clear answer on what happens to people who had a C3D subscription and installed C3D 2010, but then dropped their subscription?

From what I know, if you drop your subscription, you are only allowed to use the last version you have installed. That locks you into the 2010 product, and you cannot activate 2009 products any longer. So what happens to people who never really started using C3D, were only playing with it, and are still trying to use Land Desktop, but have their license locked down to the 2010-version only?

This question came up on Autodesk's DG's, but I don't think it was ever answered.

Your description sounds right. If you drop your subscription, you can only use the most current version. Obviously, Autodesk is not going door to door to verify this, but in your example above, I suspect Autodesk would not provide activation codes for LDC2009. Other than integrity, honesty, morals, etc., there is nothing physically to stop you from running older versions, assuming they were activated prior to dropping subscription...

I know of a customer in this exact situation, but I don't think they have tried to activate an older product since dropping the subscription.

[sinc]

When our subscription expired, we had never installed Land Desktop 2009. We use it so rarely these days that there was no point. We were on Civil 3D 2009.

Then one computer died, and I tried reinstalling Land Desktop 2008. It wouldn't work. That's when I discovered this provision of Autodesk's licensing agreement. So then I went around an uninstalled Land Desktop 2008 from everyone's machines, and installed Land Desktop 2009. It was rather annoying, as I had not even configured an environment for LDD 2009, but it kept us compliant with our license terms.

Of course, since I did that, I think I've only used Land Desktop once... In retrospect, it probably wasn't worth the effort - I should have just uninstalled Land Desktop from everyone's computers and forgotten about it.

Which reminds me... In all this talk of Civil 3D vs. Carlson, there's one thing that's certain - if you are still on Land Desktop, you're using the wrong software. Both C3D and Carlson are worlds better than Land Desktop.

[rkmcswain]

there's one thing that's certain - if you are still on Land Desktop, you're using the wrong software.


That is just not true for everyone. Not everyone is ready to move forward to C3D (like us), or wants to/needs to (like many others). We are getting there, but for the type of work we do, LDT + our 3rd party apps are doing fine...



Both C3D and Carlson are worlds better than Land Desktop.That is generally true.. However, I can count on one hand the number of times that LDT (2006, 7, 8) has crashed on me in the last 4 years. C3D, just in a week of training has crashed 3x more... so "worlds better" applies more to the feature set, than to the application in whole.

I sure we both agree that LDT is dead and unless you want to stick with it, you must move up to C3D, Carlson, Eagle Point, MS with Geopak, or something...

[sinc]

Yeah, C3D still has lots of problems. In earlier versions, it would crash if any setting was even slightly amiss. It's gotten a lot better about that, but it still has an obnoxious tendency to crash instead of giving you a useful error message.

It tends to crash less, though, as you get more used to it. The more you use it, the more you get used to the "quirks", and the more you avoid crashing. C3D 2010 has crashed on me very rarely so far. And C3D also fixed a lot of major problems that exist in Land Desktop. At this point, I would find it extremely difficult to ever use Land Desktop again, no matter how good the third-party tools.

[rkmcswain]

Yeah, C3D still has lots of problems. In earlier versions, it would crash if any setting was even slightly amiss. It's gotten a lot better about thatOh, yea... 2010 is light years ahead of the earlier versions. The old ones like 2006 were virtually unusable.



It tends to crash less, though, as you get more used to it. The more you use it, the more you get used to the "quirks", and the more you avoid crashing. C3D 2010 has crashed on me very rarely so far.

The key is "save, and save often".. that way if it does crash, you can get back to where you were. OF course, shouldn't we all be saving often anyway...? :-)



At this point, I would find it extremely difficult to ever use Land Desktop again, no matter how good the third-party tools.
We still have a lot of VBA apps for LDT for which there is no equivalent in C3D.

[sinc]

We still have a lot of VBA apps for LDT for which there is no equivalent in C3D.

What are some of them?

[BIGAL]

I would like to know more about your VBA apps also I am looking for a few things for the guys and gals here. In the documentation there is example VBA apps for CIV3D these may help.

\program files\Autocad Civil 3d 2009\sample\civil 3D api\ ...

As we are in Aus we use 3rd party add ons that fills lots of the holes (ARD and Stringer)

[rkmcswain]

In the documentation there is example VBA apps for CIV3D these may help.

We are certainly not looking to rewrite these in VBA. As soon as C3D is out on 64-bit, we will make this move and at that point VBA becomes worthless.

[sakka252]

This is a little lengthy, but I think many people are suffering through a similar situation ... Should our surveying department use Civil 3D?

I am an engineer trying to work with our stubborn surveying department on surveying software. I know a little about surveying and even less about processing points, but I am very capable with Civil 3D just not with it's functionality for surveying.

We have a new guy dead set on using Carlson to process points, however it costs money. We are already on subscription with Civil 3D, and as I understand Civil 3D is highly capable surveying software. (Sinc, your company has gone to using Civil 3D correct?) I understand the new guys point that he knows Carlson, he knows it works, it operates in a way that makes sense to surveyors, etc. However, he really is unwilling to (and really not capable of) diving into Civil 3D to learn how it works and find the functionality. Since I don't really know the inner workings and everyday tasks of a surveyor I couldn't say which one is better or justify spending money when we supposedly have software that can get the job done.

I have played around with pulling points into Civil 3D using the survey database and it really seemed very easy (I have even setup all the styles and groups and working on figure prefix). I am just not skilled with processing points or the equipment database and what is necessary for both.

Ultimately should I give up this fight because Carlson is simply better than Civil 3D for surveying? Could we continue to pull the processed points into Civil 3D and draw the survey in Civil 3D?

Thanks.

[rkmcswain]

Ultimately should I give up this fight because Carlson is simply better than Civil 3D for surveying? Could we continue to pull the processed points into Civil 3D and draw the survey in Civil 3D?

Thanks.

A) Yes
B) What exactly do you mean by "pull the processed points into C3D"? Why doesn't your surveyor just give you a completed drawing that you xref in the background, and a finished ng surface, that you can import with LandXML. If you need the points in C3D, they can be part of the LandXML file also.

(I'm not trying to tell you how to do it, I'm simply asking because that is for the most part how we do it - we are a Carlson for Survey and LDT->C3D for engineering shop...)

[sakka252]

A)Thanks. Out of curiosity, can you give me some functionaly that only Carlson can do and Civil 3D cannot? Or is is just that Carlson user interface operates better for surveyors?
B)Let me clarify. I am actually talking about the drawing the survey not when it moves forward to civil design ... Since we are pretty bare bone these days, there are no surveying draftsmen remaining, engineers draw the survey (the new guys is too slow plus he is managing). If the points are processed by the new guy in Carlson then the engineers would pull the processed points into C3D to draft the survey.

I know there is linework functionality that could draw the majority of the survey by coding it correctly in the field ... My guys are not there yet ... baby steps. BTW do you or any other surveyors use linework coding to help draft your survey?

[sinc]

We are certainly not looking to rewrite these in VBA. As soon as C3D is out on 64-bit, we will make this move and at that point VBA becomes worthless.

What apps are they? I'm still quite curious as to what features would be powerful enough to make you want to stay on Land Desktop...

[sinc]

Ultimately should I give up this fight because Carlson is simply better than Civil 3D for surveying?


That is not a given. Unfortunately, there's no fast and easy way to determine which software is better for your purposes. The two pieces of software are different, and have different capabilities. Carlson is somewhat easier to learn. Carlson tends to be a bit more user-friendly - for example, when working on roadway alignments, it can automatically display the alignment and profile on-screen, arrayed in a very readable fashion, with little glyphs on each marking your cursor location on each. Civil 3D can also do things like this, but it takes a lot more work from the user, and it doesn't work as well as in Carlson Civil.

On many levels, the guys at Carlson also think more like Surveyors and Civil Engineers, whereas the guys at Autodesk think more like computer engineers. This thinking is reflected in the design of their respective softwares. One key point is the way Point Labels are handled. Carlson's points can automatically rearrange themselves so they don't overtype. This feature doesn't always work quite as planned, but it generally works pretty well. Meanwhile, Civil 3D doesn't even have it, and we waste a lot of time dragging point labels around.

Carlson is also more like the software we've been using for decades, which makes it easier for people to learn. But we've found that once we fought through the learning curve with Civil 3D, we can do things there that we can't do with Carlson. We can't do what we do with Civil 3D as it comes out of the box, but Civil 3D is far more customizable than Carlson. So we use the Sincpac-C3D in addition to Civil 3D, and we can whip out extremely high-quality products very quickly. If we compare plain out-of-the-box Civil 3D with Carlson, then yes, Carlson is better for Surveyors. But the tools in Civil 3D, combined with those in the Sincpac-C3D, let us do an extremely wide array of Survey tasks extremely quickly, and we can really zip through things that are difficult or time-consuming in Carlson. This has allowed us to be very responsive to clients. When something changes, we can often be ready almost immediately, no matter how significant the changes. This is one of the reasons why we are so busy right now, when other Survey companies in our area are on skeleton staffs, or even shutting their doors.

Then, there is also the nasty yearly upgrade roller coaster with Autodesk, the cost of the software, the cost of training, the cost of hardware to run it, the fact that Civil 3D is incompatible with itself every year, as well as incompatible with Map (which is built-in to the same product)... We had been strongly considering a move to Carlson because of problems like this. But we've simply reached the point where we are too productive with Civil 3D, and even Carlson would slow us down considerably.

So, with Civil 3D, you get incredible power and flexibility, surpassing even Carlson. But will you actually use that power and flexibility? We use it - as a Survey-only company, we often do tasks that we might otherwise hand off to our Engineers, and let them do it. If we were in such a situation, it might be easier for our Surveyors to use Carlson, and let the Engineers use Civil 3D. But in our case, we actually use most of the features in Civil 3D on a regular basis, and Civil 3D is working out to be the best choice for us.

At some point in the future, we will undoubtedly revisit things. We are intrigued by the possibilities of running Carlson on Intellicad or Bricscad. But as of now, we use too many features that those products are lacking, and do not find those to be viable options. We actually use the new features in core Autocad, such as Sheet Set Manager, MLeaders, Annotative Text, etc., and would not want to miss those features. But the other products are improving rapidly, and we will keep an eye on the progress.

Regardless of which software you use, DEFINITELY learn to do auto-linework. That's one of the greatest time-savers you can implement.

[sinc]

If the points are processed by the new guy in Carlson then the engineers would pull the processed points into C3D to draft the survey.

So what exactly do you mean by "processed points"? What exactly is being done in Carlson?

Typically, the field survey data is simply imported, and if the linework and point coding is correct, AND the field guy didn't make any errors, that part is done. In practice, there are typically some coding errors to clean up, but hopefully not many, and this part of the process should go rather quickly.

If that is all you would be using Carlson for, then it does sound like something of a waste of the software...

[rkmcswain]

What apps are they? I'm still quite curious as to what features would be powerful enough to make you want to stay on Land Desktop...
In-house built VBA applications.

[sakka252]

So what exactly do you mean by "processed points"? What exactly is being done in Carlson?

To be completely honest, I don't exactly know what I mean by "processed points." That is what the new guy says, "I need Carlson to process points!" I believe he is referring to the adjustments that you mentioned, but also boundary/traverse adjustments, to distribute the error amongst the points. Does that sound right?

[sakka252]

Regardless of which software you use, DEFINITELY learn to do auto-linework. That's one of the greatest time-savers you can implement.

Thank you for your response. I am doing everything I can to get auto-linework implemented. Can you recommend any good tutorials?

[sinc]

I actually haven't looked for any, since we've been using C3D for auto-linework for the last three years. And now in C3D 2010, there are more options - we no longer have to use FBK files. So any tutorial created for C3D 2009 or earlier would be out-of-date.

[Butch]

Guys one question.
Does Carlson support metric system of units?
We are located in Europe and interedsted in a road design software.
Thanx in advance :-)

[CJJ]

Carlson does support metric.

[CJJ]

I've never used Carlson, myself, but the company I work for uses a wide variety of CADD applications for our surveying, civil engineering and land planning. We have an employee who was beta testing Carlson 2010 and we have a few guys who run the 2009 software.

The general consensus is that Carlson is awesome. As has already been mentioned, it handles streets and roads much better than C3D, it's easier to deal with your pipe networks and storm drains, and that it's streamlined so that design is just as fast, or faster, than using Civil 3D. It's cheaper to buy licenses for Carlson than for C3D, as well, which is a definate plus.

By default, Carlson uses the IntelliCAD engine, but you can also use it over AutoCAD. All of my users are running it with AutoCAD instead of IntelliCAD. The guys who have tried the IntelliCad flavor said it was actually very frustrating to use, and they will only work with the AutoCAD flavor. While ICad is similar to ACAD, it's different enough to be a pain in the neck. I'm not sure if one is "better" than the other, but if you're used to using ACAD (like everyone I know) then you might have some time switching to the IntelliCAD engine, so you'll have to license both Carlson and ACAD for each computer. If you're not a die-hard Autodesk fan, then using the IntelliCad version might be fine for you, and you can save yourself a few bucks by not having to buy a license for AutoCAD.

My only real experiences with Carlson has been dealing with their tech support. I had been dealing with Autodesk a lot in the past few months, and I must say that calling Carlson was a breath of fresh air. Rather than sifting through automated menus and speaking to customer support reps who were reading from a script somewhere in some foreign country like I'm used to, I got strait through to a human being (named Dave Carlson) who then connected me to his chief engineers. While I do get a lot of enjoyment dealing with most big companies' overseas tech support fiascos, it was cool to be able to ask questions directly to the people who had written the software.

In short, the engineers and draftsmen in my company who have used Carlson are all very happy with the software, but they only run it on the AutoCAD platform.

[Butch]

Hey CJJ!
Thanx for the input!
We already have Acad in our firm so yes, the plan would be to run Carlson (if decided to use it) on top of it.
I watched their web seminars, and they where quite nice and informative. Could I ask you few question if Carlson can do?
The most usual case that we have in our office is that roads usualy change their cross section quite often, from eg. profile 10 -20 you have no retaining walls, then from section 25 you have big retating walls than continue to grow in height.
Can custom road templates be crated and used for road design and quantity take-off?
Thanx a bunch :-)

[rkmcswain]

It's cheaper to buy licenses for Carlson than for C3D, as well, which is a definate plus.

Not really.
Already covered that here.

Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500



The guys who have tried the IntelliCad flavor said it was actually very frustrating to use, and they will only work with the AutoCAD flavor. While ICad is similar to ACAD, it's different enough to be a pain in the neck.

I agree for the most part. IntelliCAD has an place in the world, but why would you use a $200 CAD engine with a $3500 survey/engineering package? It's just not up to the task, and will always be "behind the curve" (AutoCAD).




My only real experiences with Carlson has been dealing with their tech support. I had been dealing with Autodesk a lot in the past few months, and I must say that calling Carlson was a breath of fresh air. Rather than sifting through automated menus and speaking to customer support reps who were reading from a script somewhere in some foreign country like I'm used to, I got strait through to a human being (named Dave Carlson) who then connected me to his chief engineers.

Ha... Dave IS the head programmer... :-)


Your comparison of Carlson to Autodesk is valid if you are talking about generic AutoCAD support, but Civil 3D users have access to subscription support which is nothing like you describe. I have used it several times.

[CJJ]

Could I ask you few question if Carlson can do?
To be honest, I've never actually used it so I'm not that familiar with its functionality. I'm the IT guy now, not doing any production work, so I only know what my users have told me. I think you'd have better results asking someone on the forum who uses it on a regular basis.



Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500

That's the point I was trying to make. Carlson IS cheaper, by itself, using IntelliCAD. But I think most people will want an AutoCAD license along with it, which like you said, will cost about the same.

[Butch]

Can Civil 3d do what I asked in post 65?

[sinc]

Yes.
......

[Butch]

hmmmmmm... :-)

[BIGAL]

Have a look at www.cadapps.com.au (http://www.cadapps.com.au) also


It runs on top of Autocad its written in Australia hence metric out of box the owner has been in the software business for over 25 years with his former software Civilcad used all over the world.

Does lots of powerfull multi alignment stuff as per post 65 automatically.

[Butch]

Yes.
......

Do you know how to do all of this?

[sinc]

Yes, but I hope you don't expect me to explain Corridors and QTO in a forum post...

There's a lot of info in the Civil 3D Help about it, including some tutorials. Best bet is to dig into it, and then ask questions when you get stumped. There's too much involved to just explain it all.

[Butch]

Agree :-)

Thanx a lot

[dent]

Not really.
Already covered that here.

Civil 3D retail = $7495
Carlson suite (3500) + AutoCAD (4000) = $7500



I agree for the most part. IntelliCAD has an place in the world, but why would you use a $200 CAD engine with a $3500 survey/engineering package? It's just not up to the task, and will always be "behind the curve" (AutoCAD).




Ha... Dave IS the head programmer... :-)


Your comparison of Carlson to Autodesk is valid if you are talking about generic AutoCAD support, but Civil 3D users have access to subscription support which is nothing like you describe. I have used it several times.



You need to update your figures. The 2010 Carlson Civil Suite lists for $2500 not $3500, thus the AutoCad version is about $1000 cheaper.
Just went to a demo of the Civil package and was very impressed in the speed and ease of use. I do not do civil work in Civil3D so I can not make any real comparison, bit I think it would deserve a look, especially at the current price.



http://www.carlsonsw.com/PL_CS_CivilSuite.html

[rkmcswain]

You need to update your figures. The 2010 Carlson Civil Suite lists for $2500 not $3500
You are correct. They must have dropped the price at some point, because at one time, it was $3500. Thanks for the correction.

Of course, I doubt anyone is paying $7495 for C3D either, but the same would apply to AutoCAD. It's kind of impossible to compare real costs since what you might actually pay has so many variables.