Honestly, I don't see styles as being a major distraction, provided that the
functionality that you need is there. Granted, some minor changes could
easily lead to a 20 minute "hunt", but I think that after the first 2 or 3
projects, the frequency of this would be greatly reduced.
The unfortunate thing with styles is that you are totally sunk if the styles
do not support the functionality you are looking for. I think in the long
run, C3D will prove to be the right way to go, but the long run still sounds
like it's a few years out...
--
Jon Rizzo
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
"Steve Cannon" wrote in message
news:401941c3$1_3@newsprd01...
> Hi Jon,
>
> I think that we can agree that the ultimate goal of C3D should be to put
> the tool in the hands of the engineer. I think that we can agree that LDT
> failed miserably at this task. However, I foresee in the C3D's basic
> philosophy, the beginnings of a dangerous path that may bog the toll down
in
> a swamp of divergence and discord.
>
> Where we seem to disagree is that C3D should strive for the goal "to make
> the majority of the drafting just 'happen'". I think this is a pipe dream.
> You are thinking that once all the drafting styles are setup, all will be
> good. I foresee the scenario where style setup is a continual
never-ending
> process. Many shops produce a broad range of civil services, all that will
> require their own special drafting styles. Even in very specialized shops,
> with very repetitive type production, every individual project is going to
> be just enough different and special that each new job will require a
> re-examination of previously setup styles. Management is going to have to
> address a continual evolution of styles and standards.
>
> I still see the goal of C3D heading down the road where it defines itself
as
> an infrastructure drawing preparation tool. It attempts to eliminate the
> role of the draftsman, replacing it with automation. It ain't gonna work.
> In the process, it is going to distract the designer from his real task,
> which is design conceptualization. As long as drawings are still used as
the
> source of communication, we are going to need both the roles of engineer
and
> draftsman, and I believe they each should have their own tools.
>
> As an engineer, I see my world as a place to conceptualize a design. As a
> draftsman, my place in the world is to prepare infrastructure drawings.
In
> C3D, we see the two worlds collide.
>
> sc
>
>
> "Jon Rizzo" wrote in message
> news:40192d14_1@newsprd01...
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you missed a big point.
> > From the point of view of the draftsperson opening the product up and
> > beginning to use it to draft plans, you are correct. This would be a
> > frustrating exercise. The point that you missed is that the ultimate
> > purpose of this program is this tool in the hands of an engineer, not a
> > draftsman. The product is a LONG, LONG way from that, but the reality
is
> > that once you get your styles set up, you will not need to perform
80-90%
> of
> > the drafting tasks that you currently perform with LDT.
> >
> > Land Desktop is currently a distraction for engineers. Engineers have
to
> > spend too much time performing basic drafting tasks to get their idea
> > accross, and often end up feeling like glorified drafters at the end of
a
> > work day. The goal of Civil 3D is to make the majority of the drafting
> just
> > "happen". Granted, the program is not there yet, and styles require an
> > extensive amount of effort to perfect, but you only need to do it once.
> >
> > The goal is not to make the CAD technician's job easier, it is to reduce
> or
> > eliminate the need for such a person in the first place. Engineers
should
> > be engineering, draftsmen should be drafting. Yes, the program has a
long
> > way to go before it is there.
> >
> > --
> > Jon Rizzo
> > Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
> >
>
>