Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Civil3d has potential, but too high level UI

43 REPLIES 43
Reply
Message 1 of 44
Anonymous
699 Views, 43 Replies

Civil3d has potential, but too high level UI

After playing with Civil3D a bit and attending a presentation by Autodesk
showing the new software, a couple of things are evident about the new
release. The software will be incredibly powerful on the front end -
conceptual planning can be done with a high degree of efficiency, and makes
it easy to give layouts to our clients. Threre has been a big discussion
about the lifecycle of data from Autodesk, and I can't agree more, that the
longer the data can be maintained and used without reconstructing or
recaluculating it, the more valuable it is. The unfortunate problem with
Civil3d as it seems to be developing is that the UI (user interface) is very
high level - it tries to make it simple enough for a drafter with little
experience able to do a lot of design by not digging into the details, which
would require a lot more parametric design, such as CAICE and the sort.
However, when projects near construction, there are always numerous details
that exist regardless, and it means that the entire model must be exploded
and torn apart so that the details can be added since the software doesn't
provide the flexibility.

I understand there is a tradeoff of UI flexibility and how easy it appears
the program is to use, but Autodesk needs to consider the change in the
office environment as Engineers in the next generation are moving to doing
design on paper to design on computer. Most of my peers are drafting 80
percent of their work. If a lower level UI means carrying a model to
construction (or production) without losing the data and passing the full
model to the contractor as part of the bid package, then it's well worth
doubling the price of the current software package.

Maybe Civil3d should consider breaking up into modules for different aspects
of design, such as road design, utility design, site design, and the sort
that could be purchased separately to recoup more costs and provide more
comprehensive UI's for different projects. It just seems most of my peers,
the engineers about to hit the thirties that have grown with CAD are looking
for this project. We're there, but there's nobody in the market to supply
the need.
43 REPLIES 43
Message 2 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi,

>If a lower level UI means carrying a model to
> construction (or production) without losing the
> data and passing the full model to the contractor
> as part of the bid package, then it's well worth
> doubling the price of the current software package.

My understanding is that passing the full model to
the contractor is ultimate intention.... there are
case studies on that (the last issue of CADENCE if
I remember well)

but somehow I must have missed the part on doubling
the price of the current software package. Care to
share where you've gotten that info and how much
that would actually be? thanks,

--
Strah @ Langan


"news.bs.webusenet.com" wrote in message
news:5F0E98A4F8B7EE11D8E96F3FCB407E03@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> After playing with Civil3D a bit and attending a presentation by Autodesk
> showing the new software, a couple of things are evident about the new
> release. The software will be incredibly powerful on the front end -
> conceptual planning can be done with a high degree of efficiency, and
makes
> it easy to give layouts to our clients. Threre has been a big discussion
> about the lifecycle of data from Autodesk, and I can't agree more, that
the
> longer the data can be maintained and used without reconstructing or
> recaluculating it, the more valuable it is. The unfortunate problem with
> Civil3d as it seems to be developing is that the UI (user interface) is
very
> high level - it tries to make it simple enough for a drafter with little
> experience able to do a lot of design by not digging into the details,
which
> would require a lot more parametric design, such as CAICE and the sort.
> However, when projects near construction, there are always numerous
details
> that exist regardless, and it means that the entire model must be exploded
> and torn apart so that the details can be added since the software doesn't
> provide the flexibility.
>
> I understand there is a tradeoff of UI flexibility and how easy it appears
> the program is to use, but Autodesk needs to consider the change in the
> office environment as Engineers in the next generation are moving to doing
> design on paper to design on computer. Most of my peers are drafting 80
> percent of their work. If a lower level UI means carrying a model to
> construction (or production) without losing the data and passing the full
> model to the contractor as part of the bid package, then it's well worth
> doubling the price of the current software package.
>
> Maybe Civil3d should consider breaking up into modules for different
aspects
> of design, such as road design, utility design, site design, and the sort
> that could be purchased separately to recoup more costs and provide more
> comprehensive UI's for different projects. It just seems most of my
peers,
> the engineers about to hit the thirties that have grown with CAD are
looking
> for this project. We're there, but there's nobody in the market to supply
> the need.
>
>
>
Message 3 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Let me get this straight. Are you complaining that the UI is too easy to
use?

It seems to me that the purpose of this program is to ultimately eliminate
drafting as a skill that any engineer should need. In Civil3D, the drafting
is a byproduct of the design, not an extra chore that the engineer must
perform. The idea is that once your standards are set up, the program
should just follow them automatically. You shouldn't have to give any
thought to the height of your text, or whether the program will station an
alignment every 50 feet or 100 feet.

The point is not to give the tools to a draftsman & have them performing
engineering design, the point is to give the tools to an engineer, and have
the drafting done automatically.

Jon Rizzo
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.




"news.bs.webusenet.com" wrote in message
news:5F0E98A4F8B7EE11D8E96F3FCB407E03@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> After playing with Civil3D a bit and attending a presentation by Autodesk
> showing the new software, a couple of things are evident about the new
> release. The software will be incredibly powerful on the front end -
> conceptual planning can be done with a high degree of efficiency, and
makes
> it easy to give layouts to our clients. Threre has been a big discussion
> about the lifecycle of data from Autodesk, and I can't agree more, that
the
> longer the data can be maintained and used without reconstructing or
> recaluculating it, the more valuable it is. The unfortunate problem with
> Civil3d as it seems to be developing is that the UI (user interface) is
very
> high level - it tries to make it simple enough for a drafter with little
> experience able to do a lot of design by not digging into the details,
which
> would require a lot more parametric design, such as CAICE and the sort.
> However, when projects near construction, there are always numerous
details
> that exist regardless, and it means that the entire model must be exploded
> and torn apart so that the details can be added since the software doesn't
> provide the flexibility.
>
> I understand there is a tradeoff of UI flexibility and how easy it appears
> the program is to use, but Autodesk needs to consider the change in the
> office environment as Engineers in the next generation are moving to doing
> design on paper to design on computer. Most of my peers are drafting 80
> percent of their work. If a lower level UI means carrying a model to
> construction (or production) without losing the data and passing the full
> model to the contractor as part of the bid package, then it's well worth
> doubling the price of the current software package.
>
> Maybe Civil3d should consider breaking up into modules for different
aspects
> of design, such as road design, utility design, site design, and the sort
> that could be purchased separately to recoup more costs and provide more
> comprehensive UI's for different projects. It just seems most of my
peers,
> the engineers about to hit the thirties that have grown with CAD are
looking
> for this project. We're there, but there's nobody in the market to supply
> the need.
>
>
>
Message 4 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Jon,

I seem to agree with you. It almost seems that news.bs.webusenet.com is
saying that the non-complex UI opens the program up to the unqualified, as
well as limits the functionality of the program.

Maybe it is because I have a couple decades on him, but all most of my civil
engineer colleagues are intimidated by the complexities if LDD. They run
their laptops with word-processing, spreadsheets and non-cad design
programs. AutoCAD is more complexity then they want to deal with.

My first impression of CD3 was that it is still too complex for most civil
engineers that I see in the Albuquerque area. I was hoping for a product
that did away with the complexity of the autocad base, instead of adding to
it. Maybe I am wrong, and the 20 and 30-something's are taking over the
design profession - I just do not see it here. Will the market dictate the
product, or will the product change the market? Oh well, retirement cannot
be very far off.

sc


Jon Rizzo wrote in message
news:E4D795C09B67B8D84C50F83E3548A9E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> Let me get this straight. Are you complaining that the UI is too easy to
> use?
Message 5 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"Jon Rizzo" wrote in
news:E4D795C09B67B8D84C50F83E3548A9E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb:


Interesting how my last post used a newsgroup name as my ID. My
apologies. I am the original author of this thread. I'm not complaining
the UI is too easy to use, but I'm complaining that there are far too few
parameters to make this program practical to carry a project all the way
to construction. If you had a single street with no stream buffers,
unusual grading constraints, intersections, or environmentally sensitive
areas that required frequent manipulation of shoulders, or if you have
two intersecting streets meeting at unusual grades, with the current UI
there are not nearly enough parameters to make the model reflect the
necessary detail. The model, because of a lack of parameters to keep it
simple, limits you to designing the ideal situation, not the challenging
situtions with existing conditions and other constraints that are often
encountered on a jobsite.

The cost issue - I realize that adding more would require a lot more work
than is put into the current version, I wouldn't want to pay double the
cost for the same product.

I don't understand how anyone would be less fearful of Civil3d than LDD
due to complexity. The less you have to enter and do, the more
calculatiosn the computer makes, making the software more complex, and
harder to follow.
Message 6 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Alan, the points you offered are all valid in my opinion, however I don't
think you've been paying complete attention to this newsgroup. It's been
stated time and time again that this is a PREVIEW or "PUBLIC BETA" release
of C3D. Autodesk and most of the users here know that this is a work in
progress and by no means complete. I for one, applaud Adesk for doing what
they are doing with this package. What a novel idea to throw an incomplete
package out to the consumers with the understanding that it isn't for
production, to get feedback, response, troubleshooting and insight. Kudos
Adesk!

As you can guess, and I am making an assumption by what I've seen the
programmers say here, much more is still coming in regards to C3D. Yes,
there's a lot missing at this point. I would believe that once Adesk gets
the current bugs and user input processed, the other stuff will be quick to
follow. I would venture to guess that once this package is complete, 90% of
what you would need for the final plan will be included, for even the most
complex projects. It's my contention that at least 10% will still need to
be done by conventional drafting, but most of that would company specific
preference.

