AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

Reply
*wfb
Message 1 of 26 (98 Views)

Where are we now?

98 Views, 25 Replies
05-22-2005 06:02 AM
(or "Can you hear me now")
I haven't had time to complain in the last few weeks, been too busy. Now,
with all the new Civil 3D coupled with LDD 2006 and we also get the "cui"
lumped in. It appears that for us ordinary users, we are out the door. My
guess is that there are several of us out here. Probably they are the ones
not reading in the newsgroups. Since you can load practically all versions
on the same computer, I would suspect that the majority will look around and
go the easiest route which would be using older versions of LDD. As I have
said before, is there a way to have a "holding area" where persons or firms
would care to submit their styles, etc. I would think that there would be a
published style for a profile that would generate a road profile style just
like the one that LDD produces? (Imperial, 1"= 5' & 50') I asked a couple
of weeks ago and was "semi-promised" one, however, none has arrived.

How many small companies will say "Let's just stop production for a week or
two and see what we can find out about these new programs?" I read this
newsgroup daily and see all the great things that can be done, however, I
don't have time to become a programmer and really have no desire to be one.
It appears that to use 3D in an economical fashion, I need to hire a "James
Wedding" type person. If I could afford to do that, I would probably just
retire. I have all the qualifications to be a retiree, sans the cash.

If that wasn't enough, we get the "cui" added on for even more confusion.

Can someone get me Carol's home phone number?

Bill
Distinguished Contributor
jpostlewait
Posts: 2,433
Registered: ‎10-05-2004
Message 2 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-22-2005 09:56 AM in reply to: *wfb
You might try 1-800-IONLYCAREABOUTTHESHAREPRICE

jOHN p.
*Evan Williams
Message 3 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-22-2005 10:55 AM in reply to: *wfb
Hi Bill and everyone,

Bang on!

I work in a small company, too. We live and work in a somewhat remote rural
mountainous area. There are five full-time staff and several other
occasional office
and field staff. The four of us who aren't secretaries are more than busy
with just
plain old civil and geotechnical engineering and surveying work, all of the
time.
Adapting to new software tools (or upgraded ones) has been something that
we've
done on the fly, as we've done our work. We're reasonably intelligent and
self-motivated independent people, and have had very little problem figuring
out
how to harness AutoCAD and it's plug-ins (and other software tools) without
any
formal training. That strategy has worked well until C3D came along. C3D
almost forces users to seek outside training, just to be able to use it with
the stock styles that come with it. (And it's worth observing that the big
advantage of formal training might only be a more expedient route to coming
to know C3D's limitations, bugs, and inadequacies---they are inherent in the
product
and no amount of the best training will make them go away!)

In principle, C3D seems to be aimed at engineers who do the same thing in
the same
way, all of the time. The idea is that once you set up your styles and
templates,
you're good for life. Trouble is there are lots of engineering firms that
MUST be
versatile and do ALL kinds of work. Each project is different enough from
previous
ones that they would require new styles and templates---many may be
reusable, but
many would not. So a significant amount of time for each project goes into
setting up
the software just to do the work.

Our company just doesn't have the resources to have programmers on staff, or
to
hire consultants to make up additional subassemblies with VBA or XSL
stylesheets for the report formats that we really want (similar to the
ones that used to come with software like this). To do much in the way of
customization, we are more or less forced to add quite peripheral skills to
our
already full skill sets. Note that this is the software (and the software
developers)
driving this trend, not the nature of engineering.

We generally like to go home, after working hard each day, to our families
and the things that life is really all about. To us, life is NOT about
playing with computer software, or spending endless off-hours scrutinizing
VBA or XML code. We want to use these software tools to help us do our work
more efficiently. With C3D, controlling the software has become a greater
focus that the `real' work. In just about any domain, this would indicate a
very bad tool, indeed! If a carpenter began using a hammer that impeded her
work, she'd chuck it without hestitation and get a better hammer. This is
not so
easy once the investment is made in an expensive software package.

I acknowledge that there are people for whom their work and their computer
knowledge are defining features of their sense of who they are; and they
actually
enjoy spending just about every waking hour camped out in front of their
machines,
learning a new tweak for this or that. "To each, his own". It's not for
me, but I have
no problem with that for others, if that's what they want---that is part of
what
freedom is about. But the thing to note is that this particular piece of
software, this
particular tool, is foisting this form of life on ALL of its users. The
other side of this
coin is that the software developer, as far as I can see, has decided to
market
separately, as a consulting service, that which used to be part of the
package. That
may serve the sharehoders, but it does not serve the "ordinary users", as
Bill said.

Good point, Bill!

--- Evan




"wfb" wrote in message
news:4852892@discussion.autodesk.com...
(or "Can you hear me now")
I haven't had time to complain in the last few weeks, been too busy. Now,
with all the new Civil 3D coupled with LDD 2006 and we also get the "cui"
lumped in. It appears that for us ordinary users, we are out the door. My
guess is that there are several of us out here. Probably they are the ones
not reading in the newsgroups. Since you can load practically all versions
on the same computer, I would suspect that the majority will look around and
go the easiest route which would be using older versions of LDD. As I have
said before, is there a way to have a "holding area" where persons or firms
would care to submit their styles, etc. I would think that there would be a
published style for a profile that would generate a road profile style just
like the one that LDD produces? (Imperial, 1"= 5' & 50') I asked a couple
of weeks ago and was "semi-promised" one, however, none has arrived.

How many small companies will say "Let's just stop production for a week or
two and see what we can find out about these new programs?" I read this
newsgroup daily and see all the great things that can be done, however, I
don't have time to become a programmer and really have no desire to be one.
It appears that to use 3D in an economical fashion, I need to hire a "James
Wedding" type person. If I could afford to do that, I would probably just
retire. I have all the qualifications to be a retiree, sans the cash.

If that wasn't enough, we get the "cui" added on for even more confusion.

Can someone get me Carol's home phone number?

Bill
Contributor
quiggle
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎05-05-2005
Message 4 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-22-2005 11:40 AM in reply to: *wfb
Like Evan, I work with a small company with limited personnel resources to devote to bending Civil 3D to our will. Although our work is more consistent in nature, nearly every project will carry a few unique components that may stretch those resources beyond our limits.
I have not seen 2006 as yet, but from the comments on another thread regarding the parts builder feature, I am afraid we will find it impossible to use Civil 3D for any piping applications. Every connection to an existing pipe network will require a unique structure that frankly we have not been able to get even civil design's pipeworks to produce. Without the ability to specify and graphically draw and annotate a customized structure that may include multiple pipes in at true elevations that may include a drop of 5 feet or more or connections from force mains, reviewing parties in this area will NOT approve plans for construction.
I have seen comments dismissing the difference in the way civil design and now 3D calculate and display design and flow data as being "just the way it is to be done now" and "the contractor doesn't really the slope information to be that accurate." That may be true, but the contractor will never be able to build said project unless the reviewers who DO require distance and slope information for each pipe run (which for storm lines here means 2d length inside face to inside face of structures) to x.xx precision. Invariably, sanitary runs will accumulate enough rounding error to give an 1/100 difference of total pipe run compared to the MH station. If not caught first, reviewers will send the project back with no further comment and the project loses 2-6 weeks for an additional review. If piping for Civil 3D will not allow for such manual overrides in annotation we will not be able to submit plans prepared with it.
Distinguished Contributor
jpostlewait
Posts: 2,433
Registered: ‎10-05-2004
Message 5 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-22-2005 12:16 PM in reply to: *wfb
Let me share a little information with the users who are characterizing their firms as the "Little guys".
I'm with what you guys would call one of the big guys. We have 50 seats of Civil3D with about 75 users spread over two different cities.
The numbers I'm coming up with to build the various settings and other front end work that must be done comes to a cost of at least 50K just in time spent in creating not counting lost productivity.
The training costs are going to run about 4K per user counting lost productivity, only time lost while training.
Then out on the floor goes 75 novice users trying to stay productive.
So before this product gets rolled out I'm stuck 350 K.
If I think I'm going to see anything but lost productivity for up to 6 months call me stupid..
By that time I will have to renew the subscription agreement at 800 dollars a seat, with who knows how many "improved features" will be rolled out in 2007.
Just because we have a 30 million plus revenue stream does not mean that the half a million to implement this product is not a hit.
And how many of my 75 users are not going to get with the 3D concept at all.
Just a rant from the other side of the fence, but don't think for a minute that we aren't all in the same boat.

