Topic: Fields: is there a way to extract from a table the contents of a cell into field

[sourdough]

Hi all, Is there a way to extract from a table the contents of one cell (eg: a station) to a field object? That would be very cool. The other alternative would be to extract a station from an alignment label to a field.

Thanks in advance

MJP

[mjfarrell]

As you have most likely already discovered you can touch the Table, or the Lable however they do not expose the information they contain to be used within a FIELD.

The next question is what exactly are you attempting to do, that a normal C3D Label with or without Reference text will not already do for you in this instance?

[sourdough]

The goal is in our layout sht to show the stations start and finish for a sht. It would be handy with a field to gather that from the viewport.

MJP

[sourdough]

Mike the mtext in the title text  has the station info for the viewport.
eg:

Exhibit Drawing
Station 2091+58.26 to 2121+82.01   

(We want have this so it can be extracted like a field into the mtext that we pick)
the text we are picking is a label style that will update if a change is made to the alignment.

We have a PI that has the station showing and just want to grab it. The reason it came up
in the first place is our alignment stations all got changed. If we were able to take an alignment
label and extract that station from the label it would be awesome, but it won't so asking for alternatives.
We can also see our station range per viewport with a table we make too, but you can't get a single
cell's worth on info out of a table. It would be nice though. I can just make a text that has the station as a field
but the angle here is to make it that if there is a change to the station it will update like a field can update.
Just a wish, or if someone has figured out how to extract from a label the station it could be a bit more
automated.

MJP

[sourdough]

Thanks, Mike I will have to do some more homework.... and still get work out. Maybe this weekend I'll get some time to play with the Plan Production Tools.

MJP

[sourdough]

Mike I'm not opposed to training when it is a viable option. Sometimes a business just grows slow, sometimes fast.
Right now it is going fast. But, as you said I don't like to hear it coming from you every time I post. I personally have other
options to how I will get my training. I personally think that your style isn't the best way I can learn.

Respectfully,
MJP

[mjfarrell]

Mike I'm not opposed to training when it is a viable option. Sometimes a business just grows slow, sometimes fast.
Right now it is going fast. But, as you said I don't like to hear it coming from you every time I post. I personally have other
options to how I will get my training. I personally think that your style isn't the best way I can learn.

Respectfully,
MJP

Since you never have had a class with me; you are not qualified to judge my teaching style.
Many find it quite enjoyable.


You think you can't learn from me, yet you felt a need to purchase a procedure from me; I think that's pretty ironic.

[sinc]

Ooh, pissing contest!!!

All I can say is that I wish everyone would calm down.  We got our initial training from MJFarrell, and it got us off on a path we've found very productive.  At the same time, I completely understand why MJFarrells comments are viewed as being sarcastic, confrontational,  and maybe even worse...?

We got our initial C3D training from MJFarrelll, and he did a great job.  But I can understand your concerns, given his postings to forums like this...

[sinc]

And to clarify, I don't think ANYONE I've ever met has managed to top my cousin, who was able to piss over a 40-wide road with no problem...   That's REALLY letting it "all hang out"...     A "pissing contest" master, to be sure....

[Dent Cermak]