In any case, it's way too soon to say that this package "is not what's
needed". Let the engineers truly finish the package.


"Alan" wrote in message

news:Xns9416A1F1819E4albellsouthnet@64.124.46.110...
> "Jon Rizzo" wrote in
> news:E4D795C09B67B8D84C50F83E3548A9E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb:
>
>
> Interesting how my last post used a newsgroup name as my ID. My
> apologies. I am the original author of this thread. I'm not complaining
> the UI is too easy to use, but I'm complaining that there are far too few
> parameters to make this program practical to carry a project all the way
> to construction. If you had a single street with no stream buffers,
> unusual grading constraints, intersections, or environmentally sensitive
> areas that required frequent manipulation of shoulders, or if you have
> two intersecting streets meeting at unusual grades, with the current UI
> there are not nearly enough parameters to make the model reflect the
> necessary detail. The model, because of a lack of parameters to keep it
> simple, limits you to designing the ideal situation, not the challenging
> situtions with existing conditions and other constraints that are often
> encountered on a jobsite.
>
> The cost issue - I realize that adding more would require a lot more work
> than is put into the current version, I wouldn't want to pay double the
> cost for the same product.
>
> I don't understand how anyone would be less fearful of Civil3d than LDD
> due to complexity. The less you have to enter and do, the more
> calculatiosn the computer makes, making the software more complex, and
> harder to follow.
>
>
Message 7 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm sure a lot more is coming - I was just providing feedback from what
I've seen and experienced in using it with the hopes that maintaining a
higher degree of flexibility will be coming down the road. Without
industry comments, it's hard for the team that is writing the software to
know what level of detail best serves the industry since there has to be
some balance between simplicity and flexibility.

"Ron Mills" wrote in
news:CF11FF7266535C77017C00631135D643@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb:

> Alan, the points you offered are all valid in my opinion, however I
> don't think you've been paying complete attention to this newsgroup.
> It's been stated time and time again that this is a PREVIEW or "PUBLIC
> BETA" release of C3D. Autodesk and most of the users here know that
> this is a work in progress and by no means complete. I for one,
> applaud Adesk for doing what they are doing with this package. What a
> novel idea to throw an incomplete package out to the consumers with
> the understanding that it isn't for production, to get feedback,
> response, troubleshooting and insight. Kudos Adesk!
>
> As you can guess, and I am making an assumption by what I've seen the
> programmers say here, much more is still coming in regards to C3D.
> Yes, there's a lot missing at this point. I would believe that once
> Adesk gets the current bugs and user input processed, the other stuff
> will be quick to follow. I would venture to guess that once this
> package is complete, 90% of what you would need for the final plan
> will be included, for even the most complex projects. It's my
> contention that at least 10% will still need to be done by
> conventional drafting, but most of that would company specific
> preference.
>
> In any case, it's way too soon to say that this package "is not what's
> needed". Let the engineers truly finish the package.
>
>
Message 8 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It always boggles my mind that people with a P.E. find the software too
complex. Designing a multi-million dollar road project with all the
intersections, utilities, medians, driveways, etc. is complex. Compared to
that I find the software easy.

Allen

"Steve Cannon" wrote in message
news:42A800EFC0175F9DB722DC649FB70476@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

> My first impression of CD3 was that it is still too complex for most civil
> engineers that I see in the Albuquerque area. I was hoping for a product
> that did away with the complexity of the autocad base, instead of adding
to
> it. Maybe I am wrong, and the 20 and 30-something's are taking over the
> design profession - I just do not see it here. Will the market dictate
the
> product, or will the product change the market? Oh well, retirement cannot
> be very far off.
>
> sc
>
>
> Jon Rizzo wrote in message
> news:E4D795C09B67B8D84C50F83E3548A9E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >
> > Let me get this straight. Are you complaining that the UI is too easy
to
> > use?
>
>
>
Message 9 of 44
tailleur
in reply to: Anonymous

I know its still early in the game and I also applaud autodesk for attempting this object oriented approach, however, I think there are going to be a lot of users who would just as soon stick with the tried and true land desktop. It works. And as Allen says, you can easily get 90% down the path before you have to start manually editing. If autodesk is going to improve on civil3d, they will need to put some tools in there to allow manual drafting(ie cross section and profile tools). I work in an urban area where you have to make the design fit very limiting existing conditions, not in an empty field where all you need to worry about is if the earthwork balances. And if you can get the software to take in all the minute details needed to finish the plans it will become too complex to run. I think they should release civil 3d as a seperate product; two different levels of automation. Ive been in the business for about 15 years, worked in big companies and small and am now in the government sector, and of all the users Ive known only about 30-40% of them can run every aspect of software(softdesk, autodesk, LDD)efficiently. Thats a big gamble on autodesks part to risk losing half of their user base.
Message 10 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

From what I've seen, especially with Grading, it's
pretty early in the development process. It looks like they are
still working on the Object relationships and dependencies. After that gets
more stable, it's imperative that they provide rigorous linear editing tools as
I have mentioned before.

