TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: drizzt on April 25, 2007, 12:00:36 PM
-
I need some opinions.
I have been with this company for 7 years now and we are using Land Desktop 2000. Every year I get quotes to upgrade to the current version of Land Desktop. This year I am going to recomend upgrading to Civil 3D. Since I am so far behind, I am also going to recomend two 3-day classes offered here in Denver, CO. I will also need to upgrade my machine.
I am the only CAD/Graphics person in the office and I support 4 land planners. All we do here is Land Use permits, and every once in a while construction plans.
The price tag to upgrade, with training is nearing $9,000.
My first question is this, is it worth upgrading for a company this small?
Second, if I don't get approval to upgrade, am I becoming obsolete, and how would you handle the situation?
-
ps
I already feel like I have little to offer here, because of being so outdated....
-
Everyone has valuable contributions here. They range from the sublime to the insane and all points in between. You have as much to offer here as I do. Or Maverick. Or Se7en.
Now, if you are into Civil Engineering, Civil 3D is the way to go. Our engineers love it.
If you are doing surveying and mapping, get AutoCad 2007 with the LDD pack. You don't need the C3D add on, so you can avoid the pits in C3D for a little while.
They say Acad 2008 is supposed to be much smoother than anything before. Time will tell. The trick is to get the package that maximizes your production and profits. $9,000 is a small price if your productivity soars because you finally have the proper tools. That cost is an investment in your company's future. I've never seen money wasted that was spent on production software and training.
-
Part of the problem with upgrading, is that the land planners and engineers that I support now can't keep up with me. The new text and sheet setup features with 2008 will make this worse. The Civil 3D package, with the automated profile and section updates make me even faster
Hire more land planners...
-
1 > The improvements made to MAP will be a major benefit to you.
2 > What kind of construction plans? Civil 3D will demand some major changes over how the same tasks were accomplished using LDT.
3 > Who is providing this training? There are at least two options to the usual reseller training sessions represented in TheSwamp membership who can provide very targeted instruction geared toward your individual needs. See the thread locked at the top of Land Lubber for more details.
4 > What Dent said . . . The times I have tried to answer your questions or help you with a problem, I have learned some new things for my efforts and tried to share those with everybody along the way.
5 > You can look busy after you save all of that time by creating new styles and labels for your templates - that work is never done.
-
2 > What kind of construction plans? Civil 3D will demand some major changes over how the same tasks were accomplished using LDT.
All are drainage construction plans that the counties require in order to get a Special Use Permit for land improvement.
3 > Who is providing this training? There are at least two options to the usual reseller training sessions represented in TheSwamp membership who can provide very targeted instruction geared toward your individual needs. See the thread locked at the top of Land Lubber for more details.
Thank you. I will check into the individual training.
5 > You can look busy after you save all of that time by creating new styles and labels for your templates - that work is never done.
I think one could make some $$ doing this for other companies as well.
-
All are drainage construction plans that the counties require in order to get a Special Use Permit for land improvement.
Thank you. I will check into the individual training. :kewl: :kewl:
I think one could make some $$ doing this for other companies as well.
There is no Hydrology support provided with Civil 3D, so you will need something like Hydrflow if you have to generate flow information. The piping design is very slick though - even more so than the pipeworks module form LDT that you missed. It takes some doing to bend it to your will but the results are worth the trouble and you will never again cringe at the prospect tiny design changes that forced a redraw of the whole line.
Not only CAN significant green be made creating styles and templates, there are some that DO!
-
The engineers do the hydrology calculations, I am not sure what software they use, but it works well for the first design between the two of us.
Your right though, any change in the grading and...... just as well start over!
We had a rail unloading sight where we had 4 tracks coming onto the property to unload aggregates. The Railroad company, after the county engineer reviewed the plans... decided that a 0.2% grade on the tracks wouldn't work. Since the site pad was based on the elevations of the rail pad everything had to be lowered.. overburden planced, pipes realigned. Profiles redrawn...
I got a lot of overtime, but it seems sensless after seeing what Civil 3D can do!
-
We are a survey-only shop, and C3D is definitely a mixed-blessing. However, we seem to be one of the few companies that really used most of the features of Land Desktop, digging deep into the product. So we've really liked the improvements C3D makes in many regards. However, the benefits so far are largely cancelled by the issues and problems. That keeps changing, though, as we get more familiar with the program, and as Autodesk continues to make improvements.
With the 2007 SP3 version of the program, there are the occasional items that we could do faster in Land Desktop with Map. But there are more items that are faster and easier in Civil-3D. We're now reaching the point where, in general, it doesn't take us any longer to do things in Civil-3D, and some things are much faster than in Land Desktop. All in all, despite the problems, I think we're happier on C3D than we were on Land Desktop. And as the product continues to improve, we should lose less and less time to the problems. It will still be a while before we completely recoup the costs of the transition, but that should happen relatively soon, after which everything else is profit. At least, that's the plan... :wink:
I can't say it's a good idea for all surveying companies to switch to C3D, but I think it's working for us. We're on the leading edge of technology, and getting better with it all the time. That should give us a distinct advantage in the coming years, as more and more people begin to realize the benefits of model-driven CAD, and begins to dominate the industry. But it can be painful being on the bleeding edge of technology, and it's definitely not for everyone. If you think you're up for the task, though, I think there's significant reward to be had...
As for training... After seeing several firms attempt the transition, and after going through it ourselves, I'd say beware of any instruction that uses a "magic disk". This is a CD of carefully-prepared, canned "course materials" that the instructor brings to class, containing all the projects and files you will use during your class. From what I've seen, most people who get this type of training are completely lost as soon as the instructor leaves, and they try to work with their normal, every-day data. I highly recommend that you ask some questions about the training, and if it involves a disk of "course materials", search elsewhere for someone who will offer you custom training on your own real-world data. If the trainer isn't comfortable enough with Civil-3D to teach a class using the data you work with every day, then you shouldn't be hiring that person for training.
-
Thanks Sinc.
What does it take to become a surveyor? I think I would enjoy that work.
-
I am leaving on vacation and won't be back until Monday. If I get a chance I will review this thread before then.
didn't want all of you to think I was asking for advise and then rude enough not to read it.
-
What does it take to become a surveyor? I think I would enjoy that work.
I think the only real requirements are a knack with numbers and a measure of common sense. Some colleges offer surveying classes, and there are the requisite professional seminars for on-going education, but most of the "real surveying" is learned on the job.
Surveyors live in a very "fuzzy" world, and spend much of their time learning to deal with error. They serve as the bridge between the pristine exactness of the engineer's model, the monolithic intractability of the law, and the swirling chaos of the real world. As such, surveying is very much an art form, and experience is key.
-
....................
Surveyors live in a very "fuzzy" world, and spend much of their time learning to deal with error. They serve as the bridge between the pristine exactness of the engineer's model, the monolithic intractability of the law, and the swirling chaos of the real world. As such, surveying is very much an art form, and experience is key.
That has to be one of the most artistic recipes for ulcers I've ever heard .. :-)
-
Thanks Sinc.
What does it take to become a surveyor? I think I would enjoy that work.
(1) The ability to resist the urge to strangle Architects just beacuse.
(2) The ability to work more over time than you really want to.
(3)The ability to decide which is more fun:
(a) create a dtm and contours without enough shots to really do the job, or
(b)start a fire with lighter fluid in your crotch.
(You'd be surprised how close a call that is.)
I've been doing it for almost 40 years and I haven't had to sart a fire. Yet. There's always tomorrow.
-
Krushert, Can you please NOT change other peoples quotes.
-
If the trainer isn't comfortable enough with Civil-3D to teach a class using the data you work with every day, then you shouldn't be hiring that person for training.
Can I quote you on that? That tends to be the magic differentiation between us and them. I admit to using the canned data for certain tasks (i.e. demoing basic corridors), because I know it's clean, reliable, and has the design demands in it that I want to demonstrate. This makes much more sense in a open enrollment class. If I'm at your place, give me your data and we'll roll.
Still don't think I've read half the AOTC Essentials book we teach from though. Figure you learned to read already, no need to demonstrate that skill.
-
If the trainer isn't comfortable enough with Civil-3D to teach a class using the data you work with every day, then you shouldn't be hiring that person for training.
Can I quote you on that?
Sure.
I admit to using the canned data for certain tasks (i.e. demoing basic corridors), because I know it's clean, reliable, and has the design demands in it that I want to demonstrate. This makes much more sense in a open enrollment class. If I'm at your place, give me your data and we'll roll.
I can see using canned data in an open-enrollment class. But for customized training (which is significantly more valuable), I think it's a bad idea. By using the data we receive every day, we got to learn a bunch of neat tricks (many involving Map) for getting messy data into a state where it is useful. And as soon as the data was "clean", the class proceded in basically the same way as it would have with the canned data, with few disruptions or interruptions caused by "messy data". There really did not seem to be any need at all for canned data. And the few times we did have to stop and deal with "messy data", the experience was extremely valuable to all of us.
So I see far more value gained by avoiding the canned data. So far, we have yet to receive anything from anyone else who is already using Civil-3D, so it was critical that we learn how to get the "normal mess" we typically receive into a usable state. That's something that the "approved" courses tend to ignore completely, and the main reason why we've seen several people buy training, only to put Civil-3D back on the shelf soon after the trainer leaves. Talk about a failure to realize ROI... :-P
I think it might be a good idea to bring some specific examples along with you to teach, but reliance on the "magic disk" seems to the single most-devastating failure I've seen in the "approved" training.
-
At what point am I teaching you C3D, and when am I teaching you ACAD? There's a fine line here. If I spend half a day walking through data cleanup, what shall we eliminate from the class that generally runs a respectable three days to begin with?
You've hit one of our common sticky spots very well. The theory is that by using canned data, I can teach you to focus on the tool, not on the result. I'm often tempted to use ridiculous values and situations so that people don't get bogged down in the specifics ("We can't do that here, the city won't let us.") and think more in terms of general understanding of the tools.
-
I really don't think we spent much more than an hour total on data cleanup, and we started with some pretty messy data in some cases.
And that hour was a very valuable part of the class. Like I said, I've seen a couple of companies put Civil-3D back on the shelf after investing in training, simply because they couldn't figure out how to get their real-world data into the point where they could use what they learned in class. Considering how easy it is to clean up data using some of the tools that are available, it's a real shame that they give up when they are so close, and have already invested so much time and money. And that's basically because the trainer was following the approved script.
-
Just a second while I ease my ample keester onto this barbed wire wrapped fence rail.
Absolutely, it seems there are opposing approaches to software training and we are lucky enough here in TheSwamp to have instructors and students from both schools represented. The results from both can be seen all over Land Lubber and there are outstanding examples from each to compare. I am fiercely loyal to my instructor and his teaching methods. I would not hesitate to recommend his services to anyone and know of at least two other Swamp members who have either received or been strongly influenced by him. I also have met with both the other instructor and, I am sure, his star client. I am in total awe of what their efforts along with the students have accomplished.
I started out being quite outspoken against the canned presentation approach. Early on, it seemed most resellers were pushing 3 day classes that appeared to be little more than a reverse engineered project and this seemed very much like my intro to r10 some 15 years prior that was so ineffective our companies transition to CAD would have been stillborn had it not been mandatory for a major contract. THIS was the philosophy I railed against, not the methods James has developed.
While I am personally more comfortable with a highly individually devised instruction, that is me and my own circumstance and I can see that should that change, I might be better served by James' methods. It is obvious that both approaches can achieve good results and the best one for any given company at any given time is driven by their circumstances.
A general course that spends a given amount of time explaining the survey functions to a company that contracts out all of its data collection pretty much wastes that amount of time which could have been used to hammer home say, the real value of parcels and open up the company to a whole new workflow that would likely been ignored with less intensive exposure. Conversely, a company that perceives no value in the grading tools may opt for an individualized session that ignores these features may never attempt to incorporate this powerful feature and lock their old inefficient workflow into a new generation of software of wasted potential.
There does not appear to be one universal "right" choice here. In the end, it is far more important that the training is received rather than the method by which it is delivered. I said received, not given. The real critical element is the attitude of the student and their commitment to learning what is presented.
-
^^^Nicely said :-)
-
As usual Dino, you are most eloquent.
Categorizing me as James's star client is probably over the top.
Maybe James's biggest PIA.
Couple of very good points made, in adult professional education, it's not about the instructor it's about the student.
Anyone who pays money and sends employees, on the clock, to learn should expect the instructor to adjust to his audience.
I have not been able to control events enough to smooth this path as much as I would have liked.
But my main focus was to get this done, come hell or highwater, as best as I could.
Compromises were made and a shakeup this big requires some delicate handling.
I'm sure if I had run across Mike before I hit James up things might be different.
But I think we both know you have to find someone who knows what they are doing to assist in this transition.
Jason, Dana, Angel, Scott, Danny and the list is growing can really help your business.
-
Conversely, a company that perceives no value in the grading tools may opt for an individualized session that ignores these features may never attempt to incorporate this powerful feature and lock their old inefficient workflow into a new generation of software of wasted potential.
If this ever happened, I would perceive it as a failure in the teacher. By using the standard data from the company, the instructor should be able to get a very good idea of what the company does. And if the instructor realizes that this company really needs to know how to use the grading tools and fails to teach it because they fail to ask for it, then that is a failure in the teacher. (Or are you saying that the company would argue with the teacher, and tell him "we don't need grading tools; you don't know what you're talking about, teach us something else"? If a company felt that way, why are they hiring the teacher??)
In general, what I see happening is that a company wants to transition to Civil-3D, so they hire an instructor to come in for a 3-5 day class. This is an "intro" course. And in a 3-5 day intro course, I can think of very few things where canned data would provide any significant benefit. On the other hand, for people just starting out with C3D, getting "old-style" data into C3D tends to be the single biggest hurdle they face initially. And unfortunately, the "official" training seems to echo James's feelings, that data cleanup detracts from "teaching Civil-3D". I don't think they can be separated, and getting data into C3D is a fundamental part of using C3D, so any intro course that ignores it is doing a dis-service to the students.
It's more up-in-the-air for continuing courses. For example, a typical thing is that a company will run for a while with C3D after the intro course. Then, when they feel comfortable with what they're doing, they schedule another 3-5 day training seminar to cover more-advanced topics. At this point, the instructor should already have a good idea of what the company does and how, because of the ongoing relationship. And presumably, the instructor has significant real-world experience. That means the instructor should have a pretty clear indication of what the next steps should be. And this time around, since the company is familiar with the basics of working with C3D, it will make more sense if the instructor needs to start talking about workflow changes, and new processes and procedures that are significantly different from the company's current practices. At this point, I can actually see some value in "canned data", because there is no need to go over the basics anymore. So it makes sense to have a canned DWG containing a corridor that is mostly-built so that the class can study complex intersections, for example.
But still, I think there is greater value from using the company's own data set. By this time, the company probably has a project they are working on with a complex intersection in it, or one they recently "gave up" on modelling completely because it was too complex. So, if the instructor works with them on getting THAT intersection working, he basically covers all the same tasks he would've covered with the canned data. But again, because it's real-world data, it provides the chance to hit real-world problems that are "glossed over" by the canned data. It is far better for the company to hit this sort of problem while the instructor is present, rather than after the instructor leaves. And again, working on the company's live data gives more feedback to the instructor, giving him a better idea of what the company currently does and how, which can provide guidance for what needs to be taught.
I think what I would find most valuable is something of a combination. This would involve an instructor who came and taught the classes on our real live data, but also brought along a collection of "canned files" that illustrate complex tasks in clean ways, such as the one Dana posted (http://www.civil3d.com/index.php/2006/11/another-intersection-sample-drawing/). But again, I just see so much more value realized from using the company's live data that I think it should be the initial choice. Then, if the real-world data fails to illustrate any important points, the instructor can always pull out the canned drawing. And the instructor can leave the canned drawings with the students, as a reference material for later. This is what I would find to be the most-valuable course.
Of course, one thing I haven't explicitly mentioned is that the instructor hopefully has significant real-world industry experience, and was good at it. Unfortunately, the only requirements for becoming a "certified" trainer are six months experience, and proving that you can teach the scripted class. One of the issues we've had with the "approved training" is we've seen people we know (because one or more of us previously worked with them) go get certified and become official trainers. These are people we wouldn't hire to work for us, and they go out training others. That makes us shudder. And it's probably a more-significant element in quality of training than whether or not the instructor uses canned data.
-
I don't think at this point I can help myself but I felt compelled to reply.
First I want to clear up any misconception concerning this statement
>>I'm sure if I had run across Mike before I hit James up things might be different.<<
What I meant by that was "If I had discovered Michael first he may have been recommended."
I might have stopped looking.
Any difficulties in our implementation efforts are solely mine not James's.
My firm is different than yours sinc.
We are a "full service" firm. The people in our organization need to use all of the features of the product.
Unfortunately many in my firm are not full service employees.
Our Wastewater group does sewer plans.
Our Traffic group does traffic control plans etc. etc.
Ideally the most efficient approach to our training would have been to approach each group independently and focus the training on those portions of the software that they needed to use on an everyday basis.
I couldn't pull this off. Seems like each group had a little thing called clients that didn't allow for this kind of approach.
We spent particular attention to a "Core group" who would have to develop styles and an internal support and mentoring system. For them it was a long uphill climb.
Our pilot project team tackled a very complex project with some pretty flakey software, sp1 & 2.
Back to the subject of your thread ( bet you wondered when I was going to get around to that)
What we have learned so far and what everybody agrees on, whether they know it or not, is every situation is different and every implementation is different. All have certain similarities but all are different.
James seems to like the trim carpentry analogy lately comparing trimming a house with reading the manual of a mitre saw. You at some point have to do both.
The 3 day essentials class offered by your reseller is more like the mitre saw manual.
Hiring a consultant to come to your site to teach your organization how to best use this product to improve efficiency falls in line with learning how to be a trim carpenter.
If you are in a class to learn the mitre saw you really don't need the data getting in the way.
You have to learn the tool and it's practical application.
-
I told you drizzt, your questions seem to spark some very interesting threads. Thanks for clearing up that one statement John . . . that perked my ears up so hard my jaw still hurts.
Eloquent? Well that is the nicest anyone has ever put it . . . previous best was "verbose" then rambling and it deteriorates from there. I can't help it - I am the natural result of liberal arts degree in history where the grades were dependent on the poundage as much as the content in my papers and how many theme books I filled during the finals. Speaking of college days, this thread is starting to sound a lot like homecoming weekend between crosstown rivals tied for first place. I want you guys to know how much I appreciate you bouncing that fence rail I am still sitting on.
sinc, we have both heard the same lectures and I know exactly where you are coming from. What I don't think either of us knows is what happens when James fires up a class with things he has learned about this program since BEFORE it was even called Civil 3D. One thing I don't think happens is the complete reliance on the magic disk. James has in fact posted his willingness to use the client data when he is working with an individual client. When teaching a group from a mix of clients, I am not sure that data would be of any more use than canned data to the groups from other companies. At this point we are starting to discuss entire business models instead of bringing Civil 3D enlightenment to the masses . . . things best left up to bankers and board rooms to discuss.
-
Yes, I'm sure that James is not one of those like we've seen, where someone who was considered to be a pretty junior CAD tech becomes a certified trainer simply by learning the script. And all I am doing is stating my opinion; I would think that a trainer would like to hear it, and take it in conjunction with all the other opinions he's heard, and mix it in with the experience of teaching repeated courses to different types of groups. It might not be useful feedback for some situations, but it could be very useful feedback for others.
I think the only point that I strongly disagree on is that I don't think learning how to get data into C3D is a distraction from teaching C3D. I think it should be a part of instruction, even if the rest is taught using canned data. Like I said, that seems to be the one part that really frustrates people. And it is not very well-covered in the Autodesk documentation, either, unlike other parts of the program. There is so much value realized from spending an hour on Map tools and creating C3D objects from the resulting data that it seems unwise to omit it from the course. And if the company is one of those few that used Map with Land Desktop, it might not even take an hour. I don't think there's anyone in the Civil-3D world who doesn't need to start from some sort of "data from others" on a regular basis, and right now, very little of that data is created in Civil-3D.
-
I need some opinions.
I have been with this company for 7 years now and we are using Land Desktop 2000. Every year I get quotes to upgrade to the current version of Land Desktop. This year I am going to recomend upgrading to Civil 3D. Since I am so far behind, I am also going to recomend two 3-day classes offered here in Denver, CO. I will also need to upgrade my machine.
I am the only CAD/Graphics person in the office and I support 4 land planners. All we do here is Land Use permits, and every once in a while construction plans.
The price tag to upgrade, with training is nearing $9,000.
My first question is this, is it worth upgrading for a company this small?
Second, if I don't get approval to upgrade, am I becoming obsolete, and how would you handle the situation?
To be brutally honest you are already obsolete.
Your career path is downward without improvement these days. You have to keep getting better in order to stay even.
You just have to get closer to current to remain marketable.
I really don't know if you could ever cost justify the expense your firm needs to put into training but I know one thing for sure, you are dead meat without it.
Now back to sinc and Dino and I arguing about the same thing. :-)
sinc have you tried to work with any Revit data yet?
My Archies are starting to use that product and in the not to distant future I'm sure we will be faced with intergrating that sort of information into either site work or survey.
Revit has some crude sort of site definition tools, enough to satisfy an Archie, and I was curious if you had run into that before.
-
. . . To be brutally honest you are already obsolete.
Your career path is downward without improvement these days. You have to keep getting better in order to stay even.
You just have to get closer to current to remain marketable.
I really don't know if you could ever cost justify the expense your firm needs to put into training but I know one thing for sure, you are dead meat without it.
Very true, drizzt. Remember that MAP data I tried to translate into something your software could read? There will only be more of that in your future. There is all kinds of GIS data out there that you are going to be increasingly reliant on to do your Land Use work and you need software that can handle it without the hassles of translating it to something r2000 can read and hoping nothing gets lost. At a minimum you need to upgrade your MAP and remember, Civil 3D IS MAP with all of the civil design functions for your construction plans included.
As to training, you absolutely need it. Some can learn Civil 3D on their own, but of those who try that road, nearly all fail in their first few attempts and Civil 3D does not have an easy rout back to ANY other software that leaves your data in any usable form for r2000. Even if it has to be the magic disk special from your reseller, get something. If at all possible, solicit proposals from different sources and pin them down on exactly what they are proposing to sell you. It is probably a purchase choice just as important as the software you select.
-
I think the only point that I strongly disagree on is that I don't think learning how to get data into C3D is a distraction from teaching C3D. I think it should be a part of instruction, even if the rest is taught using canned data.
I think we're talking about two different things now. Let me boil down why I generally want to use my own data. This is sometimes the AOTC data, often it's stuff I've borrowed from projects I've worked on.
- My data is complete. I know that I have a surface that doesn't have fifteen thousand busts, but has a couple so I can demonstrate how to fix them. I know I have an alignment, a corridor and a parcel layout that all will fit on the same site and coordinates so I'm not fighting silly things while I'm trying to teach assemblies.
- I know how the design will turn out. I know all the missteps that one of the 12 people in class could take. I know what they've done wrong before I see their screen much of the time. I don't have to spend time thinking about my approach to a problem, burning up your class time with my three or four iteratations at finding a workable solution.
- To be blunt, your data is crap. Your layers suck. You lines aren't tangent. Your blocks are corrupt. You've got anonymous crap put in your data from the CAD tech you fired six months ago and he used a bogus LSP one time and you're STILL fighting the results. Do you REALLY want to pay me to solve your cad issues when you hired me to teach you C3D? I'm happy to do it, but that's NOT the scope of most essentials classes.
- First impressions count. If you're just getting into C3D, you've probably heard enough horror stories as it it about how unstable it is, how crappy it is, blah blah blah. Most of those horror stories relate to the point above. I'm not going to risk people leaving my class with a bad taste in their mouth for C3D simply because I tried to use data that was corrupt before I ever touched it.
- It's not a charity event. At the end of the day, the project scope drives things. I don't work for free. Well, except the 40 posts a day to the NG, the big ass blog we write, the AU materials we give away, the Cad Camp materials we give away...oh wait, where was I? Yeah, fees. When we present a proposal that includes using your data, I have to do some homework. I have to look at the problem, try a couple of approaches, and pick one. Happy to do it, but there's no fee in the typical class proposal for much homework beyond find the office and flying out. The time to get to most places eats much of the class profit as it is.
There you have it. The main reasons I don't want to use our very brief time together to look at cad-level problems on the fly. It just doesn't make sense to have a highly paid instructor sitting in a class with 10 people as they watch him/her figure out what approach to take. My opinion. Sinc, if I ever come out, I'll include a day or two for homework in the proposal, and I won't touch the AOTC disc, promise.
It's an open debate. Personally, I think the biggest issue with many instructors right now is that they simply can't adapt, and it doesn't matter whose data they use. If you go off the written trail, they're toast. The inability to hit a curve ball is killing the channel AE. It's a poor way to educate the end user, and I think it's the primary reason adoption has been so slow. OK, rant over, I have to go edit a book.
-
Thanks everyone for your imput and of course
To be brutally honest you are already obsolete.
I would always appreciate butal honesty over any other spoken or typed word.
Any one hiring an obsolete draftsman / designer?
-
. . . Any one hiring an obsolete draftsman / designer?
You are not obsolete unless you are also content to maintain your current level of career development. Keep pushing your company to grow. There is some good ammunition to that end for you in this thread. Even if the answer is "NO" again, download the trial version, read the tutorials, ask questions here and log on to civil3d dot com every chance you get and read through those articles. There is no telling what may be around your next corner.
-
Thanks everyone for your imput and of course
To be brutally honest you are already obsolete.
I would always appreciate butal honesty over any other spoken or typed word.
Any one hiring an obsolete draftsman / designer?
Willing to relocate and advance?
Last line half in jest.
But you really need to look at your current situation and decide if there is a future there.
I'm sure there is for the land planners but how about you?
Just seems from the tone of your input that you may be the only one looking forward there and everybody else is comfortable.
If you are interested in Learning and will work to improve, plenty of places look for that.
If you stay you have to convince the powers that be that they must stay current or go away.
As Bob Dylan said " If you aren't busy being born. you're busy dying."
And I'm 60.
-
Any one hiring an obsolete draftsman / designer?
You are only obsolete if you think like that :?
You must manage your own career!
If you think any company is going to do that for you, they will, but only until you are no longer of valuable to them.
You must make it a priority to achieve what you want out of a career. You only have X amount of years and it's over. If this means acquiring additional education then do it!
And do not let your age be a factor. You have just as much to offer at 60 as you do at 21 (if its brain power were talking about).
It's up to you whether you allow yourself to become obsolete. I know its not easy to get additional training/schooling because it does take a lot of effort (on top of normal work chores & home chores), but it can be done. :-)
-
Thank you for taking the time to share some of your training philosophy James. You make some very good points and I think your closing remarks were right on the mark. The instructors you describe are precisely the type I was hoping to warn drizzt against choosing. His situation seems quite tenuous and reads like a recipe for a failed implementation unless he gets some quality training. When I first mentioned training I did not intend to start a discussion on the relative merits of one training method over another - I apologize.
-
Why apologize? It's a good discussion, and something people should pay attention to. I'll probably clean up my last post and put it on the blog as entry some time this week.
Expectations are all over the board for training. In my opinion, they're entirely too low. It makes it hard to actually sell training when people are used to what's been delivered in the past. When training is crappy, it effects the whole process. Good training sets the tone for the whole process and delivers confidence in both the product and the person at the firm that decided to move forward.
Ask JP, a little credit in the bank to deliver the goods can go a long way.
-
Jwedding,
where do you teach?
You are only obsolete if you think like that
You must manage your own career!
If you think any company is going to do that for you, they will, but only until you are no longer of valuable to them.
You must make it a priority to achieve what you want out of a career. You only have X amount of years and it's over. If this means acquiring additional education then do it!
And do not let your age be a factor. You have just as much to offer at 60 as you do at 21 (if its brain power were talking about).
It's up to you whether you allow yourself to become obsolete. I know its not easy to get additional training/schooling because it does take a lot of effort (on top of normal work chores & home chores), but it can be done.
Thanks for the motivational.... It worked!
Do all of you mind if I quote you in order to increase my chances of getting upgraded? I really like this company and the people I work for, they are just technologically challenged :lmao:
-
Quote away . . . if management is reluctant to step forward you will need all the supporting information you can gather . . .
Eh, dgreble?
-
Why apologize? It's a good discussion, and something people should pay attention to.
I couldn't agree with you more, or the rest of you. Shame such a topic might not be able to get legs, at some other places on the Web.
Let me use some of James' Points to explain my philosophy in regards training:
Your data is crap
While this is true it is the data that they have to work with. There are a lot of users out there who have not had good training, and many with none. And they pass this bad data along. Often it is the problems caused by this bad data that the company will most benefit from learning how to solve.
I know how the design will turn out.
To be honest most Engineers or Designers have no trouble visualizing the end result of the design. The challenge is how do they get the application to recreate that vision. By going through all the required steps, it also helps them develop the process. What we don't know is how or where will the software fail to produce the desired results and how to correct those failings.
My data is complete.
The client data may not be complete, however they do need to know how to get it that way. Otherwise they will run into the very problems you want to avoid in class, and you wont be there.
First impressions count
Yes they do, and showing the user how to employ the entire toolkit to solve his everyday challenges really helps them get the momentum needed to continue using C3D.
It's not a charity event
No it's a learning opportunity for all parties involved. In using the client data for their classes I learn a lot about them, and the state of their cad affairs. I learn about their local design constraints. I get to be a student of their challenges and C3D at the same time. In preparation for and during every class I get to learn something from the students. How do I reimburse them for those lessons?
They probably get to learn more from me than I from them, however that isn't reflected in my fee schedule, I do it for every class.
My thoughts are that more learning that needs to occur the better! So what they have no exposure to MAP, or that they lack some finesse in basic Autocad! Excellent time to fill in those gaps and smooth the way for even more productive use of C3D. Or for my part; design a traffic circle, when we don't use them in Arizona what a great class for me!
It's an open debate. Personally, I think the biggest issue with many instructors right now is that they simply can't adapt, and it doesn't matter whose data they use. If you go off the written trail, they're toast. The inability to hit a curve ball is killing the channel AE. It's a poor way to educate the end user, and I think it's the primary reason adoption has been so slow.
And I'm in even MORE agreement with you on this one!
edit: Just fixed a quote tag Mav
-
Let's make one thing clear. We are talking about Essentials training. IMO, all of the things you've addressed are better suited for other venues and times. Due diligence, mentoring, advanced training, etc. All of these provide a better return on the instructor's and student's time than watching me debug a corrupt drawing while the class sits surfing the internet.
I'm not going to address all your points, but a few:
I know how the design will turn out means I know the values people should get when they click on a line. I can confirm they are moving in the right direction without having to do every click myself. Of course they know what an intersection looks like, that's not the point.
By complete, I mean that I can take the same dataset or location and deal with it from start to finish, letting students see the building of the model instead of jumping around between drawings and project sites.
I wouldn't ask engineering students to understand manifold design without getting through the energy equation first. Essentials is designed to demonstrate tools, not make you a master user.
Want to throw this one up on c3d.com and see what kind of comments we get there?
In any case, it's all minor quibbles, anything is better than watching an instructor read the book to you!
-
To be honest most Engineers or Designers have no trouble visualizing the end result of the design. The challenge is how do they get the application to recreate that vision.
Well said!
-
my question is- are you willing to pay for it? i can come in cold and do a demo with someone's data, but I absolutely cannot come in cold and teach a class with someone's data. I need at least a day of prep time, and then if there is custom documentation to write, add another day. i throw this proposal in front of the client next to reseller-x's proposal and eyebrows are raised. we convinced enough people of the value of our services that there is always plenty of work... but you get the picture.
-
i'm curious who you worked with. i don't know many AEs who can take on client data and teach a class from it. i'd like to make sure i add them to my network. ;)
-
Thanks Dana for bumping this thread.
I had forgotten it to the the truth but it was a pretty sporty conversation.
-
i'm curious who you worked with. i don't know many AEs who can take on client data and teach a class from it. i'd like to make sure i add them to my network. ;)
I am not positive who this question was for, but I will field it since you already know John's teacher and the rest of the members posting in here have the same one I did (except maybe drizzit by now). Sinc's firm had instruction from Michael Farrell a few months back and I piggy-backed into one of Michel's sessions at the invitation of a different firm some 900 miles distant in 2005. In addition to Micheal's students contribution that he has spoken of here to his learning, he has taught himself by doing battle with the beast almost daily since the 2004 pre-release including a weekend marathon with that baby dragon where he discovered most of the essentials needed to proceed.
I will leave it to sinc to go into any discussion regarding how Michael approached their situation. I am curious because due to my circumstances I did not experience a normal session geared to land development projects although I think the basic approach was the same. The firm that had contracted Micheal and let me join in was contemplating moving to r2005 Civil 3D from Land Desktop in the yearly subscription upgrade. Theirs was a rather unusual application that involved reservoir dams and rural access roads. The basics were the same, just no curbs or curb boxes having to match to the hundredths to fuss with and actually, one of the few applications that r2005 could excel at with minimal problems. Some 2 weeks before the class was held, Michael was sent data from a representative project along with some examples of finished work they had recently produced along with some data and drawings that they were struggling in-house with at the time. Over that 2 weeks, Michael developed his class around the provided data, figured out where any problems were and how to address them. At the start of the first day we got CDs containing the original data sent, a modified data set that we would work from and any documents we would need or want for later reference. The only deviations I needed at that time since pipes did not yet exist for Civil 3D was I took off with a cul-de-sac project while the rest were working with the Viz-Render they thought they may want to try.
I do not know how to evaluate Michael's fee for this session as my portion fell outside their contract with him. I just used their generously provided seat at the table, power plug and occasionally a quick trip on their internet connection. I know I was pleased with the value I got and the check I wrote Michael was considerably less than my motel and airline expenses.
-
I don't think I have a whole lot to add - I think I basically already covered everything in my earlier posts.
We had a three-day class last November. We didn't send Michael anything before class, I just talked to him over the phone and explained that we are surveyors and not engineers, we do lots of construction surveying (both site and roadway), we do lots of design surveys, lots of volume calcs, and lots of plats. By this time, Michael had a lot more experience teaching C3D than when he did Dino's class, so he didn't seem to need to know much else.
Michael didn't see any of our data until the class, but that didn't seem to matter. The bulk of the students had not used C3D at all, and there was more than enough for them to learn. From time to time, Michael would decide we needed to grab some data, like a surface to use as a daylight target for our corridors. So we would go grab one from one of our projects. We did this a few times in a few different ways, and learned a variety of ways to get data - from XML, directly from old Land Desktop projects, or by importing CSV data and adding the points to a surface. We had not been using the FBK stuff in Land Desktop, so that was a new item for us, but Michael provided us with a sample FBK file that we used for the class, and we used the surface created by that FBK file at one point. Other than that, it was basically all our data. (I later used the FBK file he provided as an example for getting our office using automated linework, which has been an overall boon to our office despite the flaws in the design of the process.)
At another point, he started showing us how to do some construction calcs from the type of data we usually get. In this particular case, we used a parking lot that we needed to stake. We had terribly messy linework provided by another company that was not using Civil-3D (and may not have even been using Land Desktop). Contours were hand-drawn - incorrectly, of course. Our only good vertical data came from spot elevations on the flowlines. Plus, it was drawn by someone who apparently had an aversion to OSNAPs and commands like Chamfer, Fillet, and Offset - in other words, the data was about as bad as it could get. Over the course of a couple of hours, Michael showed us how to turn the terrible drawing into one with nice, solid linework that we could turn into feature lines, which we graded with the Elevation Editor. In a very short period of time, we had a 3D model of the parking lot, complete with contours that were far better than the flawed and impossible ones the engineer had drawn in. (This then led to the question of how to create stakeout points for 3' offsets to TBC from the feature lines, which eventually became the motivation behind the STAKEFEATURES command in the SincpacC3D.)
All in all, we spent very little time retrieving and cleaning up data, and I think we got about as much C3D training as the guys were able to absorb at once. By the end of the three days, we had EVERYONE in our company creating surfaces, alignments, feature lines, parcels, and simple corridors. This was in comparison to the Sitelines webcast that we had been watching on Autodesk's web site, where we watched one woman at a company go spend a week at official Autodesk training, then spend the next five months struggling to accomplish what everyone in my office could do after three days of training.
And I suppose the ability to pull in all kinds of data is more important to us than to engineers, who create much of their data. But it was a critical aspect of the class for us. We have little say over what sort of data we get, it's usually sloppy and difficult to work with, and it's never done in C3D, but we still have to deal with it. For us, pulling in "bad data" and making it usable is actually a large part of using C3D, one of our most-frequent tasks. Training that did not cover this aspect of C3D would have ill-served us. It was definitely not a distraction from "more important" topics, or anything like that. It was critical knowledge, and probably a large part of the reason why we didn't follow the path of some others we've seen, who get C3D and training, only to drop C3D in frustration a month or two later.
Of course, after the class, we had no idea what lay ahead with regard to creating Plats. But as it turns out, there's probably enough in Parcels and Parcel Labels and the related sundry mess that it could take up a complete three-day class in itself, and Michael was undoubtedly wise to leave that topic out of our three-day intro... :wink:
-
sounds awesome! the problem i have is not having a great leave-behind when i come in blind. with a savvy group of good cad users (ie everyone knows what a surface is _in general_, etc) we can use their data and steam through quite a bit of material, but i always feel like 1) we are taking a gamble that we might not get to every topic we'd like to cover 2) i don't have a how-to to leave behind to remind them of what we did and how we did it.
i did one last week where i spent day one going through some moderately generic data getting everyone successful drawing _some kind_ of alignment, profile, etc. so they at least learned where the menu was, the toolbar functions, etc. then on day two we essentially repeated the process with their template and some linework from their potential pilot project and did some mock design work where everyone had to apply the knowledge they learned the day before and challenge me with "how would I do this". that worked out really well and is a bit of a model for what i would like to do more often in the future. the trick is that you really need "their" template, or at least something started.
And because I wanted to document some of the techiques we encountered so they weren't lost once i left, it worked out pretty well. I'm really obsessive about leaving some kind of meaningful reminders.
-
The real work begins when you guys leave Dana.
I'm sure you guys know it but that's really the tough part for the end user.
My training wheels have been removed and I can't keep myself upright is a really uncomfortable feeling for someone trying to make a living from their efforts.
This is one of the hardest transitions I've seen.
And I went from R14 LDT to MicroStation 5.5 and in my humble opinion that was easier.
You, Jason, James, Mark, Mike Farrell here along with sinc dino and all the rest are just invaluable in sharing the knowledge that it takes to get an organization to adopt this approach to project design.
Sorry I won't be going to AU this year but my guy's will.
So close your eyes and imagine you're huggin me not them. :kewl:
-
Don't feel alone John, I won't be going either. I would trade the trip there there any day for a good refresher training session but I don't see that in the future either. I certainly hope Dana was taking a bit of descriptive license in her post about having to coax some attendees along that didn't know what a surface was. If goobers that green are getting training and I am sitting 2 product versions behind in regular maintenance, it might be time to go fishing for a few years and come back when I can qualify as a classic.
-
i'm not kidding. i get at least one per class that doesn't get TIN at all.
-
i'm not kidding. i get at least one per class that doesn't get TIN at all.
:-o
Then Dana, I owe you several apologies for some of my previous posts. I never would have thought that "essential training" for Civil 3D also had to include remedial civil engineering design 001. This would seem to me to be a disservice to you as the teacher, the students who actually KNOW what to do with the software after you teach them how to use it and even the aforementioned greenhorn who is thrown into water WAY over his head.
-
I am sitting 2 product versions behind in regular maintenance
So does that mean you're still using 2006?
Ouch. 2008 can be frustrating enough. :-P
-
No, it means I have not received training for versions 2006 or 2007 and any features that appeared after the 2005 release. I had to figure out pipes (at least 3/4 of my design responsibility) on my own by trolling the forums and just doing it. The same goes for survey which I haven't had time to devote to so . . . , and any of the other new bells and whistles post 2005. I have been using 2007 since its sp2 and have a 30 trial of 2008 with about a week left to play with. The prevailing idea here (by the check writers anyway) is that if they can't figure it out on their own they don't need to use it and neither should I.
-
I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there. The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.
-
I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there. The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.
Mike thanks for the offer.
The ad vatages of establishing a corporate presence at AU are entirely different than having someone in house.
Short term you are probably correct but my job also involves taking a long term view of things and the networking availability at AU is invaluable.
-
I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there. The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.
Because AU is about more than classes. It's networking, it's meeting your peers, it's getting new ideas. As many times as I've been to AU, I still find some tidbit worth sharing, some new product I hadn't seen, some person that I'd like to know better.
For the cost of one day of training to get three days worth of ideas and networking seems like a good deal to me. I sell training, and I'd rather one of my clients send a person to AU than have me there for that same day. Bang for the buck, AU wins over the best trainers, hands down, Mike.
Now, excuse me as I go back to lurking.
-
Well, if I have some vacation time squirreled away, I might be able to make it to the next AU held in Kansas City - IF I can afford to pony up the attendance fees. This journeyman designer doesn't have a corporate presence to establish and spends arguably WAY too much time networking on line for all the good it has done him. The classes may be worth the time and money, but then the last time augi had a CAD camp here, I drove right past the event twice each day without stopping in once.
-
I don't know, as every year I peruse the class offerings at AU, and rarely do I see any class there that would justify my time of going there. I get plenty of ideas associating with my peers, and students just trying to solve the challenges they face every day.
I get more out of the day to day activity of seeing the problems others post, and trying to figure out a workable solution to them. I doubt that AU presents the same number of problem solving opportunities in a week, as an average day of looking through the posts, here at The Swamp, and the newsgroups combined.
Sure there might be some benefits of having a presence there; as a reseller. Sure there might even be some interesting characters as well, luckily I get a chance to meet them all on the Internet. Often, I even get to meet them in person when they are willing to meet me as I visit there city on some training mission. Interestingly the average users jump at the chance to meet with me on these occasions, whereas the those most immersed in the body politic of augi steadfastly refuse to meet with me. I wish they weren't so skittish, really I don't bite. :kewl:
-
A change of this magnitude isn't accomplished in a short time.
I don't want to scare anybody off but it takes years.
JP, from my experiences it does not need to take years to make this transition. It requires the proper training of ALL individuals at the same time. In this manner everyone sees how the application should be applied to the engineering tasks that they face day to day. Piecemeal, top down, or bottom up training isn't going to cut. This trickle down approach will not create the momentum required to overcome organizational inertia.
When the users get a really good example of how, when and where the program makes their life easier and the design process faster, most a quick to adopt it. When the training they receive is too abstract, i.e. not their project data, it becomes an obstacle moving from the abstract to practical application. For the best examples of this one need only look around here (The Swamp) at how well my students have progressed with C3D, and their willingness to continue to struggle with the applications inherent flaws, or omissions; exactly because they have seen how much it can do for them in spite of these challenges.
Conversely; I also have clients that have failed to successfully adopt C3D for a variety of reasons. Most of them have been instances where they have asked me to deviate from my normal plan of attack. Two examples come to mind; one wherein the 'lead' designed failed to accept that his design methods would need to adjust to the toolkit and workflow that C3D presents. The other was caused by the principal engineer deciding that various users would attend only bits and pieces of the classes resulting in most not seeing the package in its entirety and all not getting the complete picture of the processes or power of C3D.
This entire process could and should go a lot smoother, if only Autodesk would listen to the users and fix the problems in the application; not in the next release, or the next, but right now and at NO CHARGE to the customers who have already paid (and suffered) enough with the idiosyncrasies of Civil 3D from the beginning. However, this is probably very unlikely, when they and their puppets over at augi, censor (delete) any post there or the newsgroups that no matter how true they find objectionable. They fail to understand that the truth is immutable. Thank goodness that The Swamp isn't adversely affected by any corporate affiliation with Autodesk, or SolidVapour.
-
Let's start with something we can agree on.
>>This entire process could and should go a lot smoother, if only Autodesk would listen to the users and fix the problems in the application; not in the next release, or the next, but right now and at NO CHARGE to the customers who have already paid (and suffered) enough with the idiosyncrasies of Civil 3D from the beginning. << And I also agree this ain't gonna happen.
Now for the other stuff.
>>It requires the proper training of ALL individuals at the same time. <<
You good with a class of 50?
Who takes care of Wednesday's submittals when everyone is in class?
>> When the training they receive is too abstract, i.e. not their project data, it becomes an obstacle moving from the abstract to practical application. <<
This arguement about who's data to use is nuts.
If you are teaching tools you can use Florida data in Leadville Colorado and get the lesson across.
The application of the tools in your own environment is the second stage of training. It's much longer and much more hands on.
Very dependent on attitude and aptitude and this phase takes some time.
>> For the best examples of this one need only look around here (The Swamp) at how well my students have progressed with C3D,<<
Participants in the Swamp are hardly a representative cross section of the average Engineering company employee.
>> However, this is probably very unlikely, when they and their puppets over at augi, censor (delete) any post there or the newsgroups that no matter how true they find objectionable.<<
Curious about the AUGI beef. I check there occasionally but refer to it as the shallow end of the pool.
>>They fail to understand that the truth is immutable. <<
Nah. Everybody's truth is a little bit different. No that's not right. Let's say everybody's truth is different.
-
Yes, I am fine with a class of 50. We just break it down into three or four manageable groups. This allows someone to get those submittals out, while the others are in class. Under these condition I even extend a prorated fee to ensure that it is affordable for all to attend. I have found that the wider the mix of users in the class presents the greatest opportunity for learning.The goal is to get all users applying the product as soon as possible.
When I say that the truth is immutable; the best example that comes to mind is Galileo, and the Inquisition. In the end it has come to be accepted that the Earth is not the center of the universe now matter how hard they tried to silence him, or oppress scientific enquiry.
My focus on using the clients data is mostly because
A) It tends to bring the lessons closer to home.
B) Towards the end of the lessons, we can actually start applying the information to billable work on said project data.
Item B, tends to change Attitudes.
As to aptitude, we all learn at different rates and in different ways. This is why I include lots of repetitions of the process, and as many varied applications of the tools as is possible in the time I spend with the students. Interestingly the more time I get to spend with a group the more I am able to adjust the lessons to their needs.
In this manner the lessons are both reinforced, and made profitable.
-
The application of the tools in your own environment is the second stage of training. It's much longer and much more hands on.
Very dependent on attitude and aptitude and this phase takes some time.
That's what Michael's trying to say - WHY do you need an entire stage of training in someone else's environment? What good does it really do?
I know the argument so far has been that it's easier to prepare the class and keep it on schedule, but Michael doesn't seem to have any problems with that.
I hate to keep harping on the Sitelines presentation, but so far it's the only time I got to see Autodesk's recommended training procedure in action over a period of months. One week in training and six months later, their "lead" was the only one with any experience in C3D, and she was making very little progress. In fact, that whole presentation really scared us about moving to C3D, but we had already initiated the transfer. If that was what we had to look forward to, then we were really worried. The transition to C3D was going to take years.
Instead, the transition to C3D happened pretty quickly. We basically only use LDT on some of our old projects that were started before training (the compatibility issue again - way too much work to try to convert anything but the simplest LDT project to C3D). Sure, we're still learning stuff, but we're also getting work done. And the problems are being approached in a cohesive fashion, since everyone is aware of what's happening. It isn't relegated to a small group of elite users, while everyone else gets baffled as to why certain things need to be done differently. Yes, we had to shut down the office for a while because everyone was getting training, then we were slow for a while because of C3D's learning curve. That was difficult, and initiated a bunch of posts from me railing on Autodesk and the bad UI in C3D. But within two months, we were WAY ahead of Sitelines, and had no desire to use LDT.
We've also noticed that having a larger group of people involved speeds up the overall adoption of the technology. We have two offices, and one of our techs is isolated in the satellite office. Everyone at the main office has progressed significantly faster than the one guy out there by himself. That's actually reached a point where it's causing some issues, and we're talking about what we need to do to address the problem. Letting some people get very fluid in C3D while others are still green is a recipe for problems, as we've found out.
I seriously think that a lot of these problems, and this whole mentality, is being driven by Autodesk's desire to make money. The stockholders hold supreme say over what happens at Autodesk, even if that means the software suffers. If Autodesk cared more about the SOFTWARE, it would not be as difficult to use as it is. But they make a lot of money off of training - in fact, I'd be curious about what percentage of their income comes from training people to use their esoteric software. Why are so many things so difficult in all Autodesk products? So many of them could be done in a nice, easy way that is intuitive to the user, but they don't. They do some abstract involved process instead, where the abstract involved process provides no gain over other possible implementations. It's been a big puzzle for me - the whole question of WHY is it so bad? I know a lot of it is because Autodesk engineers don't actually use their own product, and don't understand the workflow. That makes it difficult for them to create a program that is easy to use, but it is not a good excuse. Then they also have been expanding their product base at an alarming rate - again in response to stock holder demands to make more money. But that just means that fixing any one problem now has repercussions for many different products, making it harder to keep bugs out of the programs. We now have a LOT of sh--y software, instead of some good software. And of course, we all know about how they have to hit the release schedule driven by the subscription program. So that degrades their QC even more, as they release product that are not ready, simply to maintain the release schedule.
Eh, I forgot the <begin rant> tag, because I didn't realize it was coming, but I think I'm done with my rant for this morning... :-D
-
Like a damned moth to the flame...I'll defend JP's methodology since it's my own to defend. Astericks used in place of the stupid list formatting, just don't feel like fighting it.
* You can't teach all at once. As John said, it's a matter of keeping the ship moving while others are in training. And why train someone if they won't be using the software in an active manner for weeks or even months in some cases? It's a waste of time and money to train someone when the skills won't be applied soon and often enough to retain the knowledge. I liek the idea of scheduling training out for everyone, but amny firms simply don't want to commit to that sort of timeline. They require us to be flexible, so we are.
* There is enough information about there regarding civil 3d that even the most head-in-the-sand techs know something about it. Most of it's wrong. We advocate a small measured approach because it gives the best chance to prove the naysayers wrong, build up the templates, procedures, and workflows to show off a success for the company. Using this pilot team to iron out any kinks in the process for THAT FIRM make it much more likely to get a better adoption going forward and support from management. It's one thing to have one team struggle through the process, it's another to have fiv eor 50 do it. To address Sinc's comment, yes, groups move faster than lone wolves, but small groups move faster than large. Five to eight is sleek, 50 is a committee effort, and we know how those go.
* Training under someone else's data set is easy. It lets people focus on the tool instead of trying to design. It's building a birdhouse. I honestly don't know why you guys don't see the value in starting with something simple before you take on the larger tasks. Practicing on a relatively simple alignment and corridor instead of overwhelming people with a full round-about design is simply good teaching technique.
I absolutely agree that using client's data brings the point closer to home. In every case, our approach is to use the birdhouse for Essentials, and then train against the project that a team will be doing for their first project. JP's pilot team trained using the Apartment plan, aerial data, and highway information that was part of their pilot job. But this was after they knew was a corridor was, what a surface was about, etc.
And I have to agree with you on one point that I wasn't clear on long ago. We ahve adopted to using JP's pilot job as the basis for much of the training we've done with the rest of his teams. Combining this with the GBA template so that many of the objects LOOK like GBA work does go a long way in changing attitude. People see something that looks like they would produce, and they are impressed by speed, simplicity of creation, etc. You don't use their template, and all they see is, "Wow, how long will it take me to make that look good?" I'm with you on this one Mr. Farrel.
* Transitions happen very fast in small firms. John Mayo has made the jump pretty fast, there's only five people there. Sinc, your office isn't very large either. Again, the ship analogy works here, large ships take longer to turn. Simple fact of life. JP @ GBA will be done long before our friends at Carter & Burgess are. Engineering firms are all over the place with their willingness to change; some owners bought GPS equipment the day it was out there, some still use HPs for data collectors. To claim that the number of firms represented here in the swamp is a sampling is a fair stretch, IMO. Transitions can be all over the place. Most firms that go to the expense of hiring a consultant have enough complications that they don't want to have some <know it all> walk in and rip out everything overnight. They want a methodical, measured approach with metrics and milestones. It's part of the engineering mindset, and has served them well for years. Hell, accounting changes take a long time, why would changing the major engine of your business be something you do on the fly?
* Autodesk doesn't make money on training. They sell AOTC, but that's about it. The reseller community and consultants make money on training, so yell at us if you like, but any conspiracy theory about product being crap to sell training just borders on delusional. I like ya sinc, but give me a break. The reason the product doesn't always make sense, the reason it's so convoluted, is that it's a global product, and has to be flexible beyond measure.
I don't think you guys fully appreciate what that means. C3D goes out the door in 13 languages. That means that every change to a dialog to make something simpler is 13 times the work. It means that problems that occur can't be solved, "right now," because there is a policy in place that NO changes to dialogs are allowed between versions, and that no Service Pack fix can be applied that is not applied to all languages. For example, this is why Rob Todd's Survey Extension has never been incorporated into the core product. It makes sense here, but not in many of the international markets.
I think I hit many of the things that raised my eyebrows. I think it's a decent debate though, so let's keep playing. I'll leave myself logged in for a while so Dino can track me and be amused, and so I can reply.
edit - just some minor janitorial work
-
I keep getting the feeling that sometimes we are arguing about the same conclusions.
Let's define some terms so we can at least use the same language.
First "Successful Implementation"
I'll offer the definition of when you reach the 0$ point when your cost in outside expense and lost productivity is equaled by the gained efficiency for design groups. Lots of times this isn't going to happen as it will be a subjective judgement that for the same money we can turn out a better product for the same money and the cost becomes unrecouped. But you have made the subjective improvement of a better end product.
Sometimes I'm being less than clear in separating training from learning.
The following is a classic example.
>>The application of the tools in your own environment is the second stage of training. It's much longer and much more hands on.
Very dependent on attitude and aptitude and this phase takes some time.<<
Cranial Rectal inversions happen to me occassionally and this was one of them. I should have used learning instead of teaching in the first sentance. So in the future I will try to be more consistant in diferentiating between training and learning. In house mentoring will fall into the learning catagory and training shall be confined to the use of an outside agency.
>>Letting some people get very fluid in C3D while others are still green is a recipe for problems, as we've found out.<<
I just don't see how this can be prevented. Some will just get it better and faster than others. Also using the ship analogy everybody on an America's Cup yacht better know what everyone else is doing, not so much on the Nimitz.
>>That's what Michael's trying to say - WHY do you need an entire stage of training in someone else's environment? What good does it really do?<<
That's like asking, "What's the difference between infantry training and your first firefight?"
Everything is different. Training is generally stress free. Working on your first for money project with your career on the line is not.
You need support in the learning process from either an outside agency or internal sources before you can become comfortable using your new tools.
I'm not pickin on you sinc, you're just more quoteable. :-D
-
That's what Michael's trying to say - WHY do you need an entire stage of training in someone else's environment? What good does it really do?
the second stage isn't so much training as embedded pilot project work billable to the client's clients. there is nothing more real, more client data focused and more "real world" than that. I like to show clients how to use their tools, with their data and template if possible, during some intro training. I teach them to swing the hammer in the intro training and how to build the dream house to their specifications during the pilot project.
-
See, even after workign together for a year plus, we still debate these same issues. It's always a variable thing. Flexibility is king. 8-)
-
I'm not pickin on you sinc, you're just more quoteable. :-D
'S'Alright, I don't feel picked on... :-)
I think what it goes back to for me is the belief that much of this entire discussion should have never occurred. This goes back to my philosophy of software design, and that software like this should support existing workflows to a large extent. In other words, it should seem intuitive to people who have a lot of experience in the industry. If it doesn't seem intuitive to someone who understands the problem space, then it is not well-designed. Closely coupled with this, the software should be easy to use, and it should not require convoluted manipulations to perform common tasks.
With Civil-3D, Autodesk has actually made significant progress with the first part of this. Land Desktop was full of esoteric elements. For example, we frequently needed to enter FG profiles from plans. But in order to enter a FG profile, we had to create a dummy surface and sample the EG. This task served absolutely no purpose, but we had to do it before Land Desktop would allow us to create a FG profile. Now creating a dummy surface and sampling it is NOT something that would occur to someone who understands what they are doing and knows what they want. It is a complete artifact added by bad design in Land Desktop. Autodesk as learned a bit over the years, and C3D fixes many things like this from Land Desktop. There are still areas where they really screwed up (Parcels in particular are an area that I feel was mis-designed from the ground up), and some areas are still very weak (intersection design anyone?) but they've made a lot of progress.
Where they really dropped the ball is in the second part. It takes insane numbers of clicks to perform many common tasks. Prospector is great, but too many tasks can only be done from Prospector, which greatly reduces usability. Label Styles are not very well-designed, leading to the "Style Breeding Problem" as the user is forced to create countless styles with minute differences between them. Style Management in general is extremely weak. Old tools like quick-select, GETSEL, and selection filters are made unusable. Handy MAP tools are incompatible with C3D objects. Point styles are a convoluted mess. And all the other problems that we regularly discuss ad naseum. Even selecting a Profile at a prompt can be a pain, because in most dialogs, all Profiles that exist in the drawing are lumped together in one giant list.
The confluence of all these things is what makes C3D such a chore to learn. Huge swaths of these things should not even exist in the product, and I'm sure many of them would not exist if the people creating C3D also needed to use it. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Instead, we end up with a UI that is little better than a database editor for many tasks. Sure, we can do the tasks that we need to do, but we often have to follow clunky and unnatural procedures to get it done. And in order to do things in clunky and unnatural ways, we need training. :?
-
To be clear Autodesk does make money off of training beyond the sale of AOTC materials. The 'authorized' training centers pay tens of thousands of dollars to Autodesk every year to be 'authorized', to have untested 'certified' trainers work for them. And unless the trainer is training the 'authorized' centers clients they are technically 'uncertified' the minute they walk out the door, or provide training to anyone not paying the training center a fee. The details of this arrangement are detailed on Autodesks' website for those that care to read it.
I believe that should Autodesk, and by proxy augi, stop censoring or deleting real, valid user issues with the product posted by users that are passionate about their products it could lead to real marked improvements in the products they offer. Instead it seams easier for them to attempt to silence these persons, until the complaints become more or less a deafening roar.
-
Give me a break, you know what an ATC license costs? About the same as a box of software. "Tens of thousands of dollars," to a multi-billion dollar firm. Woopee. That's like saying you make money by keeping the change from a Starbucks run.
I'm surprised by the AUGI bit, but since I don't play over there, I can't attest to it. I would say that perhaps AUGI is a bit heavier handed than the normal Adesk discussion groups simply because they want to be the nice side of the block. Go to the normal groups, and you'll see folks like Sinc, Hans Moller, Maeding, etc. screaming to high heaven about inadequacies of the software. Heck, go back a few years and you'll see me screaming about LDT. That's how I got into testing.
Making reasonable statements about the software's features that don't run off into rant land will get you attention and even some issues fixed. To claim a conspiracy between tiddly winks money and software lacking is giving them more credit than their due. The people that sit NEXT to each other don't work that closely half the time, let alone teams separated by a continent. Harp on the software if you like, but the rest of it's paranoia.
-
I'll let you do the math for yourself on this one: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=3497154 (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=3497154)
However as a baseline let's consider this, if the average cost is $5,000 per site, and they have 'only' 1500 sites, then the earnings is $7,500,000. This doesn't include the cost of the AOTC materials they buy, or the software licenses. My best guess is that they probably net in excess of 10 million dollars from the ATC program with ease. I don't know about you but 10 million isn't small change to me.
-
Based on a quick visit to Yahoo's Financial page, Adesk's Market Cap is 10.43 BILLION. 10M is a lot to me an you. To them? A statistical blip.
-
OK, I don't think there's a conspiracy among Autodesk engineers to make the program more-complicated so they can make more money from training. But I DO think they tend to be sloppy and they fail to make the software easy to use. For the most part, this is because the engineers writing the code do not understand the problem space, and do not use the software they create. But I do see a tendency for Autodesk to downplay problems with the design of the software because users can be trained to work with what they get. Got a serious problem in the software that would require rewriting a ton of code to really fix? Well, just don't fix it, and tell the users to get training. So training becomes a replacement for good software design.
By doing stuff like that, Autodesk cuts down on development hours, and they are able to hit their yearly release goals, but at the expense of the users who must suffer with poorly-designed and buggy software. I know there are a lot of very smart people at Autodesk, and find it hard to believe that they are clueless about the problems in their software, I just keep getting the impression that they prefer to go for the knock-off easy hack fix rather than the real fix. And of course, the real kicker is that over the long term, this policy doesn't really increase their bottom line, either. By failing to provide solid fixes to major problems, they just increase the amount of spaghetti code that gets added to Autodesk products, which makes development much harder down the road. And that causes a net decline in productivity in their software teams, at the same time it increases the bugs and decreases the ease-of-use of the program. And when they finally decide they need to do the real fix, they have tons of code piled on top of the original bad design, and it takes forever to fix, if it is even possible to fix.
As an example, look at the definition of an arc. In core Autocad, an arc is ALWAYS defined in a counter-clockwise direction. There is no parameter in the Arc entity for reversing its direction. This leads to problems like being unable to control the direction of custom linetypes in arcs, as well as a whole category of potential problems and issues for developers and automaters. And since there is now so much code that is built on top of that definition, changing the definition of an arc at this point would wreak havok. They sort-of tried to fix this problem by defining CircularArc2D with an IsClockwise attribute, but we still have problems. Take Parcel Curve Labels as a good example - the Y-offset of those things is a royal pain because of this issue.
-
Being a user, I would have no problem with Autodesk taking the next 5 years or so to clean up and refine the current existing program(s) so that all possible bugs were worked out. Then they could pick up where they left off and add new features (working out any new bugs in the process of course).
I tend to lean towards the conspiracy theories, but I think it would be ridiculous not to accept the possibility that Autodesk has focused on new features more than working out old annoying bugs because that's what a majority of the users want. Go to the AUGI forums and check out the "wishlist" categories of each product and you see everyone wanting a particular feature or function. Autodesk works to give the users what they want. That's what helps them sell more product. "Sorry folks, we haven't fixed out that 15 year old bug quite yet, but look at these new features we've added to the new release! Aren't they purty?" And the users are lured in hook line and sinker. If those wishlists had less requests for new features and an abundance of "please fix this bug once and for all" I'm sure Autodesk would take note.
Either way, there comes a time when you simply have to quit complaining and either sit quietly on the sidelines, or get more involved. Those who are seasoned and/or truly professional cad draftsmen (and women for the politically correct) and designers/engineers are usually resourceful enough to work around the bugs and sling their respective Autodesk product around like a rag doll to make it do what they want. The ones who want bugs fixed become more active with the company in one way or another and those who don't mind working around them continue working with little or no complaints being issued from their mouths.
And for the record, I don't believe there's a conspiracy among Autodesk engineers... I think it goes higher than that. The engineers likely don't have a clue. All they know is that their bosses are just rushing them too much for them to do their jobs efficiently. OK maybe not, but it's possible. :-D
Then again you have to consider the position the company is in and from a business owners perspective how difficult it could be to actually fix all the bugs and still sell the products during that "restoration" period. The bottom line is they have a company to run and that means they have to make money to stay in business whether we like it or not. That's capitalism at it's "best".
-
Either way, there comes a time when you simply have to quit complaining and either sit quietly on the sidelines, or get more involved. Those who are seasoned and/or truly professional cad draftsmen (and women for the politically correct) and designers/engineers are usually resourceful enough to work around the bugs and sling their respective Autodesk product around like a rag doll to make it do what they want. The ones who want bugs fixed become more active with the company in one way or another and those who don't mind working around them continue working with little or no complaints being issued from their mouths.
It may just be about the price we have to pay for the buggy software.
-
Good point.
-
"Like a damned moth to the flame..." For what it's worth ($0.01), here's my 2 cents on a few things previously mentioned.
Please keep in mind I am an end-user (no chuckles or demeaning looks form the programmers please ;).
Conklin Associates is a success story for James, Dana & the good folks at EE. We were up & running spitting out stuff in C3D in a two to three months. All new projects are in C3D.
The training & style creation will go on for years unless all current employees never leave & all project requirements never change. The former is more likely than the latter in this office. Many of the posts make me believe that most of your firms were able to implement LDT years ago with one push of the EASY button. I never found that. It took us years to get LDT up & running with consistent output to company standards in similar time between users.
In training, our users were most impresses when our template was used in quick design lessons with sample data sets. Someone else's data spit out in seconds to company standards. This is what got our attention.
We would not have invested in training without working on our projects.
We are a 10 person firm. Survey crew, surveyors & engineers. A typical job in this firm is most likey tiny in magnitude compared to most other firms but it includes property & topographic survey, design, construction stakeout & as-built.
Our surveyors love C3D when compared to LDT just for the enhancements with TIN creation & not having to add pline, build, create contours & repeat & repeat & repeat... Everything else is pretty much the same for what we do on the surveying side. We still need to work out traverse closure methods in C3D.
I have read many things about C3D in the past. I think Autodesk was in critical damage control mode for a while. The naysayers had quite a bit of control. Many professionals I had spoken to about C3D between 05& 06 would all say the same thing, "I will not pay for bugs, what we have works fine". They started to turn the corner with new features in 07 & got more reliable in 08 but the effect of the early years lingers.
They program is the best in the world, it is the worst in the world. The latter will drop when, it doesn't take 15 friggin' clicks to do what 2 should do & when the existing C3D features perform as expected. The complicated process is aggravating because your mind is 15 steps ahead of your mouse clicks & navigation.
They should forget about & drop all new features until the beast tamed.
-
I tend to lean towards the conspiracy theories, but I think it would be ridiculous not to accept the possibility that Autodesk has focused on new features more than working out old annoying bugs because that's what a majority of the users want. Go to the AUGI forums and check out the "wishlist" categories of each product and you see everyone wanting a particular feature or function.
Do you really think that's a good basis?
From what I've seen, half of the wishes on the AUGI forum are already possible, it's just that the poster is so unfamiliar with Autodesk software that he/she doesn't realize it... And of course, I don't think I've ever posted a wish that Autodesk would fix bugs. I thought the desire to use a product that isn't full of bugs was a given, and didn't realize Autodesk needed it expressed in wishlists before they would think it was important. And I suppose I also just tend to think that the wish lists are for requests for new features, not requests for fixing existing features. I don't know why I thought this, I just did, and I would not be surprised if others made this assumption as well. When I find a feature that doesn't work, I report it to Autodesk through the MyFeedback page as a bug, and I will post about it on the regular newsgroups (especially if I discover a workaround), but I usually don't post it on the wishlist. And when the next version comes out and the bug isn't fixed, I start to rant about it... :wink:
-
Do you really think that's a good basis?
From what I've seen, half of the wishes on the AUGI forum are already possible, it's just that the poster is so unfamiliar with Autodesk software that he/she doesn't realize it... And of course, I don't think I've ever posted a wish that Autodesk would fix bugs. I thought the desire to use a product that isn't full of bugs was a given, and didn't realize Autodesk needed it expressed in wishlists before they would think it was important. And I suppose I also just tend to think that the wish lists are for requests for new features, not requests for fixing existing features. I don't know why I thought this, I just did, and I would not be surprised if others made this assumption as well. When I find a feature that doesn't work, I report it to Autodesk through the MyFeedback page as a bug, and I will post about it on the regular newsgroups (especially if I discover a workaround), but I usually don't post it on the wishlist. And when the next version comes out and the bug isn't fixed, I start to rant about it... :wink:
Maybe it's time to flood the wishlists with requests to fix all the bugs.
-
The only time I posted a wish list item it was to do nothing except and until they got all of the known bugs fixed . . . I don't know if they deleted it or it just got buried quickly, but I never was able to find it on the list and it obviously did not get their attention.