ALIGNMENT INTERACTION

[ryanmorehead]

Alignments in the same site should recognize and react when they intersect one another horizontally and vertically. It should have a dialogue for intersection design criteria to input necessary information (Curb return radii, pavement widths, etc...) Should also have alignment offset widths similar to what LDD had "Create Offsets" to automatically draw curbs, gutters, sidewalks and be tied to the alignments to update if the centerline changes.

[Anonymous]

Hi ryan,

Gosh, surely you don't want Civil 3D to catch up with Corridor-EZY 🙂

Regards


Laurie Comerford

ryanryanmorehead wrote:
> Alignments in the same site should recognize and react when they intersect one another horizontally and vertically. It should have a dialogue for intersection design criteria to input necessary information (Curb return radii, pavement widths, etc...) Should also have alignment offset widths similar to what LDD had "Create Offsets" to automatically draw curbs, gutters, sidewalks and be tied to the alignments to update if the centerline changes.

[ryanmorehead]

We won't purchase any 3rd party software. Steltman's software is unorganized and poorly put together.

We've already tried a demo version

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Hi ryan,

Lots of peoples have that approach, so your not alone.

What I can't understand is the inconsistency of that approach with
buying Civil 3D which is nothing more than an add on to AutoCAD.

One enables you to get a more consistent output with less work than
standard AutoCAD, so you buy it.

The other enables you to get a more consistent output with less work
than standard AutoCAD, so you don't buy it.


Regards


Laurie Comerford

ryanmorehead wrote:
> We won't purchase any 3rd party software. Steltman's software is unorganized and poorly put together.
>
> We've already tried a demo version
>
> Thanks!

[ryanmorehead]

The problem is that not every company can spend the additional money and time to learn and maintain a third party software program with each new release. Not to mention the lack of robust coding used for the third party software.
You'll probably tell me that the production time and profit benefit out ways the cost but I should expect that from a third party software salesman.
What I can't understand is that Autodesk has offered a wish list for people to suggest ideas to better the program. If we spend $1K's of dollars on a software program and they allow us to bitch and moan about how to make the program better.
Then you better believe we will do it.
So just go back to the underword from down under!

[civil3d.pe]

If you download the demo videos for corridor EZY and give a presentation to the decision makers at your company I would expect that you can justify the purchase. Especially if you do any intersection design, but especially if you do subdivision design. It's a very powerful design tool. Although I do agree that he dynamic modeling tool Civil 3D should already include these features.

In regard the quality of programming it may not be perfect but neither is c3d, not even close.

The positive for smaller 3d party apps is that you can get your voice heard more easily for recommendations/features and actually see some changes in the software. Versus c3d where there is a much larger group of competing priorities driving development, resulting in new features taking 18-24 months plus to see your desktop.

Don't discount the value of 3rd party apps.

[Anonymous]

Hi ryan,

I don't disagree that one day Autodesk will do this. After all they've
seen the ARD/Corridor-EZY range of software and the concepts ultimately
are only a matter of coding and debugging.

A couple of points to make.

How long did it take you to become productive with Civil 3D?
Do you seriously think that Civil 3D has robust code?

The cost of buying Civil 3D is trivial compared with the work it can do
for you and is certainly trivial compared with the cost of training and
setting it up to suit your company specifications.

Most 3rd party applications will be more robust than Civil 3D because
the scope of the software is so much smaller. Thus it is feasible to
make it relatively bug free. Also, the overhead infrastructure of the
3rd party companies usually is small enough that they can respond to
your issues quicker than an Autodesk staff member can write a report and
get authorisation to study the problem.

If "the production time and profit benefit out ways the cost" of using
an enhanced solution it seems crazy to me to reject it on emotional grounds.

Lastly, I'm not a salesman and never have been. I have never received a
cent from anyone dependent on sales of ARD/Corridor-EZY.

If I see a better technical solution to a problem then all I do is
mention it.

Regards


Laurie Comerford

ryanmorehead wrote:
> The problem is that not every company can spend the additional money and time to learn and maintain a third party software program with each new release. Not to mention the lack of robust coding used for the third party software.
> You'll probably tell me that the production time and profit benefit out ways the cost but I should expect that from a third party software salesman.
> What I can't understand is that Autodesk has offered a wish list for people to suggest ideas to better the program. If we spend $1K's of dollars on a software program and they allow us to bitch and moan about how to make the program better.
> Then you better believe we will do it.
> So just go back to the underword from down under!

[Anonymous]

I thought I would add my 2 cents worth to the Corridor EZY 3rd Party
discussion. As an American I was working with the fine people from
Australia to get their product to this country. All I can say about this
product is that it is quite awesome. A large firm can train one person to
be the C-EZY person and can complete a large subdivision final surface in
minutes. OR you can struggle with all the intersection alignments and
profiles for hours.

Just do the math.

Bill

[Anonymous]

Ryan,
You are fooling yourself. Who told you C3D should do all that you want for the price?
I agree Adesk needs to improve it, but if people are buying it, guess its good enough right?

I'm just saying that from a business standpoint, they are surviving on what C3D does, and we should not place self
imposed limits on ourselves saying that we are at the end of the add-on road.

There is no limit, and the idea is to do whatever it takes to maximize your company's profits (and stay employed too).
I have an idea, how about you learn the API and write the improvements without charging your company extra!
That seems like the best approach given that you will not pay more, and will not use such poorly coded add-ons.

That's the conclusion I came to, I wrote my own feature line and alignment stuff. Its worked well.
I know you will say you don't have the time or energy or that you should not "have" to resort to that, but it does not
matter. Find the balance that works for you and own the choice.


ryanmorehead <>
|>The problem is that not every company can spend the additional money and time to learn and maintain a third party software program with each new release. Not to mention the lack of robust coding used for the third party software.
|>You'll probably tell me that the production time and profit benefit out ways the cost but I should expect that from a third party software salesman.
|>What I can't understand is that Autodesk has offered a wish list for people to suggest ideas to better the program. If we spend $1K's of dollars on a software program and they allow us to bitch and moan about how to make the program better.
|>Then you better believe we will do it.
|>So just go back to the underword from down under!
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom