AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

Reply
*TomD
Message 11 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 12:01 PM in reply to: *wfb
Well said, Evan.

Maybe the shareholders will start buying the programs?

"Evan Williams" wrote in message
news:4852924@discussion.autodesk.com...

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.
Contributor
Robert S
Posts: 23
Registered: ‎03-02-2005
Message 12 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 12:32 PM in reply to: *wfb
Steve
I wish I were as eloquent as you are, I couldn't agree more with what you said. It might be OK to play with the software, but anyone who thinks that this will increase their productivity is just fooling themselves. I know your response will generate a lot of replies.
Contributor
quiggle
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎05-05-2005
Message 13 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 08:09 PM in reply to: *wfb
The one I know about is in Florida and I think a different company has one in for first submittal somewhere else. Congratulations on your accomplishment, it would seem to be quite rare.
That said, you might be surprised that I am actually quite impressed with Civil 3D, at least the product I think it can be. It offers far more flexibility with annotations and display properties than LDD / Civil Design. Only after my training did I realize I had made the wrong choice with virtually every step I took in my doomed project.
I wonder why this product is shipped with a setting defaulted to make it near impossible to make changes to certain object creation commands or save them once they are changed. Unless the right template is chosen for a given drawing (and there are no indications I've found which one that might be) the user will fight this issue until quitting in frustration or stumbling onto the correct setting. This default is perfect for a finished template that will enforce rigid standards but is a nightmare for someone trying to establish said template. I actually have issues with virtually every default setting as they appear to make things so far from what I see as normal practice as to force me to examine all of them at least once.
Regarding training, it seems that many of the firms that do look for help are opting for less than what is necessary and gaining very little benefit as a result. The group that allowed me to join in their session last month brought in only one representative from each office, none of whom had ever used Civil 3D, and only booked a 3 day session. We had 12 hr days and still barely covered how to make new settings in the main feature areas. When it was over, they still had no idea how deeply involved it is to create drawings that will look exactly the way their managers expect. I was not surprised when I learned through the instructor that they were still having troubles and are quite dissatisfied with the software. I would advise anyone looking at training to include as many of your people as you possibly can and use every cent of your training budget. You can not get too much. Whatever you do, at least get a solid start on your template before it is over.
Distinguished Contributor
mscacco
Posts: 139
Registered: ‎11-17-2003
Message 14 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-23-2005 10:00 PM in reply to: *wfb
All,

I wonder how many of us engineers were able to pick up an HP 48s calculator and begin using any of the advanced features just by "playing with it". It would not be suprising if a glance or two at the user's manual was needed.

How about the first (and second and third and 15th) time you ran the dos version of the TR-20 program? Was this something that was intuitive or could be just figured out? Geez, you misplace one decimal point and the entire model craps out on you.

My point is that any truly powerful (revolutionary?) tool that we will use is going to have a learning curve and often the steepness of that curve is related to the power of the new tool. I think we pride ourselves on the abilty to learn new things without much outside help and when we can't, we get frustrated (at least I know i do).

We cant realistically expect to know everything about all things related to engineering. That's why there's specialization in the CE field itself. While the math and science that drives engineering is the same for all disciplines, the application of these tools varies, often widely from one CE discipline to the next.

While C3D may not be as revolutionary as the scientific calculator or PC-based hyrologic models, it is a major step forward and to harness its power, one must take the time to learn it and understand it.

Just my 2 cents...

Mark Scacco, PE
*Laurie Comerford
Message 15 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 03:44 AM in reply to: *wfb
Hi,

On the issue of training I would advise an entirely different approach.

I believe it is essential for an organisation (and in general, I'm referring
to larger organisations) to have a workable environment set up before it
starts training its designers to use the software. The designers do not
need to know how to customise the appearance of the design, merely how to
use it once it has been set up to suit the organisations needs.

Hence, I advocate training one or two people at CAD Manager level to become
experts and to set up the system.

Once they have done that, you can then commence training for the designers
and day to day users of the program.

You will have in house skills to support the new users and you will not
suffer the frustrations associated with "change from above"/"that's not
ready yet"/"we didn't expect that" being imposed while users are learning.

Nor will you need to allocate resources to aspects of the software with
which, in general, form part of the capital cost of adopting the software.
You do not need the average user to get involved in doing this "once off"
work.

Also, after training, you users will be able to start productive work which
means they are more likely to see the benefits of the new software and
retain enthusiasm to use it.

One thing of which you can be certain: For every ten average users in an
organisation who attend training before the organisation is set up for them
to use the software:
# five will lose all benefit from the training unless they are given time
to practise on a working system the next day;
# at least nine will be discouraged;
# all ten will forget what they learnt before they get to use it.


Smaller organisations do not have the possibility of the above approach and
I believe they should check out the default settings, look for alternative
drawing templates such as the metric one prepared by Rad and currently
available free on our web site and adopt one - temporally compromising their
appearance standards while they work on getting jobs out the door with a
view to modifying the drawing template at some time in the future.

At this time there are few people around who have had time to develop the
skills to rapidly create a drawing template to a client standard - similar
to the old Sheet Manager process where it paid users to hire outside skills
to get this done so they could concentrate on their core skill area.

