Where do you want us to go in 2021?

Your chance to give us your input as to where you want us to go in 2021 in terms of focus areas

For example

Do you want us to keep working on stand alone tools that tackle different unconnected tasks to just help move things along.

Do you want us to tackle specific work areas like bridges or walls or foundations and footings or surface .modeling or data prep or takeoff 2D or takeoff 3D or Utilities or drafting deliverables

We have 2 developers full time - we have our own ideas of course but we want ro see how those align with your desires and hopes of a less clicky pointy world. Two people can do a lot but by no means everything but they want to make a big difference.

Tell us what you think

Alan

2 Likes

I think having the freedom to move in any direction is very nice, so working on standalone tools that help do certain tasks has been very exciting for me to see. That being said, I would love to see more takeoff tools, 2D and 3D, and the more I use the Utility Module, the more I would love to see RPS tackle that beast that has tons of potential but seems only half done to me.

2 Likes

Thanks Michael - I have the same almost exact view so far at least

Alan

1 Like

There have been some great improvements to the takeoff process thanks to the work of the RPS team. This is one of the areas where I think a more vetted workflow is critical because of time constraints and some missing functionality.

I think the standalone tools are valuable because those tend to address the issues that users run into very commonly like relayer, reverse line or crop crossing that may save a user more time on a day to day basis and can be more diverse.

The standalone tools become good building blocks for addressing workflow problems. Just by adding certain tools to my ribbons I have noticed an increase in production because things run smoother and you can create these tailored to the user. Too bad they don’t translate to new TBC builds nicely…

1 Like

Covid/no Covid we all work across the states and across the world. It might be nice to have a town hall meeting/ virtual cocktail every so often.

3 Likes

You mean a party @Plheureux ?!?!?!? :tropical_drink: :tropical_drink: :tropical_drink:

1 Like

Why not? Celebrate the things you enjoy and make life easier.

L’Heureux translates to " the happy one" have to keep that vibe going

So we can just stop working and start the party and you guys will be totally happy - awesome !

Alan

2 Likes

For a day or two sure why not. You can make it up on the weekends! LOL
But on a serious note, I’m still kicking this one around but you know me… all about that reduced workflow and efficiency.

With the efficacies added by your “New Layer” approach in the commands, you may also want to consider doing something similar with the Vertical Design functionality. With just a couple more tweeks to the VD functionality, it will likely be the go to power method for elevating linework. However, VD seems somewhat of a separate system that needs to be further integrated with the overall command functions.

For example: it’s somewhat step’ie to add a line to a VD that is offset from a line that is already elevated. One or a couple lines is not a big deal, but do 50. Obviously there are multiple ways to work around this by using temp layers, name grouping, lock checkbox (which I continually get tripped up on) and so on but it could be made much easier by adding a VD selection dropdown (which should include “none” and “new”) and a “make undefined” ability (checkbox or honor the question mark as undefined in the vertical difference field). Workflow example: Start the command, set the name, layer, VD name, (?), do your offsets and BAM! 50 clean, undefined lines in you VD ready for rules.
(and yes it goes even further)
Since we’ve gotten this far, why not add the ability to add a typical VD rule between the elevated source line (which can also be auto added to the designated VD via a check box next to the source line field if it doesn’t already belong) and the resultant line. Basically, a super enhanced Offset command pumped up to seamlessly work with the VD system.

The above is just one example of better integrating with VD. I’m sure there are many more opportunities throughout the system. Or, we can just do the aforementioned party! :crazy_face:

1 Like

I would love to see what you guys can come up with for drafting. Without giving any suggestions or direction, just do your thing and make drafting better and lets see what you guys come up with.

Can you define Drafting for me as you see it - we have started in some areas like labeling and then with Permit Area Manager we have started to work with creating smart tables of data for drawings, I have in mind to make single sheet and multisheet plan sheet plotting a lot easier and to provide some smart tabling functions for Takeoffs etc. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?

Alan

2 Likes

Here is a quick example I ran into today.

1 Like

One thing in the TBC Takeoff workflow that I always thought could be improved was how topsoil stripping is handled. I fully understand how it works, but when I work with new users it is very confusing to them after they have learned the process of applying design site improvements/topsoil respread to regions and now apply stripping areas a completely different way. It gets a bit more complicated if there are multiple depths on the site and not a continuous strip across the site.

If topsoil stripping could be controlled through the MSI manager and assigned to areas in the “Existing” category, I believe this would be a huge benefit.

I’m not sure if this would fall into something that Rockpile could do, or this may be an enhancement request for Trimble

Ed

1 Like

Hi I would like to see a much improved corridor earthwork report in excel format the one that’s available in right now in TBC is a pain with a lot of extra work to get it presentable. I would like to see drafting improvements on things like labeling- for example finish grade elevations on a corridor. The slope indicator TML is great but you have to explode a corridor to use the linestrings to generate the slope indicators I would like to see it be done directly from the corridor so that if revisions are made the indicators will update, right now that’s not possible. That would cut down the extra work when doing drafting operations.
I would like to see BIG improvements on the utilities module nothing has been done on this module since the release. Improvements would be both on creating utilities and trench models to drafting, getting the utilities in profiles and cross sections. I know I’m not the only one that’s hoping for these utilities improvements to be implemented, am I right @Plheureux?
The drafting module is nice but could be more automated by giving the users options instead of being completely customizable, it’s nice that you can setup everything by yourself but it can be very time consuming also. Civil3d is great in this instance very easy for the user to create nice consistent deliverables. In TBC much of the settings should be globally otherwise the consistency drops drastically.
These are some of the things I feel is needed to compete with other software.

2 Likes

@Joseph_Torres1 I very much agree with you the development on utilities has be non it seems since its initial release.

I agree with your other items as well. Lots of options in drafting but almost too many and it is very easy to get lost in all of the settings. I still think there needs to a an object explorer for drafting that would allow you to hover or select an item and see where there stems from.

When doing takeoff and applying site improvements we are required to enter the site improvement point in each area we would like the site improvement. Would it be possible to choose the layer of the site improvement and have a macro apply the site improvement at say a centroid point of the given area? Use example would be large subdivisions with hundreds of building pads or driveways that you could just choose the layer and have those site improvements applied.

1 Like

If all the objects on a layer have the same site improvement you don’t need to use the point for the site improvements - just associate the SI with the Layer in the categorize layers function, and the same site improvement s applied automatically to all of the lines / closed lines on the layer. Is that what you wanted.

The centroid is fine for rectangles, but some shapes, the centroid is outside the area so it would not find the boundary as a result

Alan

1 Like

Alan,

That is exactly what I needed clarified. As always thanks for all of your help.