TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: Mark on August 01, 2007, 01:42:39 PM
-
As in ... N 05°06'07" E. Mostly curious because just about all the surveys we see around have leading zeros in the bearing. That and my current boss ( the one who signs the surveys ) will not accept bearings with out leading zeros.
-
I can hold my nose and get by without them, but ONLY in the interest of not exploding my labels and losing their associativity. I think the bearing label is not only difficult to read without them, they look unprofessional as well. It is also difficult to remember to abandon old habits when writing a description to leave the zeros out so the drawing properly matches the description.
-
Leading zeros are in the Legal Descriptions, and should be on the map.
-
seems they even force them on you in alignments as well, the no leading zeroes that is....
-
What's wrong with all you people? 9 votes, and 9 people say they want to be able to include leading zeros.
Autodesk says just get used to it the way it is. How come we have 9 out of 9 people who don't want to do what Autodesk says we should be doing? Get with it, people. Do you really think you know this industry better than the professional software developers at Autodesk?
:-D :-D :-D
-
Unfortunately AutoDesk has the same attitude with several labeling and style issues, and when someone posts a question or comment in hopes that the issue has affected and been solved by someone else, they are labeled as "barking dogs" and purveyors of "FUD".
-
You mean like a certain trainer we both know, who was ignored by Autodesk three or more years ago when he informed them of several key design deficiencies in C3D, and now that lots of time has passed and the problems are incredibly difficult to fix, the Autodesk DG is filled with posts by people complaining about the same issues?
:ugly:
-
rrruffff! . . . yip
-
9 out of 9 out of 50 or 100K users doesn't exactly constitute a referendum. Sorry, but in all the firms I've dealt with, only about 1/10th consider that a big deal. Most get over it rather quickly considering the overall benefits, but some can't whether stubborn or requirements dictate.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was in 09, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either. There are just too many holes that have more people clamoring.
-
9 out of 9 out of 50 or 100K users doesn't exactly constitute a referendum. Sorry, but in all the firms I've dealt with, only about 1/10th consider that a big deal. Most get over it rather quickly considering the overall benefits, but some can't whether stubborn or requirements dictate.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was in 09, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either. There are just too many holes that have more people clamoring.
YELP ! . . . . whimper . . . whimper . . . whine
-- EDIT --
You know, it is really not THAT trivial a deal. I would suggest that when deciding whether or not this is worthy of their divine intervention in some future release, AutoDesk consider the legal requirements that the annotation placed on the survey document, plat or easement MUST match the verbiage in the written description of said exhibit and that existing description language be used for adjoining boundary courses.
There is also very fundamental reasoning beyond aesthetics for using leading zeros. Being not only human, but a poor one for typing at that, I have made numerous omissions of one number of a pair when describing an angle. By using the leading zero I am assured if there be only one digit in the pair I have made one more such mistake, but without that convention I need to examine much closer to see whether or not my typing was true for a change. Being thus aware of my own shortcomings, if I see the same lonely character on someone else's work where most often there are two, I wonder if they might suffer the same typing deficiency as I.
Bottom line is there is ample reason to be skeptical of any document or description NOT displaying leading zeros and by making it impossible to do this within Civil 3D, Autodesk is giving us the choice of holding our nose and exploding the work outside of the program thus losing any future benefits of using the program in that drawing, or producing work that could appear to be in error if not out of compliance with accepted legal requirements.
-
9 out of 9 out of 50 or 100K users doesn't exactly constitute a referendum.
Indeed not but you have to admit it's an interesting number considering how many members we have here that use C3D.
Sorry, but in all the firms I've dealt with, only about 1/10th consider that a big deal. Most get over it rather quickly considering the overall benefits, but some can't whether stubborn or requirements dictate.
As I see it that's the whole problem right there, we want the software to work the way we do not vice-versa.
-
OK... I will leave my comment for a short time, if I may... :roll:
I am working in porting several commands and modules of a commercial product named civilcad by arqcom software, that it is use in latin america and it is being sold more than c3d or any of the ldt ones... autodesk came to this software company and ask them to why they did not adapt with their c3d api the civilcad modules.... the reason no one wants to buy their package, first it is very expensive, and primarily it is not designed for the latin market and very hard to customize and also, to many jumps to do or complete a task.
At the end, the intention of using the c3d api for all the civilcad modules was almost impossible, so that end up there, without doing the port....
-
Yes, a good portion of our work is boundary surveys and plats. I too feel it does appear unprofessional and would like to see at least the option to include the leading zeros.
-
9 out of 9 out of 50 or 100K users doesn't exactly constitute a referendum.
Indeed not but you have to admit it's an interesting number considering how many members we have here that use C3D.
I am just crushed at our perceived insignificance :cry: . . . I feel like such a zit on the BE-hind of the Civil 3D user community. :|
-
I am working in porting several commands and modules of a commercial product named civilcad by arqcom software ...
Porting them to what Luis?
-
I am working in porting several commands and modules of a commercial product named civilcad by arqcom software ...
Porting them to what Luis?
To C++/ARX/MFC some of the routines that were made in lisp (the core of each of the modules is in C++/ARX) and adding the English language option for now - they want almost everything in arx.
-
and Mark.... I tried to say... that there are other friendly packages that can do what c3d an can be customized easier (or if there is a requirement - they deliver)... (i know this one is in spanish) that's why I also noted that I will be removing my comments.... :)
-
Just for grins I opened up my CD of recorded maps from the year 2000. Randomly opening about 50 of them (I wasn't counting) I found that those created in LDT (I know they were, based on that funky North Arrow and/or having knowledge of the office) all had leading zeros for the degrees...expected since LDT has most always done this. Those offices still doing things by hand (yes, there still are!) were pretty much split on the use of them. Those using other CAD software used both methods, but leaned toward the use-the-zero side.
So the majority use the leading zero, but, so far as I can find, there is nothing that says they MUST be used. I have always used them, but it doesn't bother me when I see a map without them. That being said, I do think that the option should be there to use as one desires, but in no way would I let it affect my decision to use the software.....it would be, and has been, classified by me as a minor annoyance.
-
OK... I will leave my comment for a short time, if I may... :roll:
I am working in porting several commands and modules of a commercial product named civilcad by arqcom software, that it is use in latin america and it is being sold more than c3d or any of the ldt ones... autodesk came to this software company and ask them to why they did not adapt with their c3d api the civilcad modules.... the reason no one wants to buy their package, first it is very expensive, and primarily it is not designed for the latin market and very hard to customize and also, to many jumps to do or complete a task.
At the end, the intention of using the c3d api for all the civilcad modules was almost impossible, so that end up there, without doing the port....
You bring up some important points here Luis. A short stroll over to the .NET board (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=18040.0) will treat one to the efforts of one of our new members trying to access the innards of Civil 3D for a project he is involved in and the obstacles he is finding.
I understand that we are still in the infancy for this program as far as any customizations are concerned. It is very much like using vanilla AutoCAD without the assistance of any lisp, arx, visual basic or any other variety of customization and is very much doomed to stay that way until more success is realized in the efforts to customize the beast so it can produce results acceptable to a more diverse group of users. I have no real understanding of what the problems are that those attempting to write these routines are facing, but it is apparent that the program does not react to or cooperate with their attempts in the expected manner. It also seems to not expose certain vital areas of its workings that are necessary for the projects to work. In short, Civil 3D is as much or more unfriendly to developers as it is to the end user. Progress is being made, but with a new set of tools and rules introduced every year, the developer is forced to begin retooling his work almost as soon as it is finished to remain compatible.
-
I dunno, the esteemed guest poster, called the AUGI users groups the shallow end of the pool?!?
I wonder if he just feels that way about anyone not going to AU, or otherwise?
-
and Mark.... I tried to say... that there are other friendly packages that can do what c3d an can be customized easier (or if there is a requirement - they deliver)... (i know this one is in Spanish) that's why I also noted that I will be removing my comments.... :)
The fact that this product is currently only available in Spanish actually had me thinking about downloading a copy. There's a usability test for you, my knowledge of Spanish is shaky at best, so if I could still use the software in anyway productive, that would say a lot in any language.
-
and Mark.... I tried to say... that there are other friendly packages that can do what c3d an can be customized easier (or if there is a requirement - they deliver)... (i know this one is in spanish) that's why I also noted that I will be removing my comments.... :)
Can you name some? I haven't been able to find any, except of course for PowerCivil, for those who want to jump to the Microstation world... I also know about MX, although from what I hear, although it is parametric, it is not really model-based the way C3D is, and has a very old-school UI... And still, I hear just as many complaints from those users. It sounds an awful lot like the same BS, just with a different flavor.
So far, I have not really heard anything that makes me think the switch to Microstation would be worth it, especially considering almost everyone we work with uses Autodesk products, we are trained in Autodesk products, we have a huge monetary investment in Autodesk products, etc. Is that wrong?
-
OK.... I need to be clear - do not want to say something I did not want to... :)
I am talking about a software that was made to run inside of AutoCAD as an add-on from 2000 to 2008 versions.
The customization part is done by them (the programmers at arqcom software) - the end users can make all their modifications and adaptations on all the available commands where they can add their own requirements.
The source code is in C++, ObjectARX and some external routines in AutoLISP/VLISP
-
Oh, OK. I was going to say that if you knew of any model-based Civil Engineering package that was easier to use and worked better than C3D, then I wanted to know about it.
As far as I've been able to determine, there is nothing that can match C3D's capabilities. It's too bad that the good points are clouded with so much that is mis-designed and/or mis-implemented. And so many bugs...
I suppose part of the problem is that C3D shows incredible insight. That makes the bad parts look even worse by comparison. So I keep using C3D, and I've reached the point where I can generally do something faster in C3D than I can in LDT, despite the problems. It's just that it seems the bulk of the good stuff was already in CAiCE, and the bulk of the bad stuff is in features added since Autodesk bought the software. That's what really makes me nervous about the future of the product. And it is really frustrating needing to do the same task several times to get it all right, even if doing something three times in C3D takes less time than doing it once in LDT. It makes it difficult to predict how much time it will take to do ANYTHING, which affects everything from scheduling to budgets.
-
Has anyone had a look at 12D (http://www.12d.com/)?
I have no idea about it but it is used here in Aus. and I have only heard good things about it.
It's a standalone product developed just for civil work and has been around for some time. I know it's not autocad based but you guys seem to be suffering a lot of pain just for the sake of a file format.
-
Thanks for the idea and the link Mick. I was going to test 2D at work, but my Civil 3D install has proven itself too fragile (per IT) to risk any unnecessary programs installed with it. Now I have retrieved the trial version & manuals and will try it at home.
My personal feelings on Civil 3D are that it would likely be better served if it was not tied to the dwg format either. As it is, the only true compatibility it has is with other installations of the same version of Civil 3D. I have heard of no way for a C3D drawing to export out successfully import back into any version for Civil 3D with data intact even with the same dwg format on both ends. Sinc's above observations on the relative effects of AutoDesk's and CAiCE's respective contributions toward the current Civil 3D are quite interesting from this perspective.
The painful part of this is that the many spots where Civil 3D shines brightest are so much better than any of its competition I have tried that using anything else is a demoralizing step backward. Even the places where its output is questionable, the hassle of trying to use something else in tandem is not worth it due to the interoperability issues. I have been willing to hold my nose and put up with the instability and certain functions that just don't work, but now for the first time I am observing data that comes out just plain wrong for no reason. This same phenomenon has been verified and reported by other parties. I have now valid reason to distrust the model which changes the entire equation and a difficult decision is in the wind.
-
I dunno, the esteemed guest poster, called the AUGI users groups the shallow end of the pool?!?
I wonder if he just feels that way about anyone not going to AU, or otherwise?
I think that was me Mike that referred to AUGI as the shallow end.
And if I remember correctly that was in a PM.
As to the topic at had, the leading Zero.
The leading Zero is a place holder that tells you Nothing is here.
That's it nothing more nothing less.
So you purpose to abandon software that will not display a place holder signifying nothing?
I have spent a significant portion of my career in the surveying end of the business and read and created Legal Descriptions of many forms.
Maybe this has changed lately but I have never had anything kicked back because of the lack of a leading Zero.
The survey business by it's very nature is tied to the past but before the invention of the superscript O the degree word was written out.
Do you write out degree now or us a symbol?
Personally i find humor in people getting worked up about a symbol signifying nothing.
-
I am pleased to see you back posting John; your thoughts and insights are and always will be a welcome addition to TheSwamp.
The zero thing is one of those holding of the nose and going forward annoyances that I would sure enjoy not having to bother with. In itself or even the summation of all such annoyance do not amount to a deal breaker. The pipe network problems that result in data I can no longer trust is a different story. I do all the pipe stuff in our shop and it makes up about 6 hours of each of my days and I now think my tools may have been broken from the start.
Whether a leading zero is a symbol or a significant digit and the quality of our sampling aside, from the current 12, 00 and 02 here and the 06, 00 results on a similar poll at augi, it appears to be something that others would prefer to see as well. The issue has been around since r2005 so it seems either it is just an impossible fix for Autodesk to perform or one they just don't care if we want or need. In the absence of any response other than they consider it a non-issue, what recourse do the end user who desire or need at least the option to use a leading zero, other than make noise to generate attention perhaps to some stockholders that all is not in perfect harmony between AutoDesk and their customers. I was privy to a stock analyst's briefing for Autodesk shares throughout 2005 and 2006. You will remember those were quite ugly times in Civil 3D's infancy. Not one time in those quarterly briefings was any mention made of customer dissatisfaction with performance, stability or production with the transition to Civil 3D. It was absolutely perfect Civil Engineering software receiving nothing but enthusiastic reviews and acceptance in all markets with rosy predictions for nothing but more of the same. I was interviewed twice by the author of these briefings and I assure you I was quite frank with my thoughts on such issues as missing and broken features, stability issues and the extremely long learning curve and told him where to find other similar observations. I am no longer under any delusions that AutoDesk gives even the flea antennae on a rat's backside what I think of or need from their software, but perhaps I know of a group they may listen to if the collective voice is loud and persistent.
-
Personally i find humor in people getting worked up about a symbol signifying nothing.
Let's look at it from the other perspective. How hard would it be to implement the leading zero in code? My experience says it is a relatively trivial task. However, Autodesk refuses to do it, despite the fact that the vast majority of their clients want it. Why does Autodesk refuse? Why is it so important to them that we not be allowed to have that leading zero?
Likewise, there is the grouping delimiter option. EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM I have ever seen that is capable of formating numbers has had the ability to add grouping delimiters - e.g., "10000" can be displayed as "10000" or "10,000" or "10.000" or even "10 000". The better ones allow an additional control for suppressing the delimiter in four-digit numbers, i.e. "10000" gets displayed as "10,000", but "9999" gets displayed as "9999" and not "9,999". However, Civil-3D does not have the ability to handle delimiters AT ALL, and it's up to the user to use obnoxious expression hacks in order to fake that delimiter.
And they wonder why we say Autodesk software is not user-friendly... :-P
-
AFAICT no one ever posted a question regarding the leading 0 for C3D prior to about 6 months ago. Not in the basic C3D group, nor the customization, nor the wishes. Peter Funk HAS replied in the wishes group that this has been added as feature to be included in a future release.
Edit: After a good night's sleep I did my search again and actually found a handful of messages from late May/early June of 2006 asking for the leading zero. 4-5 requests probably wasn't enough to move the wish to the top of the list. With all the clamoring for it in the past few weeks, I'll bet it has a good chance of getting much closer to the top.
-
What Canon has failed to realise in his/her post is that Autodesk does not establish these standards in the Survey field. We are governed by the BLM Manual and the various State's Boards of Registration via their Minimum Technical Standards. Thus, I MUST explode my labels and do them per my state's Minimum Technical Standards and the Boards edicts.