 

It would be even better if they opened up
Feature lines to edited by our VBA and LISP routines that we readily use now.
This would also make product transitioning much easier.

 

Fred


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
know its still early in the game and I also applaud autodesk for attempting
this object oriented approach, however, I think there are going to be a lot of
users who would just as soon stick with the tried and true land desktop. It
works. And as Allen says, you can easily get 90% down the path before you have
to start manually editing. If autodesk is going to improve on civil3d, they
will need to put some tools in there to allow manual drafting(ie cross section
and profile tools). I work in an urban area where you have to make the design
fit very limiting existing conditions, not in an empty field where all you
need to worry about is if the earthwork balances. And if you can get the
software to take in all the minute details needed to finish the plans it will
become too complex to run. I think they should release civil 3d as a seperate
product; two different levels of automation. Ive been in the business for
about 15 years, worked in big companies and small and am now in the government
sector, and of all the users Ive known only about 30-40% of them can run every
aspect of software(softdesk, autodesk, LDD)efficiently. Thats a big gamble on
autodesks part to risk losing half of their user
base.
Message 11 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

You are right about "
size=3>work in an urban area" - I feel that I am constantly having to 'trick'
LD3 into producing the results I need in order to make the finished product fit
existing conditions.  But autodesk should be able to come up with a few
basic controls that could help; at the very least, it would be great to have a
profile tool to match an existing half width road (not that it can't be done
now, just that I think it could be easier).

 

Russell


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
know its still early in the game and I also applaud autodesk for attempting
this object oriented approach, however, I think there are going to be a lot of
users who would just as soon stick with the tried and true land desktop. It
works. And as Allen says, you can easily get 90% down the path before you have
to start manually editing. If autodesk is going to improve on civil3d, they
will need to put some tools in there to allow manual drafting(ie cross section
and profile tools). I work in an urban area where you have to make the design
fit very limiting existing conditions, not in an empty field where all you
need to worry about is if the earthwork balances. And if you can get the
software to take in all the minute details needed to finish the plans it will
become too complex to run. I think they should release civil 3d as a seperate
product; two different levels of automation. Ive been in the business for
about 15 years, worked in big companies and small and am now in the government
sector, and of all the users Ive known only about 30-40% of them can run every
aspect of software(softdesk, autodesk, LDD)efficiently. Thats a big gamble on
autodesks part to risk losing half of their user
base.
Message 12 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Alan,

I have to say, after reading all of these posts, that I agree with you and Tailleur. I've also been in the civil development field for over 15 years in Arizona. 4 of the 5 fastest-growing cities in America are in our state and I've designed both subdivisions and commercial sites in all of them. Considering that I've worked for about 7 firms since 1988 and have have studied and applied LDD inside and out, and done virtually everything you can do with this software, I can tell you first-hand what it's strengths and weaknesses are. In my experience, there are no better preliminary design tools available than what ALD has to offer. However, when it comes to drafting & production, ALD falls way, way short. The great majority of production tasks are still handled with either Vanilla AutoCAD functionality or 3rd-party app's. Dispute me as others may, I can tell you HONESTLY, that regardless of the strides Autodesk has made with object modeling, it's a very, VERY long way from being usable on the vast majority of real-world projects, with every-day, real-world requirements. I've been pushing grading obejects on others for years, but the FACT is 90% of the users I know don't use them. And as awesome as I personally think they are, I have yet to use a single grading object in any of my final improvement plans. They lack the final output requirements of most or all projects I've worked on. How different is C3D than grading objects? To me, it seems like the same concpet, just applied to other areas of design. Am I right or wrong? If it took 5+ years for Autodesk developers to extend grading object functionality to alignments, etc., how long will it take to iron out all the bugs and move further ahead and even more unconcieveably, respond to age-old wish list requests? It seems to me, ignorant as I am, that the developers at Autodesk design their software in a bubble, of-sorts, with lots of education in programming & C++, but limited experience as designers and engineers. I don't know, I'm just guessing here, OK? I think Autodesk should probably consider hiring people like Robert Steltman, Laurie Comerford, Andrew Watson, R.K. McSwain(?) or some of those other "small-time", but obviously GIFTED programmers/engineers/designers out there making a living designing and drafting real roads and subdivisions PLUS developing on the side to fill in the holes, to get a better perspective of what MOST users really need. As much as I respect their ability to develop software, I'm starting to wonder if they really understand what the REAL every-day needs are of engineers & designers under the stringent requirement of various municipalities are. I know various registered engineers that can't design a subdivision to save their P.E., but some techno-master designers that save the a**es of their firms with their skills (Keep in mind that this is a generalization). Just because you can develop software that visually impresses people doesn't mean it's gonna' get the job done faster or get your project out the door on time. I know lots and lots of people that have been waiting over 13 years for DCA, Softdesk, LDD, ALD to develop some seemingly "simple" tools and functionality that they REALLY needed, and they NEVER did. Consequently, some of these people have just given up hope that they would ever see these tools. I won't say what those needs are, because, I have developed them myself, and despite the introduction of 2004 & C3D, my 3rd-party application is doing well (Please don't judge from the 'dinosaur' on my website. The "good stuff" won't be available for the "pirates" to download). I hope it doesn't seem like I have a "bad attitude", because I really don't when it comes to AutoCAD. The "vanilla" app.'literally blows my mind. Personally, I'd like to meet the person/people who concieved and developed concepts like paperspace and XREFing. Their vision was so "right-on-time" that by all rights, they should've retired by now. It's just that I'm another one of those "users" that have been waiting a looooooong time for some basic stuff that just never came to be. So now I see the "future of civil applications" and I wonder, "Well what about blah, blah & blah? I really needed that stuff along time ago..." OK. I've got it all out now. Just another opinion, eh? Thanks
Message 13 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hey Nick,

