Autodesk Software is one of the forerunners driving BIM requirements forward; one might even say that it is the BIM standard.

BIM emphasizes collaboration, interoperability, and data consistency across disciplines. As such, an open ISO standard like IFC should be accepted by everyone. IFC is an open format, many European countries like the UK adopt it, and most software implements it. However, in Malaysia, as well as some other countries, the IFC standard is not the de facto BIM standard; file formats produced by Autodesk software, such as .nwt (for Navisworks), .dwg (for Civil 3D), and .rvt (for Revit) are the standards. So to do BIM simply means that you will have to exchange data in those Autodesk formats.

This kind of defeats the spirit of open exchange, but anyway, here we are.

This is not a post that rants about this fact. Here I just want to address another issue altogether, namely, is Autodesk Software a sufficient software tool for engineers, specifically in the area of infrastructure design?

Civil 3D and MiTS, complementary or competing?

To answer this question, you will have to understand where Autodesk tools like Civil 3D come in, and how they compare to MiTS software.

The biggest difference between MiTS and Civil 3D is that the former is an engineering analysis and design software, whereas the latter is more of a 3D drafting software. MiTS targets engineers, which is why we not only have analysis and design engines for infrastructure components like Roads, Earthworks, Hydraulics, and Pressure Networks, but also detailed reporting and calculations to back up our work.

Civil 3D, on the other hand, is geared more towards graphical representation, which means you can’t use it to analyze a pipe (say), though it does a marvelous job meshing with other Autodesk software like Navisworks. It’s used more by BIM modellers and drafters.

To use only Civil 3D and not MiTS is akin to forgoing the engineering component of your work.

Civil 3D is practically free

Now let’s talk about Autodesk software pricing. Here’s something that may shock you. The price of the Autodesk AEC collection—which includes some 20 Autodesk offerings on Architecture, Engineering, and Construction software tools—costs less than the price of two à la carte Autodesk AEC software purchased separately.

Take for example, the price to buy Navisworks Manage is RM 7,290/year, and the price to buy Revit is RM 8,190/year. These are the basic tools that you need to have to do civil and structural BIM projects. Combined, they cost RM 15,480/year. But the whole AEC collection, which gives you all of the above two, and Civil 3D, and many more, costs only RM 10,100/year.

Here’s a table to compare and contrast. It is based on the fact that there is no way to get around Revit and Navisworks, ie: at least some tools in AEC Collection if you want to do BIM design on the structural part.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The obvious collorary is that Civil 3D is practically free when you buy an AEC collection. This fact takes a lot of wind out of the argument that “I can’t buy Civil 3D if I buy MiTS” because like I said, Civil 3D is practically free, and you will need both software for engineering as well as drafting/BIM needs.

Can I reverse engineer Civil 3D drawing format? I don’t want to buy the AEC collection at all

Instead of telling you whether you “can” or “cannot” do something, let me just tell you facts. There is a consortium called the Open Design Alliance (ODA), which provides teigha libraries that read and write to Autodesk file formats. It has the backing of the majority of CAD players (sans Autodesk, obviously) and it manages to reverse engineer some Autodesk file formats, such as DWG and RVT.

So, reverse engineering Civil 3D drawings is technically doable, but it’s extremely challenging. Only ODA has attempted the feat on a large scale, and they have only partially succeeded. They can only reverse engineer very limited Civil 3D entities in a DWG file. This is despite being backed by a consortium with all the big-name CAD players like Siemens, Dassault Systèmes, Bentley Systems, Trimble, and Hexagon.

Still, if you do want to try your technical chops, you are free to do so, though I should caution that the chances of success are not too great, and the investment is likely huge.

But the technical challenge is still relatively easy to overcome; the real hurdle is the legal aspect. Autodesk is extremely litigious, and this is a fact that everyone should know. The aforementioned ODA fought a protracted multi-year legal battle with Autodesk and sort of “won” the rights to do the reverse engineering. As an outcome of the legal settlement, ODA can read/write to DWG but the DWG files cannot have the TrustedDWG watermark in them. This is why, when you open an ODA-produced file in AutoCAD, it will always “warn” you that the file is not from Autodesk products, as if that implies that the file is less trustworthy, to scare you away from using non-Autodesk products.

The “victory” ODA achieved has less to do with the legal merits of its action, and more to do with its war chest; remember, it has the backing of almost all the major CAD players. I don’t mean to look down on you, but have you asked yourself: what are the odds that you can withstand the onslaught of the Autodesk legal team? Can you afford to spend all your time answering legal matters rather than focusing on whatever meaningful work you are doing?

But “someone” claims that their software doesn’t need Civil 3D for interoperation!

Glad that you bring that up. Let’s unpack this a little.

First, not even ODA has full Civil 3D support. This is just the reality, let alone other less well-known attempts. Are you sure that the competing software really functions well with regards to Civil 3D import/export, either using ODA or other less well-known/well-funded components? Such a claim simply doesn’t pass my smell test, though I won’t blame overeager sales reps for exaggerating their case; ignorance is bliss.

Second, assuming that—by some miracle— that someone (whoever he is) is really able to produce Civil 3D files out of nowhere, on a machine without a Civil 3D license, then most likely the software hasn’t run into the Autodesk legal department yet. Essentially this is a legal grey zone and Autodesk could drag them into a litigious quagmire anytime. For me, I wouldn’t want my engineering workflow to depend on tools whose developers might have to spend more time entertaining lawyer letters rather than implementing features.

Using the aforementioned tool will very probably result in broken promises—that’s the best-case scenario. In the worst-case scenario (though less likely), you are dragged into a legal grey zone and become an unwitting participant in a litigious battle that is none of your own doing.

And most importantly, you will not save a single cent by using a infrastructure software that can write to Civil 3D files without a Civil 3D license, because a civil & structural project ( they are usually lumped together) will still entail you to buy an AEC Collection license and like what I showed above, Civil 3D is practically free.

But I need to do modelling twice in different software!

Nope, you don’t.

All you have to do is the modelling in MiTS, and then sync it to Civil 3D.

Currently, in the latest MiTS 3.2 and above, all our modules have Civil Sync, which means that it will sync as Civil 3D native objects like Alignments, Breaklines, Pipes and Structures – which are just sewerage and drainage, Pressure Networks entities like Fittings, and so on, rather than just AutoCAD objects like lines and dots. So you can be assured that the produced Civil 3D drawing is really up to standard.

We know how hard it is to use Civil 3D—been there, done that. This is why we designed our MCIntegrator plugin to be easy to use. All you have to do, after you do the design in MiTS, is go to a computer (any computer) with Civil 3D installed, and use the MCIntegrator plugin to one-click create/update the Civil 3D file. And you are done.

On the other hand, if you opt to do design and reporting via spreadsheet and Word document, then you are really doing the modelling twice, because now you have to ensure that the Civil 3D and your spreadsheet/Word contents are in sync all the time, which is getting harder and harder as you churn through design revisions.

Conclusion

MiTS and Civil 3D are complementary rather than competing; MiTS handles the analysis/design and Civil 3D handles the drafting and BIM interoperability. MiTS can effortlessly sync to Civil 3D with one click and it won’t occupy the Civil 3D license for long; Civil 3D is free anyway as long as you have Revit and Navisworks.

It’s simply not true that you can only afford one but not the other. Unless you are rich enough that you can afford to spend many labor hours to do manual design and to keep your result, drawings, reports etc in sync ( ie. back to the good old days when you have no software).

So really, MiTS+Civil 3D is the poor man’s choice for BIM.