Efficiency gains from Civil 3D...

[Anonymous]

I spoke to an Autodesk person who touted that Civil 3D as providing 30% efficiency gains for the typical company that
fully adopted it. I have not seen any cases of "full adoption" in the southern California area, with my definition
being that callouts with stations/elevations in sheets are objects, nothing exploded.
I've been called a BIM connoisseur for this reason, but I find it amazing that people feel its ok to claim they are
using a dynamic model when half the callouts are plain text. That is not AutoDesk's fault, its that people are simply
not being consistent but claiming to be.
That issue aside, I thought through the 30% gain claim, and here is why I think there is validity to it:

Many designers in the civil world currently do not take their modeling of streets and pipelines via alignments,
profiles, and surfaces, as a serious thing. They might even get by with lisp routines for various things, as opposed to
making an organized set of alignmemnts and things. Many times, the alignment data is not archived with the drawings.
Civil 3D forces the issue though. You cannot get by without an organized set of base files and objects.
Note that anyone could have done this in Land Desktop, or any prog that allows centerline modeling.
So much of the overall gain is simply the cad operators have gotten their act together and defined a few standards as
well as filling gaps in the LDT toolset with lisps or .nets.

The companies that are trying to use LDT or other past methods "raw" stand to gain hugely by getting their act together
and attending to the details of reusing data and making labels from it that do not require rework to look right.
These are my observations. I'm curious to hear what other's have seen.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

correct......but the software needs to be user friendly and benefit the users not hinder them otherwise users will use it inapropriatly and that does not benefit anyone including Autodesk.

[Anonymous]

see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
the numbers into their calculator.
If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.

can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.

Civil_EITguy
|>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
|>LDT = X time
|>3D = X time
|>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
|>
|>
|>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
|>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
|>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
|>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
|>Time = .75X
|>
|>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
|>
|>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
|>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
|>
|>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
|>
|>
|>
|>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
|>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
|>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
|>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

exactly, that is what true BIM software is. It allows you to make objects in ways suited to how a designer would talk
to the computer. C3D is not that at this point. From what I am seeing, this idea of the data being contained in custom
objects is messing everything up. Objects as interface items are great. Do not force me to make an object to have the
data available though, its proving to be too heavy. I will deal with bugs to get my data created, but then let me shed
the objects and just have the data avilable.
So I don't care if my base files have C3D objects in them, but I should be able to tell prospector that i want to have
this and that object's data available. Making me create a data ref object is redundant, heavy, and instable. I have
xrefs to see the object already. The label through xrefs thing is not a solution for several reasons. I need a list of
what data is available before I label and api access too.

Bernardmadoff <>
|>correct......but the software needs to be user friendly and benefit the users not hinder them otherwise users will use it inapropriatly and that does not benefit anyone including Autodesk.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

Hi James,

Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
format to the newsgroup.

If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file

Regards,

Laurie Comerford

James Maeding wrote:
> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
> the numbers into their calculator.
> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
>
> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
>
> Civil_EITguy
> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
> |>LDT = X time
> |>3D = X time
> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
> |>
> |>
> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
> |>Time = .75X
> |>
> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
> |>
> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
> |>
> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
> James Maeding
> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

James,

Drop me a line please with full contact info?

first.last @ autodesk.com


Thanks,
James Wedding

[Anonymous]

oh, i kind of meant that generically, anything that shows the work at hand.
Dwf is pretty compact, pdf is too though if from acad. A jpg with 30% compression would be great also.
I never had issues with a pdf though, do you mean worst because of file size?

Laurie Comerford
|>Hi James,
|>
|>Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
|>format to the newsgroup.
|>
|>If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
|>command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
|>for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file
|>
|>Regards,
|>
|>Laurie Comerford
|>
|> James Maeding wrote:
|>> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
|>> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
|>> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
|>> the numbers into their calculator.
|>> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
|>>
|>> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
|>> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
|>> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
|>> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
|>> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
|>>
|>> Civil_EITguy
|>> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
|>> |>LDT = X time
|>> |>3D = X time
|>> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
|>> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
|>> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
|>> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
|>> |>Time = .75X
|>> |>
|>> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
|>> |>
|>> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
|>> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
|>> |>
|>> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
|>> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
|>> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
|>> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
|>> James Maeding
|>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

will do, thx

James Wedding, P.E.
|>James,
|>
|>Drop me a line please with full contact info?
|>
|>first.last @ autodesk.com
|>
|>
|>Thanks,
|>James Wedding
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

Hi James,

For an AutoCAD drawing, the PNG is the smallest file, it is very easy
and quick to produce with the PNGOUT command and it shows up natively in
newsreaders. (I don't know about on the web as I don't have time to
waste waiting for it and using the vast screen overhead of the browser)

PNG files are also very easy to produce with screen grabbers and ones
like SnagIt offer easy annotation.

BMP files are simply 10 to 50 times bigger than they need be cf a PNG file.

Both Word files and PDF files are very large cf PNG and/or DWF files and
require extra software to read. I've just installed a new Win 7 64 bit
Ultimate O/S and it cannot display a PDF file, requiring me to download
& install additional software. Word files may also contain malware with
embedded macros.

PDF viewers waste significant screen space for their interface, as does
Word - if you have it.

JPG files are made for complex raster files like photos and their use is
not warranted for the simple raster data from an AutoCAD drawing where
most pixels will be identical to their neighbour. If however you have a
raster file inserted in the drawing, then JPGOUT can be used.

Regards,

Laurie Comerford


James Maeding wrote:
> oh, i kind of meant that generically, anything that shows the work at hand.
> Dwf is pretty compact, pdf is too though if from acad. A jpg with 30% compression would be great also.
> I never had issues with a pdf though, do you mean worst because of file size?
>
> Laurie Comerford
> |>Hi James,
> |>
> |>Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
> |>format to the newsgroup.
> |>
> |>If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
> |>command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
> |>for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file
> |>
> |>Regards,
> |>
> |>Laurie Comerford
> |>
> |> James Maeding wrote:
> |>> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
> |>> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
> |>> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
> |>> the numbers into their calculator.
> |>> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
> |>>
> |>> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
> |>> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
> |>> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
> |>> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
> |>> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
> |>>
> |>> Civil_EITguy
> |>> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
> |>> |>LDT = X time
> |>> |>3D = X time
> |>> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
> |>> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
> |>> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
> |>> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
> |>> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
> |>> |>Time = .75X
> |>> |>
> |>> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
> |>> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
> |>> |>
> |>> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
> |>> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
> |>> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
> |>> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
> |>> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
> |>> James Maeding
> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
> James Maeding
> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0700, James Wedding, P.E.
wrote:

>Drop me a line please with full contact info?
>first.last @ autodesk.com

Congrats! 🙂

Matt
matt@stachoni.com

[Anonymous]

fantastic they are listening - good luck james m and james w well done for taking some initaitve which hopefully is becoming more common around here

[Anonymous]

they? the resellers?

"Bernardmadoff" wrote in message news:6373316@discussion.autodesk.com...
> fantastic they are listening - good luck james m and james w well done for
> taking some initaitve which hopefully is becoming more common around here

[Anonymous]

with an e mail that ends @autodesk.com i presume james w works for Autodesk and is therefore able to listen to customer feedback and hopefully make the software better for all in the future

[jggerth]

'touted' is such a wonderful word -- conjuring up images of unshaven characters in loud plaid suits hanging outside the race track claiming that CivilDancer is a sure thing in the third by a nose. And quite an appropriate term for a claim of 30 percent gain in production....

Any time a vendor makes a claim about dramatic efficiency gains, it's best to look at that allegation with a jaundiced eye, and harbor extreme doubt about both its veracity, and its applicability to any other situation. Implied is that the new thing is more efficient than the old thing -- but we need to know what the old thing was!. If it was spraypainting contour lines on the ground while the project manager stood on a ladder directing, then 30 percent improvement is far too low. If the old process was Eaglepoint civil on R13 on a 486 66Mhz, then it's believable. If the claims is supposed to contrast Land Desktop 2009 to Civil3d 2010 -- then while possible it's an unfair and dishonest comparison. LDT has been neglected development wise since its initial rollout, not been updated to use or benefit from any advances in Autocad vanilla or the operating systems, and deliberately left in the lurch. Heck, there's still an error message in there that says "Unable to wirte to locked layer".

After all, that efficiency claim is coming from the same organization that promoted c3d 2006 as a complete survey solution. Actually, the most honest statement I personally heard from a autdesk rep regarding c3d 2006 was that it crashed less than 2005...

Given that c3d (unless 2011 is changing a lot) has zero support for the basic unit of civil work, a 'project', and has such uncooperative means for sharing data, there are only a few types of work where improved efficiency in modeling can offset the lack of project support and limited ability to collaborate. Drefs and Vault are not up to speed, and are conceptually flawed from the get go.

Agree completely that objects-as data is a poor thing from the customer's point of view. Whether by chance or fore-thought, LDT did a much better job conceptually. Combining the two -- with data over there as data, in accessible, extensible databases, and _instantiating_ that data as objects in the active drawing is a much better idea. Having data separate from the drawing objects and referenced into the drawing is a vastly more efficient software design for multi-office, multi designer civil work. It would greatly ease inter operator and inter office collaboration. Data encapsulated in drawing objects is a great thing if the goal is to hinder interoperability and limit competition and reuse. but that's not what I need here.

"Taking the model seriously"... I find myself rather ambivalent on that topic. While theoretically important, the reality is my job is not to 'model'. It is to design functional facilities, and communicate that design intent in construction drawings. Modeling is sometimes useful, but so far no one is really as interested in the model of the site, as they are in the built design. where modeling helps that and avoids construction issues, it's reasonable. but the model is not the goal - and even with a perfect model, that's a relatively small portion of the entire design process. Experience, aesthetics, regulations, permits, codes, are FAR more important to the design than a corridor model or dtm. And there are _so_ many things I need that c3d cannot do, at least not very cleanly.

[Anonymous]

it's reading @civil3d.com at this end. I'm sure he has an in with autodesk
but didn't think he was "one of them". I thought he was "another one of
those". But that'd be nice. James? D'jew move?

"bernardmadoff" wrote in message news:6374081@discussion.autodesk.com...
> with an e mail that ends @autodesk.com i presume james w works for
> Autodesk and is therefore able to listen to customer feedback and
> hopefully make the software better for all in the future

[Anonymous]

Yes, I moved. I've been working for the QA team for about nine months,
but will be moving to Technical Specialist on May 3.

http://www.civil3d.com/2010/04/the-claw-chooses-who-will-go/

With regards to JM's post above, I'm just trying to play matchmaker. I
obviously can't do anything on my own, but have passed along contact
information, and will hope for the best. James has some pretty unique
requirements, but I think it's good to look across the spectrum and see
how we can improve the product in ways that hit the most customers' needs.

JW

[Anonymous]

excellent! glad you're there, James. A benefit for the users, fer sure.

"James Wedding"; "P.E." wrote in message
news:6374583@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Yes, I moved. I've been working for the QA team for about nine months,
> but will be moving to Technical Specialist on May 3.
>
> http://www.civil3d.com/2010/04/the-claw-chooses-who-will-go/
>
> With regards to JM's post above, I'm just trying to play matchmaker. I
> obviously can't do anything on my own, but have passed along contact
> information, and will hope for the best. James has some pretty unique
> requirements, but I think it's good to look across the spectrum and see
> how we can improve the product in ways that hit the most customers' needs.
>
> JW

[Anonymous]

right, I use png all the time for various things. Its lossless, although a bit bulkier than jpg with 30% compression -
my favorite for images used in acad.
Many people do not know you can sceenshot with printscreen, then paste in paint and save as png.
Paint saves as all kinds of formats.
Good point though, a crowded pdf wil be smaller as its "scanned" version png, I'l do png's from now on here.



Laurie Comerford
|>Hi James,
|>
|>For an AutoCAD drawing, the PNG is the smallest file, it is very easy
|>and quick to produce with the PNGOUT command and it shows up natively in
|>newsreaders. (I don't know about on the web as I don't have time to
|>waste waiting for it and using the vast screen overhead of the browser)
|>
|>PNG files are also very easy to produce with screen grabbers and ones
|>like SnagIt offer easy annotation.
|>
|>BMP files are simply 10 to 50 times bigger than they need be cf a PNG file.
|>
|>Both Word files and PDF files are very large cf PNG and/or DWF files and
|>require extra software to read. I've just installed a new Win 7 64 bit
|>Ultimate O/S and it cannot display a PDF file, requiring me to download
|>& install additional software. Word files may also contain malware with
|>embedded macros.
|>
|>PDF viewers waste significant screen space for their interface, as does
|>Word - if you have it.
|>
|>JPG files are made for complex raster files like photos and their use is
|>not warranted for the simple raster data from an AutoCAD drawing where
|>most pixels will be identical to their neighbour. If however you have a
|>raster file inserted in the drawing, then JPGOUT can be used.
|>
|>Regards,
|>
|>Laurie Comerford
|>
|>
|> James Maeding wrote:
|>> oh, i kind of meant that generically, anything that shows the work at hand.
|>> Dwf is pretty compact, pdf is too though if from acad. A jpg with 30% compression would be great also.
|>> I never had issues with a pdf though, do you mean worst because of file size?
|>>
|>> Laurie Comerford
|>> |>Hi James,
|>> |>
|>> |>Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
|>> |>format to the newsgroup.
|>> |>
|>> |>If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
|>> |>command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
|>> |>for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file
|>> |>
|>> |>Regards,
|>> |>
|>> |>Laurie Comerford
|>> |>
|>> |> James Maeding wrote:
|>> |>> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
|>> |>> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
|>> |>> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
|>> |>> the numbers into their calculator.
|>> |>> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
|>> |>>
|>> |>> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
|>> |>> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
|>> |>> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
|>> |>> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
|>> |>> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
|>> |>>
|>> |>> Civil_EITguy
|>> |>> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
|>> |>> |>LDT = X time
|>> |>> |>3D = X time
|>> |>> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
|>> |>> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
|>> |>> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
|>> |>> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
|>> |>> |>Time = .75X
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
|>> |>> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
|>> |>> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
|>> |>> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
|>> |>> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
|>> |>> James Maeding
|>> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
|>> James Maeding
|>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

good comments.
One thing to mention is I am referring to a model as the LDT project data, as well as the base files for a project.
I've seen teams that had duplicate base file info between grading and street files, as well as base files with a date in
the name. Its like they work against themselves.
You bring in C3D, and teach them data should exist in one place, and that you must start the data and keep it in the
same file, and you have revolutionized their world right off the bat.

I'm sure its frustrating for Autodesk to hear us encourage them with fancy objects, and then say we don't want them to
hold the data. they need to understand, though, that the patterns of creating and editing the data are completely
different from those of sheet (annotation) production. You can see they got tripped up on this by the fact that xref
labeling came so late in the game. They realized the data hookup process was so cumbersome, but then did not fix it,
they provided an alternative that is underdeveloped. LDT kind of had the sweet balance of easy data availability. You
could set something current from a list or by picking, and it re-used that for commands. C3D lost that idea and
introduced things like expressions without a good way to re-use the last objects picked.
C3D is so close too, they have so many things figured out but not quite right for efficient use through sheet production
(compared to LDT with decent gap filling tools)...

jgerth@work <>
|>'touted' is such a wonderful word -- conjuring up images of unshaven characters in loud plaid suits hanging outside the race track claiming that CivilDancer is a sure thing in the third by a nose. And quite an appropriate term for a claim of 30 percent gain in production....
|>
|>Any time a vendor makes a claim about dramatic efficiency gains, it's best to look at that allegation with a jaundiced eye, and harbor extreme doubt about both its veracity, and its applicability to any other situation. Implied is that the new thing is more efficient than the old thing -- but we need to know what the old thing was!. If it was spraypainting contour lines on the ground while the project manager stood on a ladder directing, then 30 percent improvement is far too low. If the old process was Eaglepoint civil on R13 on a 486 66Mhz, then it's believable. If the claims is supposed to contrast Land Desktop 2009 to Civil3d 2010 -- then while possible it's an unfair and dishonest comparison. LDT has been neglected development wise since its initial rollout, not been updated to use or benefit from any advances in Autocad vanilla or the operating systems, and deliberately left in the lurch. Heck, there's still an error message in there that says "Unable to wirte to
locked
|>layer".
|>
|>After all, that efficiency claim is coming from the same organization that promoted c3d 2006 as a complete survey solution. Actually, the most honest statement I personally heard from a autdesk rep regarding c3d 2006 was that it crashed less than 2005...
|>
|>Given that c3d (unless 2011 is changing a lot) has zero support for the basic unit of civil work, a 'project', and has such uncooperative means for sharing data, there are only a few types of work where improved efficiency in modeling can offset the lack of project support and limited ability to collaborate. Drefs and Vault are not up to speed, and are conceptually flawed from the get go.
|>
|>Agree completely that objects-as data is a poor thing from the customer's point of view. Whether by chance or fore-thought, LDT did a much better job conceptually. Combining the two -- with data over there as data, in accessible, extensible databases, and _instantiating_ that data as objects in the active drawing is a much better idea. Having data separate from the drawing objects and referenced into the drawing is a vastly more efficient software design for multi-office, multi designer civil work. It would greatly ease inter operator and inter office collaboration. Data encapsulated in drawing objects is a great thing if the goal is to hinder interoperability and limit competition and reuse. but that's not what I need here.
|>
|>"Taking the model seriously"... I find myself rather ambivalent on that topic. While theoretically important, the reality is my job is not to 'model'. It is to design functional facilities, and communicate that design intent in construction drawings. Modeling is sometimes useful, but so far no one is really as interested in the model of the site, as they are in the built design. where modeling helps that and avoids construction issues, it's reasonable. but the model is not the goal - and even with a perfect model, that's a relatively small portion of the entire design process. Experience, aesthetics, regulations, permits, codes, are FAR more important to the design than a corridor model or dtm. And there are _so_ many things I need that c3d cannot do, at least not very cleanly.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

Hi James,

By default Printscreen grabs the whole screen and is a guarantee of
inconvenience in viewing the relevant information.

Alt_Printscreen grabs the current Window, which in many cases associatd
with AutoCAD devotes significant quantities of the screen grab area to a
whole collection of ribbon and toolbar. PNGOUT only outputs selected
objects from the current AutoCAD graphics window. Type "All" to show
the whole data set.

Regards,

Laurie Comerford


James Maeding wrote:
> right, I use png all the time for various things. Its lossless, although a bit bulkier than jpg with 30% compression -
> my favorite for images used in acad.
> Many people do not know you can sceenshot with printscreen, then paste in paint and save as png.
> Paint saves as all kinds of formats.
> Good point though, a crowded pdf wil be smaller as its "scanned" version png, I'l do png's from now on here.
>
>
>
> Laurie Comerford
> |>Hi James,
> |>
> |>For an AutoCAD drawing, the PNG is the smallest file, it is very easy
> |>and quick to produce with the PNGOUT command and it shows up natively in
> |>newsreaders. (I don't know about on the web as I don't have time to
> |>waste waiting for it and using the vast screen overhead of the browser)
> |>
> |>PNG files are also very easy to produce with screen grabbers and ones
> |>like SnagIt offer easy annotation.
> |>
> |>BMP files are simply 10 to 50 times bigger than they need be cf a PNG file.
> |>
> |>Both Word files and PDF files are very large cf PNG and/or DWF files and
> |>require extra software to read. I've just installed a new Win 7 64 bit
> |>Ultimate O/S and it cannot display a PDF file, requiring me to download
> |>& install additional software. Word files may also contain malware with
> |>embedded macros.
> |>
> |>PDF viewers waste significant screen space for their interface, as does
> |>Word - if you have it.
> |>
> |>JPG files are made for complex raster files like photos and their use is
> |>not warranted for the simple raster data from an AutoCAD drawing where
> |>most pixels will be identical to their neighbour. If however you have a
> |>raster file inserted in the drawing, then JPGOUT can be used.
> |>
> |>Regards,
> |>
> |>Laurie Comerford
> |>
> |>
> |> James Maeding wrote:
> |>> oh, i kind of meant that generically, anything that shows the work at hand.
> |>> Dwf is pretty compact, pdf is too though if from acad. A jpg with 30% compression would be great also.
> |>> I never had issues with a pdf though, do you mean worst because of file size?
> |>>
> |>> Laurie Comerford
> |>> |>Hi James,
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
> |>> |>format to the newsgroup.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
> |>> |>command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
> |>> |>for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Regards,
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Laurie Comerford
> |>> |>
> |>> |> James Maeding wrote:
> |>> |>> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
> |>> |>> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
> |>> |>> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
> |>> |>> the numbers into their calculator.
> |>> |>> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
> |>> |>> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
> |>> |>> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
> |>> |>> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
> |>> |>> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>> Civil_EITguy
> |>> |>> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
> |>> |>> |>LDT = X time
> |>> |>> |>3D = X time
> |>> |>> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
> |>> |>> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
> |>> |>> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
> |>> |>> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
> |>> |>> |>Time = .75X
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
> |>> |>> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
> |>> |>> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
> |>> |>> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
> |>> |>> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
> |>> |>> James Maeding
> |>> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> |>> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
> |>> James Maeding
> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
> James Maeding
> Civil Engineer and Programmer
> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

right, I typically paste in paint after a printscreen, and copy some area, then paste in new file in paint, and save as
png or jpg.
I've done tons of handouts this way. It is amazing to find people that don't know how to use printscreen in this day
and age.

