Field to Finish ACAD C3D
Hello, interested in learning how many of yall use field to finish. Other opinions? Our firm is looking to upgrade from LDD2009 to C3D and theyre looking into heavily using field to finish. Civil firm for commercial projects, multiuse sites/solar/commercial land development.
What are your thoughts. For people who actually use it: does it actually make you more efficient and do you think its worth it??
We use it but someone else in the company set it up. Its not perfect but its close. For example all your symbols will come in, such as power poles and such, line work will come in, and all this will come in on the correct layers and line types will all be correct. You can get pretty elaborate also, for example a manhole symbol will come in and label it with the top of manhole elevation and leave blank spots for the inverts you can add later if you do measure downs. I will just add it will be a very steep learning curve to go from land development to civil 3d. Not impossible but the first few days will be difficult.
Speaking as your competitor in business I hope that you will continue without using F2f. That works for me.
Speaking as a brother surveyor I recommend that you get into it by whatever means are at your disposal. There is F2f in LDD2009. A really poor version. But even that is better than no F2f at all. The F2f in C3d (post 2011) is much better. Yet far from perfect. I think that Carlson's version is better. But I use the C3d version. I would not think of doing topos without F2f.
The number 1 reason for using F2f is quality control. Speed is a secondary benefit, and that comes only with continued practice and system development.
Field to finish as Norman says is available in LDD, heck I was doing it in Autocad 12, but not to the level that the newer versions allow.
You may find that small topo's and such are not faster than doing what you are doing now, it really makes a difference with more complex drawings. Finding someone to set you up may be the secret, and depending on how your work flow is will determine your coding structure. We work with engineers that use microstation and are DOT dependent, so our codes follow the DOT format even though it isn't necessary all the time, it's just easier to learn one set of codes. I personally liked the number codes that I started with in the 80's.
"Field to finish" is a misnomer. To truly go from field to finish would be cost prohibitive in terms of the amount of field time it would take to get the data collection and coding perfect. As Norman said, quality control is the primary benefit. There will be fewer drafting errors with a good F2F system. There will always be office editing needed, but far less than when using a connect-the-dots-in-the-office approach.