TCC/Works Manger syncing with Trimble tablets

We have been using TCC for about 8 years now and have been on Works Manager for about 2 years. We use it mainly for our surveyors TSC7s syncing with Siteworks. My question is, when our surveyor creates a new site in his tablet under Siteworks and syncs that site, it is only syncing to TCC and does not come into Works Manager. If I create the site in Works first our surveyor can download that site to Siteworks in his tablet but it also shows up in TCC. Not sure why nothing will sync to Works when a site is first created in the tablet through SIteworks.

TCC does not create a project in WorksManager, TCC is a legacy platform and will be discontinued once all TCC functions are in WM. WM will create projects and files in TCC but not vice versa. This is normal, so it is best to get in the habit of always starting projects in Worksmanager or by using the TBC to Worksmanager publishing commands in TBC so that when TCC is inevitably done away with you are in a good workflow with WM.

The way I understand it, TCC is more or less a database only, it doesn’t create associations, pointers or links. Works manager is pretty much a window to the data base, if you don’t tell it where to look it has no idea the information exists. Once it knows where to look though it can push or retrieve from the data base.

I have been hearing that TCC is on its way out for 5 years. I don’t see it leaving for a while yet. And it has its uses…those files that seem to disappear from the controller on sync? they end up in the archive folder for the controller in TCC. Makes it handy when your project control file goes AWOL from siteworks.

It does not make sense that it works when creating in Works Manager to Siteworks but not from Siteworks to Works Manager


I would agree that someone on the works team is missing the bigger picture…and adding workflow when field projects are created. Hoping the for the obvious in the coming year :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


I don’t know that I completely agree. Works knows only what has been populated to the works hub. It isn’t any smarter than that. Superficially it looks nice but TCC is the workhorse. And would sync across regardless of where the project was created. And all of Works data is duplicated in TCC(sync?).

1 Like

I would agree with Will and Joe, Works Manager is an interface for TCC. Creating a site in the field will only sync (if it syncs at all) with TCC and not works manager. It’s always advisable to create a site in WM before the crew goes to the field.

It’s been a while since I’ve been in WM but from what I remember, there’s no need for any files when starting the site, only a Geofence and adding controllers to it. Some will wait to set up a site because they are waiting for the field guys to set control/calibrate the job. That’s not the case (someone please correct me if I’m incorrect about this).

The nice thing about doing it in the office first like this is that you can add work orders and designs prior to field crews hitting the site. Those will pull in when the crew syncs which saves them time and helps keep the possibility of fat fingering a coordinate down.

As far as TCC not being able to create a site in WM, that’s due to TCC only being a file system and WM is only an interface. Without the process starting in WM, there’s no file structure for the data path for WM to access the site.

I hope this helps.

Contractor here… we experience the same ‘one way street.’ Data flows from WM to the controller, but the work order data will flow back to WM. So in these situations when a ‘site’ is created in the field. We use another ‘site’ that is already set up on WM to sync a work order which we copy/paste the field created site. We have found that all data types, not just .spj can be sent back to WM in this way. The whole site file structure will come through. At that point, I then set up the site in WM so it is available to all team members. Not exactly handy, I mean at that point you could just email the site but it does work.

Along these same lines, we capture alot of utilites as builts and existing utilitlies on large projects with multiple rovers. It would be outstanding if there was a ‘merge’ work order function that allowed data to be shared between rovers. Currently we do that by creating a dxf from the multiple .spj in a design format on WM. Not exactly handy either.

1 Like

When it comes down to it, I still prefer to use TCC because of it’s ease of use which may be because I have been using this longer. I just think it is easier to find files and such.

1 Like

Lets take control as an example. A typical site would have been created and at a minimum one would populate the project control. This exports as .office.csv. Then I add control - field.csv, this control file does not sync across the works but is instead parked in TCC. It then has to be populated or copied to the controller because works cant handle the add file

The bad thing about doing it in the office is the redundancy of the data workflow relating to Project Control. For the complete control network to be available I either need to copy the file from the other controller or combine both control files into one and repopulate in WM. However, these files are readily available in TCC on Project Sync.

the legacy TCC platform is the better of the two in regards to all project data sync and storage. You just lack access to it from the software due to them pointing sync setting to worksmanager as apposed to TCC. The devices can be set up in either hub and will poulate across…I don’t see any difference in the Design/WO workflow betwixt SCS or Works - its all the same but works lacks the two-way sync that TCC still has.

right? I know what controller I am after. I am really not trying to look at three separate screens before you give me a controller data list. TCC give me a tree and all files residing in that project folder.

The other issue I have with works is the calibration file. I can import a DC or a Cal but not both. I realize that I don’t need both but I get two when I complete the cal. my OC nature requires both of the files to be in my project folder, so every project is an aggravation when I am only allowed upload of one.

Some worthy conversation here, so I feel compelled to share my two cents.

WorksManager has a long way to go to catch up to TCC functionality. The ability to keep your fingers on the actual files as they sync is top-notch.

And we would LOVE to see the ability to share between rovers, updated dynamically somehow.

Though I agree it’s a best practice to start a project in the office and not on a field controller, I appreciate the thought of getting field-generated files into WorksManager by sneaking in through the back door. As we’ve experimented with some newer machines with modems, we have had some success creating a " ‘Project Name’ For Machines " project in WorksManager, exporting a vcl from TBC, importing the vcl into TCC Project Library folders, and after some syncing it appears on the machine. This is a workaround to older Siteworks versions that can’t handle some TBC vertical data on linestrings and the inability to directly upload a vcl into WorksManager. (Admittedly, I haven’t had an opportunity to try the proper workflow with TBC 2023.10 yet, but I don’t have my hopes up.)

1 Like

to avoid muddying @Katie_Byron font thread anymore than i have, and as this fits into the current conversation here; @Katie_Byron - TCC has the TCC Explorer program that syncs the TCC controller space to your computer - It runs in the background, one way and two way sync options, mulit-folder. It adds a menu option on right click of a folder in a drive. This may help with your works work-order issue. I am finding the loader difficult to come by…but available from Sitech Netherlands :smiley:

It works famously (10.1 MB)

@tsilicato If ever I find I need a “dummy site” or just don’t want to pull out my laptop in the truck, I will create a new site on my collector (TSC7) and carry on with my day. When I’m ready to import any data, I will then open up WM in a web browser and create a new site spelled/case sensitive exactly as the project name on my collector. Down to the symbols and spacing, exactly the same (sometimes open WM on my controller so that I can copy and paste, just to be sure). Give the engines some time to populate/catch up, then I’ll sync my collector. Voila, everything from my collector on that new site is available for “extraction” in WM. Just don’t forget to go back into WM and add your .cal/control, etc. from your device afterwards, otherwise nobody else will be in the same world as you. Still a pain, but the best workaround I have come by so far.

@nate_doyle So we used TCC before we used WM. Again, importing WOs directly into TBC via the Construction tab. We stayed with TCC for quite sometime after WM was released, one of the big reasons being not being able to import directly through TBC (there were other reasons, such as WM was honestly terrible to start with, wasn’t ready for a release IMH). We eventually added some TSC5s into the mix and still wanted to hold off on getting WM. So we continued to sync via TCC from a desktop and importing into TBC as we always have. The problem that we were running into with the TSC5s, was that the timestamp kept getting overwritten with the time that the collector performed a sync tot he PC. With that came the issue that all of the designs, the cal files, etc., kept saying that we needed to resolve an isssue because now the timestamps were different. That led us to worry that you would never actually know when someone wasn’t current or if they overwrote a file by accident.

Hindsight 20/20 on this, we would have been able to at least sync the TSC5s directly from the device like we did once upon a time with some TSC3s when we had people out in the boonies. Avoiding paying for device licenses maybe and only paying for a single computer license for TCC?

In any case, with Trimble threating every year to take away TCC, we decided it was time to make the leap and transfer everyone (and every job that was carrying over to the new year) to WM and make the leap of faith…and essentially complain enough in the hopes that the product would improve. Ideally at a quicker pace that it has. That being said, I still keep TCC Explorer on my computer…juuuust in case hahah!

1 Like