AutoDesk has NEVER bothered to learn the nomenclature of the trade. They have a bunch of pimply faced programmers that no nothing of the trade, but can be given the appropriate formulas and write them into the program.
It ticks me off that AutoDesk does not know the proper names for contours and if you question that Laurie Comerford will blast you. if you do not know your craft, you are not professional. if I interview a potential employee and he starts talking about "Major and Minor" contours, I burn his application.
-
. . . We are governed by the BLM Manual and the various State's Boards of Registration via their Minimum Technical Standards. Thus, I MUST explode my labels and do them per my state's Minimum Technical Standards and the Boards edicts . . .
Exactly Dent, and don't forget about those ALTA/ACSM regulations and all the lawyers that review tose drawings for compliance just hoping to pad their billing by finding some such flaw and retutning the drawings for corrections. Those boys won't let ANYTHING slide, even to save their own sweet mom an extra mortgage payment.
-
Just to be the devils advocate .... can you show me where the ALTA/ACSM, your State MTS or the BLM require leading zeros in bearings?
-
I think that the concept of leading zeros being shown is to remain consistent with the previously recorder instruments.
A careful read here http://www.acsm.net/ALTA2005.pdf (http://www.acsm.net/ALTA2005.pdf) will verify Marks' question of the 'necessity' of leading zeros not being specifically called for. That being said, I know that in various places we have endeavored to create various line label styles that performed mathematical conversion of the cad distances into the original recorded documents units of measure, i.e., Rods & Chains, Wagon Wheels, etc. The need for such conversion isn't spelled out anywhere other than a standard of practice, to make it easy to verify that the cad distances matched as closely as practicable to the document that those land titles were originally deeded in. I think that the 'need' for the leading zeros isn't driven by ALTA, it is driven by unskilled persons attempting to read and interpret a survey document (lawyers, title officers). To these unskilled consumers of the data, a missing zero anywhere in measurement is wrong even IF that zero is an insignificant value.
Perhaps the argument isn't do we 'need' leading zeros, the question is what is the industry standards of practice? If that practice is archaic so be it, however if the industry wants those zeros, autodesk needs to give us the option, which I'm relatively sure was available in earlier releases of C3D. I may need to go reload an older version to verify this last statement, anyone still rolling a version of 2005 please test and verify.
-
Personally, I've written tons of descriptions back in the day when you did that on a legal pad and gave them to a secretary to type.
None contained any leading zeros of anything. In the courts there is no difference between N1-1-1E and N01-01-01E.
Never heard a story about anybody being invited to the State Board of Technical Professions to answer for not using leading Zero's.
Much ado about nothing.
The digit is insignificant.
I was going to comment on you need a leading zero on your poll but you got to double digits.
-
OK, it's a moot point, until some clown sends your drawing back because he wants to see those zeros.
Should we give him your number and let you argue your case while we add the zeros manually?
-
OK, it's a moot point, until some clown sends your drawing back because he wants to see those zeros.
Should we give him your number and let you argue your case while we add the zeros manually?
You have to fight your own battles with the reviewing agencies.
But my experience is they depend upon the submitters on input to improve the process.
Afterall they are nowhere near the pointed end of the spear and the consultants have an obligation to work with them to help keep the standards current.
A lot of consultants want a well defined set of standards in order to have some idea what is needed to smooth the submital process.
Standards have to evolve, but in the reviewers defense they can't change them based upon some designer's whim.
They need well thought out arguments and documentation to start the process.
It's neither quick nor always successful.
It's just another aspect of the service we need to provide.
Just another thing we have to do,
-
Yeah, I hear you, only the most recent experience comes to mind:
The reviewer insisted that all pipe lengths be divisible by 2' from structure to structure.
And no amount of meetings with him, or the engineering manager resulted in him agreeing that pipe can and is cut to any length everyday and allowing us to submit the plans with pipe lengths NOT divisible by 2. This is just as crazy as lawyers and title officers rejecting drawings because they are missing leading zeros.
I was hoping you would be willing to lend you persuasive powers to educate these individuals who refuse to join the 21st century.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how much logic one brings to the table, some cannot be persuaded to adjust their views to that logic. As such Autodesk puts us all in the position of needing to have this argument with persons whom may not ever agree to our case and allow the zeros to go 'missing', insignificant or otherwise.
-
John, I still think we are friends here, but I have to ask this. Have you really tried that with Johnson County Waste Water? How about submitting As-Builts through them with Civil 3D? The ONLY solution I have found was to initiate a policy of "styles inflation" on a proportion that would make Greenspan and the Fed board blush. I literally had to create a special style for each manhole connection to existing lines during the design phase and then a second set for the As-Builts. In order to conform to guidelines requiring the geometry to match the annotation on the As-Builts, I had to modify the alignments to reflect the new locations, enter new measured elevations into the data and devise new labels and styles to display both the old and new data in the format they demanded. The only negotiation was their comment letter saying what they wanted to see and please return it completed in 3 days. I don't know if a company as large as yours has enough clout to throw a "meet reality" meeting with them or not, but a small outfit like mine certainly doesn't. JCWD is not alone in this attitude around here either. There has been some relief only because the developers have finally talked to enough supervisors to curtail the four and five rounds of submittals that had been the routine previously.
-
If I can reply to you and Mike at the same time.
It's just what we have to do.
Some times it's clunky and you have to do crap that makes you feel dirty but it is what it is.
We have an ongoing discussion in regards to Dino's reviewing agency concerning as-builts and it's not simple.
Easy answer is just move the manholes and pipes to the new location and let everything update, BUT etc. etc. and on and on.
Processes of change are seldom easy or clean but you have to play as hard as you can or you're toast.
Said a long time ago in the lesson's learned thread that this was a much more political exercise than a technological one and that's gospel.
-
We agree, however imagine how much simpler our lives could be IF the software vendor didn't make us fight a fight that often one can't win the battle without losing the war. So you go in fighting and slog it with them and they 'accept' the change, and then you find yourself NOT being selected for projects that they offer for bid, exactly because you won that fight. :ugly:
So much simpler if the software publisher wouldn't make us get in that trench and fight that fight to start with. :cry:
-
Thing you have to keep in mind, this is a world wide product and the US market is saturated.
If you can speak Chinese your requests might have a higher hit rate. :-)
-
The only "easy" answer I think is to just . . . gulp . . . make a copy of the entire project folder, name it As-Built, create the new geometry and explode the heck out of the pipes and labels then revise the labeling like it was pure french vanilla AutoCAD. Ideally at some point early on in this process turning it over to the grunt staff. I just don't see an efficient way to keep the dynamic properties with As-Builts.
-
I think what is more infuriating than anything, is that every version of AutoCAD that I can remember has always had user customizable options to display leading and trailing zeros on dimensions. Surely the details have already been worked out on "how" to do it. Oh .. and I don't know of anyone who turns of leading zeros in dimensions, but the option is there if you want/need to, perhaps some of you guys do turn them off, but at least you have the option.
-
I think what is more infuriating than anything, is that every version of AutoCAD that I can remember has always had user customizable options to display leading and trailing zeros on dimensions. Surely the details have already been worked out on "how" to do it. Oh .. and I don't know of anyone who turns of leading zeros in dimensions, but the option is there if you want/need to, perhaps some of you guys do turn them off, but at least you have the option.
Can you make the dimension shown below look like 00°55'09" ?
-
I can't, but that is the whole point ... but I can make one that shows 0o-0'-9" or just plain 9" therefore, if the code can already display or not display a prepended zero, why can they not have the option to have them for all objects?
-
Keith, the problem with Civil 3D specifically is that these labels are not text entities. They are instead part of the object being labeled. There are text components to these labels that retrieve selected data from the drawing database to complete the variable parts of the label. They could be considered highly goosed up associative dimensions that can include just about every property attached to the part. The root of the zeros problem could be as simple as the referenced cell number formatting in the database.
-
AFAICT no one ever posted a question regarding the leading 0 for C3D prior to about 6 months ago. Not in the basic C3D group, nor the customization, nor the wishes. Peter Funk HAS replied in the wishes group that this has been added as feature to be included in a future release.
This shouldn't have been necessary. If Autodesk is really the industry leader it claims to be, it should be well aware of the fact that the leading zero is practically universal in the industry. The fact that Land Desktop has ALWAYS had the leading zero is some indication that they are aware of this fact. So why didn't it make it into C3D?
Similarly, using delimiters in numbers (e.g., "105,000" instead of "105000") is pretty universal, too, and C3D is also incapable of THAT, unless the user jumps through obnoxious hoops. All these hoops may not be "difficult" per se, but when users constantly need to locate and identify hoops to jump through, the net result is software that is not easy to use.
As far as JP's argument that the US market is saturated with Autodesk's products and therefore not worthy of their attention, that greatly disturbs me... Not really because I disagree with it, but because I fear it might actually be right, and that bodes poorly for the future... :?
-
As far as JP's argument that the US market is saturated with Autodesk's products and therefore not worthy of their attention, that greatly disturbs me... Not really because I disagree with it, but because I fear it might actually be right, and that bodes poorly for the future... :?
Do you mean as "what do we care, you have already committed to buy our stuff, why should we fix it" or something else?
-
Yes Kieth, that seems to be exactly Autodesks attitude on this.
The underlying culprit is the SUBSERVIENT, uh oops Subscription program.
Why would the company ever care if the application works if they already have your money?
They wont, and don't care because the largest user base, i.e. the Government agencies bought into this as a good idea.
Further others (IT managers) also bought into the idea that the subscription was a cost saving idea. This is probably the biggest argument that ended in my being banned from the augi website simply because I argued against it being of value to the end user. As you can see 4-5 years into the subscription program the end user has to put up with whatever autodesk puts out. Take it or leave it.
The problem is only bound to get worse. Recently some of my clients have been getting what appear to be Threatening Collection letters from Service Source Inc. This company has been hired by autodesk to hound customers into renewing the subscription. To further distance itself from the end users, those users will not even be contacted by the local vendor in this regard. They have been reduced to new software sales and training and support.
IMO, it is never a good idea put money up front for a product or service that you can not evaluate for yourself prior to purchase.
To prove that point, I want every one to send me $20 for a pizza right now. Once I have your money, do I care if the pizza is edible, or even large enough to ease your appetite? NO! For that matter the 'pizza' might simply be a GIF image that you can print, but not eat. So, c'mon folks send me those Twenties, and I'll get them pizzas right out to you. :angel: Honest.
-
I dunno 'bout you guys but .....
I think it's a trick.
-
What's a trick? Mike's offer? Or Autodesk's? :evil:
-
My firm has subscription agreements with a host of vendors.
Microsoft, McAfee, Bentley, Symantec, etc. etc.
Just the way business works these days.
As long as you only run a product under a license agreement you are at the mercy of the license grantor.
I'm not wild about it and I know they have our business by the scrotum but what is the alternative?
You can go the "freeware route" .
Might very well be the way to go in your situation.
But if you produce a product with electronic submittal qualifications you have to produce something with the mainstream products.
No judgements from me as to is this right or wrong, just how it is.
Just my job to use the system efficiently.
-
yes, and no
subscription systems take the burden of the software vendor to produce a product that the market will pay for, or perform the task as the end user needs them performed. With a subscription in place they have no need to be responsive to the customers as they already have your money.
The solutions as I see it; every single customer needs to Just SAY NO for a short time and the subscription program will be revised, amended, or ended as they see this revenue stream dry up. The benefit of the subscription isn't for the user; clearly it is for the vendor of the product.
I notice you didn't subscribe for a pizza sight unseen now did you?
-
Yeah. I'm still waiting for that.
What is the customer service number?
-
Strangest thing, I got two . . . thanks Mav! . . . guess it pays to know the management
-
Yeah. I'm still waiting for that.
What is the customer service number?
Customer Service number; that would be the Error Reporting Function, did you send an error report?
Oh, did I forget to tell you we 'only' ship those pizza's to you USP port?
So you will need to upgrade your hardware in order to get the pizza.
-
yes, and no
subscription systems take the burden of the software vendor to produce a product that the market will pay for, or perform the task as the end user needs them performed. With a subscription in place they have no need to be responsive to the customers as they already have your money.
The solutions as I see it; every single customer needs to Just SAY NO for a short time and the subscription program will be revised, amended, or ended as they see this revenue stream dry up. The benefit of the subscription isn't for the user; clearly it is for the vendor of the product.
I notice you didn't subscribe for a pizza sight unseen now did you?
Dream on dude.
Just saying no costs the same as staying with your favorite version and then upgrading later.
Plus more and more products are not available without subscription.
Just how it is.
-
Right up until the majority of the customer base tells the vendor NO we will not buy the product IF we are forced to subscribe to it, then we will not purchase it. As the vendors fail to meet the sales quota, the question will be asked "why aren't are customers buying?" The answer will be clear and the forced subscription will end.
All it takes is some backbone. The cost of a faulty product is far outweighed by paying whatever it might cost to get the manufacturer of said software to be responsive to the end users.
Really tell me how much money have you lost with you implementation of this product including the consulting cost minus your advertising fees? And how much money do you save on a product that you can't or don't use?
-
I would think that number would have more TRAILING ZEROS instead of LEADING ZEROS.
You both have good points . . .
I know the single major obstacle for my firm going full speed into the Autodesk Upgrade netherworld is the subscription system. My boss MAY reluctantly pull his wallet to buy the 3 or 4 seats of Civil 3D we need but it just hits him VERY wrong to put out that money to "subscribe" to any software title. He has had 3rd degree burns from software vendors before and he is being one tough sell. The same goes for training - at best a 10% chance of seeing anything.
I also know Autodesk can have their way with us at any time they choose. We can't do one effective thing to stop them and any thoughts of even getting breakfast in the morning are just laughable.
carp . . . I would still appreciate some Bentley info John.
-
I think that the concept of leading zeros being shown is to remain consistent with the previously recorder instruments.
A careful read here http://www.acsm.net/ALTA2005.pdf (http://www.acsm.net/ALTA2005.pdf) will verify Marks' question of the 'necessity' of leading zeros not being specifically called for. That being said, I know that in various places we have endeavored to create various line label styles that performed mathematical conversion of the cad distances into the original recorded documents units of measure, i.e., Rods & Chains, Wagon Wheels, etc. The need for such conversion isn't spelled out anywhere other than a standard of practice, to make it easy to verify that the cad distances matched as closely as practicable to the document that those land titles were originally deeded in. I think that the 'need' for the leading zeros isn't driven by ALTA, it is driven by unskilled persons attempting to read and interpret a survey document (lawyers, title officers). To these unskilled consumers of the data, a missing zero anywhere in measurement is wrong even IF that zero is an insignificant value.
Perhaps the argument isn't do we 'need' leading zeros, the question is what is the industry standards of practice? If that practice is archaic so be it, however if the industry wants those zeros, autodesk needs to give us the option, which I'm relatively sure was available in earlier releases of C3D. I may need to go reload an older version to verify this last statement, anyone still rolling a version of 2005 please test and verify.
Our state Minimum Technical Standards require the leading zero on all numbers 1-9, not to mention the reviewing attorneys. If you will read in the BLM manual it states the same plus the preference of the cardinal ordinates to NOT be shown as N00°00'00"E, but rather North. Plus this has long been a standard practice in the world of cartography. The zero is to help clarify the the readings.
PLUS, remember, many items not stated in State minimum Technical standards are covered in associated checklists and will be noted upon review by the stat boards. Our State Board is VERY active in reviewing plats. Those that do no measure up are called in for review and a surveyor can have his/her license suspended and be fined for not complying with the boards directives.
-
Our state Minimum Technical Standards require the leading zero on all numbers 1-9, not to mention the reviewing attorneys. If you will read in the BLM manual it states the same plus the preference of the cardinal ordinates to NOT be shown as N00°00'00"E, but rather North. Plus this has long been a standard practice in the world of cartography.
Dent, can you point me to where this is stated? I have read the MS State Rules & Reg.'s (Rule 21) and scoured the BLM Manual and cannot find anything pertaining to the leading 0 in angles. In addition, there are MANY illustrations in the BLM Manual that show the use of NO leading 0's....I'm attaching one here.
Prior to this discussion I had always thought it was a generally accepted practice to use these 0's, but based on my review of many maps (both recent and older) and the reading of the rules & regulations of my state, your state, and BLM I sure cannot find anything that says one way, or the other, is acceptable, or not.
I would like to be proved wrong, however, because I prefer the look and readability of angles which use the leading 0.
-
Continuing my search for answers to this, I found a PDF (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geometronics/LSITWorkbook/15.pdf) prepared by CalTrans for use by prospective LSIT/LS examinees. There are many examples used that COULD have benefited from the leading zero, but did not use it or suggest that any other way would be preferred.
Then in BLM's Specifications for Descriptions of Plats of Land (http://www.blm.gov/az/cadastral/dlt.pdf) there is, again, no mention of leading zeros and, in fact, also has examples that do NOT use them when they could have.
So this really starting to sound like "but it's the way I've always done it so it must be right". But I sure can't find anything to legally support the leading 0. I would still like to see the option to use it if I want to.
-
We get memos and revised check lists from the board from time to time. This is just one area that the Board has chosen to zero in on lately. There other thing that is not really listed anywhere is labeling your "Basis of Bearing' line and showing it on all plats. Around here it's more and more a "Do as I say, not as I do world". There are several "standards" enforced by attorneys and our board that are not really spelled out in the documentation. The leading zero has always been taught in cartographic courses (that's really my area more than the surveying end) and was spelled out in numerous Army CofE pubs all the way from the TM-S1 to the TM-23A. It was also emphasizes in the classes that I took from the CofE on the BLM Manual. I have had lawyers kick back plats and descriptions that did not show the leading zeros. So many of the old time pubs are no longer available that many of these "standards" are disappearing.
It's not so much a case of "we have always done it" as it is the way I was taught to do it, the way that looks best and the way the client wants it. It is not the first oversight by AutoDesk, nor will it be the last.
-
Continuing my search for answers to this, I found a PDF (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geometronics/LSITWorkbook/15.pdf) prepared by CalTrans for use by prospective LSIT/LS examinees. There are many examples used that COULD have benefited from the leading zero, but did not use it or suggest that any other way would be preferred.
Then in BLM's Specifications for Descriptions of Plats of Land (http://www.blm.gov/az/cadastral/dlt.pdf) there is, again, no mention of leading zeros and, in fact, also has examples that do NOT use them when they could have.
So this really starting to sound like "but it's the way I've always done it so it must be right". But I sure can't find anything to legally support the leading 0. I would still like to see the option to use it if I want to.
Yes, that might be the case, although not a justification for NOT having the option to include them if one believes they have a need to do so.
-
Yes, that might be the case, although not a justification for NOT having the option to include them if one believes they have a need to do so.
True. What I was attempting to do is be able to provide proof to the development team that we are legally required to use the leading 0. With proof, we might stand a chance of getting some kind of HotFix for this....instead of waiting for personal wishes (albeit a good many of them) to rise to the top of the WishList.
-
I did a little digging and couldn't find any specific requirement for distance/bearing label formatting, however, if this is any indication of the formatting requirements, BLM does specify the proper formatting of other data, specifically the township and range labels. They are required to be in the format T^nn^x and R^nn^x where ^ is a space and nn is filled with a number using zeros as place holders as required.
I also just checked my taping and measuring handbook and it lays out angle conversions in the format of ddomm'ss"
Don't know what that means, but there it is ... you need to decide what it means
-
ddomm'ss"
The meaning all depends on the surveyor, for some it translates into DuhDegrees MmmmMinutes, and Sh..Seconds
For some it's just Duh Duh Mmmm Mmmm Ssss......I forgot the plans in the office!
<edited for missing bracket KEB>
-
I know what the text mean as I am the one who put it together, but whether it infers a leading zero is the question. In the reference book, it showed the actual conversion something like:
5o = 05d00'00"
Now whether that means you should use the leading zeros or not is the question.
-
I don't think they are using the use of the leading zero a rule but it is obvious they thought using them was important to clearly show what they were describing, which is a major consideration. Using them makes the intent clear. There is no question if the absent "placeholder" is really a saved keystroke of an unnecessary character or an error such as an omission in typing or accidental deletion when editing.
There is still one requirement that keeps being pushed aside in this discussion though. I share the opinion of my boss, our chief of survey and the local plan reviewing bodies that every identifier, course and call on the plans must match those contained in the description and where the subject property abuts adjoining tracts, any descriptions of those tracts much be referenced as written. It doesn't matter if the old course were described without leading zeros and precision to the minute and tenths of a foot those are referenced as they appear in both the description and on the drawing. If we determine it necessary to use a different call it is called out both deed and measured, again in both drawing and description.
Now there IS a way around this and stay within Civil 3D, but it means creating a special child style from the style we would normally be using with all the extra information added as text component to the label. This won't help for the leading zeros but at least makes the deed & measured calls work and I even use one of the "one use" styles for my section line IDs. You can also make ones for easement and setback line on plats. Rampant style inflation is a poor solution at best, but so far the only way short of exploding the label to primitives and permanently losing the associativity. After a while it doesn't taste so vile . . . I have expanded this technique to pipe and structure labels with fair success as well.
back more on topic -
I just checked out the augi poll Mark posted. It sits at 11 yes 00 no and 01 that doesn't care. I can think of several observations I would like make about those numbers but they would have zero (leading AND trailing) objectivity attached.
-
Now there IS a way around this and stay within Civil 3D, but it means creating a special child style from the style we would normally be using with all the extra information added as text component to the label. This won't help for the leading zeros but at least makes the deed & measured calls work and I even use one of the "one use" styles for my section line IDs. You can also make ones for easement and setback line on plats. Rampant style inflation is a poor solution at best, but so far the only way short of exploding the label to primitives and permanently losing the associativity. After a while it doesn't taste so vile . . . I have expanded this technique to pipe and structure labels with fair success as well.
...and once again, a task that should be simple takes 3x as long as it should.
Ironically, the fact that so many things like this exist in C3D gives me hope about the product. I am currently more-productive in C3D than I was in LDT (albeit probably not enough to offset the cost of transition in any timely fashion), and I waste considerable amounts of time on things like this. If Autodesk simply fixed all the problems like this, I would see significant productivity gains.
Unfortunately, it seems to take Autodesk an awful long time to integrate anything. They already have largely decided what's going into the 2009 release, so any comments that they receive now are highly unlikely to be incorporated before the 2010 release. And that's in the best-case - I STILL haven't seen many of the simple requests I made when using the 2006 version, such as adding "Close Drawing" and "Switch To" to the Settings tab in toolspace, so that it's like the Prospector tab. That's such a simple thing that would add significantly to the usability of the UI, and I got a response from Autodesk that they liked the idea and would be incorporating it into the product, but it still isn't there.
And that doesn't even get into major problems, such as the errors in design for Parcels, the poor design in Label Styles, the lack of PM in the core product, the poor survey support, the failure to integrate Map, etc.
-
Part of the problem Sinc is that some users... no names.... are complacent. I've been called many names because I am not. Personally I would rather be known as a rabid dog howling all night about these things than to be Autodesks Lap Dog, and just go along to get along. The that AU handout on pipes that was sent me, has many areas where the author used phasing that sounded a lot like "these things don't work well, so we just live without them". Basically accepting the shortcomings as is, and what a wasted opportunity if you ask me, to point out to an entire room full of users right at AU of the deficiencies in the product, so that they could storm the product reps at AU and demand that they be fixed. Instead, just a passing mention that these don't work, and those are difficult to use....and well that was it. What some don't get is that IF Autodesk were more responsive to the customer I would probably be out of work, and a lot quieter about their product and business model.
But I guess these Lap Dogs don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' because they are part of the machine.
-
Part of the problem Sinc is that some users... no names.... are complacent. I've been called many names because I am not. Personally I would rather be known as a rabid dog howling all night about these things than to be Autodesks Lap Dog, and just go along to get along. The that AU handout on pipes that was sent me, has many areas where the author used phasing that sounded a lot like "these things don't work well, so we just live without them". Basically accepting the shortcomings as is, and what a wasted opportunity if you ask me, to point out to an entire room full of users right at AU of the deficiencies in the product, so that they could storm the product reps at AU and demand that they be fixed. Instead, just a passing mention that these don't work, and those are difficult to use....and well that was it. What some don't get is that IF Autodesk were more responsive to the customer I would probably be out of work, and a lot quieter about their product and business model.
But I guess these Lap Dogs don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' because they are part of the machine.
Late for me Friday night and I can't help myself.
Stay away from AU.
If you have any idea what goes on there and I'm guessing not, storming the developers with ultimatums is just idiotic.
Influencing product development requires a certain amount of tack.
If you want some links to before I learned this lesson I can supply them.
I'm not a lap dog and I try to focus on my firms best interest.
At this point I believe that implementing Civil3D as is in our best interest.
I didn't call you any names in here that I recall but I would suggest you reexamine your marketing strategy as being the guy that can teach you the product but it sux.
-
Thank you Michael and John, you both undoubtedly have numerous tales of past battles with both the product and the developers at Autodesk that could entertain us at length and provide some valuable lessons as well. I have had enough personal interaction with both of you to be looking forward to as many of these experiences that you care to share with us. All Mark and the moderators ask of either of you is to follow the FORUM GUIDELINES (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=9202.0) and keep your comments and responses to others respectful to each other and anyone else participating or following along quietly.
The official Swamp "take a shot" scorecard for this match is hereby deemed a DRAW- EVENT OVER . . . NO REMATCHES SCHEDULED. Some consideration is given for the boards that are open for member only viewing and some indiscretions may be allowed in them at times provided things don't get out of hand. Land Lubber though is wide open viewing for anyone on the web who manages to stumble into it and we try to keep things so those folk do not regret doing so. In fact we would kind of like it if they were impressed enough to become memberS and share THEIR experiences.