Mr. Ferrell is a VERY intense person. VERY!! If you have ever spoken with him on the phone you know what I mean.
He knows AutoCad inside and out. There's no doubting that.
He is VERY excited about what his product of choice will do. VERY!! And he wants to share that knowledge with everyone because that knowledge is indeed very powerful. It's not just an "It's what I do for a living" thing with him. It is more of a calling.
You cannot comprehend how frustrating it is to sit there and watch people bumble about simply because no one ever showed them how to do something. It's not that they are stupid, it's just that the answer is not obvious.
This is why training is SO important. I do not care what the product is, who teaches it or what they charge, IT WILL BE THE BEST MONEY YOU EVER SPENT. The savings due to increased productivity will pay the costs back ten fold over a year.
Yeah, I am using Carlson now and many think that is stupid, BUT for what I do, it works better and less expensively for my company. Throw in the Carlson College training that I got and I am working MUCH faster and tie in what we were able to set up for the field crews and you get profits WAY beyond what we did before.
And that all goes back to learning how to properly and efficiently use the software. I know most of you are smarter than me, but guys, the day of getting new software and being able to sit down and figure it out all by yourself are over. Your company simply cannot afford to pay for all of that time that a real training class would show you in MUCH less time.
Today, software training is CRITICAL. Every minute that you are sitting there scratching your head is costing your company dollars that should have gone into your next pay raise. You are doing it to yourself.
See, I am almost as intense as Ferrell, but that bypass surgery made me slow down some. And I hit the same resistance to training that he does. My Carlson College training came out of my own pocket. Now the company benefits by what I learned and what I set up. They benefit, I benefit.
Carlson has set up some training classes down here and very few people came. The classes were not expensive at all. I thought that maybe Carlson was so easy to use that everyone already knew everything they needed. Then I visited with some guys in other companies that were still drawing dot to dot and not using 1/3 of the power of the software because they did not know it was there. I was stunned. They thought they were doing real good. I did not do like MJ and get on their fannys about training. I grinned and thought, " Go ahead. Take all that time to turn out a product. When we go head to head on a project bid, my labor time will be MUCH lower all across the board and I will get that job. Ya' done it to yourself!!".
Rethink your attitudes about training. Get that message across to the powers that be. Show them how spending this money will save them MORE money down the road. And those saving will continue forever.

[mjfarrell]

Dent,

Thanks for attempting to explain both my passion for teaching and the benefits of getting training.

I think this person 'knows' the benefit of training, however thinks that it can all be had from a book that he bought.
Or begged off of the internet for free.  There is also another issue betwixt his good self, and I. This is something he needs to resolve, and maybe I just need to both let go of, and or simply never answer any of his questions about the product ever again.

What he doesn't get is a vast majority of what I teach can literally not be found in any of the books about C3D.
I teach real world solutions to real world design challenges, and best practices needed to deal with inherent defects or limitations
in the software, the the authors of those books simply gloss over or ignore completely.

Most of the tips and techniques  I share with my students and others seeking help with the product are methods I've spent a lot of time investigating and developing.  For those that express even the smallest amount of gratitude makes that worth while. 
For someone that wants to insult my abilities, and or take advantage of me as a source pretty much sucks the joy right out of it.
To claim he can't learn from me, and insult my methods which I know work for a hundred people or more every year is just plain wrong.  I think he should withold any such judgemnts until he has sat in my class and experienced my methods for himself.

[Dent Cermak]

Maybe you can learn from a book...........................if you know what it is telling you. The way most are written, that is not as easy as it sounds. Most manuals are , out of necessity, written in vague generalities and do not give clear cut, step-by-step instructions for specific functions. That is what you ONLY get in training classes.
Carlson does not come with a book. You can download a huge pdf file and read it or you can purchase copies from Carlson's Lulu site. There are no third party books. Once you figure something out is when you first realise what the book said.
There are not that many qualified training sites. Be danged if I'd let my VAR try to show me something. (Tried that with that bunch out of Birmingham, they sent over their "expert". He did not have a clue.)  The guy we finally found knew his stuff. He asked us what we wanted to know and geared his class towards that end. Printed up training books that made sense and were actually useful.
I sincerely believe that the VAR "trainers" are the reason many companies do not want to spend that money. They got no real return on their investment because the "experts" were full of hot air.
Neither AutoDesk or Carlson require enough out of the VAR's in general. If they are going to offer training, they should be thoroughly tested to high standards. I do not see that happening to the average VAR. At least Carlson has its Carlson College Members that are certified trainers. I assume AutoDesk has a similar program, but I have not heard of one in my area.
You get what you pay for, BUT a classroom instructor that knows his stuff is worth his weight in gold. The return on your investment is unbelievable.

[sinc]

Yeah, I am using Carlson now and many think that is stupid

I don't know why you keep saying this...  I've NEVER seen a post that called you "stupid" for choosing Carlson, except for your own.  Perfectly good work can be done in Carlson.  I know the only posts I've made only contradict your apparent disdain for C3D, and how you feel simply choosing Carlson over C3D will solve all your problems.  I don't agree with that....  C3D has a greater learning curve, but once you get through that, I think it's more-powerful.  It's a trade-off, though...  I don't think it's possible to say one is better than the other in all cases, the way you seem to feel about Carlson.

Rethink your attitudes about training. Get that message across to the powers that be. Show them how spending this money will save them MORE money down the road. And those saving will continue forever.

I'm actually not a fan of that position, although realistically, given the current state of software, I tend to agree.

As a software engineer myself, I feel that anyone who understands the problem space should be intuitively able to automatically use the software to do what needs to be accomplished, to most extent.  If that's a problem, then I view it as mostly a problem with the UI design of the software manufacturer.  (And yes, I think C3D and most other Autodesk products are inordinately and unnecessarily complicated, with respect to their UIs.  And I don't view Carlson as being much better.  I view Bentley software as being even worse than the other options, in this regard.)

[Dent Cermak]

Sinc, I'm really sorry that you have such a guilt complex, but I never claimed you said that, nor are you the only one that I correspond with on this subject. You are not privy to my email in-box, I have received such comments and that is all I need to say on that.
You speak of my disdain of C3D. That disdain does not exist. I loved my LDD and all of the other AutoDesk products that I have used since 1988. As a software engineer I am sure that you feel that using software is just as easy for anyone as it is for you. Same way I feel about rooky drafters. Neither concept is valid. Non-software engineers have difficulty with any new software. You haunt enough discussion groups to know better than that.
My only problem with AutoDesk products is purely ECONOMIC. I have tried to explain that to you several times, but evidently you do not see my point.
AutoDesk messed up when they put everything into one package. My company is a PURELY surveying firm. We do NO engineering graphics work or computations. Things like volumes, etc. are handled by our parent company which is a large engineering firm.
We do ALTA's, boundarys, rights-of-way, topos, etc. Now if you can give me the ammo to go to my boss to justify the extra $40,000 it would cost for us to switch back to AutoCad, because the surveying and topo part of that package is just that superior to what we are using now, I'd be glad to go back. (Don't forget that I will also need a better data collection package for the field guys. That's at least another $5,000.)BUT I cannot see paying that money for software that I will never use.
Plus we would need additional training to catch back up on AutoCad.  That would be what, $5,000?  So, for what we do, will that "more powerful" software justify my requesting that $50,000? Where does the $50,000 extra power lie? Seriously, if you can give me that data, i might could do something about it.
But then, NONE of this invalidates my initial points about training.

[sinc]

I have no guilt complex, just reflecting our constant comments back-and-forth, and how often you've thrown this back on me.

But I can't tell you what to do.  I KNOW Carlson can be used to good work.  It just that I feel many of your arguments fall flat...

That's all based on my experience at EJ Surveying (a Land Surveying firm).  As I've said before, I can now do 5x the work I used to do, compared to when I was using a heavily-customized LDD setup.  And as I work with other people in my company, they are reaching similar levels of productivity.  And I've never heard anyone using Carlson claim anywhere near the same level of productivity increase over LDD.  At best, I hear 2x...  From you, I've only heard 30%.

The cost of the software pales in comparison to the cost of staff.  Where it falls apart is in the training...  I spend a lot of my time training other staff.  And if we have staffing changes, we have to start over, because we have a very hard time finding qualified C3D staff.  So using something like Carlson is definitely easier.  Not sure it's better, though.

As I've said over and over, there's no easy answer.  There's no way to say "Carlson is better" or "C3D is better".  They both have trade-offs, both have benefits and weaknesses.  And one may definitely work better than the other for any given company.

That's ALL I've ever said.