There is no real comparison. 12d does a few things better that are survey related (I trust it more with geodetic calcs than Civil3D), and allows you to open up any number of windows with just the layers switched on that one needs which is nice, but as far as dynamic objects such as surfaces or parcels are concerned it is a whole generation behind Civil3D. We have also had endless problems making the exported DWG look anything like the original 12d drawing. CAD functionality doesn't rally compare, every action taken is 3 to 6 keystrokes more than Civil3D. To select a line in Civil3D is one click, in 12d its click, right click, click “accept” from the menu. You need a good mouse.
The biggest drawback we found though was that the drawing settings are stored outside the drawing, this means that when your client receives your drawing, he has the choice of using your settings to display the data, or his settings which he needs for his work, and your data looks like crap. Even Things like symbols and linetypes are not stored in the data like it is stored in the DWG by AutoCAD. All settings are stored in User system folders, and one needs to submit a heap of settings files with the project to enable the client to view data as it presents on your own computer. It’s almost a must to prepare PDFs or DWGs to submit with the data to illustrate how it should present.
Screen redraws for equivalent dataset sizes are about one fifth the speed of AutoCAD.
There is no coordinate database like civil3D has. Points are more like drawing objects, and point numbers can be endlessly duplicated. No Point Groups. Labeling options are restricted. Labels are not dynamic. Dimensions are not dynamic.
The software is as prone to crashes as is Civil3D, which is saying something.
Menus are not set up logically at all, a lot are in alphabetical order rather than ordered by functionality, to the novice it's hard to find stuff.
12d has its own macro language I found hard to learn. No VBA or Lisp. We also found we ended up exporting everything to AutoCAD to finish for presentation, in other words we needed AutoCAD anyway to arrive at the end product. There are no layouts. The 12d format is not an industry standard. There is no XREF equivalent.
The Department of Main Roads in Queensland has adopted it as a standard package (as it was the best option at the time), but proceeded to created their own survey programs. We didn't have the resources for that.
Software support is not better or worse than our Civil3D reseller, but not nearly as good (professional) as the AutoCAD subscription.
12d has a line strings which are sort of the equivalent of feature strings. The functionality and reliability of 12d strings is better than Civil3D, as feature lines have the extremely nasty habit of going AWOL. It is also quick to generate designs, but I’m talking basic designs. The grading works. (grading works in a number of packages, Civil3D is the odd man out here. GRRR.) This aspect of 12d is often praised by the users. But again with objects like alignments and the ability to create set out data fast, it doesn't touch Civil3D. It is a real ball-ache to create chainage points on an alignment. There is no Mtext equivalent.
We have had errors on volumes, one of the order of 7000 cubic metres on 150000 total cubic meters for a power station coal stockpile.
Just some items that come to mind why we moved to Civil3D.
No comments:
Post a Comment