John P.
Contributor
quiggle
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎05-05-2005
Message 6 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-22-2005 01:14 PM in reply to: *wfb
Many of the "little guys", mine included, are taking what I consider to be the fatal tack of opting for ZERO training with this product and just work things out as issues occur (and occur they will, about an hour into production and perhaps less). They had a valid point about shutting the entire office production (we have 4 users - 2 engineers, 1 designer & 1 tech) down for the duration of the training, but there is just no other option for this software. Even degreed engineers and tech's like myself with 20+ years experience were unable to produce street and grading plans for a simple subdivision project with Civil 3D 2005. The project was converted back to team/Civil Design and there has been only limited interest in even trying another project with Civil 3D. I have since spent my personal vacation time and resources for individual training because I saw that as the only way to be productive using this program. Will 25% of a production team with adequate training make a difference for small firms like mine and allow them to use Civil 3D effectively? Frankly, I doubt it, but we can only try.
If economics prevent both large firms and small firms from implementing Civil 3D effectively I can't help but wonder about the future of Civil 3D. I know personally of exactly one project to date that has been completely designed and approved with construction started using Civil 3D and that company was the rare one that committed absolutely to using it, severed the lifeline back to LDD / Civil design, and bought full training and established their settings and templates before the first object was created (translated " line drawn " for the uninitiated). The end result was the shortest time the company had ever achieved from project start to final approval. Perhaps enough of those successes will balance the extra expenses.
*James Wedding
Message 7 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 05:14 AM in reply to: *wfb
I'm not sure what project you know of, but now you know of two. We submitted
plans to the City of Dallas last week that never saw the LDT project path.

Keep up the comments, I'm quite curious what others are finding regarding
their own situations. I've never been referred to as a requirement before
(thanks, Bill,) but I don't think that's really true. What is required is a
commitment to let things go, do as much as you can, learn as fast as you
can, and accept the fact that this train is coming.

I don't think any of you are blind to the fact that LDT hasn't grown
meaningfully in three releases. For better or worse, if you're on the
Autodesk platform, C3D will be the CE tool of choice in the future, and
sooner than later. You're all aware of it, and simply must convince your
firms to change or die. I don't mean simply in the sense that it's easy, but
simply in that there is not another option if you want to stay on the dwg
standard.

This group continues to be the lifeline for many users, myself included, but
you're all correct, you are going to need formal training to make C3D work.
Maybe even a solution from Adesk Consulting in terms of an implementation
package. Look into it, you'll feel better, and you can quit banging your
head against the wall.

PLEASE, keep asking questions. This product is a long way from complete. Dan
and his team are watching, and are working to solve your problems, but you
won't get solutions to problems that no one knows about.
--
James Wedding, P.E.
Technology Manager &
Associate
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
XP/2 on P4-3.4/1G
LDT 2006 & C3D2006
*Evan Williams
Message 8 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 09:44 AM in reply to: *wfb
James, doesn't the way C3D has been marketed and sold frost your preserves,
even a little bit? I know that you have made a "committment to let things
go"---no doubt, in the end, for those who have made the investment and
decide to stick it out, that is the ONLY way it's going work. But, from
where I sit, right now, that "letting things go" generates an unsavory image
in my mind of a dog rolling over onto its back, spread eagle, as if to
acknowledge, with a broken spirit, that it's subject to the whims of the
master. I smell corporate opportunism here, and it doesn't smell good.

If formal training and an "Autodesk Consulting" implementation package is
the solution to "feeling better" and to stop the "head banging", I sense
that a lot is being held back from licence purchasers so it can be
additionally sold to them to make it all work. Although, I must say, it
seems pretty clear that it doesn't all work. If there is a clear strategy
to making something like the corridor surface boundary routine work
consistently well (right from first alignment definition), WHY ISN'T IT IN
THE DOCUMENTATION??? I mean this is like paying the full price for a
"complete" hammer without a handle, with the promise that the handle is in
development and will be released in the future---and, by the way, can you
help us design it?.

This reminds me of what is happening in agri-biz: seed is being genetically
mainipulated to REQUIRE the fertilizers that the seed company also produces.
On the molecular level, the fertilizer "unlocks" the seed for germination.

Am I wrong? Come on! We're talking about a piece of software, here. A
tool. A tool to make what we can do manually more efficient. Neither I nor
the company that I work for are on a quest to help make the best CE software
out there---that's the job of software developers. I just want to get my
work done! We didn't get a C3D license to get on the beta-testing program;
we got C3D to assist in our work. Instead of feeling like Autodesk is keen
to proudly make a great tool, like in the old days of tool-making, I feel
like I'm merely a statistic in some Autodesk bean-counter's marketing
strategy, aimed at increasing the profits for shareholders. On the other
hand, I think that the C3D development team has a very hard row to hoe, and
I sincerely believe that they are doing the best that they can.

