You wouldn't ask someone to consider how to do site layout without a basic understanding of site topography, why would you ask them to design and create a dynamic 3D model without understanding at some basic level how it all goes together.
Exactly. That's why Autodesk should fix the problem correctly, rather than trying to band-aid together a solution.
The main problem is that they are confusing three entirely seperate things:
- Project management. By Project Management, I mean the grouping of related drawings into a coherent whole. The Sheet Set Manager is part of this, but not all of it - for example, it should be possible to have many different Sheet Sets inside the same project. Fields should be tied to the project, as well, so that project data like Project Name and so forth could be set once in the project, and then used in any drawing after that without having to set it anywhere else. In other words, if the Project Name should change, the user should only have to change it in one place, and that change should immediately be reflected in every DWG in every Sheet Set in the project. It should be possible to configure "jumping points" based on the Project home directory. For example, when XREF'ing a drawing, it should be possible to jump right to the Project's drawing directory, rather than always needing to browse from the location of the last XREF. (There's a TON of other ways that good Project Management would eliminate most of the arduous browsing generally required by Autocad today.) It should be possible to link multiple Projects, and easily maintain the links when projects get moved or archived. But it should go even deeper. For example, it should be possible to specify which set of Standards are to be used for all drawings in this particular project. Then, by default, all drawings are created with the correct template, in the correct units, and the right set of Tool Palettes will be visible (i.e., if you're working in an Imperial drawing, you only see Imperial Tool Palettes, and not a bunch of Metric ones), the drawing references the right ACAD.LIN file, etc. (This is particularly important for people who have to do work for multiple government agencies, each of which uses a different "Standard" that they require all their DWG files to follow.) There's a lot more, but this is the basic idea.
- Concurrent, shared user access to Model Data (aka Model Data Management). This seems most people actually mean when they say "Project Management" (probably because Softdesk and Land Desktop call their model data "projects"). It is controlling the creation, storage, and access of the logical information of the model, which can be shown in various ways inside of drawings. When an element of the model is created or modified in any drawing in the project, that data should be pushed to the model. When changes get pushed to the model, a notification should be sent to other users who are currently accessing the data. Locking of model data should occur only as-needed - data should not be locked simply because I open a drawing that contains a reference, or because I am using the reference in some read-only way. This locking should occur automatically, by the software, with no need of concious thought by the user.
- Version Control and Document Management. Software Developers have been using this for years. All data actually resides inside a "vault". In order to change any data, a user must explicitly "check out" the data. Then, once changes are done, the user must "check in" the data. At any time, it is possible to extract the data as it existed at any previous moment in time. There is also a transaction log maintained, containing a log of what files were changed, by whom, and any note that person might choose to leave.
Now the first item is something that would be incredibly useful. But it is something that should be included in VANILLA AUTOCAD, not bandaged onto the product through the Vault. And Autodesk does not seem to feel that it is useful, anyway. Either that, or they think it would be too useful, and too powerful to put in Vanilla Autocad. I admit that Autodesk's motives are often obscure, but it's a complete mystery as to why they've gone so many years without putting PM into Vanilla, where it belongs. They added lukewarm PM to Land Desktop, and they added relatively decent PM to ADT, but for C3D we get the Vault? Huh? Why not solve the problem in Vanilla Autocad, so that it is solved in ALL THE VERTICALS, too?
The second is basically what Autodesk is trying to use the Vault to accomplish. But the Vault is not really designed for this task - it's the sort of task that is rightfully done by a transactional database that contains the model information. Instead of doing that, Autodesk is placing the model information in drawings, and then using the Vault to control access to the drawings. That's not a correct solution. Their method forces the user to think a lot about the layout of the project, and do an awful lot of work manually. The user has to decide with drawings to put model elements in. The user has to check out drawings and check in drawings in order to do anything. Nothing happens automatically. It works, but it is not a user-friendly experience, and doesn't work anywhere as well as the so-called "optimistic locking" strategy that a true multi-user, concurrent-access database could manage.
The third is actually what the Vault was designed for. But in Civil work, it really isn't necessary. Most companies know how to make backups of projects at key points, and they can always pull out the backup if they need to. They don't need Vault for this. And the accountability trail isn't really a reason to use Vault, either. If it is important to track who did what and when, then a simple log can take care of that. The Vault is overkill. I don't know about other companies, but in four years in business, we've never wanted or needed the accountability feature of the Vault, and we've never wanted or needed to go back to an earlier version of the project. That type of functionality is superfluous for us.
So basically, Autodesk is failing to address one part, addressing one part incorrectly, and fully-addressing the part that no one cares about. And they wonder why everyone is complaining?
I didn't realize there was a SQL Express. That might solve my main issue. The included MSDE version may suffice for you, being by yourself like that, but in a full office environment, it doesn't cut it. I actually have some desire to use Vault. I think it might be a real solution to our two-office conundrum (we have to share projects between offices, which has been a management headache in Land Desktop with no Vault.) But I would much prefer to add the Vault later, after we're comfortable with C3D.
Let's see... All we have to do is set up a SQL Server and the Vault, and figure out how to manage and maintain it, and train all our users in how to use the Vault when learning to use C3D is taxing them to their limits, all without losing anything or causing significantly more down-time than the transition to C3D is already causing... Yuk! That's not the sort of task that anyone should be forced to do, if the idea is to make a smooth transition... Good thing I have a software engineering background - the guys at this office are great at what they do, but they are definitely not IT or computer professionals. They would never manage this sort of transition without the sort of expertise I bring - if it weren't for me, they'd probably be on Land Desktop for at least a couple more years. Autodesk really thinks this is a reasonable thing to expect from ALL their clients? :ugly: