ODA for C3D

The OpenDesign Alliance expands its Autodesk compatibility by adding support for Civil 3D. The new C3Ddirect library creates, displays, and edits Civil 3D custom objects; it's compatible with releases 2007 and 2008. Due to ship by year's end, but announced today, during Autodesk University week.

The organization of Autodesk competitors already has similar libraries for handing DWG, ADT, and MicroStation DGN. Hmm.... ADT and Civil 3D today; MDT, etc "tomorrow"?

Comments

[Henrik Vallgren]

I don't think MDT: it's future is questionable and the software architecture seems to be a mess. A few years ago, I took a look a the exported classes/methods and it wasn't a pretty sight.

IMO, Autodesk has done a fantastic job keeping it together for these years.

[R.Paul Waddington]

Henrik said,"I don't think MDT: it's future is questionable and the software architecture seems to be a mess. A few years ago, I took a look a the exported classes/methods and it wasn't a pretty sight.
IMO, Autodesk has done a fantastic job keeping it together for these years."

Somebody mention MDT? Henrik your comments are quite valid except nobody seems to have paid any attention to what MDT actually offers. Its flexibility and combination of 2D and 3D functionality make its format much more cost effective to we jobbers than an AutoCAD/Inventor combination or any other of the offerings in the main stream.

Buzz Kross recently made this statement, "We have learnt long term that customers can never really answer questions for you. They can tell you what they think they want and what they think they are doing. It doesn’t really match what they do. The most reliable technique is to watch them working with our products and simply ask them why they are doing things the way they are." (entirely because Autodesk's questions are derived from the direction Autodesk has already chosen to pursue not the users requirements!)

When you see comments like this and have talked with people like Anagnost you get to understand why MDT has been deliberately screwed. If it is in a "mess" as you say then it is Autodesk who created the mess (deliberately) and Autodesk who could fix it. Autodesk have done a great con job convincing the market MDT has issues, purley to further their marketing aims not the requirements of their customers.

I have often pointed out the value of the MDT's format and you know not once have Autodesk, with an open mind and genuinely, asked why, or to show how, for do do so would mean listening to something they don't want to hear.

The difference between a good engineer and a bad one is that the good one knows how to fix his mistakes; the bad one makes changes that simply mask but not fix the original problem - Inventor is a mask!

R. Paul Waddington.

[Henrik Vallgren]

I think that the problem with MDT is that it's an ARX program with parts based on pre ARX technology. I think that it was based on some R12 software to begin with. It'd needs restructuring but I don't think that it'll happen. For that Autodesk has inventor, which also seems to be a part of Autodesks escape from AutoCAD strategy.

Ironcally that strategy, along with the near future ARX capability of IntelliCAD and others, makes AutoCAD development more interesting than it's been for a long time:

- Autodesk is less likely to compete with 3rd party developers
- Developers can get access to similar capability platforms that cost the enduser a lot less

Would you consider buying a new software package, similar to MDT? Years ago, I developed Streamspace Solids to demonstrate the power of AutoCAD LT extensions. I've been thinking about making it parametric and possibly adding generative surfaces/solids but interest from current users seems low.