Field To Finish ?

[Dent Cermak]

I have a question. I have been told that 90-95% of the AutoCad/Carlson users are not using the auto-linework and block insertion (Figure Prefix Library and Descriptor Keys for you AutoCad LDD types.) Is this true? If so, why?
The Field To Finish FLD file set-up is SO powerful that it is mind boggeling!! And yet people do not use it?
Are most people out there really still drawing "point to point"? Or by point groups? Seriously? Please tell me why.

[mpias]

It is mind boggeling. I work with people who don't use it. Our branch office uses JPG2000 pics to background all these random shots and they are aided by the use of these pretty accurate aerials. So, they have a crutch that works pretty well.

My branch did not use it when I started here. Now, I am the official line work person before handing off the drawing to someone else. Go figure?

[gskelhorn]

Field to finish is absolutely essential. I would not even bother to evaluate software that did not support auto-linework, symbols and layer assignment.

My C$0.02...

[Nava Ran]

Measure 3D, Draw 3D and Show 3D
http://www.tomer-il.com/uploads/INTE3DIM.avi
http://www.tomer-il.com/uploads/827.avi

[Clint S]

Is this true? If so, why?

YES
I'm a newbie to Carlson Survey but I'll tell you why.
We do a lot of different surveys with a lot of codes that can vary from job to job.
I don't want to have to scroll through a code table that is 150 codes long to get to the 6-10 I may need for that job or manage 15 different code tables for a lot topo, a stream survey, a bridge siteplan, a curb and gutter job, a stockpile survey, a hydrographic job etc. etc. and then be restricted by what is in the code table.
More often than not the job will dictate the codes and they can vary a lot.

[Dent Cermak]

Features should dictate the codes, not the job. If you build a code list properly you will see that the codes are indeed reuseable.
Once the field to finish code table is set up there is no scrolling through anything to get codes.
You are losing a lot of money using such a buck shot approach.I understand how survey jobs differ. I've been doing this for 40 years and have seen the differences on the job sites.
I've also identified the common items. If you will get over the ADD approach to what you are doing you will find the jobs takie MUCH less time to complete. You have tools in Carlson that you have not figured out that will maximise your profits and make you tons of money.
On the other hand, PLEASE keep this attitude. As long as this is your approach, I will smoke you in job competition. I'll complete my work in half the time you will take and I will make a nice profit in the bargain.

[ColC]

Clint , you may be excused for being new to Carlson. If you take the time to look at the F2F there are ways to break the codes up into categories, you could even create separate F2F if you wish. This can be done with SurvCe as well.

Like Dent, I have been in this business 40 years, and I am always doing different types of surveys. And that is the advantage of the F2f, you can cover all those with a well structured F2f file. The Carlson f2f is the part that keeps me hanging in there with the software.

For a suitable remuneration, I could offer to prepare you a F2F code table , if you were to provide a description of your field work. But I think you would benefit enormously by putting the time in yourself.

[mpossjr]

I have been using C and G since CG 6.0 and I have had to learn the program using trial and error with no help. I recently upgraded 2 of our system to Carlson 2010 and 2011 due to loss in a fire. It sounds like field to finish would be amazing. This is the first I have even heard of it. I don't really know what it does but I will play with it to see.

[psurveyor]

I set it up for my company and F2F is great. I recommend you learn to set the table up yourself that way you never have to rely on someone else to tweak and improve (and or troubleshoot) for you

[Dent Cermak]

The absolute best thing to do is to get proper training on the software. Get it ONLY from a Carlson College member, you VAR will act like he is an ace on it, but in actuallity, he does not know squat.
My company paid for the training and requires each drafter to know how to load, configure and set up Carlson from start to finish. We expect them to lurk around sites like this and pick up all they can on customization and share that with the other users.
If you know where all the files go, it is much easier to use the software. Now days there is much more to this than just drawing lines. Everything that you add to the F2F file saves the company money. Every little trick you can come up with to make things easier for the field crews will only increase profits.
If you have the software, you must learn to use it. It is no longer a case of get the manuals and read them. The real tricks are not in the manuals. Those you get in Carlson College classes. Some areas have community colleges that are teaching Carlson. Some are pretty good. Dig and find a reliable training source. Best money you will ever spend.

[sfd-surveytech]

I learned F2F by trial and error and I have voted that it is Awesome!

However, the only challenge that I have is that if I do a string and see that I don't like the appearance of line work and decide - usually to add points - what is best way to do it to get F2F to work for you and avoid to much manual maniuplation?

For example, say a curve of a ditch line is tied in and it could use some more points through the curve to make it look better?

I have used a process that works (and is better with GPS - than TS because your not directing and explaing to someone to take shots beside where they already have taken shots), but I want to know what you experienced guys would do - if you happened to make a mistake after 40 yrs!

[Dent Cermak]

I am strictly an "office type". I am a cartographic drafter. If the shots I get from the field do not properly define any feature, I send the crew back to the field to correct that error.
There is way too much that can go wrong when "office types" start creating shots. I have seen way too many cases where a company got in a legal bind when they "created" data on the computer and could not field verify that data in court.
Just another reason that our field crews have Toughbooks for data collectors and Carlson Field loaded on board. They "see it as they shoot it" in the field. If it doesn't look right in the field, it certainly won't look any better in the office.

[sfd-surveytech]

LOL

Thanks for the feedback Dent. I understand and totally agree with only using real data and needing to collect it in a methodical, meaningful way.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that my 'process' creates point data that doesnt exist.

To continue with the example of capturing a curved ditch line, say I have a code for the bottom of the ditch - bd and decide I should take more shots through the curve of the ditch becasue it was a little too straight. going the last point I liked, I re-code it from a bd to a bd el to end that line. Then within a foot of that shot I take another to start my better ditch line - st bd and continue with that code until I'm satified that I captured the curvature of the ditch and end that string with a bd el. Then the former points in that area would be deleted and the field-to-finish (F2F) update would command would be re-run. Some re-coding points at the other end of the curve may also be neccessary before re-running the F2F command.

Appreciate your comment.