TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: therock003 on May 17, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
-
Hi guys,has anyone of you used any books as a reference to learn C3D and LDD?I have bought Harnessing LDD 2005 and Procedures and applications for civil 3d 2007 by Harry O. Ward.
The Harry o ward is nice cause it describes whats behind the commands,and offers scenarios on how the programm is used.But it doesn go too deep with the commands.It's like basic stuff to get you going.Although i find it pretty good at that.I wonder if the new 2008 and 2009 version have anything more to oofer,new applications or new stuff to teach or is it same stuff but concerning its for the new version.
Also how about the harnessing civil 3d andhttp://www.amazon.com/Introducing-AutoCAD-Civil-3D-2009/dp/0470373164/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211047020&sr=8-4 (http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-AutoCAD-Civil-3D-2009/dp/0470373164/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211047020&sr=8-4) are like.
-
Mastering Civil3D 2008 is really good. I understand the 2009 version will have both Beginning & Mastering versions. More info, including ordering, can be found at www.civil3d.com (http://www.civil3d.com)
-
Land development books also, I found at books.google.com.
You can read them there.
-
I can Not suggest any book other that the help file. As mentioned on gets a bit too deep, and the other is fraught with errors and omissions. I have worked with several students for whom these books become paper weights.
Study the help file, and go watch the recorded demos at the C3D community page of Autodesk, and keep you cash for something you can use.
-
go watch the recorded demos at the C3D community page of Autodesk,
You mean the on-demand webcasts?
-
Do not bother to watch any of the LIVE webcasts, so you can fast forward through all the drivel they start with.
Go watch the recorded ones, and then run some experiments, and STUDY what happens.
Be aware they are MOSTLY features presentations NOT 'how to' use the software sessions, so they skip a lot of the fine details. Watch the tutorials on my site, these are more 'How To', not feature demonstrations.
-
I can Not suggest any book other that the help file. As mentioned on gets a bit too deep, and the other is fraught with errors and omissions. I have worked with several students for whom these books become paper weights.
Study the help file, and go watch the recorded demos at the C3D community page of Autodesk, and keep you cash for something you can use.
Hi Mike
I'm sorry to hear you feel this way about Mastering. I know you had expressed some distaste for the text in the past. While you and I don't always seem to see eye-to-eye, I (along with the other authors) valued your opinion and experience enough to send you a free copy of Mastering Civil 3D 2008 and ask for your feedback to improve forthcoming revised book (Mastering Civil 3D 2009), as well as subsquent printings of the 2008 Mastering book, and a new book (Introducing Civil 3D 2009).
Perhaps you had other things on your plate at the time, but you didn't really have much to offer except some comments about TIN lines and a little bit about the pipe network parts chapter.
My personal mission is to get information out to the Civil 3D using public through whatever avenues possible. It may sound corny, but my goal has always been to get people using Civil 3D because I see it as a vehicle to improve design. The more interations we can do, the more we can eliminate CAD mistakes and labeling annoyances, the more time we can spent trying new things and iterating more. Last year, I saw writing a that would appear in mainstream bookshops and online retailers to be a logical step in that process.
While Mastering Civil 3D is not the book of my dreams, putting it together was an education. For the new books we have a better understanding of the publishing business (working with editors, deadlines and production complications) and we also sought better tech editors.
I put out several "calls for feedback" on the Autodesk discussion group, and by asking you for your feedback, and surprisingly, I received mostly crickets in response.
Each author has used the text for class instruction and this exercise gave us more ideas to improve the book, make it more readable, more instructive. All things considered, I am still quite proud of the entire text, and the 400 pages that I personally wrote.
------
Here are some of the items that I am most proud of (and that I am pretty sure they cannot be found anywhere else), and that I personally flip to as a reminder and reference:
Chapter 6: Parcels, especially the sidebar on pages 201- 204 where I document guidelines for subdivision based on methods I worked out during creating several thousand parcel iterations for many preliminary site plans and final record plats during the Winter of 2005-2006 in Civil 3D 2006 HF2. The processes still apply today. Also, this chapter includes a refined version of the original "Parcel Rules" post from Civil 3D Rocks that explains, in laymans terms, how best to exploit the planar graph.
Chapter 11: Corridors: especially the "common corridor problems" sections and detailed look "under the hood" of corridor surface construction
Chapter 12: Corridors: especially the "common corridor problems" sections based on many of my own frustrations encountered working out corridor best practices during the design and modeling of ten residential street projects (each containing about 20 roads plus intersections and cul de sacs) while doing freelance cad/design work between 7/2006 and 4/2007.
-----
While we are limited in what we can change at this time since our deadline is upon us, I would still like to hear feedback about how the text can be improved. If we can't incorporate the feedback in the book, perhaps we can work it into one of our weekly eeCasts, blog posts or something else.
Sincerely,
Dana Breig Probert
one of four authors of Mastering AutoCAD Civil 3D 2008
and writer at www.civil3drocks.com and www.civil3d.com
-
Dana,
As I do not post much at the News Groups, I missed those calls for comment. Also Time seemed to limit what comments could or would be included I commented only on the areas I felt strongest about. (Were those items addressed?)
If a PDF of the current text could be provided, I would be happy to provide a peer review. Otherwise I would be commenting on old information.
We share the some of the same goals; getting people to use the software. Now if only EE would do more to help fix the application, instead of accepting it's defects, limitations, and or deficiencies.
-
We share the some of the same goals; getting people to use the software. Now if only EE would do more to help fix the application, instead of accepting it's defects, limitations, and or deficiencies.
With all due respect, Mike, you have absolutely no idea what I do behind the scenes under Non-disclosure as a user advocate for the improvement of Civil 3D.
-
As I do not post much at the News Groups, I missed those calls for comment. Also Time seemed to limit what comments could or would be included I commented only on the areas I felt strongest about. (Were those items addressed?)
These are the two comments you made:
1. Surface Edits Delete Line, be sure to warn that should lines be deleted from the interior of the model all resultant volumes from that surface will be in error. Suggest alternate, extract contour lines from model and delete or edit those, thus leaving the model intact.
2. Suggest, that in Partbuilder section, that user be advised to create isometric sketch showing various part relationships prior to entering Partbuilder, as this makes the process easier to do.
----
I am not sure about number 1, but I know we discussed it. As far as Number 2 goes, it is not really within the scope of the text because the text does not cover building parts in part builder.
However, several of my colleagues and myself wrote a significant volume of material on part builder last summer that has been added to the Civil 3D 2009 help file in the form of step-action-result tutorials. I think there are three parts built. Take them with a grain of salt, though, because Part Builder is an inappropriate engine for building parts in reality. In short, it stinks.
-
We share the some of the same goals; getting people to use the software. Now if only EE would do more to help fix the application, instead of accepting it's defects, limitations, and or deficiencies.
With all due respect, Mike, you have absolutely no idea what I do behind the scenes under Non-disclosure as a user advocate for the improvement of Civil 3D.
Really? Excellent! That would prove A) you are really good at staying behind the scenes B)autodesk does ignore everyone equally!
I guess this would go more towards the 'language' issue I have with that book. Perhaps a little more pointed poking at the defects and deficiencies might get them to be more responsive. I know that this would prove a strain on the relationship between EE and autodesk, however IF one of their key Proponents of the Product were to call it like it is, then perhaps more would change faster. (And not autodesk booting EE out of the network)
You are right, I have no idea, however keep up the good fight!
-
As I do not post much at the News Groups, I missed those calls for comment. Also Time seemed to limit what comments could or would be included I commented only on the areas I felt strongest about. (Were those items addressed?)
I am not sure about number 1, but I know we discussed it. As far as Number 2 goes, it is not really within the scope of the text because the text does not cover building parts in part builder.
And part of the reason the Book should NOT be titled MASTERING.
-
I believe that's the title for a number of books in that series.
-
Really? Excellent! That would prove A) you are really good at staying behind the scenes B)autodesk does ignore everyone equally!
I sure am good at it. If I wasn't, I would be putting myself at legal risk. That is why it is called non-disclosure.
As much as my ego would like it, they don't put a little tag on menus that you get built at your suggestion, nor does a little pop-up box come up that says "this feature has been improved thanks to feedback from Dana. Ain't she grand."
While there are occasions that pointing out a fundamental flaw in a public forum is appropriate (like this series I wrote about inexcuseable regen times http://www.civil3d.com/2008/03/regen-rules-part-ii-more-under-the-hood/), I have learned in my trips to Manchester and my daily interaction with members of the QA and Dev teams that they are human beings just like we are, and that they deserve to be treated with respect. While their power is often limited, they can usually explain the programming logic and limitations which arms me with information so that I can a) help my users avoid problems and b) provide feedback for workflow and future improvements.
You and I both make at least a portion of our living teaching this software within the confines of what it is capable of _right now_.
Being respectful and constructive also gets you invited back. This is important because you can't gain audience with the right people who can make change if you are escorted from the building.
-
Shame they can't embrace a sense of humor! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Explain the programming logic? Just because the programming logic makes sense to them, does not a functioning application make. How about embrace that they are human, can and do make mistakes, drop the damned ego and fix the problems. I am sure that this type of corporate culture would result in far more INOVATION and PROFITS for their share holders. Not to mention more satisfied, loyal customers.
-
And part of the reason the Book should NOT be titled MASTERING.
While there any many places in the text I would like to expand, Part Builder is not one of them. I do not believe that a person needs to know part builder in order to "Master" Civil 3D.
As I learned last summer while working with Autodesk on the part builder exercises that have been added to help for 2009, a watered down version of the content builder technology was borrowed from ABS/MEP with minimal thought. It has not been improved nor optimized since it was added for Civil 3D 2006.
After wasting a good 3 weeks of my life trying to get part builder to do things that it was never meant to do, I officially wrote it off after that project. I wouldn't waste any more energy trying to master it, and I would advise users to avoid it as well.
What I did try to build into chapter 14 was a workflow for planning a pipe network including questions to ask yourself when deciding whether or not you need custom parts, specifically the questions on pages 474 and 477.
-
Shame they can't embrace a sense of humor! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Explain the programming logic? Just because the programming logic makes sense to them, does not a functioning application make. How about embrace that they are human, can and do make mistakes, drop the damned ego and fix the problems. I am sure that this type of corporate culture would result in far more INOVATION and PROFITS for their share holders. Not to mention more satisfied, loyal customers.
My only question for you is- Why do you still use this product?
-
Shame they can't embrace a sense of humor! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Explain the programming logic? Just because the programming logic makes sense to them, does not a functioning application make. How about embrace that they are human, can and do make mistakes, drop the damned ego and fix the problems. I am sure that this type of corporate culture would result in far more INOVATION and PROFITS for their share holders. Not to mention more satisfied, loyal customers.
Yelling at the people who write the program based on specifications handed down to them from management (Dev) or who are testing the program as written (QA) is not helpful. It just makes them not want to listen to anything you have to say. If you listen first and find ways to make their jobs easier, you are far more likely to get real answers and learn more about what influences the direction that the product takes.
dana
-
Shame they can't embrace a sense of humor! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Explain the programming logic? Just because the programming logic makes sense to them, does not a functioning application make. How about embrace that they are human, can and do make mistakes, drop the damned ego and fix the problems. I am sure that this type of corporate culture would result in far more INOVATION and PROFITS for their share holders. Not to mention more satisfied, loyal customers.
My only question for you is- Why do you still use this product?
Exactly the questions a number of users, and their employers are asking themselves right now! Exactly because of unresponsiveness to real issues and user demands, (leading Zeros anyone), part builder that works, good corridor surface boundaries, survey that works, real project management. I am not in the minority in my questions, about the product or autodesk, mostly they are a distillation of the questions my clients pose to me.
And yet I do remain enthusiastic about what C3D can do, if only autodesk would have an open dialog with SINC, Dinosaur, You, and Myself and implement the changes we ask for, the customers would indeed be impressed. And I wouldn't even want a pop-up box for my efforts.
-
I have had someone from Manchester visit my office twice to hear what my end-users and I would like to see.
It's always a balance between what is possible and what's not.
They really do listen and indeed are quit helpful in diagnosing and fixing issues that can be identified.
-
Shame they can't embrace a sense of humor! Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Explain the programming logic? Just because the programming logic makes sense to them, does not a functioning application make. How about embrace that they are human, can and do make mistakes, drop the damned ego and fix the problems. I am sure that this type of corporate culture would result in far more INOVATION and PROFITS for their share holders. Not to mention more satisfied, loyal customers.
Yelling at the people who write the program based on specifications handed down to them from management (Dev) or who are testing the program as written (QA) is not helpful. It just makes them not want to listen to anything you have to say. If you listen first and find ways to make their jobs easier, you are far more likely to get real answers and learn more about what influences the direction that the product takes.
dana
I never suggested that you YELL at people or be disrespectful. I would hope you know how to be honest, and critical without being critical or disrespectful of the individual. This would assume the individual wanted, and was mature enough to handle critical feedback and act in a positive manner. If the Problem is as described, then THAT should be fixed, and let the direction for the application get to the programmers in another way.
If one merely listens without questioning there is no dialog that is Dictation. They, the programmers should be the ones listening to the customers, NOT dictating to them, "this work, this way only, you no use that way", they need to drop the ego, and or change the 'channel' that information gets to them from. If they are missing their customers needs, then the 'problem' is identified. Stop denying that there is a problem and open up the customers channels to more honest discussion, and then respond with actual changes the users ask for, not some new look and feel to the interface every 3-4 years.
-
I have had someone from Manchester visit my office twice to hear what my end-users and I would like to see.
It's always a balance between what is possible and what's not.
They really do listen and indeed are quit helpful in diagnosing and fixing issues that can be identified.
Not the response I have experienced, the autodesk individual pretty much denied that the documented probelm existed because HE could not reproduce it And even though I sent data to them to test, they would not send any to me to test in kind. And yet there were other users with said problem. (Point Styles with XDREF remember Scout?) I haven't tested to see if they fixed it in 2009.
-
Not the response I have experienced, the autodesk individual pretty much denied that the documented probelm existed because HE could not reproduce it And even though I sent data to them to test, they would not send any to me to test in kind. And yet there were other users with said problem. (Point Styles with XDREF remember Scout?) I haven't tested to see if they fixed it in 2009.
I remember it came at a time when I didn't have the bandwidth to help you get the issue in front of all of the right people. I think my son was only a few weeks old at the time. If you forward me the relevant information, I'd be happy to test it again. I am bogged down a bit today (finally got some data I was waiting for) but maybe tonight.
-
I did send you the data (a link to it), it is on my site (still) waiting to be down loaded. I also had that user watch the video where it did work with NO Service Pack Installed, and then asked to perform on any other machine to see that the Service Pak had indeed broken the function. Given that we are now in the 2009 cycle is may not be relevent any longer.
And if I recall, you were not helping me with the problem. You originally posted it as a problem, on the newsgroup site. I looked into it to see if I would have the same problem. Lucky that I had not installed the SP, as the point elevations WERE applied and I did get 3 surfaces in my sections where you did not.
-
For the record, I just tested the point style and elevation over rides from XDREF do work correctly in 2009.
-
I have had someone from Manchester visit my office twice to hear what my end-users and I would like to see.
It's always a balance between what is possible and what's not.
They really do listen and indeed are quit helpful in diagnosing and fixing issues that can be identified.
Not the response I have experienced, the autodesk individual pretty much denied that the documented probelm existed because HE could not reproduce it And even though I sent data to them to test, they would not send any to me to test in kind. And yet there were other users with said problem. (Point Styles with XDREF remember Scout?) I haven't tested to see if they fixed it in 2009.
Sometimes it takes a while to diagnose and duplicate it.
but I have had them do it.
-
For the record, I just tested the point style and elevation over rides from XDREF do work correctly in 2009.
glad to hear it. I am sure there will be others. When the time comes, let me know and I will do my best to help. I can't always get everyone to agree that things need to be fixed, but we can usually get them to acknowledge the issue and figure out a course of action. Sometimes the answer isn't what we want to hear, but if we take a step back and look at things from a macro-standpoint, or from the program priorities as a whole, we can understand why things happen the way they do.
-
I have had someone from Manchester visit my office twice to hear what my end-users and I would like to see.
It's always a balance between what is possible and what's not.
They really do listen and indeed are quit helpful in diagnosing and fixing issues that can be identified.
Not the response I have experienced, the autodesk individual pretty much denied that the documented probelm existed because HE could not reproduce it And even though I sent data to them to test, they would not send any to me to test in kind. And yet there were other users with said problem. (Point Styles with XDREF remember Scout?) I haven't tested to see if they fixed it in 2009.
Sometimes it takes a while to diagnose and duplicate it.
but I have had them do it.
Yes JP, however everyone is NOT the pet project of a new Vendor like you were with EE.
You would have gotten a much different customer experience if they had not been determined to let you be their poster child. And you willingly played along, so it WAS more in their interest to at least appear to listen to you, or actively search for solutions. Now deny that you did not have a special relationship with EE...I'll wait.
-
My firm does have a relationship with EE as I'm sure all of their other clients do as well.
it's a matter of picking your partners based on what they can deliver. GBA picked EE in part because they could deliver that access and contact level. To discount that as part of their services is shortsighted and foolish.
-
Not discounting it....just asking for FULL disclosure. So that other users do not think they will have the same access or standard of care from their vendor. Or the vendor network in general.
-
Not discounting it....just asking for FULL disclosure. So that other users do not think they will have the same access or standard of care from their vendor. Or the vendor network in general.
While we may not be able to get actual 'desk management to show up at our clients' offices, we interact with autodesk every single day. Our clients' issues are our issues, and if I have an issue I do my best to get real answers.
-
And that helps separate YOU from them.
-
And that helps seperate YOU from them.
and _them_ would be?????
-
And that helps separate YOU from them.
and _them_ would be?????
THEM, wold be those like this users' Vendor: http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=22970.0 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=22970.0)
Or others, like the ones that would not or could not give a succinct presentation on MAP to Eastriver Electric Co-Op, and they know who they are.
-
Well... I purchased the Mastering AutoCAD Civil 3D 2008 book as did most at our office. For most of us, I will have to agree with Michael, it is nothing more then a paper weight. I've learned much more from both Michaels (mjfarrell and sinc) then I have that book. It barely touches on anything, let alone teach you how to master any concepts. I was particularly unhappy with the survey section of the book. A whopping 21 pages of nothingness. And there is absouletly nothing about creating cogo points from the designs. How about some real world scenarios of staking a pipe network from C3D, slope-staking a basin or a corridor? At first, I encouraged everyone here to purchase the book, but now I discourage it because it pollutes their mind with too many ill concepts and I have to explain why they shouldn't do such and such. A good example is creating a ROW parcel. It seems as usual, that us surveyors just get ignored. What you engineering people fail to realize, if it wasn't for us, your designs wouldn't be created. Just my $0.02.
-
Randy, you mostly all bought this? Really?
Good news all is not lost! They are perfect for hikers, back packers, and boaters!
The CD makes a handy Rescue Mirror!
And the pages (if kept dry) are perfect for starting a rescue fire!
And need I say; 'far smoother than a hand full of leaves'?
And hours of boredom can be eliminated playing Match the Image, where you try to match the wrong figures, with the text that goes with them.
-
Looks like I missed out on a fun time yesterday. Ms. Scout, I read through alot and I have seen the Civil 3D book. Its great for college classes, grasping the concept on how to basic things. And I understand that there is a level for Advanced Peeps like you Mike and others and then there is a level for basic peeps as well, ( Which I thought geared towards them). What do you do when you have advanced people trying to say, "why does this not work?, Why does it crash! I do this routine all the time." I have even talked with Mike some about this, here I am on the other side looking at Civil3D thinking its the bomb, which is it is at the time for creating almost 90% Construction Plans, as Dino said. (I AGREE). On the other side there is the other company that has the PC (PowerCivil) that does reports and Construction plans and all the above drainage dynamically. However, I dont want to waste my time jumping for software to software trying to get it to do what I want it to do and transfering it back again! lol. Wait. I am doing that now with the Hydraflow Extensions. Ironic.
Sorry. I know you guys have read some of my posts with " Can it do this??? This is all I want!?" I know in a few years it will get there. They question is, Do i keep forking out the money on Subscriptions until I finally find what I want. Or do I find a Programmer out there and say this is what I want. What can you do for me?
-
MSTG007,
Everytime I think I have found the 'secret' channel to communicate program errors, they claim to run out of band width. Which I think is code for 'there is no solution, there is no problem, and we are not working on it'.
If only they would open up communication channels a bit, and listen to what the customer wants the software to do, (Grade without Crashing, Lot Line Labels on their own layer, Survey tools that work,etc), instead of a new look and feel to the same interface that lacks the tools (stability) the users really need.
Me thinks a large part of the Civil customer base is really tired of being held hostage with the Subscription program. Spending money on the promise of Future ware, and then basically 'locked' into autodesk because they already have their money. And then, again and again they fail to deliver, there is a lot of dissatisfaction out there.
-
I agree, totally. So what are we supposed to do? Sit Wait for the version of our choosing? If it takes 20 years, it takes 20 years! then I will fork out the money for the subscription upgrades (20,000.00) and be happy. And in the mean time, I will stay on Version 2005 Civil 3D and wait. lol
-
not even funny :?
:lmao:
-
Hey,
What do we do in the mean time? Wait, talk to Dana and the EE guys, and the beta team. Just keep communicating...:)
-
Hey,
What do we do in the mean time? Wait, talk to Dana and the EE guys, and the beta team. Just keep communicating...:)
Perhaps; there is one positive side effect of all that 'talking' at least one will not be holding ones breath and turning blue!
Let's see, five years of wanting MAP to function with C3D objects; still NOT in there.
-
MSTG007,
Everytime I think I have found the 'secret' channel to communicate program errors, they claim to run out of band width. Which I think is code for 'there is no solution, there is no problem, and we are not working on it' . . .
I am reminded of the answering machine message our seismic crew party chief had while his crews were busting budgets in Montana . . .
Hello, you have reached the phone number of ****. At the sound of the tone I am not here, please leave a message > CLICK > dial tone
-
Lets make up our own. We can take all the functionality and place it in an app and, we can do what the people want it to do...
I want MAP to act like Civil 3D.
"Guess what. What?, YOU GOT IT!"
WOOOHOOOOOO
The world would be at peace. All would be right in the lands of civil / map
-
Uh NO I do NOT want MAP to be Like C3D.
I want MAP inside C3D to work with objects made with C3D. See where the disconnect begins?
You are already on the path of producing the wrong product. All will still not be right in the world of Civil.
Now, in your own words please repeat the goals of the development team. Just so you, make me understand that you understand the goal. It should look and sound something like the following:
C3D must, and shall have full query, and topology functionality, using all C3D objects.
-
Mike,
I am learning something here. Yes WOOHOO I Can Learn! Any ways, It seems no matter where you are at. Communication is the BreakDown. And I think Led Zeppelin's Communication Breakdown fits it.
We all hear this, words are sometimes hard to understand. Pictures give a thousand words. Movies and real files give endless information.
Do you think by people suppling full movies / drawings / animations. Other people could understand what the problem is.
-
Any means of getting the other person to actually 'get' what the problem, and or desired functionality is; up to and including things that may or may not be similar to torture.
However it must begin with a willingness to <accept, admit> that there are problems, and or deficiencies in the product. And there needs to be more openness to the process, I think the word is transparent, so that users can see the dialog and measure the results, or responsiveness for themselves.
I have been told that I am too hard on these poor programmers/developers. I say, if they are that proud of their efforts, prove me wrong. Fix, or add that which their customers want; and shut me up in the process.
Although in my last exchange with autodesk on an issue I did provide an AVI and other documentation; and recently discovered the problem was never even officially logged.
-
In all reality of the life of CAD. In the begining when there was CAD. Developers had to listen to customers in order to give them what they want. Makes sense. However, over time, 10,000 years AD, CAD is now used for 1,000,000 of people. So how can the developers listen to all of us. :cry:
-
Now, in your own words please repeat the goals of the development team. Just so you, make me understand that you understand the goal. It should look and sound something like the following:
I agree with you. The problem is that the Map Dev team and the Civil 3D Dev team aren't in the same place and have very little communication.
It's a big problem. I don't have a solution or good answers for you.
-
scout is on it..now..heads will roll :roll:
-
However it must begin with a willingness to <accept, admit> that there are problems, and or deficiencies in the product. And there needs to be more openness to the process, I think the word is transparent, so that users can see the dialog and measure the results, or responsiveness for themselves.
I have been told that I am too hard on these poor programmers/developers. I say, if they are that proud of their efforts, prove me wrong. Fix, or add that which their customers want; and shut me up in the process.
I have never run into any one on the team that isn't proud of Civil 3D. Nor have I met anyone who doesn't think that there are things to be fixed.
It is a small group. It probably should be bigger. They have 24 hours in a day just like us, and I guess they have to pick and choose what to fix within the constraints they are given.
On my first trip to manchester, I expected it to be like an ER. People running around yelling "Fatal Error, STAT!". But when I saw the reality of such a small group tackling such a big task, I finally understood why things aren't always done as quickly as we, the users, would like.
Should it be bigger? Sure. Should they fix everything? No doubt. Will it happen tomorrow? Not likely. What do we do in the meantime? Respect their time, their efforts and their accomplishments to date. Use the software for what it is, and continue to offer constructive feedback to keep it moving forward. Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
-
At first, I encouraged everyone here to purchase the book, but now I discourage it because it pollutes their mind with too many ill concepts and I have to explain why they shouldn't do such and such. A good example is creating a ROW parcel. It seems as usual, that us surveyors just get ignored. What you engineering people fail to realize, if it wasn't for us, your designs wouldn't be created. Just my $0.02.
I appreciate your feedback. I'd like to hear more about some of the tools that are shown that aren't effective. I am not a big fan of the ROW tool myself, which is why I only show it quickly, and added two sidebars. One, on page 185 is called "When the ROW is not enough", and the other is the Real World Scenario on page 201 where I make the right-of-way from polylines. The parcel chapter was based on quite a bit of site plan work I did a few years back in C3D 2006 where, as we all know, there was a lot of crap in the parcel realm (and some of it remains, no doubt.) And since parcels are one of my favorite tools, despite their awful habits, please let me know what else I can do to make the chapter more practical.
What else do you feel you need to explain to users not to try? Please help me make the text better.
DBP
-
I have never run into any one on the team that isn't proud of Civil 3D. Nor have I met anyone who doesn't think that there are things to be fixed.
It is a small group. It probably should be bigger. They have 24 hours in a day just like us, and I guess they have to pick and choose what to fix within the constraints they are given.
If they know it needs to be fixed, nothing should constrain them. Or whomever is creating said constraints needs to move out of the way.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
:-o
-
What is that saying... Do I need to read inbetween the lines? What are you saying???
-
I think he is saying squadrons of flying swine have been sighted circling over the frozen gates of Hades.
-
I think he is saying squadrons of flying swine have been sighted circling over the frozen gates of Hades.
with pink Tutu's and ice skates on
NO, that isn't it at all.
:lmao:
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
Speak with our pocketbooks by moving to another software or dropping subscription. Etc.
-
i HAVE A QUESTION!!!!! Its the right question. :angel: Can you show this to the Autodesk Subscr. Peeps.
The rainbow quote above. its so pretty and true.
-
If they know it needs to be fixed, nothing should constrain them. Or whomever is creating said constraints needs to move out of the way.
So you find a problem and you manage to get acknowledgement that it is, indeed, a defect. Or, just something that is awkward and really should be adjusted.
So the team has have a list of 10 things that need to be fixed, but they only have time to do 5 before things need to be packaged up.
Comes to simple project management. Scope, Schedule, Budget.
So you could say... pick the 5 that affect the most of our users/customers and do them.
So you could say.... there should be more time.
So you could say.... there should be more people on the team.
Probably all of that is true. What would you do if you were the QA/developer/whoever that was the actual "fixer" of the defect itself and you were told- there is no money for more people. There is no more time this release. If you cared a lot, you would probably do whatever you could to try to do as much as possible, but if you refuse to do the tasks that the team decides are priority, where does that leave you? Where does that leave the users? Trying to barrel through the system by pushing the limits to the extreme could get them stonewalled, or worse, fired. And then we users would be in a pickle, because the best people would be gone. The visionaries of tomorrow.
The people that are the "doers" now are often the "deciders" of tomorrow. They also work in the same building as a few of the "deciders", so theoretically they could get their attention now and again.
Some of the great autodesk people that pop into the mainstream DG care a LOT about the product and want to make it better, but they aren't the people that can say "No more subscription!" "No more annual release!" by proclaimation. They might be that person someday, or they might get the ear of that person someday soon.
The best you can do is alert them to the problems, give them real reasons why it is an implementation roadblock not only for you, but for regions of the US or Canada or the world or whatever.
As far as changing the corporate machine goes, I think you have a few options.
-Decide you like Civil 3D for what it is and just hang on for the ride
-Decide you like CIvil 3D for what it is and become a part of the constructive conversation for improvement
-Decide while Civil 3D is handy, it isn't worth it from a business perspective for your company, and you need to find another solution
If you decide to become part of the constructive conversation, there are a few angles. The technical angle through the DG and possibly creating your own blog or similar that shows off your highs and lows. This is one way to potentially get recognized as someone who is worth talking to from a feedback perspective. Attend Autodesk University if you can, and get involved in some of the breakout sessions. Join MyFeedback and help find bugs for the new release (knowing that you can't change much about the software, just helping find bugs makes their life easier so they will be more likely want your continued input).
There is also the business angle. Your reseller may not be terribly handy to you, but they do have access to an Autodesk Sales person and an Autodesk AE that covers their region. If you, politely and constructively, arrange through your reseller to have a meeting or conversation with these people, you can express your business/financial concerns to a receptive audience that can move things up the chain. It is a bit of a long climb, but I would say if you can be compelling that your situation applies to more than just your microniche, then things might happen. I would position it like this: I want to remain a customer, but this is what is keeping me from being able to do that.
-
As you state it the problem IS the solution. The fact there are not enough people as you proclaim to handle the task, indicates an absolute need to STOP trying to push out a new release (new interface, no new features) that only infuriates the customer base every year. At best most companies adoption cycle is 18 months or more, admit that, and there will be enough time and persons to manage the fixes AND the new development equally well, or better.
Scout it works like this for me:
Years ago I worked in a Truss plant building prefabricated trusses and joists. I started at the bottom, worked hard and became a Crew Chief. After a few weeks, management called me in and reviewed my work. The end of the conversation was they were happy with the quality of my work (zero defects or returns) however they wanted more volume (despite producing 5% more than any other crew).
My position was that If I increased the volume the quality would suffer. They were happy to have more of less quality; despite that being my JOB I refused to do so. Sure I had to train another guy to do my job, and later found employment better suited to my perfectionist personality. I will not sacrifice quality for quantity, and this is what the company asks those folks to do every day.
If they care about the product they can do something about it.
It might cost them their job, they might need to start the company that lets them write a better product.
I do not think that your suggestion of swimming in the same channels that have produced, or do not produce measurable results is the answer. However a combination of methods must be employed as the status quo, only leads to more of the same.
"We can not solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." A Einstein
It' is time to try another approach, such that the solution is no longer the problem.
-
So you find a problem and you manage to get acknowledgement that it is, indeed, a defect. Or, just something that is awkward and really should be adjusted.
So the team has have a list of 10 things that need to be fixed, but they only have time to do 5 before things need to be packaged up.
Comes to simple project management. Scope, Schedule, Budget.
So you could say... pick the 5 that affect the most of our users/customers and do them.
So you could say.... there should be more time.
So you could say.... there should be more people on the team.
That is misleading.
It is difficult to say what exactly is happening inside of Autodesk. They like to keep everything hidden. But some things shine through.
Autodesk has a marketing team that has decided that they will release a version of the software every year, on the year. There is no leeway given for this. The needs of the software or the software development team are not considered. They have a release schedule; they must release a version every March, no matter what.
So they get into a twisted form of triage, where they look at all the problems, issues, and enhancements they need/want to do to the product. And they look at it in the context of "we have this much time". So the very first thing they do is decide "what can we do in a year?"
Now there are some very severe problems in Civil-3D that have been in the product since its first release. (Parcels are one of them - they are mis-designed from the ground up.) A real fix would involve basically rewriting the whole thing, as well as much of the things that tie to Parcels (in particular, Alignments). Unfortunately, over the years, a lot of code has been built on this bad foundation. So it will take some time to fix. Based on how long it takes Autodesk to do things, I'd say there's no chance that they could do such a major rewrite in a year.
But they have that ultimatum from Marketing that they MUST make a release in a year. So, that dreadfully-important task does not get done, because it would take more than a year, and if they got into it, they would miss the next release. That CANNOT happen.
So instead, Autodesk apparently decides not to fix the core problem - it's too much work. So they throw some band-aids on, and make it a bit easier to use. The next release, there are more band-aids. And the next release, even more band-aids. By this time, we have band-aids on band-aids on band-aids, and many of them aren't even touching the original core. We've got a software package that is nothing but a mass of band-aids.
Once we get a product like that, any little change has a ton of unforeseen consequences. Bugs start breeding uncontrollably. And we end up with something like Civil-3D's 2008 and 2009 releases, which introduce only minor improvements to existing functionality, and nothing new and exciting to speak of. All the rest of the time is eaten up by bug fixes.
All of this is VERY avoidable. But smart engineers on your technical team can't do it. You can have the most-brilliant software engineers that have ever lived all involved in a project. But if the overall software development process is flawed, those programmers get largely wasted.
This is not a problem that is unique to Autodesk. Unfortunately, it is the industry standard. Did you know that less than 10% of software projects are completed on-schedule? And more than half of them fail completely. In any other industry, this would be completely unacceptable. Could you imaging building a bridge, and in your bid, you said "There is only a 10% chance of completing this bridge on-time, and a 50% chance that the whole thing will collapse at some point before the project is done," do you think you'd get the job? Well, when it comes to software, that's considered normal. And we are constantly fed lines about "well, this software is really complicated, and you can't really expect anything else... It's all 'beta'..." Well, that's not true. In reality, it's poor processes, and lack of knowledge about what "good processes" are.
-
Yeah, semantics is a powerful tool.
I consider lack of information about Part Builder an omission, and am told "not an om mission, just beyond the scope" of a book that calls itself Mastering?
The worst part here is the customers pay for the right to become live beta testers of the product.
Because the other beta team can not find all the errors because there is not enough time, or they don't really use the tools in real world scenarios.
I am still trying to figure out the 'benefit' of being able to target extra alignments, feature lines, or polylines for my corridor? I mean IF I know I need an alignment and profile for my corridor why would I simply not create the actual data that I need? I guess in some instances this might reduce the total number of alignments or profiles one has to juggle, it just seems unnecessary compared to what should have been fixed.
-
That is misleading.
It is difficult to say what exactly is happening inside of Autodesk. They like to keep everything hidden. But some things shine through.
Autodesk has a marketing team that has decided that they will release a version of the software every year, on the year. There is no leeway given for this. The needs of the software or the software development team are not considered. They have a release schedule; they must release a version every March, no matter what.
You are right, sinc. I didn't mean to suggest that it was entirely that simple. What I was getting at is that people get promoted, moved around and hired from the outside. I'd like to believe that not all of them would get entirely brainwashed and jaded along the way, and might potentially become an advocate for the real issues.
-
If they care about the product they can do something about it.
It might cost them their job, they might need to start the company that lets them write a better product.
I do not think that your suggestion of swimming in the same channels that have produced, or do not produce measurable results is the answer. However a combination of methods must be employed as the status quo, only leads to more of the same.
"We can not solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." A Einstein
It' is time to try another approach, such that the solution is no longer the problem.
I think I finally get your point. The black and white, raw truth and nonwavering mission. I think that you don't do yourself justice by associating yourself with Autodesk in any way, and I am not trying to be cheeky here. Seriously, the market could use a grass roots, open source, no-nonsense, transparent software package.
In the meantime, I have some deadlines to meet. If anyone has feedback about the Mastering Civil 3D text, I would really like to hear it. Honest feedback with specific examples would be the most helpful. Since I probably will be ducking out of the Swamp for awhile, it would be best to send me an email. dana dot probert at gmail dot com would work best.
-
Hi Dana.What will the main differences/additions on the new Mastering Civil 3D 2009 be,since the previous release (2008).
-
From my dialog with Dana on this, one would infer that the major change to the book will ONLY be that the graphics will match the 2009 interface. And perhaps the errata it currently contains might all be addresses. Other than that it will be the same book.
-
If they care about the product they can do something about it.
It might cost them their job, they might need to start the company that lets them write a better product.
I do not think that your suggestion of swimming in the same channels that have produced, or do not produce measurable results is the answer. However a combination of methods must be employed as the status quo, only leads to more of the same.
"We can not solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." A Einstein
It' is time to try another approach, such that the solution is no longer the problem.
I think I finally get your point. The black and white, raw truth and nonwavering mission. I think that you don't do yourself justice by associating yourself with Autodesk in any way, and I am not trying to be cheeky here. Seriously, the market could use a grass roots, open source, no-nonsense, transparent software package.
No Dana, you most likely do not get my point. Notice that I do disassociate myself from Autodesk, I train people to use the products, I do NOT sell them.
Here is another insight into who I am. (call Roy's Auto and ask)
They worked on my truck engine, replacing a front seal and sending unit.
On driving it home, I noticed that the sending unit was still leaking.
They replaced.
I drove the vehicle three to four hundred miles. The next time I drove the vehicle the OIL light remained LIT.
I pull forward, and notice a large ominous stream of oil on the ground.
The shop sent a flat bed.
Fast forward to a conversation where I questioned HOW they determined what seal to fix in the first place, and if they measured my oil pressure then? They had not, and could not verify that they were responsible for the 'damage' to my engine that now had the engine oil pressure at 90 psi the instant the engine was started, and climbing to frightening (head gasket blowing) pressure at idle.
A year later, when they had disassembled my engine, as I had suggested they discovered the 'problem' and fixed it.
However IF, I had not insisted that the problem was as they diagnosed, most likely that truck would now be in a scrap yard. Luckily I know enough about engines, and software, that I knew the 'problem' was not as diagnosed and the 'solution' based on the bad diagnostics did not yield a 'repair'
However in getting to this place, a REAL working solution; I am certain that every mechanic at that shop thought me the largest rectum in the known universe. However there was some measure of professional respect gained when my persistence yielded the actual problem and solution. They even thanked me for my patience and persistence. The truck runs fine, and they learned that the customer just might know something. Now I can't say that they still don't reffer to me as 'that giant rectum', because admittedly I can be one, It did get the job done.
Think about this, I was willing to wait an entire YEAR for the repair, and I did not bother them weekly, or even monthly. I left them alone to resolve the problem.
Comparatively; I have been even more patient with autodesk considering I have been using the products since version 2.x.
Perhaps now you have a better understanding of who I am. If not I can send you a link to some of the art I create, and you will see that I understand far more than black, and white.
-
Well.....IMHO it seems like the surveyor gets the shaft due to their *time constraints*. I recently attended the "dog & pony" show for the 2009 version and all the guy had to talk about was how great corridors were now. So I asked him, are parcels functioning properly now and can you have them associated with an alignment. Then he started talking about how the new corridor features were so nifty. If we didn't have a large engineering department here, we would have already abandoned C3D. It is hard to explain to someone that it is a "better product" when it takes twice as long to get the same results. Results that sometimes work, and sometimes don't work. Anyways, I'd rather have 2008 with additional service packs that fix problems then a new version with new features, new problems and no additional service packs for 2008 (am I right in this?).
From a surveyor's prospective, I saw *NOTHING* that makes me want to upgrade to 2009 and learn a whole bunch of new tricks to deal with bugs.
-
Awe, c'mon Randy...They are the SAME bugs you already know.
Including my personal favorite, The Figures DO NOT assume the figure style properties as defined in your figure preferences. Perfect; you spend time making and assigning figure styles, and then C3D simply randomly decides to not use them.
It also appears that the same process is being used to reissue the mastering book for 2009, by employing a similar face lift without changes to content (largely).
Hey did you here about the Corridor Improvements? ! ?
Forgot, that just like autodesk, there will be another book, that addresses what should be in the other book.
-
Awe, c'mon Randy...They are the SAME bugs you already know.
Very true! And the same bugs will exist in Civil 3D 2010. I've got to write off all of the time dealing with their bugs because it is unfair to bill it to the client, they didn't force me to switch to C3D. And that useless "send error report to autodesk" function. Why even have it in the program? I gave up sending in error reports other then to tell them that "with the amount of money spent on their application it shouldn't be crashing at all" or in ultimate times of frustration that "their software sucks". SEND >click!<
The figure style issue is a REAL problem, we don't even mess with figures anymore because it is so @#$*& annoying! Why bother even having styles for them? We spent a lot of time setting them up as well. Wasted time, that is. As far as the Mastering Civil 3D series of books goes....."Mastering" AutoCAD Civil 3D should perhaps be called "an Introduction to".... You certainly can only begin to teach someone some of the concepts of how Civil 3D works, but never mastery through a book. Getting instruction from someone such as Michael would be your best bet. As soon as the market slump goes away (if it ever does), and we have our next round of training, I am going to push hard for them to bring Michael in instead of the blabbering, tap-dancing-around-questions morons from Avatech.
Good example:
A training session showing how to do lane transitions from Avatech..... the instructor (who will remain nameless), says, let's put a lane transition over here on this side of the corridor and have it daylight to the existing surface...C3D crashes and he says, well, for timesake, we will just put it over here instead. So I ask him "what if the client doesn't want it there?" and he kind of half-assed answered my question by throwing around terms terms such as multiple regions, etc, etc....but never really explaining why it crashed or how to get the transition to work in that particular area. Listening to his attempt at an answer made me feel like I was watching an old Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie with all of the tap dancing going on.
The only thing that got me to come to the Civil 3D 2009 product launch was the free breakfast. We probably won't be invited back to an Autodesk product launch again because we kept making smart assed comments and heckling the presenter. Three famous quotes from people at our company that were made during the open question and answer session:
A day without a crash, is a day I feel I’m missing something.
If you’re not saving every two minutes……you’re a ROOKIE!!!
and
If it isn't working right, just explode the object
-
Randy,
Don't be too hard on the Avatech guys; you should see all the carnage I see that they leave behind.
I would be amazed (they would too) at the increase in revenue and customer satisfaction if they had all their Civil folks come to one of my classes. Combine that with their supposed communications channel to autodesk, and we could almost expect real improvements in the product. Imagine the instructor actually knowing how the product worked! Imagine an instructor aware of the defects! Imagine an instructor that could answer your question, or show you the software wont do what you just ask for!
-
For some reason i dont see dana reacting to the statements that her new book is just another same version with pics of the new interfac and is also nothing more than paperweight (not my words of course)!
Anyway what about Harry ward and zimmerman.
Harry's book described procedures-scenarios-ways that the software can be used and not how to exploit every option.Maybe his new versions describe new procedures.
-
Honestly, take your 50$, and go buy some good coffee, and perhaps spirituous liquor and crack that help file open.
Try different stuff, ask your questions here, try some more stuff. Watch a few of the archived webcasts and do the exercises without downloading the dataset. In the first pass forget about STYLES, just use the tools, and observe what happens. Then do the exercise again, and this time adjust your styles.
Then do the exercise again, until everything meets your satisfaction.
Watch my interface video. Watch all those videos and try to recreate what you see. Post your questions here.
The single most important tip I can give you:
When modeling a corridor, name everything so that a(n) complete tool can look at your data, your alignments, assemblies, etc. and know what they are by name, and more explicitly in the descriptions of the objects, styles, assemblies, profiles, etc. Further the Profile that is targeted by the baseline must be drawn as long as that parent alignment, (or the corridor stations adjusted to fit ONLY where one has designed the profile) or the corridor model will 'crash' down to elevation ZERO(0).
-
For some reason i dont see dana reacting to the statements that her new book is just another same version with pics of the new interfac and is also nothing more than paperweight (not my words of course)!
Sorry- those pesky kids begging to be fed again.
The Mastering Civil 3D text will be updated to match the 2009 interface, of course. Based on our own experience using the book for teaching and reference, we have added exercises where we felt there were gaps. For example, I have refined the Lines and Curves chapter to include more hands on deed creation. Surfaces, Alignments, Profiles and Grading all have totally different UIs and constraints, so those chapters are rebuilt from the ground up. Visualization changed so much that I bagged the entire chapter and started over from nothing, and since I had to start over, I improved the exercises where I could.
There are still chapters in development and finalization and there is room to make some tweaks, but I CANNOT do that without some real feedback. Someone commented on the ROW tool, and I asked for more information and provided my feeling on the subject and page numbers of some clarification in the book, and I received no repsonse.
On several occasions during this thread, I have invited everyone to clarify what makes this book a "paper weight" in your opinion, including providing my email address. I haven't heard anything yet.
I would really appreciate some feedback on the book. I hear you loud and clear on Part Builder. I am ruminiating on that right now. But that is all I have heard. You can be mean, that's cool. Just be specific. As in: "You say to do this. That doesn't work" or "Someone really should know how to X in order to be considered to have Mastered Civil 3D."
It is hard for me to encourage a dialog between users and Autodesk using this discussion as a model. I am one of the authors of this book, and I am here actively seeking real feedback and so far, I don't have anything to show for it. Help me out here, or not. Either way, its cool. Just don't keep a girl's hopes up :)
-
From my dialog with Dana on this, one would infer that the major change to the book will ONLY be that the graphics will match the 2009 interface. And perhaps the errata it currently contains might all be addresses. Other than that it will be the same book.
I apologize for giving you that impression.
Yes, the captures have been updated and the procedures adjusted. New exercises have been added to show new tools and new applications. The exercises from the 2008 text were not eliminated unless they became obsolete. All of them have been updated and refined. Since I cannot share a preview version of the book at this time, I would like your feedback on the 2008 book because your comments will still be relevant.
Also, I would like to know (besides Part Builder which we have discussed) what you would have in _your_ mind that would be included in a Mastering text, and what procedures/chapters/etc. are good (shocking!) or could use improvement. And if you tell me HOW they could be improved, that would be helpful.
-
therock003, I'm the guy that sent you here from cadtutor (rustysilo - the one who knows some "mad civil"). I stepped out of this thread after it began to heat up so I don't know all of what's been said after the first page or two. What I can tell you is that any book you buy will more than likely end up being a desk reference at best. It is unlikely that any book will tell you everything about the software and I doubt that would really be possible anyway unless you want a book that's big enough to be a coffee table. If you have the money and would like to buy books there's nothing wrong with that. Buy them. Read them. Post a review on them so we all know how good or bad they are.
As a testimonial we've had MJF come in to our office for two sessions over the past few years. One session for Land Desktop/Civil Design and one session for Civil 3D. He did a fantastic job (imo) and if it were my decision I would have him back again. Unfortunately it isn't my decision and I work in an office where folks don't seem to understand what roi means so our investment doesn't get its full use. Still I've continued to learn and have learned a great deal about the software by simply following MJF's advice and using the help file. Additionally, I get much use out of online forums and tutorials as I'm sure you know.
Really, when it comes down to it you just have to utilize all sources in order to gain a strong understanding of the software. Sure you have to be aware with "official" training sources that they are training to make money so more often than not (especially with free online tutorials and such) they will leave out pertinent information just so they can get you to buy more training. That doesn't mean they're bad sources to learn from necessarily. That's how capitalism works. To some of us it sucks and yet others don't have a problem with it. To each his/her own. You have to glean from other sources to fill in the blanks they've left you with.
-
Start with this
Take the blurb off of the back cover promissing Complex Corridors like a Round A Bout, OR include one in the book.
Include a full intersection design.
Have the user create every style object they need without using ANY of the preinstalled or provided DWT's
Explain the Ramifications of the Various Surface edits as described/discussed previously.
Remove or Expand Part builder entirely.
Explain more completely sub assembly component naming processes.
Explain each step of getting material quantities FROM scratch with no preloaded data set.
Include the use of Median Objects, (that would be a good step towards MASTERY)
Clean up the known errata
And before going to press with it let a few of your PEERS review the thing. By peers, this would be other people NOT vested in the book. I suggest sinc, or Dino, should my endorsement help them.
-
Now THIS is good feedback. Thank you.
Include a full intersection design.
Tell me more about what you would like to see here.
-
And before going to press with it let a few of your PEERS review the thing. By peers, this would be other people NOT vested in the book. I suggest sinc, or Dino, should my endorsement help them.
Our tech editor this year fits that description. He is not a part of the EE team, and has never been our client (not EE or any of us in our previous incarnations). When the book comes out, turn to the back of the first page and his name should be listed, but since I have not asked his permission, I will not print it here. Anyone who reads the Autodesk DG will recognize his name as a practical, honest and thoughtful Civil 3D user who goes through many of the same struggles as Dino in both practical application and implementation issues in his firm. I lobbied to have him added to the team after the first round of comments called for more robust peer review (from the Swamp and other sources) and the fact that he went through the entire book last year on his own and emailed us a steady stream of useful commentary. From that interaction, I had a real evidence that he would provide constructive and applicable feedback for these two book projects (mastering and introducing 2009).
-
Well, scratch one more possible employment option. :cry:
-
You could use the full intersection to cover NEARLY the entire application. And if all styles and object were done from scratch as suggested then you might suggest the reader might achieve mastery.
Lets see, Importing survey data from a field book for existing conditions. Or importing points, with descriptions, and label styles.
Or importing a surface from TIN, or DEM could also be shown.
If your 'intersection' scenario where to be approximately 1000 units long you could expose them to Templates that do NOT transition and those that do. You could include Offsets for bus bays/turnlanes and medians on at least one of the intersecting streets. You could include Alignment creation, and editing tools. Profile creation/editing tools explain the pitfalls of the targeted profile needing to be as long as the parent alignment early. Show them importing profiles from text files, and copying them. Show them how they can or should create a dummy corridor surface and include that surface in a profile to use as a design aide. Show them the toolbox, and the various alignment reports they can create. Have them build all the assemblies as required for the above, include Daylight targeting , and perhaps a drainage feature. Show them some replacement or new pipesconstruction. Finish it all off with Materials reports, and sheets creation. To give them a bigger picture of how it all works together starting with nothing other than the default acad.dwt.
-
To give them a bigger picture of how it all works together starting with nothing other than the default acad.dwt.
I know this has sort of come up in previous discussions, but I would be curious to hear what other how other users in the group feel about learning how to create everything from scratch using the acad.dwt in a few contexts:
1- In a reference text
2- In an exercise and tutoral resource that you personally would use to learn
3- In a text you would use to train your pilot team, then the balance of your staff
This is great feedback. Thank you.
-
Remove or Expand Part builder entirely.
After reading your post about starting from nothing but the acad.dwt, I am curious if you have your classes build all of their parts from stratch as well. I am intrigued by this idea.
-
We found that we HAD to build our template pretty much from scratch, because the Autodesk does not seem to use or care about Named Plot Styles.
Autodesk shipped a number of CTB templates, but the only STB template is an empty one. And many of the things they did in their CTB templates are just obnoxious when imported into an STB drawing. It's possible to convert them all, but given the UI for Styles, it's easier to just start from scratch.
-
Remove or Expand Part builder entirely.
After reading your post about starting from nothing but the acad.dwt, I am curious if you have your classes build all of their parts from stratch as well. I am intrigued by this idea.
Not part builder parts, in the first session. However in most instances the users take the information about part builder and leverage it to good advantage.
However for Every other item in the class we create all styles for all objects as we need. It gives the user a higher lever of understanding of styles and how to drag and drop them to keep the Template Current or modify existing style to match other standards.
Usually during a one week session most are trying to keep everything else straight in their head, I wouldn't dare make them work through part build too.
-
I do need to clarify something here and if you want to give me a hard time about this, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
Mastering 2009 is in the final stages of preparation. While there are still a few chapters being actively developed, the book will go forward without the complete tear down that is being suggested here. There is an additional text with a little bit more wiggle room (introducing) and if this brainstorming session rings any bells for me, I have no doubt I will incorporate some of it.
However, I hope that this does not discourage the discussion from continuing. This is valuable information for all of us that read this group- and I really would like to keep it alive. There may be future Mastering and Introducing texts, there will be AOTC and other class material produced, help files written, AU classes conceived, and more.
Since all of us who read or actively post in this group are involved in the education of new users in some capacity, I earnestly hope this will continue.
-
I have classes if they want classes
-
I have classes if they want classes
Who is they?
-
I do need to clarify something here and if you want to give me a hard time about this, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
Not a hard time just an honest look at your actions.
You asked for feed back, and then discount most of it.
And then inform us that nothing will really be done with it for our efforts.
Now why would I want to give you a hard time?
This is pretty much why I did not vest too much effort in original request for comments; it seam to be disingenious.
-
I have classes if they want classes
Who is they?
you know who they are, let's not be coy. whomever needs other class materials that would be who.
-
Not a hard time just an honest look at your actions.
You asked for feed back, and then discount most of it.
And then inform us that nothing will really be done with it for our efforts.
I understand why you feel this way. Perhaps I should have positioned the discussion differently as- What would you (the swamp) as instructors and experienced users, use for reference text, learning material and exercises. How would you approach creating the perfect text?
As you and Dino have reminded me, this is a friendly, open forum outside of the jurisdiction of any interested party that could potentially censor us. I have also been assured that we are all here to learn and improve. I want to know more about how I can personally improve, while I cannot promise that they will be absorbed into this particular project(s), I know that whatever is discussed here by all of the contributors will be absorbed into the arsenal for my future projects and I would hope that everyone else would feel the same way.
I do a weekly live webcast for EE at civil3d.com, and I also participate in other learning material creation. If perhaps it can't be worked into Mastering this year, maybe I could work up a series of blog posts on timely subjects, or work it into a webcast.
My main interest is getting Civil 3D information into the hands of users in an approachable and helpful way. And if I need to adjust my personal understanding of what users really need to know, I want to hear it from as many experienced users and instructors as humanly possible. Which is why I do my best to contribute to the public conversation when time allows.
-
I have classes if they want classes
Who is they?
you know who they are, let's not be coy. whomever needs other class materials that would be who.
Not trying to be coy. Sorry if it came out that way. What I meant was- are you speaking to users at large? Or Autodesk University? You just missed the call for papers.
-
Complex Corridor Modeling!!
-
Complex Corridor Modeling!!
I think we need a new thread on this subject- what a great conversation to start. I have a lot of questions that you, John, might be able to help me with, as well as seeing what everyone else has had success with.... starting it now.
-
If you really want your information to be available to 'the public' post it openly for the public to access or, I have space on my site, or your blog, or here at The Swamp.
The public, should not need to register to see the information if that is what you are truly about, otherwise you are using them.
What is your real purpose?
Do you want to help them? Post it openly
Or are you only about Marketing to them?
Your actions will be suitable answer.
-
The public, should not need to register to see the information if that is what you are truly about, otherwise you are using them.
I was going to respond to this post a few minutes ago, but I had to stop and login first and have my IP logged. So now I have lost my train of thought... :)
-
The public, should not need to register to see the information if that is what you are truly about, otherwise you are using them.
I was going to respond to this post a few minutes ago, but I had to stop and login first and have my IP logged. So now I have lost my train of thought... :)
Not my rule, not my site. :wink:
However to the best of my knowledge; The Swamp does not use that information for any marketing purposes. Either to sell advertising on The Swamp, or directly to the users.
I require no such actions on my site.
-
The public, should not need to register to see the information if that is what you are truly about, otherwise you are using them.
What is your real purpose?
My mission is to help Civil Engineers and Designers create better designs. Civil 3D happens to be a tool that I think can encourage better design. Since I made that discovery almost four years ago, I have sought to put myself in a position that allows me to reach the most people with that message.
One of my earliest public expressions of this mission can be found here (and yes I realize interia is misspelled in the hyperlink. :( )
http://civil3drocks.blogspot.com/2005/07/interia.html
As I learned more, worked with more clients through my job as a reseller AE, then on my own projects as a freelance CAD designer, I found public discussion and my blog, Civil 3D Rocks, to be a great way to reach people. When EE asked me to join Civil3D.com and then their team, I found a way to reach more people.
Civil 3D Rocks still reaches about 300 unique visitors every weekday. At its height of technical posting, it reached about 500 per day. For comparison, Civil3D.com gets at least triple that. Often more. That means that every time I post to Civil3D.com with a useful piece of information, several thousand people can read it. Use it. And learn. With any luck, they can make more use of Civil 3D in their office and maybe get closer to that dream of better design.
The first EECast that I did had over 100 live attendees. Yesterday, I had about 100 again. Again, more people that I can reach, help and educate. More people who can tell me their experiences, their positives and negatives. More people that provide me with the energy and material to continue moving forward, doing more, reaching more, learning more.
Mastering Civil 3D is expected to sell a total of about 15,000 copies. Regardless of how anyone feels about the title, or the content, nobody can tell me that there isn't something to be gained and learned from this book. I saw a world that was fighting a software package that had minimal written material to learn from. I have them all on my self. Zimmerman, Ascent, AOTC, Ward, Ellis. Just like I have many Civil Engineering texts, and childcare books and books about keeping horses. Each book has something to offer and contributes to the collective understanding. I see Mastering as another way to reach people with useful information. They may not learn something on every page, but they will not have to fight to learn what is on every page on their own. There is something to begin with. A step towards becoming a user. A step towards better design.
So what is my real purpose? To reach as many people as possible and share what I have learned. They may go a different direction. They may choose not to buy our book or become our clients so that I can work even more closely with them. That is OK. I can only hope that they continue to seek answers and continue to work towards better design.
And with that, my baby boy has finished building towers and is ready for a nap. So I can move to the office again and get some writing done before his big sister gets home.
Bon Courage.
-
therock003, I'm the guy that sent you here from cadtutor (rustysilo - the one who knows some "mad civil"). I stepped out of this thread after it began to heat up so I don't know all of what's been said after the first page or two. What I can tell you is that any book you buy will more than likely end up being a desk reference at best. It is unlikely that any book will tell you everything about the software and I doubt that would really be possible anyway unless you want a book that's big enough to be a coffee table. If you have the money and would like to buy books there's nothing wrong with that. Buy them. Read them. Post a review on them so we all know how good or bad they are.
As a testimonial we've had MJF come in to our office for two sessions over the past few years. One session for Land Desktop/Civil Design and one session for Civil 3D. He did a fantastic job (imo) and if it were my decision I would have him back again. Unfortunately it isn't my decision and I work in an office where folks don't seem to understand what roi means so our investment doesn't get its full use. Still I've continued to learn and have learned a great deal about the software by simply following MJF's advice and using the help file. Additionally, I get much use out of online forums and tutorials as I'm sure you know.
Really, when it comes down to it you just have to utilize all sources in order to gain a strong understanding of the software. Sure you have to be aware with "official" training sources that they are training to make money so more often than not (especially with free online tutorials and such) they will leave out pertinent information just so they can get you to buy more training. That doesn't mean they're bad sources to learn from necessarily. That's how capitalism works. To some of us it sucks and yet others don't have a problem with it. To each his/her own. You have to glean from other sources to fill in the blanks they've left you with.
Hey friend,i havent forgotten about you,i ntoiced you from the sig by the time i got here,so no need for introductions! 8-) .
So anyway the only experience i had so far as far as books go,is the Harry Ward civil 3d 2007 book.Past Friday i went a trip to the store and they had brought the 2008 version,and i snneked a peak and sadly most of the material seemed the same,so i didnt bother spending the 75 euros it was priced at.Then there was the Mastering Civil at 50 euros but i guess i'll have to wait for the new version to catch up with whatever changes there may be.
And i'm also looking for the Harnessing book which here on Greece there's no edition at all for Civil,only the 2005 land desktop which i've purchased but havent really worked with it thoroughly.
Basically the problems i encounter is that i want to do specific things and all these books and help references look like an endless loop,and i cant come to the forums every time i need something done.Books seem to break down each menu option,so it looks like you have to look at every option individually and then decide how best to utilize them after you've read an entire book.Procedure and applications though does not to do this,it rather explains whats being done behind the software and helps you with specific scenarios.Problem is though that it doesnt go too deep.It's like giving you the incentive to go deeper alone.
I guess the best way to learn such software,is to have someone nearby with experience and bombard with the "how do i do this and that questions".
-
Yeah for me I will generally try to solve it on my own and then come here or cadtutor to ask the question. Other times I'll post the question on a forum and try to solve it on my own after I make the post too.
I have no problem flooding the forums with good questions that maybe others have too. The more questions that get posted the more answers there will be and many times you'll get several different answers and you can pick which way you want to do things based on your needs.
For some of us this is about all we can do if our employer is either unable or unwilling to pay for training.
-
The public, should not need to register to see the information if that is what you are truly about, otherwise you are using them.
I was going to respond to this post a few minutes ago, but I had to stop and login first and have my IP logged. So now I have lost my train of thought... :)
I don't know if this was directed at me but that's the way I took it.
FWIW, your IP is recorded every where you wander on the inet, have you looked at the http logs for your blog? You'll find my IP there, among all the other folks that passed by. I can assure you Google does more with those IP's, among other information gathered, than I do. If you think I am some how using/exploiting those IP's you are sadly mistaken and quite frankly, hurt my feelings. I can assure you, the information that my http server gathers is used for stats, and our protection. If you would like to use a proxy server that anonymizes your IP then please feel free to do so. A Google search for 'public anonymous proxy servers" will give you many to choose from.
For the record, the following is what this http server collects. BTW, that's my IP.
192.168.131.191 - - [25/May/2008:17:06:09 -0500] "GET /images/theswamp_logo.png HTTP/1.1" 304 - "http://www.theswamp.org/cadl.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14"