User's guide for workflows is useless

[JamesMaeding]

I was happy to find some kind of recommended workflow for making plans with C3D, here is the link:

http://docs.autodesk.com/CIV3D/2013/ENU/index.html?url=filesCBP/GUID-394E4463-964C-4233-BC27-5ECB5B0...

Now, when you read it, it basically says to set up base files with objects, then xref or dref into sheets.

Like, duh, how else would you do it?

At least it mentions the idea of a middle "dress up" level for drefs.

It does not talk about the fact that drefs are fragile, relying on perfect file organization and object naming, while displaying info via xref is stable so long as people don't rename xrefs.

It does not talk about delays introduced by drefs, even if you set the style to no-show.

It does not talk about the differences in labeling when profiles are from xrefs vs drefs.

It does not mention how to deal with callouts that dissapear if objects are off at all.

All those issues and more can absolutely kill a real production environment.

Can someone on the C3D team take a real project in a real city and show us an example of making the plans?

I want to see how they handle annotation of base files for design info. That would be callouts just for the designer, not stuff that shows on sheets. I don't think they understand the weight of drefs being attached everywhere.

I'd also like to see how they feel about exploding callouts. They need to see how ugly it is to run into some callout that the styles do not accomodate easily.

If its been done, show me the example.  I'm still waiting to see some set of rough grading and improvement plans done "completely" with C3D, not exported to LDT for callouts, or half of callouts are exploded.

Anyone got such an example?

[Joe-Bouza]

You have a gripe don't you

[JamesMaeding]

Just lots of marketing claims that need backup.

[Joe-Bouza]

I will not refute