To Softdesk or not to Softdesk....
Keith Biggs
I too have a need for collecting cross-sections and annotating as actually
collected. One of our biggest clients (a municipality) requires this format,
with no exceptions. To date I have had no luck with Softdesk to accomplish
this, which is a dissappointment, because our company switched CAD systems
last year. The old system was a Unix system that could do exactly what you
and I require. It appears to the boss and all our staff that we are
regressing, not progressing with CAD software. If you have any luck on how
to automate this process, I would like here more about it.
Keith Biggs
Rich Maher wrote in message <35196ba5....@adesknews.autodesk.com>...
>A month or so back I was whining about how much time I wasted trying to use
Softdesk on a
>topographic project. The project consisted of collecting all topography
along a street and taking
>cross-sections on 25' station intervals. About 300 cross-sections needed to
be plotted and they had
>to be presented as 'computer-drawn', showing cross-grades with break points
labeled for grade and
>offset (all in parenthesis).
>
>In that particular project I was already under deadline pressure and unable
to consider alternative
>software. The client was very pleased with my product, timeliness, and
price; and is asking that I
>propose to provide these services again. My dilemma is that I was caught
completely off-guard as to
>how un-friendly Softdesk is for this type of work.
>
>Basic premise: Collect cross-sections 'on station'. Plot these
cross-section using the actual points
>collected and annotate these cross-sections per a client's particular
preferences.
>
>Method I employed: Collected cross-sections 'on station'. Exported these
points as Sta & Off the CL
>alignment. Reformat by hand into a file that could be read into the
X-section routines. Annotate
>every elevation break, annotate every offset, annotate every cross-grade
(about 12,600 operations).
>Place each text within parenthesis (same amount of operations). Match the
elevations and offsets on
>a 'leader' to each point. (imagine). Finally move the cross-grades 'below
the line'.
>
>Needless to say I blew the budget big time.
>
>I pondered whether creating a DTM and 'cutting' the cross-section would
have made a difference. I
>can't see where I would have saved any time except the formatting of a file
to be read in.
>(Imagine...software that exports in a format it can't read back in.) The
cross-sections created
>would also have 2x as many grade breaks as I actually collected.
>
>I have a limited program, developed in-house, written in BASIC that will
actually achieve 80% of my
>needs. Its only current limitation is that the annotation is good, but not
configurable. We sold
>this software (XSECT) for a while, but the market did not seem to really
have a need for it. At the
>time we started selling it, we in survey had just bought a seat of DCA and
were really pushing to go
>towards DTMs. Our lack of support and a mediocre market response led to the
abandonment of XSECT. We
>had used it on about 30 projects quite successfully. Yesterday I contacted
the author (since formed
>his own separate company) and asked for his latest version to re-evaluate).
>
>I would be stunned and amazed if a piece of software developed 'for fun' by
an engineer could be the
>best suited for my needs.
>
>I received a few suggestions last time (which I will follow up now); and
I'd like to hear from other
>users of S8.0/1/2.......What the hell are 'we' using to generate true
cross-sections annotated
>however our clients request? It would be nice if every public agency was
using Softesk, but I'm
>lucky if they even use some sort of CAD; they want cross-sections they can
paper-design from.
>
>Is it MADCAP? EaglePoint? Lisp routines? Softdesk in a way I don't
understand? Something else?
>I'll share an example of the product I'm looking for if anyone's
interested, but I think it is
>pretty understandable: Cross-section form actual points, leaders above or
below with grade and
>offset (with or without parenthesis), and cross fall grades above or below
(with or without
>parenthesis).
>
>Thanks in advance for your response.
>-
>Rich Maher
>Remove NO_UCE to e-mail
>ICQ (Home) #2590365
>ICQ (Work) #5862971
>
>"T'is sweet to hear the watch-dog's honest bark..."
Rich Maher
Dave Gregori
Rich Maher <NO_UC...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
> Method I employed: Collected cross-sections 'on station'. Exported
> these points as Sta & Off the CL
> alignment. Reformat by hand into a file that could be read into the
> X-section routines.
You say "collected cross sections... and ...these points" were you using a
template along road centerline to get the sections? maybe i am just getting
lost in the terminology
Which reminds me 7.1 crashed after sampling 1000 ft of road or so
(depending on the width) and thats why I moved to 8 (never did find the
"free" 7.2 upgrade) .. and 8 does miles and miles of road without a burp.
very nice (I dont want to be remembered as 100% negative)
-the DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
Rich Maher
On 25 Mar 1998 04:34:37 GMT, "Dave Gregori" <drft...@inreach.com> tickled his/her newsfeed and
wrote:
>
>Rich Maher <NO_UC...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
>> Method I employed: Collected cross-sections 'on station'. Exported
>> these points as Sta & Off the CL
>> alignment. Reformat by hand into a file that could be read into the
>> X-section routines.
>
>You say "collected cross sections... and ...these points" were you using a
>template along road centerline to get the sections? maybe i am just getting
>lost in the terminology
I apologize. Think surveyor, not engineer. I'm not talking about any kind of design. I want to
collect field points and draw cross-sections of these points. All existing.
If you're not familiar with surveying you might ask, "How can you be exactly 'on-station' when you
collect these points!!!". That's the way we take sections 'on-station'; you set out a point on each
side of the street and walk the section between them (given that you will be 1'+/- from the true
station). If you're lazy you set out a point on one side and '"wing ding" the other side in,
although I'd be more inclined to whip out a right angle prism.
The key is I don't want a DTM, I don't want contours (that won't smooth worth a rat's ass), I just
want a cross section drawn of the points I shot at each section. In olden days these points were
collected with a level and recorded on a graphical table, then plotted by hand in the office. {My
apologies in advance to 'olden' surveyors who might think I'm looking down on that method}
Take care.
PS: Thanks for the tree survey Lisp's.
-
Rich Maher
Remove NO_UCE to e-mail
ICQ (Home) #2590365
ICQ (Work) #5862971
"My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up
to 99 cents a can. That's almost $7.00 in dog money."
Dave Gregori
Rich Maher <NO_UC...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
> I'm not talking about any kind of design. I want to
> collect field points and draw cross-sections of these points.
> All existing.
Keith Biggs <bi...@uniserve.com> wrote in article
> I too have a need for collecting cross-sections and annotating as
actually
> collected. One of our biggest clients (a municipality) requires this
format,
> with no exceptions. To date I have had no luck with Softdesk to
accomplish
sounds intresting. Send me some slides or Dwfs so i can get a visual. If
you are talking about just reading some sdsk point block elevations and
playing connect the dots... some text and a grid... autoLisp or vba should
be able to do something.
-The Drafting Fool, Dave Gregori
drft...@inreach.com
Rich Maher
On 25 Mar 1998 07:09:48 GMT, "Dave Gregori" <drft...@inreach.com> tickled his/her newsfeed and
wrote:
>
I will do just that Dave, this weekend. You've been quite a big help already and I sincerely
appreciate it.
The idea of turning points into plotted cross-sections against an alignment doesn't seem too far
fetched. With all the hold-over methods retained in Softdesk for those not using the latest and
greatest equipment/methods, I'm surprised this isn't supported. As Keith said, it is generally
municipalities that require this and they don't bend. Before now I could satisfy their requirements
by hand drafting these cross-sections collected specifically on formatted tables for this purpose.
With more and more of them requiring the product in CAD for archiving purposes, this is no longer
viable.
An engineer friend says his friend (where am I going with this one) knows that Softdesk can do what
I'm asking. I say, "Show me"...I would love to be proved wrong and would kick my self for days over
missing this capability. [I don't expect to have this opportunity.]
I got a hold of that old program I spoke of (XSECT) and messed around with it for a few minutes
today. It worked great until I got to the .dxf file it had created. Apparently the .dxf file it
generates was for ACAD v.10 or so and neither 14, nor 13 (kept around to test compatibility for
clients) could read in the .dxf file....soemthing about an error in an APPID Table. I'll be
re-installing ACAD v.12 (DOS) tomorrow to see if I can get it in that way. I though for some reason
that a .dxf file would be backward compatible.