Yes, "this product is a long way from complete", but it is being sold as
being complete. James, you're blithly putting a big chunk of the
responsibility for making this product a well-functioning tool on the users,
the customers, the folks who shelled out big cash for an already
fully-functioning tool. Autodesk should know about and fix most of those
"problems" before they promote the thing as complete. They should sell us
the hammer WITH the handle, as advertised. As I said, we "ordinary users"
just want to get our work done.

With intense ambivalence,

--- Evan


"James Wedding" wrote in message
news:4853217@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm not sure what project you know of, but now you know of two. We submitted
plans to the City of Dallas last week that never saw the LDT project path.

Keep up the comments, I'm quite curious what others are finding regarding
their own situations. I've never been referred to as a requirement before
(thanks, Bill,) but I don't think that's really true. What is required is a
commitment to let things go, do as much as you can, learn as fast as you
can, and accept the fact that this train is coming.

I don't think any of you are blind to the fact that LDT hasn't grown
meaningfully in three releases. For better or worse, if you're on the
Autodesk platform, C3D will be the CE tool of choice in the future, and
sooner than later. You're all aware of it, and simply must convince your
firms to change or die. I don't mean simply in the sense that it's easy, but
simply in that there is not another option if you want to stay on the dwg
standard.

This group continues to be the lifeline for many users, myself included, but
you're all correct, you are going to need formal training to make C3D work.
Maybe even a solution from Adesk Consulting in terms of an implementation
package. Look into it, you'll feel better, and you can quit banging your
head against the wall.

PLEASE, keep asking questions. This product is a long way from complete. Dan
and his team are watching, and are working to solve your problems, but you
won't get solutions to problems that no one knows about.
--
James Wedding, P.E.
Technology Manager &
Associate
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
XP/2 on P4-3.4/1G
LDT 2006 & C3D2006
*Daniel Philbrick
Message 9 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 11:40 AM in reply to: *wfb

If you were to go back 2-3 years and resurrect the
"tone" of the LDT newsgroup, you would find numerous posts with comments
such as:

 

When will get profiles which are dynamic with the
alignment?

When will I be able to interactively edit and
design alignments and profiles?

When will I get surface editing where the edits
will be dynamically reflected in the contours?

We need automated parcel layout tool..

The Roadway modeling in Civil Design is too
restrictive...

The profile view bands are too
restrictive...

When will TME and PGM be extended to all the Civil
data?

etc, etc.

 

In general, these requests are all aimed at making
the user more productive.  When approaching solving these
problems in Civil 3D, we had several goals.  The first was to
develop a model where engineering relationships are preserved in the
design.  This enables functionality such as dynamic profiles,
parcels, corridors, etc.  

size=2>Secondly, we wanted flexible annotation which is derived
directly from the model.  In other words, changes to the design are
immediately reflected in the annotation.  

size=2>Lastly, a consistent implementation of the functionality so
that user would experience continuity across the product. 
Examples of this include; object styles, object creation process, label style
composer, settings, and toolspace. 


With these kind of changes, Autodesk Civil 3D and LDT/CD are very
different products.   A proficient user of LDT will require training
to become proficient in Civil 3D.   In addition, establish
company standards in Civil 3D will require expertise in configuring Civil 3D
styles, labels, and settings.  However, I think that once you get over
the initial learning curve, subsequent projects will be much more
productive. 

 

We do recognize the need for ongoing training material and tools to
facilitate standardization.  You will see more of this from
Autodesk as the software matures.   It is also very helpful if
you do post suggestions to this forum.   If you run into specific
problems in rolling out the software, we do want to hear about it. 
Also, If you have suggestions on what type of tools you need to ease the
transition, let us know.   We want you to be successful with Civil
3D.

 

Bill, regarding the LDT profile view style, have a look at the drawing in
the attached zip file.  There is a profile view style called "LDT Clipped
Grip", a Profile Band Set called "LDT EG Elevation and Station".  Create a
profile view using these 2 styles and you should get an EG profile which looks
like that in LDT.

 

Daniel Philbrick

Autodesk Civil 3D Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James, doesn't the way C3D has
been marketed and sold frost your preserves,
even a little bit?  I know
that you have made a "committment to let things
go"---no doubt, in the end,
for those who have made the investment and
decide to stick it out, that is
the ONLY way it's going work.  But, from
where I sit, right now, that
"letting things go" generates an unsavory image
in my mind of a dog rolling
over onto its back, spread eagle, as if to
acknowledge, with a broken
spirit, that it's subject to the whims of the
master.  I smell
corporate opportunism here, and it doesn't smell good.

If formal training
and an "Autodesk Consulting" implementation package is
the solution to
"feeling better" and to stop the "head banging", I sense
that a lot is being
held back from licence purchasers so it can be
additionally sold to them to
make it all work.  Although, I must say, it
seems pretty clear that it
doesn't all work.  If there is a clear strategy
to making something
like the corridor surface boundary routine work
consistently well (right
from first alignment definition), WHY ISN'T IT IN
THE DOCUMENTATION??? 
I mean this is like paying the full price for a
"complete" hammer without a
handle, with the promise that the handle is in
development and will be
released in the future---and, by the way, can you
help us design
it?.

This reminds me of what is happening in agri-biz: seed is being
genetically
mainipulated to REQUIRE the fertilizers that the seed company
also produces.
On the molecular level, the fertilizer "unlocks" the seed for
germination.

Am I wrong?  Come on!  We're talking about a piece
of software, here.  A
tool.  A tool to make what we can do
manually more efficient.  Neither I nor
the company that I work for are
on a quest to help make the best CE software
out there---that's the job of
software developers.  I just want to get my
work done!  We didn't
get a C3D license to get on the beta-testing program;
we got C3D to assist
in our work.  Instead of feeling like Autodesk is keen
to proudly make
a great tool, like in the old days of tool-making, I feel
like I'm merely a
statistic in some Autodesk bean-counter's marketing
strategy, aimed at
increasing the profits for shareholders. On the other
hand, I think that the
C3D development team has a very hard row to hoe, and
I sincerely believe
that they are doing the best that they can.

Yes, "this product is a long
way from complete", but it is being sold as
being complete.  James,
you're blithly putting a big chunk of the
responsibility for making this
product a well-functioning tool on the users,
the customers, the folks who
shelled out big cash for an already
fully-functioning tool.  Autodesk
should know about and fix most of those
"problems" before they promote the
thing as complete.  They should sell us
the hammer WITH the handle, as
advertised.  As I said, we "ordinary users"
just want to get our work
done.

With intense ambivalence,

--- Evan


"James
Wedding" <

face=Arial size=2>jwedding@NjOoDnAeMsN-SbPoAyMd.com

size=2>> wrote in message

href="news:4853217@discussion.autodesk.com">
size=2>news:4853217@discussion.autodesk.com

size=2>...
I'm not sure what project you know of, but now you know of two. We
submitted
plans to the City of Dallas last week that never saw the LDT
project path.

Keep up the comments, I'm quite curious what others are
finding regarding
their own situations. I've never been referred to as a
requirement before
(thanks, Bill,) but I don't think that's really true. What
is required is a
commitment to let things go, do as much as you can, learn as
fast as you
can, and accept the fact that this train is coming.

I
don't think any of you are blind to the fact that LDT hasn't
grown
meaningfully in three releases. For better or worse, if you're on
the
Autodesk platform, C3D will be the CE tool of choice in the future,
and
sooner than later. You're all aware of it, and simply must convince
your
firms to change or die. I don't mean simply in the sense that it's easy,
but
simply in that there is not another option if you want to stay on the
dwg
standard.

This group continues to be the lifeline for many users,
myself included, but
you're all correct, you are going to need formal
training to make C3D work.
Maybe even a solution from Adesk Consulting in
terms of an implementation
package. Look into it, you'll feel better, and you
can quit banging your
head against the wall.

PLEASE, keep asking
questions. This product is a long way from complete. Dan
and his team are
watching, and are working to solve your problems, but you
won't get solutions
to problems that no one knows about.
--
James Wedding, P.E.
Technology
Manager &
Associate
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
XP/2 on
P4-3.4/1G
LDT 2006 & C3D2006
*Steve Cannon
Message 10 of 26 (98 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 11:51 AM in reply to: *wfb
Hi James,

As usual, Mr. Skeptical here. Just so you know, I tend to agree in most
part with Evan. As I do not see any economical path for most local firms to
implement this tool. A few questions:

Was the submitted project a subdivision? No surveying required?

How was it done entirely in C3D when I cannot find enough lineal grading
tools in C3D without going back to LDT( and 3rd party). Grading crashes seem
to frequent to use C3D grading as a productive process I Cannot label a B&D
on a simple line without employing a C3D work-around. Water & Sewer? Just
drafted in C3D? How were pipe sized? How about drafting - A C3D object will
react to VP, but simple AutoCAD text will not. How many different Site
definitions were needed for one subdivision?

What about subs and stake-out? Do you convert your C3D objects, or require
subs to use C3D?

What about standards? Is that City of Dallas rigid on their drafting
requiremnts like they are here in Albuquerque? How much arm twisting did you
have to aplly to C3D to meet those standards. Will lcoal counties and
states of similar standards, or do they all have different standards like we
do here?

I would love a realistic estimation of how much time YOU, individually, have
invested in C3D. How much time is invested just in style creation and
management - once you had an understanding of the tool? Then, how much
resource ( time and money) that Jones and Boyd really invested in getting
that first project out the door.

Would Jones and Boyd have turned out a C3D project without you pushing it?
How many firms have an Engineer/Cad Manager/IT manager, with extensive past
experience in both AutoCAD and LDT, as well as acting as a beta tester for
C3D, to nominate as the local C3D pusher/expert?

How many firms realize it is their engineers (and not drafters and
technicians) they have to train to get the tool economically productive?
How many firms have the resources where their engineers can become 'experts'
in AutoCAD and C3D, as well as their normal duties? How many firms
understand the investment to cad management and style management that is
necessary to make the tool work? How many firms understand the investment
needed to upgrade hardware to make the tool work?

It seems to me that all this wonderful technology is just making the
ordinary PE have to know a hell of a lot more to crank out the same product
he has in the past. I have always said CE ain't rocket science, but AutoDesk
seems to be turning it into such. It seems the adage of the tail wagging the
dog is in play here. I was looking for a tool to make civil design easier
for present designers,one that simplified tasks for the designer, not a
overly complex tool that requires a broader range of operator knowledge and
expertise (and carefulness), and much, much, much more allocation of total
firm resources in a software tool than ever before.

For me, right now, I see C3D has another add-on tool in my over-all too
chest. It can be productive in some areas of lot lay out and roadway
design. But to even try to make a project solely C3D will be a silly and
unproductive exercise at this point in time. I will take the time to learn
C3D myself (play time) to see what tools I can incorporate productively into
other processes, but, at least at this point in time, the expenditure in
bringing staff and cad standards up to C3D levels seems to be a poor return
on investment. My suggestion is for firms to use it as just another tool in
the chest, experimenting with it where possible, and not be overly concerned
at this point in time to make it their 'only' platform.

sc


"James Wedding" wrote in message
news:4853217@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm not sure what project you know of, but now you know of two. We submitted
plans to the City of Dallas last week that never saw the LDT project path.

Keep up the comments, I'm quite curious what others are finding regarding
their own situations. I've never been referred to as a requirement before
(thanks, Bill,) but I don't think that's really true. What is required is a
commitment to let things go, do as much as you can, learn as fast as you
can, and accept the fact that this train is coming.

I don't think any of you are blind to the fact that LDT hasn't grown
meaningfully in three releases. For better or worse, if you're on the
Autodesk platform, C3D will be the CE tool of choice in the future, and
sooner than later. You're all aware of it, and simply must convince your
firms to change or die. I don't mean simply in the sense that it's easy, but
simply in that there is not another option if you want to stay on the dwg
standard.

This group continues to be the lifeline for many users, myself included, but
you're all correct, you are going to need formal training to make C3D work.
Maybe even a solution from Adesk Consulting in terms of an implementation
package. Look into it, you'll feel better, and you can quit banging your
head against the wall.

PLEASE, keep asking questions. This product is a long way from complete. Dan
and his team are watching, and are working to solve your problems, but you
won't get solutions to problems that no one knows about.
--
James Wedding, P.E.
Technology Manager &
Associate
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
XP/2 on P4-3.4/1G
LDT 2006 & C3D2006

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Are you familiar with the Autodesk Expert Elites? The Expert Elite program is made up of customers that help other customers by sharing knowledge and exemplifying an engaging style of collaboration. To learn more, please visit our Expert Elite website.

Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

Ask the Community


Civil 3D Exchange Apps

Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for AutoCAD Civil 3D helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.

Connect with Civil 3D

Twitter

Facebook

Blogs