 

Yeah, you're wrong. Do you even have Civil 3D? Read
the thread, subject "Grading Target", and the things Glen is working on. Grading
is changing, and will be offering Feature lines for Targets and will do
automatic Grading trimming.


 

Why rant about a product you no nothing
about? It puts chinks in your credibility.

 

I've ranted about stuff before, but sometimes you
have to decide to move on. Now is the time to get your input in!  Start
listing those everyday needs for everyone's benefit.

 

Fred

 

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Alan,

I have to say, after reading all of these posts, that I agree with you and
Tailleur. I've also been in the civil development field for over 15 years in
Arizona. 4 of the 5 fastest-growing cities in America are in our state and
I've designed both subdivisions and commercial sites in all of them.
Considering that I've worked for about 7 firms since 1988 and have have
studied and applied LDD inside and out, and done virtually everything you can
do with this software, I can tell you first-hand what it's strengths and
weaknesses are. In my experience, there are no better preliminary design tools
available than what ALD has to offer. However, when it comes to drafting &
production, ALD falls way, way short. The great majority of production tasks
are still handled with either Vanilla AutoCAD functionality or 3rd-party
app's. Dispute me as others may, I can tell you HONESTLY, that regardless of
the strides Autodesk has made with object modeling, it's a very, VERY long way
from being usable on the vast majority of real-world projects, with every-day,
real-world requirements. I've been pushing grading obejects on others for
years, but the FACT is 90% of the users I know don't use them. And as awesome
as I personally think they are, I have yet to use a single grading object in
any of my final improvement plans. They lack the final output requirements of
most or all projects I've worked on. How different is C3D than grading
objects? To me, it seems like the same concpet, just applied to other areas of
design. Am I right or wrong? If it took 5+ years for Autodesk developers to
extend grading object functionality to alignments, etc., how long will it take
to iron out all the bugs and move further ahead and even more unconcieveably,
respond to age-old wish list requests? It seems to me, ignorant as I am, that
the developers at Autodesk design their software in a bubble, of-sorts, with
lots of education in programming & C++, but limited experience as
designers and engineers. I don't know, I'm just guessing here, OK? I think
Autodesk should probably consider hiring people like Robert Steltman, Laurie
Comerford, Andrew Watson, R.K. McSwain(?) or some of those other "small-time",
but obviously GIFTED programmers/engineers/designers out there making a living
designing and drafting real roads and subdivisions PLUS developing on the side
to fill in the holes, to get a better perspective of what MOST users really
need. As much as I respect their ability to develop software, I'm starting to
wonder if they really understand what the REAL every-day needs are of
engineers & designers under the stringent requirement of various
municipalities are. I know various registered engineers that can't design a
subdivision to save their P.E., but some techno-master designers that save the
a**es of their firms with their skills (Keep in mind that this is a
generalization). Just because you can develop software that visually impresses
people doesn't mean it's gonna' get the job done faster or get your project
out the door on time. I know lots and lots of people that have been waiting
over 13 years for DCA, Softdesk, LDD, ALD to develop some seemingly "simple"
tools and functionality that they REALLY needed, and they NEVER did.
Consequently, some of these people have just given up hope that they would
ever see these tools. I won't say what those needs are, because, I have
developed them myself, and despite the introduction of 2004 & C3D, my
3rd-party application is doing well (Please don't judge from the 'dinosaur' on
my website. The "good stuff" won't be available for the "pirates" to
download). I hope it doesn't seem like I have a "bad attitude", because I
really don't when it comes to AutoCAD. The "vanilla" app.'literally blows my
mind. Personally, I'd like to meet the person/people who concieved and
developed concepts like paperspace and XREFing. Their vision was so
"right-on-time" that by all rights, they should've retired by now. It's just
that I'm another one of those "users" that have been waiting a looooooong time
for some basic stuff that just never came to be. So now I see the "future of
civil applications" and I wonder, "Well what about blah, blah & blah? I
really needed that stuff along time ago..." OK. I've got it all out now. Just
another opinion, eh? Thanks

Message 14 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Seems like quite a lengthy tome considering that you don't seem to have used
(or even seen?) the program. I think that it would be much more productive
to reserve judgement until after you have evaluated the software, don't you?

You are correct, most of the programmers at Autodesk are educated in
computer science, as you would expect that most programmers for any
respectable software company would be. Software engineering skills are not
something that a civil engineer can easily "pick up" in his/her spare time.
While writing a LISP or VBA macro can be a very complex tasks, it is quite a
long way from engineering a powerful, intuitive, FLEXIBLE and expandable
software system. The product designers and managers at Autodesk, however,
are former engineers for the most part. They are, from what I have seen,
quite knowledgeable about what the software needs to do, and they have spent
quite a long time listening to people in this newsgroup and gathering
requirements from individuals in a broad cross section of civil engineering
disciplines.

In 3-5 years there will be 2 camps: those who embrace Civil3D and learn how
to set it up and use it, and those who cling to Land Desktop. Both products
WILL be capable of performing the analysis and design, and each camp will
probably think that the other is a waste of time. If you are still thinking
objectively about where you want to pitch your tent, I can tell you three
things for sure:
1. Civil3D will be significantly more productive in ALL drafting and
visualization tasks.
2. The "wish list" that you mentioned for Land Desktop has been thrown out
of the window. The fate of the actual program is unclear at this time, but
I can guarantee that even if you CAN buy LDT in 5 years, you will still have
all of the same issues and limitations that come with it today.
3. The "wish list" for Land Desktop will undoubtedly grow as you hear about
and see all of the new and exciting things that people are doing with
Civil3D. Engineers will post requests for this functionality to be added to
Land Desktop, but these requests will be ignored. Such requests would be
akin to demanding that Autodesk add true color support and tool palettes to
AutoCAD 14, without requiring you to upgrade to AutoCAD 2004.

Civil3D is not perfect, far from it. There are quite a number of serious
bugs weighing it down & important features are still absent, but in a few
years the differences between it and LDT will be staggering.

Just something to think about.

Jon Rizzo
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.



"Nick_Merchant" wrote in message
news:f193974.10@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Alan,
I have to say, after reading all of these posts, that I agree with you and
Tailleur. I've also been in the civil development field for over 15 years in
Arizona. 4 of the 5 fastest-growing cities in America are in our state and
I've designed both subdivisions and commercial sites in all of them.
Considering that I've worked for about 7 firms since 1988 and have have
studied and applied LDD inside and out, and done virtually everything you
can do with this software, I can tell you first-hand what it's strengths and
weaknesses are. In my experience, there are no better preliminary design
tools available than what ALD has to offer. However, when it comes to
drafting & production, ALD falls way, way short. The great majority of
production tasks are still handled with either Vanilla AutoCAD functionality
or 3rd-party app's. Dispute me as others may, I can tell you HONESTLY, that
regardless of the strides Autodesk has made with object modeling, it's a
very, VERY long way from being usable on the vast majority of real-world
projects, with every-day, real-world requirements. I've been pushing grading
obejects on others for years, but the FACT is 90% of the users I know don't
use them. And as awesome as I personally think they are, I have yet to use a
single grading object in any of my final improvement plans. They lack the
final output requirements of most or all projects I've worked on. How
different is C3D than grading objects? To me, it seems like the same
concpet, just applied to other areas of design. Am I right or wrong? If it
took 5+ years for Autodesk developers to extend grading object functionality
to alignments, etc., how long will it take to iron out all the bugs and move
further ahead and even more unconcieveably, respond to age-old wish list
requests? It seems to me, ignorant as I am, that the developers at Autodesk
design their software in a bubble, of-sorts, with lots of education in
programming & C++, but limited experience as designers and engineers. I
don't know, I'm just guessing here, OK? I think Autodesk should probably
consider hiring people like Robert Steltman, Laurie Comerford, Andrew
Watson, R.K. McSwain(?) or some of those other "small-time", but obviously
GIFTED programmers/engineers/designers out there making a living designing
and drafting real roads and subdivisions PLUS developing on the side to fill
in the holes, to get a better perspective of what MOST users really need. As
much as I respect their ability to develop software, I'm starting to wonder
if they really understand what the REAL every-day needs are of engineers &
designers under the stringent requirement of various municipalities are. I
know various registered engineers that can't design a subdivision to save
their P.E., but some techno-master designers that save the a**es of their
firms with their skills (Keep in mind that this is a generalization). Just
because you can develop software that visually impresses people doesn't mean
it's gonna' get the job done faster or get your project out the door on
time. I know lots and lots of people that have been waiting over 13 years
for DCA, Softdesk, LDD, ALD to develop some seemingly "simple" tools and
functionality that they REALLY needed, and they NEVER did. Consequently,
some of these people have just given up hope that they would ever see these
tools. I won't say what those needs are, because, I have developed them
myself, and despite the introduction of 2004 & C3D, my 3rd-party application
is doing well (Please don't judge from the 'dinosaur' on my website. The
"good stuff" won't be available for the "pirates" to download). I hope it
doesn't seem like I have a "bad attitude", because I really don't when it
comes to AutoCAD. The "vanilla" app.'literally blows my mind. Personally,
I'd like to meet the person/people who concieved and developed concepts like
paperspace and XREFing. Their vision was so "right-on-time" that by all
rights, they should've retired by now. It's just that I'm another one of
those "users" that have been waiting a looooooong time for some basic stuff
that just never came to be. So now I see the "future of civil applications"
and I wonder, "Well what about blah, blah & blah? I really needed that stuff
along time ago..." OK. I've got it all out now. Just another opinion, eh?
Thanks
Message 15 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Seems like everyone has something to add, some positive, some negative. I used a product developed by clever programmers with restricted engineering knowledge years ago when dos was still in fashion. through user input (and OS improvements) the product grew to be an extremely functional easy to use design aid which has many features i would still like to see in ldd / civil3d.
Guys the most important thing now is to get the requests in so that we, the ultimate users of the software, can have a significant role in the development of the product. By doing this we can influence the genius of the programmers and software engineers at autodesk. Hopefully they will listen, and we will end up with a product we dont have to bash for its inadequacies, like we have been doing to ldd for years. Guys give them the wishes, and advice or suggestions on how we would like to do things, and i am sure we will get a really cool program.
Heres Hoping.

Peter
Mactec Engineering
Message 16 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Thanks for that preamble. Now where's your
input?

 

Fred


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Seems
like everyone has something to add, some positive, some negative. I used a
product developed by clever programmers with restricted engineering knowledge
years ago when dos was still in fashion. through user input (and OS
improvements) the product grew to be an extremely functional easy to use
design aid which has many features i would still like to see in ldd / civil3d.

Guys the most important thing now is to get the requests in so that we,
the ultimate users of the software, can have a significant role in the
development of the product. By doing this we can influence the genius of the
programmers and software engineers at autodesk. Hopefully they will listen,
and we will end up with a product we dont have to bash for its inadequacies,
like we have been doing to ldd for years. Guys give them the wishes, and
advice or suggestions on how we would like to do things, and i am sure we will
get a really cool program.
Heres Hoping.

Peter
Mactec Engineering

Message 17 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I know I'm a little late to this thread but here is my nose errr I mean opinion

After seeing the UI (not using) I would agree that it has gotten alot more complicated
compared to LDD. In the last 4 companies I have worked for very very few people really
had a good handle on LDD. Most just don't know how to use it. Civil engineers don't seem
to make strong computer users in my experience. Civil engineering is not rocket science and
thus does not need a rocket science's program. Most people I know want a simpler experience
using LDD, not more complicated.

I really wish Autodesk would do more to ask its LDD users before hand what they want. Maybe
I am in the minority, but I want a product that will help me design on a computer. I want at the least
a program that does away with the repetitiveness off LDD. For example. If I want earthworks on
a new road alignment, I design a hor/ver alignment, do templates, create a surface and then do
my earthworks calcs. Now if I tweak my vertical profile, I have to basically redo every step again
to get my new earthworks numbers. That is ridiculous. Like the mechanical programs, I should be
able to tweak one area and everything else automatically adjusts, thus killing the receptiveness.
That would be such a huge time saver and would really be helpful.

Sure drafting aids would be nice, but I think most companies have already developed their own
methods / tools to draft plans according to their needs. This isn't such a big issue to me nowadays.
I don't think you could really program an automatically drafting plan set making product.

One thing I do get constantly asked is how can I do this or why doesn't LDD work like Terra Model
or Microstation or whatever program. Really I wish Autodesk would recognize competitors like them
and evaluates some of the great ideas that those programs can do.

After these things are addressed then the UI can be tweaked, but just don't make it a drill down hell
interface, no one likes hidden options that you have to hunt for to find.

-----------------------
Dave Lewis
CAD Manager

Just say no to HTML Posts!
Message 18 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Here are my thoughts...

"Dave Lewis" wrote in message
news:cor9svobe1kb5hb37ghlukj0jeaiu7nq7v@4ax.com...
> I know I'm a little late to this thread but here is my nose errr I mean
opinion
>
> After seeing the UI (not using) I would agree that it has gotten alot more
complicated
> compared to LDD.

It is not as bad as it looks, however I think it will take a more dedicated
user because it is becoming more complex.

> Civil engineers don't seem to make strong computer users in my experience.

That is because they are always digging trying to find problems. I can
design a flat parking lot on top of flat bedrock and guarantee that some
will want to do a stability analysis "just to be sure". Instead
of designing a parking lot, they play for a week and end up
drawing 4 lines with a label that says "parking".

>Civil engineering is not rocket science and
> thus does not need a rocket science's program. Most people I know want a
simpler experience
> using LDD, not more complicated.

It is not that simple. There are a LOT of things that require a complicated
solution. It is up to the user to find the easy way to do what they want to
do with each version. The problem is that people do not take the time to
learn the program and are mad because all the "hard stuff" gets in their
way.

> That is ridiculous. Like the mechanical programs, I should be
> able to tweak one area and everything else automatically adjusts, thus
killing the receptiveness.
> That would be such a huge time saver and would really be helpful.

That is what the new version does I think. I haven't done any volumes yet,
but I know you can grab an alignment and drag it and the profile
automatically updates. But with that comes a certain amount of complexity.

> One thing I do get constantly asked is how can I do this or why doesn't
LDD work like Terra Model
> or Microstation or whatever program. Really I wish Autodesk would
recognize competitors like them
> and evaluates some of the great ideas that those programs can do.

All of those programs have as many or more bugs than LDD does. The grass is
always greener.... Remember that it was Microstation that spent the first 15
years of it's life trying to justify a design cube, or whatever that mess
was called. If all of these programs were so great, everyone would already
be using them.

> After these things are addressed then the UI can be tweaked, but just
don't make it a drill down hell
> interface, no one likes hidden options that you have to hunt for to find.

Dedicated users don't have a problem finding the tools. IMO If you are an
every now and then user, this is not the program you should be using. I like
the new version. A LOT! I just hope the Fatal Error type of bugs get worked
out early, I hate those.
Message 19 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

From what I have seen with this version you can go different places to accomplish the same thing.
I think that sort of flexuosity can be confusing to new users. I think a good software design is one
that you can easily figure out how to use it without reading the manual. I agree with alot of what
you said, but I got users to support and management to make happy. Management does not want
to send all the users to a week long class and then no one uses the software because its too
complex. I've seen it happen many times with land desktop.

As far as the other programs thingie, all of us are using autocad because its the best plain ol drafting
program out there, there is no greener grass. But its not a very good industry specific design software.
When a program is designed from the ground up to do a specific job then alot of features / ease of use
can be built in. Tacking stuff on top of a generic drafting program cannot accomplish the same thing
as a purpose built program. Computers were originally used to draft, not design and thus drafting programs
were purchased. Its too late to change thinking of buying design software first before drafting software.
Most haven't even heard of micro this or terra that and thus those programs do not get bought typically
speaking and thus have little market share. Every program has bugs, that's not the issue. The issue
was that those other programs have great industry specific designs or features that I wish could be
utilized into the drafting program autocad, since there is no way any owner I know would switch their
company to something other then autodesk.

We will see what my users think about the new software next month when they get to see a demo.
Plus who knows until we see the final product?



"Tim S."
|>Here are my thoughts...


It is not as bad as it looks, however I think it will take a more dedicated
user because it is becoming more complex.

All of those programs have as many or more bugs than LDD does. The grass is
always greener.... Remember that it was Microstation that spent the first 15
years of it's life trying to justify a design cube, or whatever that mess
was called. If all of these programs were so great, everyone would already
be using them.

Dedicated users don't have a problem finding the tools. IMO If you are an
every now and then user, this is not the program you should be using. I like
the new version. A LOT! I just hope the Fatal Error type of bugs get worked
out early, I hate those.


-----------------------
Dave Lewis
CAD Manager

Just say no to HTML Posts!
Message 20 of 44
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I agree with Dave on several points.

Autodesk should try and build into Land Desktop all the good features of the
other software packages. That strategy has been very successful for
Microsoft with Word and Excel etc. Copy the best of the opposition
shamelessly and quickly!

The software should also be as easy to figure out as possible without too
much training. Then Autodesk could expand into the mass market much more
easily and could lower the price for us all.

Doug Boys

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report