Topic: Traverse PC

[FengK]

Hello,

Is there anyone here who is familiar with this software? How compatible is it with AutoCAD? Even better, can someone post a sample topo drawing that is created using this software?

Thanks a lot!

[mjfarrell]

A quick check of their web site would suggest that at a minimum you will need to spen $1400, to get the same functionality you already own inside C3D.

What is your desired goal, to augment or replace C3D for your Survey tasks?

[FengK]

Michael,

We're not looking into buying this software. One survey company that we might be working with is asking if this software is acceptable to us.

Thanks.

[mjfarrell]

It appears to read and or write to and from DWG, and DGN.

I think that IF you specify a deliverable from these folks that includes BOTH the DWG for the features, and and XML file of the terrain model you should have no major issues using the data they produce.

Otherwise, the FILE format is of no concern to you should they be able to provide an FBK file, and or and ASCI point and fault line file for you to import into C3D.

[craigr]

If the file isn't CAD but IS in the .dwg format, is it still Peaches to Peaches?

Or is it more like Peaches to Tangerine?

We have gotten .dwg from the Full version of AutoCAD that have things in it that our LT doesn't deal with.

Is .dwg a 'Standard' like .bmp or .jpg are?

craigr

[mjfarrell]

If the file isn't CAD but IS in the .dwg format, is it still Peaches to Peaches?

Or is it more like Peaches to Tangerine?

We have gotten .dwg from the Full version of AutoCAD that have things in it that our LT doesn't deal with.

Is .dwg a 'Standard' like .bmp or .jpg are?

craigr

Sadly Craig the DWG, nor the DGN file are 'standards' any longer.  As each of these software publishers have found that changing the format is a most efficient marketing scam, er scheme, I mean tool.

The other issue you speak of is a wide spread symptom of autodesk failing to ensure that all of their products are at a minimum interoperable with all of their products without need of 'enablers' or 'proxy' objects. 

[Matt__W]

We have gotten .dwg from the Full version of AutoCAD that have things in it that our LT doesn't deal with.

Well that doesn't surprise me, given the fact that a full version of AutoCAD can create different objects and has more functionality.  If the DWG is saved with proxy graphics turned on, there shouldn't be any problems (other than the fact that you can't modify a proxy object - just view it).

[Matt__W]

The other issue you speak of is a wide spread symptom of autodesk failing to ensure that all of their products are at a minimum interoperable with all of their products without need of 'enablers' or 'proxy' objects. 

But they all have the "view cube" so that's GOT TO BE WORTH SOMETHING!!  Right? 

[mjfarrell]

The other issue you speak of is a wide spread symptom of autodesk failing to ensure that all of their products are at a minimum interoperable with all of their products without need of 'enablers' or 'proxy' objects. 

But they all have the "view cube" so that's GOT TO BE WORTH SOMETHING!!  Right? 

I've got you're 'view cube' right here....

[Matt__W]

The other issue you speak of is a wide spread symptom of autodesk failing to ensure that all of their products are at a minimum interoperable with all of their products without need of 'enablers' or 'proxy' objects. 

But they all have the "view cube" so that's GOT TO BE WORTH SOMETHING!!  Right? 

I've got you're 'view cube' right here....

                                                    ^^^^
                                           it wasn't THAT funny   

[James Cannon]

Question:

How can you use teh same file format and introduce totally new objects and functionality.. and have them work in software that had no ability to use them?

For instance, how w/could they make a dynamic block work in Autocad 2004?

[mjfarrell]

Question:

How can you use teh same file format and introduce totally new objects and functionality.. and have them work in software that had no ability to use them?

For instance, how w/could they make a dynamic block work in Autocad 2004?

Then maybe 'they' should stop calling it; whatever the file format is based on version a DWG file.

In answer to the backward compatibility conundrum you present; I will wait for that to be resolved until after they get the current version of ALL of their products to work together.  I will continue to breath while I wait.

[James Cannon]

So you suggest making each release a new DWG?

Like versions accepted in R12 are a *.dwg1
2000-2004 *.dwg2
2004-2005 *.dwg3
2006 *.dwg4
2007-2009 *.dwg5

so on, so forth, as needed?

What would that solve?

In answer to the backward compatibility conundrum you present; I will wait for that to be resolved until after they get the current version of ALL of their products to work together.  I will continue to breath while I wait.

You mean like C3d to Autocad?  or Inventor to Autocad?  or C3D to Autocad Architecture?  Or MEP to Autocad?  Or Autocad Architecture to LT?

This goes back to to the dwg history point, I feel.

[mjfarrell]

So you suggest making each release a new DWG?

Like versions accepted in R12 are a *.dwg
2000-2004 *.dw2
2004-2005 *.dw3
2006 *.dw4
2007-2009 *.dw5

so on, so forth, as needed?

What would that solve?

In answer to the backward compatibility conundrum you present; I will wait for that to be resolved until after they get the current version of ALL of their products to work together.  I will continue to breath while I wait.

You mean like C3d to Autocad?  or Inventor to Autocad?  or C3D to Autocad Architecture?  Or MEP to Autocad?  Or Autocad Architecture to LT?

This goes back to to the dwg history point, I feel.

Uh, no

However by changing the extension it does diminish the expectation that the file IS compatible, given that a DWG is not always equal to a DWG.

As to the second point YES! Autodesk would save all of their customers with file compatibility issues; should they chose to concentrate on interoperability of each product where it would be reasonable to expect the products to intersect.

[James Cannon]

What do you expect from the interoperability?

The electrical engineer in the back used to use LT, and often used the files the architects would send them from Architectural Desktop / Autocad Architecture, and he was able to use the floor plans fine enough to do his job.  He could manipulate the layers of the floor plan and draw over it, snapping to things as needed.

It wouldn't be right to allow him to modify Architecture objects like wall assemblies and such, because he's just using LT.

What "interoperability" is it that you see is lacking?  I guess I mean to say.. what do you mean by "where it would be reasonable to expect the products to intersect."