Once further comment.

Very few people can absorb new information for more than a few hours in a
day. Unless a 12 hour training session consisted mostly of repetitive
exercises to develop working habits I would expect the last 9 hours of 12
would be almost a waste of time.

--


Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au


wrote in message news:4854089@discussion.autodesk.com...


Regarding training, it seems that many of the firms that do look for help
are opting for less than what is necessary and gaining very little benefit
as a result. The group that allowed me to join in their session last month
brought in only one representative from each office, none of whom had ever
used Civil 3D, and only booked a 3 day session. We had 12 hr days and still
barely covered how to make new settings in the main feature areas. When it
was over, they still had no idea how deeply involved it is to create
drawings that will look exactly the way their managers expect. I was not
surprised when I learned through the instructor that they were still having
troubles and are quite dissatisfied with the software. I would advise
anyone looking at training to include as many of your people as you possibly
can and use every cent of your training budget. You can not get too much.
Whatever you do, at least get a solid start on your template before it is
over.
*Doug Boys
Message 16 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 05:48 AM in reply to: *wfb
I agree with Laurie on this one. The only way I can see that Civil 3D could
be introduced successfully would be to set up templates with standard
settings to suit the organisation BEFORE training staff in the design
procedures and expect that the design staff will never have to change the
settings.

The fact that the settings CAN be changed is necessary for Autodesk to
address the global market but it is not efficient for an organisation to
have to fiddle with these settings for itself. Regional customised
templates should be made available as part of the package.

From my point of view here in Brisbane Australia, Rad's metric templates
from Cadapps, adapted for Australian practice, look like being a godsend. I
would not attempt to introduce people here to Civil 3D without them.

Doug Boys
Cardno Brisbane Australia
*Steve Cannon
Message 17 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 07:12 AM in reply to: *wfb
Mark,

> I wonder how many of us engineers were able to pick up an HP 48s
calculator
> and begin using any of the advanced features just by "playing with it".

I like your HP48 analogy. I found the HP48 over-complicated the simple
tasks that I routinely do - too many buttons, too many functions, too
complex. In the name of technology, HP evolved the calculator beyond the
simple tool the calculator should be. It did not make my life easier - it
made it more complicated. That is why I am still stuck in the past - Hp41's
on every desk. Somehow, not migrating to the HP48 never seem to impact my
design capabilities, or my over-all production. (BTW, any one have an old
HP41 they want to sell?)

sc
*James Wedding
Message 18 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 07:52 AM in reply to: *wfb
And yet most PEs under a certain age wouldn't give you their 48 unless you
pry it from their dead hands. The youngest guys here look at my 48 as an
antique. Tools change, and if you're the kid that grows up on that tool, you
never think twice about it. It's just up to us older guys to see what's
coming....
--
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 19 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 08:11 AM in reply to: *wfb
James,

I don't think it is just growing up with the tool. I migrated theough HP's
from 45's to 17's to 19c's to 67's to 41's, to 41cx's - writing routines
that stretched each calculator to it limits, and eagerly anticipating each
new version. However, when the 48 came along, it suddenly took more
keystrokes to do the same thing, and by that time, I had a computer to do
computer things, and I just needed a calculator to do calculator things.
However, to my shame, I still can't operate a calculator that isn't RPN.

sc



"James Wedding" wrote in message
news:4854563@discussion.autodesk.com...
And yet most PEs under a certain age wouldn't give you their 48 unless you
pry it from their dead hands. The youngest guys here look at my 48 as an
antique. Tools change, and if you're the kid that grows up on that tool, you
never think twice about it. It's just up to us older guys to see what's
coming....
--
James Wedding, P.E.
Technology Manager &
Associate
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
XP/2 on P4-3.4/1G
LDT 2006 & C3D2006
*NUMA
Message 20 of 26 (63 Views)

Re: Where are we now?

05-24-2005 08:34 AM in reply to: *wfb
Similar story here, migrated through hp calcs.. until.. one day, HP
stoped caring about the engineers who buy their scientific calcs. HP
cared only for selling more shiny financial calcs, and then they stopped
innovating and we had a 5 year dead spot.. And I, wisely began buying
Casio fx-115ms calcs.. and at $15 apiece I have 3 on my desk right now.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Steve Cannon wrote:
> James,
>
> I don't think it is just growing up with the tool. I migrated theough HP's
> from 45's to 17's to 19c's to 67's to 41's, to 41cx's - writing routines
> that stretched each calculator to it limits, and eagerly anticipating each
> new version. However, when the 48 came along, it suddenly took more
> keystrokes to do the same thing, and by that time, I had a computer to do
> computer things, and I just needed a calculator to do calculator things.
> However, to my shame, I still can't operate a calculator that isn't RPN.
>
> sc
>
>
>
> "James Wedding" wrote in message
> news:4854563@discussion.autodesk.com...
> And yet most PEs under a certain age wouldn't give you their 48 unless you
> pry it from their dead hands. The youngest guys here look at my 48 as an
> antique. Tools change, and if you're the kid that grows up on that tool, you
> never think twice about it. It's just up to us older guys to see what's
> coming....
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 or visit the Installation and Licensing Forum to get help installing your software.