Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?


My firm is currently using gINT from 2009, and we're looking for options to update or replace it. I've been tasked with reviewing and presenting the best options to our management. Has anyone used Holebase SI? We are seriously considering that, as it seems to be more user friendly, and easier to create fence diagrams and data analysis, etc. I also like the idea of built-in GIS capabilities. Is the newest version of gINT any more user-friendly and intuitive than the old versions? Obviously boring logs are straight forward, but creating new templates, figures, and fence diagrams has not been easy, and no one at my company has been able to really spend time to do it. I'm hoping that Holebase SI will be more useable for the average user (i.e. newer staff engineers).

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

It is my understanding that Bentley owns gINT (as of writing) and Keynetix (who make Holebase). I'm slightly surprised that they would continue to keep both products as separate entities.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

jdonville - good point. I have a call with keynetix in a few days and I plan to ask him about this. I'm hoping they wouldn't just buy a competitor to kill it off.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

Your rep will almost certainly not admit to a product being killed off - even if they knew about it.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

My only comment is whether the other program will produce gINT-compatible files. I work for a state DOT. We require that ALL drill holes be developed in gINT and that the consultants provide the gINT file. We maintain a database layer that includes all our statewide drill holes. They are all georeferenced and available to the public. If one of my consultants elected to try something that did not return a gINT file, they'd be in conflict with their contract and we'd reject the files.

Not to be a boar, that is. . .


ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

fattdad - that's a really good point. We would still keep our existing gINT software, so we could still accomodate things in that regard. I don't believe we've ever been asked for our gINT files before, but good to keep in mind.

I agree, they're not likely to comment on the future of the product they're selling. I'm still going to ask what they recommend, to see if I can glean anything anyway.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

The US army corps of engineers is switching to keynetix soon. Been using gint my whole career, but I’m looking forward to the switch.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

I don't know if there is a good way to migrate previous info to/from gINT. One would need to know the format of gINT databases - and I'm sure this changes from version to version...

At any rate, the only reliable provider for this would likely be gINT itself, so vendor lock-in seems likely.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

Full Disclosure up front I recently left industry as a Geotechnical Engineer to join Bentley in the gINT/Holebase group as a professional consultant.

Bentley realized that they were lacking capability in the geotechnical field which is why they recently purchased Keynetix (Holebase), Plaxis and SoilVision. While I haven't interacted too much with the folks at Plaxis & Soilvision, I work daily with both the gINT and Keynetix teams.

All of that being said, gINT is based off old architecture and isn't really having new features added to the core program itself. It is still being supported and not planning on going anywhere anytime soon. gINT is still very much a viable product for some firms and there are still companies.

Holebase is obviously a newer product, based on modern architecture. This is predominately cloud based, however some organizations are running local instances of the product I believe. While it stores projects in it's own format, you can create import/export files that allow you to bring your old gINT projects into Holebase. These import files are a bit tedious to create as you have to map everything from the gINT library/data template into the corresponding Holebase table, however once that is done it's just a matter of uploading them. It should be noted that Holebase also has an excel based lab management software that is currently heavily used in UK where Keynetix is based. Everything is stored in the Holebase database and it uses excel as the visualization/interface for the lab software.

EDIT: If anyone wants more in-depth information feel free to DM me and I can get into specifics. Also I don't deal with sales or marketing, I just do technical support and help with feature development for both gINT and Holebase.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

I have Holebase installed on a Client laptop but so far haven't been able to access the site database due to security issues on the remote server which means I can't get to try it out properly.

I have used gINT between 2006 and 2018 including a database with over 2700 exploratory holes for a large UK infrastructure project. gINT has a steep learning curve but is very very customisable and easy to use for data entry and to produce quick ground models (I love the Zones feature). I have limited use of Holebase SI but the output doesn't seem as easy to customise. Data entry doesn't seem to be as quick as gINt where individual tables can be edited very quickly.

I have had issues with scaling quick sections in Holebase which I didn't have with gINT and there doesn't appear to be a quick way of producing borehole sticks as DXF or DWG files in Holebase (to stick onto existing drawings without having to use AutoCAD). The integration of Holebase SI with 3D Civils is overkill when you're sitting at home trying to produce slope analysis models and you don't have or know how to use AutoCAD 3D Civils.

I used previous versions of Holebase between 1994(ish)and 2006 and have limited experience of Geodasy, SID and other more clunky old programs.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

Of course in the UK we use AGS Format for data transfer. There may be some issues saving gINT data to AGS and then uploading into Holebase but this depends on how well structured the original data was.

RE: gINT vs Holebase SI - any experience?

Got this link through from Datgel

Very informative overview of what Datgel add-ins can do with gINT. A list of the gINT included features + the ad-ins would be useful.


I still think gINT is a better product for Contractors and working on big site as the scripting tools were useful for repeating tasks. I love the integration for using road alignments for sections where the elevation of roads (including superelevation on bends can be modelled and sections chosen by chainage/offset very quickly.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close