AutoCAD Civil 3D
Reality check time.
Who pays for technological advancements?
Clients, not owners; they pay for everything in the office after all. Just
ask any CFO worth their salt.
Can we justify the additional increase in charges to our clients for the
Enlightened One(s) necessary for the proper care and feeding of the newly
born application C3D?
Can we justify the increase in costs in training to bring the rest of the
office up to speed as C3D reaches towards its final production-capable
version?
Do we spend the man-hours necessary to bring the office along during the
growing pains?
These are the hard questions to be answered not by us techno-geeks but by
the bean-counters and upper management types that control the expenditure of
the revenue brought in by the clients.
In answering those questions they ask themselves if the clients will hang in
there through the rate increases, or go looking for a cheaper method of
getting the project through design and into construction? To be worth while
New Technology has to be not only faster out of the gate, but employ
endurance to get to the Finish Line ahead of the pack.
I think that the product reviews herein tell us that while the gate is
quickly disappearing in the dust, the endurance is lacking in that equation,
thus far.
--
Don Reichle
"King of Work-Arounds"
Ifland Engineers, Inc.
"Strahimir Antoljak" wrote in message
news:403a7887_1@newsprd01...
>
> Hi,
>
> > dictatorial local "I will do exactly as I like and insist you do it too"
>
> I like that 
>
> I believe it is not only about setting up standards
> and styles, I think it may be much more than that,
> a new milestone in design process, so it is no
> wonder a resistance is inevitable.
>
> There was a time when manual (pen and paper)
> drafting was turning into computer aided design.
> There were believers in that new technology and
> those who were skeptic at least, or firm believers
> it wouldn't ever pick up.
>
> It seems that computer aided design, as we know it,
> has reached its saturation point. It became tedious
> to do stuff 'manually' in CAD over and over again.
> There has been a significant amount of years of
> experience accumulated about how things are done,
> and how they can be done more efficiently (with smart
> objects and styles). And as history repeats itself
> there are people who accept it immediately, who accept
> it after a while, and those who will maybe never
> accept it.
>
> It would not be surprising that due to new technologies
> and procedures currently available, Tool Palettes, new
> Sheet Sets and tables in AutoCAD 2005, LandXML, GIS,
> portable devices, more frequently heard model exchanging
> as opposed to paper exchanging, etc. companies
> may need to re-think they entire CAD(/GIS) setups to gain
> full advantage of all.
>
> It may end up not by setting up Styles only. And
> that may take some time. Even more time than what
> James suggested (3-4 weeks, BTW I admire him to
> say something like that out loud. Very few would
> dare say such thing, and everyone else would
> scream on that as financially non justifiable).
>
> Also, it would really be curious to find out a results
> of "sampling through (autodesk's) resellers of the
> median size of users within a licensed site". My
> hypothesis is that companies will come to conclusion
> sooner or later, that a sophisticated Cad Manager (is
> PE, is skilled designer, is an understanding boss, and
> even have some programming skills) will become
> more of a necessity not a question of affordability.
>
> Once Civil3D becomes alive a skilled Cad Manager
> and a handful of skilled and strongly CAD oriented
> designers could replace a whole army of 'regular'
> designers and drafters, and thus probably justifying
> their cost.
>
> Anyway, next 2 years will be interesting.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Strah @ Langan
>
> "Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
> news:403a62ce_1@newsprd01...
> > Hi,
> >
> > It would seem to me that there is at least a possibility that these
> > dictatorial local "I will do exactly as I like and insist you do it too"
> > organisations you advocate will love styles and will create their own to
> > ensure consistency of output from their system.
> >
> > Once the style exists, provided that the style can be imported into a
> > drawing, it wont matter what the drawing submitter sends them.
> >
> > In fact maybe all the Authority needs is to receive the LandXML file and
> > then they can get any reports they need in the exact format they need.
> >
> > Development thoughts:
> > Create a mechanism to "batch import" a "style template" to all drawings
in
> a
> > directory.
> > Create very good documentation to make it easy to learn how to create
the
> > "Style template"
> > --
> >
> >
> > Laurie Comerford
> > CADApps
> > www.cadapps.com.au
> >
> >
> >
> > "Don Reichle" wrote in message
> > news:403a4f1c_1@newsprd01...
> > > Well Dave, thanks for outlining most of the things that I don't care
for
> > > about the direction the product is taking. I've answered each one
below.
> > >
> > > If you would do a sampling through your resellers of the median size
of
> > > users within a licensed site, my hypothesis is that you would find the
> > > result heavily weighted in the five to ten user area. Most of those
> sites
> > > would not have (and maybe could not afford) a Cad Manager to handle
the
> > > daily tasks of maintaining the network of Styles necessary to keep all
> the
> > > jurisdictions happy in the region they serve.
> > >
> > > The opinion was raised recently regarding regional standardization of
> > > drafting styles. As I said before, we are a nation of individuals, and
> > > therefore value our "bubble space". In my earlier analogy the cities
of
> > > Eugene and Springfield in Oregon are only separated by Interstate 5,
but
> > you
> > > would never know it by looking at the plans they want the engineers to
> > > produce for their approval. To add to the mix then you throw in Lane
> > County
> > > and Oregon DOT. All have different standards of linetype, lineweight,
> text
> > > height, data necessary on plans, etc.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that my hypothetical majority will embrace the thought of
> > > applying the necessary maintenance of Styles as C3D evolves over its
> > > lifespan.
> > >
> > > Here is my take on the list of issues you bring up:
> > > 1. As I said most of your user base does not have a Cad Manager, or if
> > they
> > > do it's probably the same person that signs all the paychecks. So this
> is
> > > probably not something they want added to their job description.
> > > 2. This would help that pill more easily be swallowed.
> > > 3. Make the library site-specific instead of dwg file specific, so
that
> > > changes to styles would cascade throughout the office once implemented
> > > without the need to open each and every dwg file where they have been
> > > applied.
> > > 4. Once the Styles become site-specific this issue would disappear.
> > > 5. If the programmers in NH would just develop their own brand of
Mtext
> > > (Ctext?) that would be dynamic, ala Labels this issue would disappear.
> > > 6. Instead of creating a hierarchy of Enlightened Ones, evaluate how
to
> > make
> > > the creation and maintenance of Styles easy enough for a novice to
use.
> We
> > > don't want to be left in ignorance once the Enlightened Ones either
die
> or
> > > are lured away by better percs.
> > > 7. Since Styles are inherently regional in nature (regions possibly as
> > small
> > > as 25 miles) how will Robert Steltman in Canada know anything about
what
> > > types of Styles I need in Santa Cruz County, CA, and therefore be able
> to
> > > honestly service such a broad clientele? (Just one example)
> > > 8. On most dialog boxes there is an Advanced button where you hide the
> > > additional flexible options.
> > > --
> > > Don Reichle
> > > "King of Work-Arounds"
> > > Ifland Engineers, Inc.
> > >
> > > "Dave Simeone" wrote in message
> > > news:403a17d3$1_1@newsprd01...
> > > > Hi all - This is a very interesting and informative trail. Note that
> we
> > > > definately review trails such as this to help define future product
> and
> > > > program requirements. Here are some things that I've gotten out of
the
> > > > trail...
> > > >
> > > > 1. The CAD Manager will (or should) have the primary responsibility
> for
> > > > defining the styles used in your organization.
> > > > 2. We need to make the intial creation of styles easier for the CAD
> > > Manager
> > > > 3. We need to make it easier to add to your style libraries (add new
> > > styles,
> > > > copy/adjust existing styles for new submittal agencies, etc)
> > > > 4. Make styles more portable (make it easier to move one or more
> styles)
> > > > 5. Come up with a solution to handle unique conditions. Styles can
be
> > > > created for what you typically encounter. However, creating a label
> for
> > a
> > > > unique situation will take farm more effort than a simple text
label.
> > > > However, simple text labels don't have the same dynamic behavior,
etc.
> > > > 6. Need to focus on better documentation and other resources
> > specifically
> > > > for those who will be building these styles
> > > > 7. Need to foster the growth of sharing styles and folks building
> styles
> > > for
> > > > sale
> > > > 8. We need to keep the system flexible enough to meet an incredibly
> > > diverse
> > > > range of needs - while making it easy and clear for easy type user!
> > > >
> > > > Note - there are bunch of style "feature" requirements that we are
> aware
> > > of
> > > > and working through.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the input and feel free to add to this list.
> > > > Dave S
> > > >
> > > > "Don Reichle" wrote in message
> > > > news:40366f09$1_2@newsprd01...
> > > > > It would help immensely to get a users "read" on how long it takes
> to
> > > set
> > > > up
> > > > > the different types of Styles in use for C3D. I am aware that
there
> > are
> > > > > default Styles provided with the app, but we all have different
> agency
> > > > > requirements that we must meet. And no two agencies agree on how
> they
> > > want
> > > > > to see the data represented (not even when only a freeway
separates
> > them
> > > > > from each other).
> > > > >
> > > > > So could you kind folks inundate me with some ballpark numbers on
> how
> > > long
> > > > > it takes to set up a new Style for use in production from the
canned
> > > ones
> > > > > provided?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please address Points, Grading, Surfaces, Alignments; whatever is
> > > > currently
> > > > > a part of the app.
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked this same question of the Dan & Dave show today on the
> > Webcast,
> > > so
> > > > > I'm specifically looking to see if you agree with their
estimation.
> > > > Checking
> > > > > practice with theory, you see.
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Don Reichle
> > > > > "King of Work-Arounds"
> > > > > Ifland Engineers, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> I believe it is not only about setting up standards
> and styles, I think it may be much more than that,
> a new milestone in design process, so it is no
> wonder a resistance is inevitable.
>
> There was a time when manual (pen and paper)
> drafting was turning into computer aided design.
> There were believers in that new technology and
> those who were skeptic at least, or firm believers
> it wouldn't ever pick up.
>
> It seems that computer aided design, as we know it,
> has reached its saturation point. It became tedious
> to do stuff 'manually' in CAD over and over again.
> There has been a significant amount of years of
> experience accumulated about how things are done,
> and how they can be done more efficiently (with smart
> objects and styles). And as history repeats itself
> there are people who accept it immediately, who accept
> it after a while, and those who will maybe never
> accept it.
>
> It would not be surprising that due to new technologies
> and procedures currently available, Tool Palettes, new
> Sheet Sets and tables in AutoCAD 2005, LandXML, GIS,
> portable devices, more frequently heard model exchanging
> as opposed to paper exchanging, etc. companies
> may need to re-think they entire CAD(/GIS) setups to gain
> full advantage of all.
>
> It may end up not by setting up Styles only. And
> that may take some time. Even more time than what
> James suggested (3-4 weeks, BTW I admire him to
> say something like that out loud. Very few would
> dare say such thing, and everyone else would
> scream on that as financially non justifiable).
>
> Also, it would really be curious to find out a results
> of "sampling through (autodesk's) resellers of the
> median size of users within a licensed site". My
> hypothesis is that companies will come to conclusion
> sooner or later, that a sophisticated Cad Manager (is
> PE, is skilled designer, is an understanding boss, and
> even have some programming skills) will become
> more of a necessity not a question of affordability.
>
> Once Civil3D becomes alive a skilled Cad Manager
> and a handful of skilled and strongly CAD oriented
> designers could replace a whole army of 'regular'
> designers and drafters, and thus probably justifying
> their cost.
>
> Anyway, next 2 years will be interesting.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Strah @ Langan
>
> "Laurie Comerford"
There is really no purpose arguing about
these things. Time will really tell. I am just
speaking from my own experience and making
future projections based on that.
When computer aided design first started
every single (experienced) old-fashioned drafter
was faster than cad drafter, yet that was not
good enough reason for 'expensive' CAD going
away, nor for increasing the number of pen and
paper drafters.
Increasing in cost in training is relative thing, as
anything else. Both can be proved on a paper;
that training is too expensive to be justified, and
that the training will pay off in very short time
("The beauty /or figuring that if you wish/ is in
the eye of the beholder"). Besides, not everything
can be explicitly expressed in terms of money
(e.g. going all the way to the third floor to get
some drawing from a drawer just to find out
that somebody already took it and never returned
it, as opposed to finding it with Search method
off the intranet).
I am not talking about enlightened ones,
just simply about proper training, patience,
and good manuals. Just for example, in our
office a CAD drafter, with no engineering
training whatsoever, learned how to create
boring profiles with automated procedures.
If there are multiple profiles, and a large
number of borings, that would take engineers
long days (and expensive hours) to create
the profiles. The CAD drafter can produce
the same profiles within few hours now. I
admit, it took some time to get him going,
but now it pays off big time. I know of quite
a few similar examples.
I've had a chance to work for few companies and
learned how most of things are really relative.
Sometimes, management or engineers would
complain how something is time consuming, and
when they had been offered smarter and quicker
solution they would not bother to use it, even the
'training' took only 15-30 minutes. I've seen users
strongly opposing to something at one point
of time and being evangelist for that same
thing later (as already stated, history repeats
itself - because nobody listens.). I've also
seen many cases of re-inventing a wheel -
people would set up, develop, or introduce
some 'new' things that have been out there forever,
or simply having bought expensive and powerful
software that would be collecting dust on some
office shelf just because nobody wanted
(or had time) to learn it.
To conclude, the styles are but automated
procedures, that will take some time to master
(3 or 4 weeks or longer or shorter), but once
mastered and set up (with a proper training,
patience, and manuals), IMHO they will be
tremendously cost-effective.
I think autodesk made a smart move opening
public beta with Civil3D. Weekly web sessions
are very clever learning enhancement, and they've
been working (according to them) on detailed manuals.
What else we can or should expect? The only step
between Civil3D and more than that is robotics or
IgoToWacationAndHaveComputerDoAllForMeBeforeIamBac wrote in message
news:403a9245_3@newsprd01...
> Reality check time.
>
> Who pays for technological advancements?
>
> Clients, not owners; they pay for everything in the office after all. Just
> ask any CFO worth their salt.
>
> Can we justify the additional increase in charges to our clients for the
> Enlightened One(s) necessary for the proper care and feeding of the newly
> born application C3D?
>
> Can we justify the increase in costs in training to bring the rest of the
> office up to speed as C3D reaches towards its final production-capable
> version?
>
> Do we spend the man-hours necessary to bring the office along during the
> growing pains?
>
> These are the hard questions to be answered not by us techno-geeks but by
> the bean-counters and upper management types that control the expenditure
of
> the revenue brought in by the clients.
>
> In answering those questions they ask themselves if the clients will hang
in
> there through the rate increases, or go looking for a cheaper method of
> getting the project through design and into construction? To be worth
while
> New Technology has to be not only faster out of the gate, but employ
> endurance to get to the Finish Line ahead of the pack.
>
> I think that the product reviews herein tell us that while the gate is
> quickly disappearing in the dust, the endurance is lacking in that
equation,
> thus far.
> --
> Don Reichle
> "King of Work-Arounds"
> Ifland Engineers, Inc.
>
> "Strahimir Antoljak" wrote in message
> news:403a7887_1@newsprd01...
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > dictatorial local "I will do exactly as I like and insist you do it
too"
> >
> > I like that
> >
> > I believe it is not only about setting up standards
> > and styles, I think it may be much more than that,
> > a new milestone in design process, so it is no
> > wonder a resistance is inevitable.
> >
> > There was a time when manual (pen and paper)
> > drafting was turning into computer aided design.
> > There were believers in that new technology and
> > those who were skeptic at least, or firm believers
> > it wouldn't ever pick up.
> >
> > It seems that computer aided design, as we know it,
> > has reached its saturation point. It became tedious
> > to do stuff 'manually' in CAD over and over again.
> > There has been a significant amount of years of
> > experience accumulated about how things are done,
> > and how they can be done more efficiently (with smart
> > objects and styles). And as history repeats itself
> > there are people who accept it immediately, who accept
> > it after a while, and those who will maybe never
> > accept it.
> >
> > It would not be surprising that due to new technologies
> > and procedures currently available, Tool Palettes, new
> > Sheet Sets and tables in AutoCAD 2005, LandXML, GIS,
> > portable devices, more frequently heard model exchanging
> > as opposed to paper exchanging, etc. companies
> > may need to re-think they entire CAD(/GIS) setups to gain
> > full advantage of all.
> >
> > It may end up not by setting up Styles only. And
> > that may take some time. Even more time than what
> > James suggested (3-4 weeks, BTW I admire him to
> > say something like that out loud. Very few would
> > dare say such thing, and everyone else would
> > scream on that as financially non justifiable).
> >
> > Also, it would really be curious to find out a results
> > of "sampling through (autodesk's) resellers of the
> > median size of users within a licensed site". My
> > hypothesis is that companies will come to conclusion
> > sooner or later, that a sophisticated Cad Manager (is
> > PE, is skilled designer, is an understanding boss, and
> > even have some programming skills) will become
> > more of a necessity not a question of affordability.
> >
> > Once Civil3D becomes alive a skilled Cad Manager
> > and a handful of skilled and strongly CAD oriented
> > designers could replace a whole army of 'regular'
> > designers and drafters, and thus probably justifying
> > their cost.
> >
> > Anyway, next 2 years will be interesting.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Strah @ Langan
> >
> > "Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
> > news:403a62ce_1@newsprd01...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It would seem to me that there is at least a possibility that these
> > > dictatorial local "I will do exactly as I like and insist you do it
too"
> > > organisations you advocate will love styles and will create their own
to
> > > ensure consistency of output from their system.
> > >
> > > Once the style exists, provided that the style can be imported into a
> > > drawing, it wont matter what the drawing submitter sends them.
> > >
> > > In fact maybe all the Authority needs is to receive the LandXML file
and
> > > then they can get any reports they need in the exact format they need.
> > >
> > > Development thoughts:
> > > Create a mechanism to "batch import" a "style template" to all
drawings
> in
> > a
> > > directory.
> > > Create very good documentation to make it easy to learn how to create
> the
> > > "Style template"
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Laurie Comerford
> > > CADApps
> > > www.cadapps.com.au
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Don Reichle" wrote in message
> > > news:403a4f1c_1@newsprd01...
> > > > Well Dave, thanks for outlining most of the things that I don't care
> for
> > > > about the direction the product is taking. I've answered each one
> below.
> > > >
> > > > If you would do a sampling through your resellers of the median size
> of
> > > > users within a licensed site, my hypothesis is that you would find
the
> > > > result heavily weighted in the five to ten user area. Most of those
> > sites
> > > > would not have (and maybe could not afford) a Cad Manager to handle
> the
> > > > daily tasks of maintaining the network of Styles necessary to keep
all
> > the
> > > > jurisdictions happy in the region they serve.
> > > >
> > > > The opinion was raised recently regarding regional standardization
of
> > > > drafting styles. As I said before, we are a nation of individuals,
and
> > > > therefore value our "bubble space". In my earlier analogy the cities
> of
> > > > Eugene and Springfield in Oregon are only separated by Interstate 5,
> but
> > > you
> > > > would never know it by looking at the plans they want the engineers
to
> > > > produce for their approval. To add to the mix then you throw in Lane
> > > County
> > > > and Oregon DOT. All have different standards of linetype,
lineweight,
> > text
> > > > height, data necessary on plans, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that my hypothetical majority will embrace the thought
of
> > > > applying the necessary maintenance of Styles as C3D evolves over its
> > > > lifespan.
> > > >
> > > > Here is my take on the list of issues you bring up:
> > > > 1. As I said most of your user base does not have a Cad Manager, or
if
> > > they
> > > > do it's probably the same person that signs all the paychecks. So
this
> > is
> > > > probably not something they want added to their job description.
> > > > 2. This would help that pill more easily be swallowed.
> > > > 3. Make the library site-specific instead of dwg file specific, so
> that
> > > > changes to styles would cascade throughout the office once
implemented
> > > > without the need to open each and every dwg file where they have
been
> > > > applied.
> > > > 4. Once the Styles become site-specific this issue would disappear.
> > > > 5. If the programmers in NH would just develop their own brand of
> Mtext
> > > > (Ctext?) that would be dynamic, ala Labels this issue would
disappear.
> > > > 6. Instead of creating a hierarchy of Enlightened Ones, evaluate how
> to
> > > make
> > > > the creation and maintenance of Styles easy enough for a novice to
> use.
> > We
> > > > don't want to be left in ignorance once the Enlightened Ones either
> die
> > or
> > > > are lured away by better percs.
> > > > 7. Since Styles are inherently regional in nature (regions possibly
as
> > > small
> > > > as 25 miles) how will Robert Steltman in Canada know anything about
> what
> > > > types of Styles I need in Santa Cruz County, CA, and therefore be
able
> > to
> > > > honestly service such a broad clientele? (Just one example)
> > > > 8. On most dialog boxes there is an Advanced button where you hide
the
> > > > additional flexible options.
> > > > --
> > > > Don Reichle
> > > > "King of Work-Arounds"
> > > > Ifland Engineers, Inc.
> > > >
> > > > "Dave Simeone" wrote in message
> > > > news:403a17d3$1_1@newsprd01...
> > > > > Hi all - This is a very interesting and informative trail. Note
that
> > we
> > > > > definately review trails such as this to help define future
product
> > and
> > > > > program requirements. Here are some things that I've gotten out of
> the
> > > > > trail...
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The CAD Manager will (or should) have the primary
responsibility
> > for
> > > > > defining the styles used in your organization.
> > > > > 2. We need to make the intial creation of styles easier for the
CAD
> > > > Manager
> > > > > 3. We need to make it easier to add to your style libraries (add
new
> > > > styles,
> > > > > copy/adjust existing styles for new submittal agencies, etc)
> > > > > 4. Make styles more portable (make it easier to move one or more
> > styles)
> > > > > 5. Come up with a solution to handle unique conditions. Styles can
> be
> > > > > created for what you typically encounter. However, creating a
label
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > unique situation will take farm more effort than a simple text
> label.
> > > > > However, simple text labels don't have the same dynamic behavior,
> etc.
> > > > > 6. Need to focus on better documentation and other resources
> > > specifically
> > > > > for those who will be building these styles
> > > > > 7. Need to foster the growth of sharing styles and folks building
> > styles
> > > > for
> > > > > sale
> > > > > 8. We need to keep the system flexible enough to meet an
incredibly
> > > > diverse
> > > > > range of needs - while making it easy and clear for easy type
user!
> > > > >
> > > > > Note - there are bunch of style "feature" requirements that we are
> > aware
> > > > of
> > > > > and working through.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the input and feel free to add to this list.
> > > > > Dave S
> > > > >
> > > > > "Don Reichle" wrote in message
> > > > > news:40366f09$1_2@newsprd01...
> > > > > > It would help immensely to get a users "read" on how long it
takes
> > to
> > > > set
> > > > > up
> > > > > > the different types of Styles in use for C3D. I am aware that
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > default Styles provided with the app, but we all have different
> > agency
> > > > > > requirements that we must meet. And no two agencies agree on how
> > they
> > > > want
> > > > > > to see the data represented (not even when only a freeway
> separates
> > > them
> > > > > > from each other).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So could you kind folks inundate me with some ballpark numbers
on
> > how
> > > > long
> > > > > > it takes to set up a new Style for use in production from the
> canned
> > > > ones
> > > > > > provided?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please address Points, Grading, Surfaces, Alignments; whatever
is
> > > > > currently
> > > > > > a part of the app.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I asked this same question of the Dan & Dave show today on the
> > > Webcast,
> > > > so
> > > > > > I'm specifically looking to see if you agree with their
> estimation.
> > > > > Checking
> > > > > > practice with theory, you see.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TIA,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Don Reichle
> > > > > > "King of Work-Arounds"
> > > > > > Ifland Engineers, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Cheers,
--
Strah @ Langan
"Don Reichle"
> >
> > I believe it is not only about setting up standards
> > and styles, I think it may be much more than that,
> > a new milestone in design process, so it is no
> > wonder a resistance is inevitable.
> >
> > There was a time when manual (pen and paper)
> > drafting was turning into computer aided design.
> > There were believers in that new technology and
> > those who were skeptic at least, or firm believers
> > it wouldn't ever pick up.
> >
> > It seems that computer aided design, as we know it,
> > has reached its saturation point. It became tedious
> > to do stuff 'manually' in CAD over and over again.
> > There has been a significant amount of years of
> > experience accumulated about how things are done,
> > and how they can be done more efficiently (with smart
> > objects and styles). And as history repeats itself
> > there are people who accept it immediately, who accept
> > it after a while, and those who will maybe never
> > accept it.
> >
> > It would not be surprising that due to new technologies
> > and procedures currently available, Tool Palettes, new
> > Sheet Sets and tables in AutoCAD 2005, LandXML, GIS,
> > portable devices, more frequently heard model exchanging
> > as opposed to paper exchanging, etc. companies
> > may need to re-think they entire CAD(/GIS) setups to gain
> > full advantage of all.
> >
> > It may end up not by setting up Styles only. And
> > that may take some time. Even more time than what
> > James suggested (3-4 weeks, BTW I admire him to
> > say something like that out loud. Very few would
> > dare say such thing, and everyone else would
> > scream on that as financially non justifiable).
> >
> > Also, it would really be curious to find out a results
> > of "sampling through (autodesk's) resellers of the
> > median size of users within a licensed site". My
> > hypothesis is that companies will come to conclusion
> > sooner or later, that a sophisticated Cad Manager (is
> > PE, is skilled designer, is an understanding boss, and
> > even have some programming skills) will become
> > more of a necessity not a question of affordability.
> >
> > Once Civil3D becomes alive a skilled Cad Manager
> > and a handful of skilled and strongly CAD oriented
> > designers could replace a whole army of 'regular'
> > designers and drafters, and thus probably justifying
> > their cost.
> >
> > Anyway, next 2 years will be interesting.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Strah @ Langan
> >
> > "Laurie Comerford"
> Technologically advanced does not necessarily mean real world
> productive, which is the glint of what I've been reading here.
interesting thought...
who needs, or better yet who would work on technologically
advanced thing that will not (or at least - is intended to) be
real world productive. That sounds more like Baudelaire's
"Part pour Part" - Art Just For The Sake Of It - but that
was just art, not engineering... do not recall anyone applying
that in engineering
--
Strah @ Langan
"Karl Fuls" wrote in message
news:403d184d_2@newsprd01...
> We 'may' agree to agree
>
> With the gaps in what's available right now, I don't see anyone
> abandoning LDT for C3D today - only the future release of the full
> product will give everyone the information they need to make that
decision.
>
> The fit of any software solution into your existing organizational
> structure is an important concern but firms may have to be flexible
> enough to possibly meet the software halfway to exploit it's capabilities.
>
> I think it's premature to make any type of suitability decision with
> what we know right now. What we have to do is express our concerns here
> so the people working on this product can address those concerns. After
> all, Autodesk wants to sell this so it is in their best interest to
> offer something that people will accept (read 'buy') and can use to make
> $$. Technologically advanced does not necessarily mean real world
> productive, which is the glint of what I've been reading here.
>
> On the other hand, simply because a new software package is nothing like
> what we're used to using isn't a reason to avoid it. It may, or may not,
> work out in the long run for a specific firm, but we're too early in the
> process to tell.
>
> Let's keep those cards and letters coming in......
>
> Karl
>
> Steve Cannon wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> >
> >>It isn't a matter of "Can I afford this new technology"
> >>but rather "Can I afford not to use it?".
> >
> >
> >
> > I 'may' agree with you as it pertains to an evolved product. However, at
> > this point in time, there are other, more immediate questions the boss
needs
> > to ask:
> >
> > Is my staff flexible enough and talented enough to handle the change in
> > production processes? Does the internal office management setup
correlate
> > to the way C3D needs to work ? Do I even understand what the new
processes
> > will be so I can staff the firm adequately?
> >
> > Who's desk do I put this on?
> >
> > At what point in time does C3D become affordable? (When is there going
to be
> > enough functionality in the tool to return invested value ?)
> >
> > Is it a mistake to jump on the bandwagon too early?
> >
> > sc
> >
> >
>
--
Strah @ Langan
"Karl Fuls" 