This old program was written in BASIC and then compiled. I'd be happy to send you the small manual,
and examples of the output. I'll also send you an example of what some cities are looking for. The
data is simple: Softdesk point blocks or point list file, an alignment or some type of alignment
definition (possibly including curves) - points taken in alternating cross directions, not always in
order. Perhaps (not sure if you're interested) you could develop something marketable. The author of
this program has given up on it. It is too bad, and partially my fault. He really did have a good
idea, but I was jumping on the DTM/design-on-your-computer train (something these cities won't be
doing for another decade). He even had it outputting HEC-II format data files to run through
hydrology programs.
****
What are people like Keith and I using?
PACSOFT? (Have to remember to call them this week)
MADCAP? (Gotta check that out too)
Old versions of DCA which purportedly had some basic features along this direction?
****
What does Softdesk think about this? When a surveyor works with 'paper-designing' engineers, they
want cross-sections with annotation and don't want interpolated cross-sections with no information.
Profiles, templates, what the hell are those?! Heck, when they don't want it, I don't want to shoot
the shit out of a job to be sure I am modeling the street down to the pebble and can cut a true
cross-section 'anywhere'.
Some jobs I'm asked to take typical cross-sections every 200+ feet just to see what the street is
doing...think I want to model an entire street to get a clean section every 200'? Heck no, I want to
take my sections and then have _those_ sections plotted out and annotated.
Don't get me wrong, I love DTM's. They're just not right for every job.
<checking blood pressure>
-
Rich Maher
Remove NO_UCE to e-mail
ICQ (Home) #2590365
ICQ (Work) #5862971
"Let dogs delight to bark and bite,
For God hath made them so;"
Rich Maher
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:32:04 GMT, NO_UC...@pacbell.net (Rich Maher) tickled his/her newsfeed and
wrote:
>I got a hold of that old program I spoke of (XSECT) and messed around with it for a few minutes
>today. It worked great until I got to the .dxf file it had created. Apparently the .dxf file it
>generates was for ACAD v.10 or so and neither 14, nor 13 (kept around to test compatibility for
>clients) could read in the .dxf file....soemthing about an error in an APPID Table. I'll be
>re-installing ACAD v.12 (DOS) tomorrow to see if I can get it in that way. I though for some reason
>that a .dxf file would be backward compatible.
Got someone to try out the .dxf file on DOS ACAD v12 tonight, no go.
I admit I only ran one trial on the program; there's an off chance that the .dxf file is actually
not valid.
Anyone here know if the DXF syntax is not backwards compatible? IE. v. 10 to v. 12-14 of AutoCAD.
Thanks in advance.
-
Rich Maher
Remove NO_UCE to e-mail
ICQ (Home) #2590365
ICQ (Work) #5862971
"The cat will mew and the dog will have his day."
legein
Rich Maher wrote in message <35196ba5....@adesknews.autodesk.com>...
>A month or so back I was whining about how much time I wasted trying to use
Softdesk on
>"T'is sweet to hear the watch-dog's honest bark..."
I think I produced my first plan, profile, and cross sections, using
softdesk, about 12 years ago. the problems then, are the same as they are
today. if you collect your data correctly in the field, you won't have any
trouble at all. you, on this newsgroup, seldom hear from the thousands of
users out there who produce plan, profile and cross sections daily. to
address the concept of laying out your stations in the field, I think you
should go into the field and give it a try. on a city street, you will make
many interesting discoveries, such as, the need to locate many more
intermediate points, than even stations. I am talking about curb cuts,
building corners, stairs, elevators, coal chutes, manholes water gates, etc.
on busy city streets, I usually find 18 wheelers, buses, vans, etc. parked
over the curb, making it a bit difficult to locate that even station, not to
mention being able to see across the street to the even station mark on the
opposite side. your field crew billing will be about $125.00, per hour and
the time to first layout and then locate, as opposed to just locating, is
essentially a factor of 2. of course, I know a survey company that is still
doing all their planimetric and topographic surveys with an alidade, and are
perfectly happy.
cum grano salis
Norris-Repke. Inc.
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:18:02 -0500, "legein" <leg...@gte.net> wrote:
>I think I produced my first plan, profile, and cross sections, using
>softdesk, about 12 years ago.
8 here.
>the problems then, are the same as they are
>today. if you collect your data correctly in the field, you won't have any
>trouble at all.
I think we may be talking apples and oranges here. <more on that
further down>
>you, on this newsgroup, seldom hear from the thousands of
>users out there who produce plan, profile and cross sections daily.
The cross-sections produced by Softdesk are of little value in
satisfying a good number of my clients who don't have Softdesk,
without extensive manual modifications on my part (even if produced
with a DTM) They want their cross-sections labelled and they want them
of actual field shots, not interpolations. The 'thousands' of
cross-sections they include or use for their design projects were not
created by Softdesk. All the 'intelligence' inherent in a
cross-section is lost when plotted out on mylar for an engineering
technician to start designing on.
I have no problem telling the engineers in our office that we don't
station a street, we shoot many more points to create an accurate DTM,
and that the cross-sections they get are what they have to work with.
In this case our survey methods are probably quite similar to yours;
extensive linework for fault creation, auto symbol generation, etc...
But when working for a municipality it is their way or the proverbial
highway.
>to
>address the concept of laying out your stations in the field, I think you
>should go into the field and give it a try.
I've been doing it, as I said, for 8 years.
>on a city street, you will make
>many interesting discoveries, such as, the need to locate many more
>intermediate points, than even stations. I am talking about curb cuts,
>building corners, stairs, elevators, coal chutes, manholes water gates, etc.
These items need to be located if you are producing topographic plans,
they need to be located in even more detail if you are producing a
digital terrain model that is accurate for a section taken at any
point. Here is where we are talking about two different methods. There
are times when the manhour investment to collect enough information
for a digital terrian method are not warranted and in fact, not
possible.
Some large projects I have them flown for planimetric mapping then
follow up with sections. You can imagine I'm only interested in the
sections and don't want to chase the TC for every driway etc.....
>on busy city streets, I usually find 18 wheelers, buses, vans, etc. parked
>over the curb, making it a bit difficult to locate that even station, not to
>mention being able to see across the street to the even station mark on the
>opposite side. your field crew billing will be about $125.00, per hour and
>the time to first layout and then locate, as opposed to just locating, is
>essentially a factor of 2.
Proper management of a project is to require your client (City) to
post "No-Parking" signs 48 hours before your scheduled survey. Many
cities require the painting of stations anyways Spinning out stations
at 500', then marking the intermeadeates with a chain is done while
the horizontal control is established.
>of course, I know a survey company that is still
>doing all their planimetric and topographic surveys with an alidade, and are
>perfectly happy.
and I was still drawing my x-sections in these 'special' cases by hand
until recently....
>cum grano salis
taken...
-
Rich Maher
Remove NO_UCE to e-mail
ICQ (Home) #2590365
ICQ (Work) #5862971
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous,
he will not bite you. This is the principal difference
between a dog and a man."
ED
>"T'is sweet to hear the watch-dog's honest bark..."
My perception is that Softdesk(AEC) is to overly stacked in the design
department. 70% of what I do is collecting data in some format and trying
to return a valid product to a client......ie a registry plan for
recording.. a utility/topographic plan...cross sections and profiles....
etc. The 30% of the time I am spitting out a plan for the engineer to work
on same product as above but for in house design.
I have trouble now days finding field personal who remember how to take
notes for cross sections "the old way". DCA did provide a way to enter the
data, but it is not very user friendly. I guess they got all excited about
the new tins and dtms that they forgot about "the old way". It seems to me
it would not have been to difficult to create an interface for the user with
a spread sheet format for cross sections and to have them automatically
labeled with the collected values.
Cross sections are as old as the hills and a very simple function of
surveying, yet AEC does not provide a simple way to draft them.
I get the same thing every time I talk to the people selling Total
Stations.......This is how your equipment should dictate how you work
attitude.
Perhaps someone should show the AEC Surveyors some highway notebooks and
some plotted cross sections and ask them how come your software can't do
this efficiently.? Maybe all the Surveyors are gone by the wayside with
DCA.
I get the same thing every time I talk to the people selling Software
........This is how your tools should dictate how you work. We have a better
way
Many times I am only involved in Phase I of a project; subcontracted to
provide an existing conditions plan. The software and total stations has
revamped how we work. We collect and reduce much more data than imaginable
10 to 15 years ago. (not neccessarily better data but much more)
I just have to wonder when basic functions of surveying are forgotten and
ignored....cross sections.... traverse adjustments....
AEC:: it is not all design.............somtimes it is just reducing data and
drafting{ie electronic drafting}
ejob