Laurie Comerford
|>Hi James,
|>
|>By default Printscreen grabs the whole screen and is a guarantee of
|>inconvenience in viewing the relevant information.
|>
|>Alt_Printscreen grabs the current Window, which in many cases associatd
|>with AutoCAD devotes significant quantities of the screen grab area to a
|>whole collection of ribbon and toolbar. PNGOUT only outputs selected
|>objects from the current AutoCAD graphics window. Type "All" to show
|>the whole data set.
|>
|>Regards,
|>
|>Laurie Comerford
|>
|>
|> James Maeding wrote:
|>> right, I use png all the time for various things. Its lossless, although a bit bulkier than jpg with 30% compression -
|>> my favorite for images used in acad.
|>> Many people do not know you can sceenshot with printscreen, then paste in paint and save as png.
|>> Paint saves as all kinds of formats.
|>> Good point though, a crowded pdf wil be smaller as its "scanned" version png, I'l do png's from now on here.
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>> Laurie Comerford
|>> |>Hi James,
|>> |>
|>> |>For an AutoCAD drawing, the PNG is the smallest file, it is very easy
|>> |>and quick to produce with the PNGOUT command and it shows up natively in
|>> |>newsreaders. (I don't know about on the web as I don't have time to
|>> |>waste waiting for it and using the vast screen overhead of the browser)
|>> |>
|>> |>PNG files are also very easy to produce with screen grabbers and ones
|>> |>like SnagIt offer easy annotation.
|>> |>
|>> |>BMP files are simply 10 to 50 times bigger than they need be cf a PNG file.
|>> |>
|>> |>Both Word files and PDF files are very large cf PNG and/or DWF files and
|>> |>require extra software to read. I've just installed a new Win 7 64 bit
|>> |>Ultimate O/S and it cannot display a PDF file, requiring me to download
|>> |>& install additional software. Word files may also contain malware with
|>> |>embedded macros.
|>> |>
|>> |>PDF viewers waste significant screen space for their interface, as does
|>> |>Word - if you have it.
|>> |>
|>> |>JPG files are made for complex raster files like photos and their use is
|>> |>not warranted for the simple raster data from an AutoCAD drawing where
|>> |>most pixels will be identical to their neighbour. If however you have a
|>> |>raster file inserted in the drawing, then JPGOUT can be used.
|>> |>
|>> |>Regards,
|>> |>
|>> |>Laurie Comerford
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |> James Maeding wrote:
|>> |>> oh, i kind of meant that generically, anything that shows the work at hand.
|>> |>> Dwf is pretty compact, pdf is too though if from acad. A jpg with 30% compression would be great also.
|>> |>> I never had issues with a pdf though, do you mean worst because of file size?
|>> |>>
|>> |>> Laurie Comerford
|>> |>> |>Hi James,
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Why ask anyone to post the joint (with Word and BMP) worst possible file
|>> |>> |>format to the newsgroup.
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>If you just want to see their graphics, the ask them to use the PNGOUT
|>> |>> |>command (or a screen grabber) and post a PNG file. For more data ask
|>> |>> |>for a DWF file, and/or the drawing file
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Regards,
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>Laurie Comerford
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |> James Maeding wrote:
|>> |>> |>> see, you are comparing using LDT alignments to C3D.
|>> |>> |>> I am guessing you had your act together in LDT and had a few lisps even to help.
|>> |>> |>> I have seen a lot of people just do hand drafting on the computer, with acad to do some distance calc's so they can type
|>> |>> |>> the numbers into their calculator.
|>> |>> |>> If those people even learned to use alignments well, they could get the 30% increase.
|>> |>> |>>
|>> |>> |>> can you post a pdf of a sheet you have done in C3D? feel free to edit or crop to remove names, I just want to see how
|>> |>> |>> complex your horizontal and vertical design is. IMO, pipe networks are not suited to final design, they do not allow
|>> |>> |>> things to get inverts from a profile independent from what is going on in plan. You can only add grade breaks where
|>> |>> |>> pipes start and end, and it forces them at those locations. Real design allows slopes to go through several structures
|>> |>> |>> and pipes. How in the world did AutoDesk miss this? They did not, but never wrote what they know is needed.
|>> |>> |>>
|>> |>> |>> Civil_EITguy
|>> |>> |>> |>25 Plan/Profile sheets of a Sanitary Sewer Design. 50H:10V
|>> |>> |>> |>LDT = X time
|>> |>> |>> |>3D = X time
|>> |>> |>> |>LDT = 3D (conservative, even though 3D is a bit faster)
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>Now the plans need to have the sewer moved in spots from one side of the
|>> |>> |>> |>road to the other, due to conflicts not shown originally.
|>> |>> |>> |>LDT = start over, create alignment, create profile from alignment.
|>> |>> |>> |>(Can't move the profile eitehr)... Redo pipe-networks.
|>> |>> |>> |>Time = .75X
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>C3D = Grip/move (verify inverts) = .2X time
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>Change scale from 50H:10V to 40H:10V.
|>> |>> |>> |>LDT.....start over.....Time = X
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>C3D. = 2 or 3 clicks..........plot. Time = .000001X 🙂
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>Don't fret, I know cadd guys that will explode the profiles and use the
|>> |>> |>> |>autocad scale command and scale the profile to 40H. and not care about
|>> |>> |>> |>the vertical being some oddball scale. (sole reason Cadd101 guys
|>> |>> |>> |>shouldn't be in Civil3D)
|>> |>> |>> James Maeding
|>> |>> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> |>> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
|>> |>> James Maeding
|>> |>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> |>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
|>> James Maeding
|>> Civil Engineer and Programmer
|>> jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom