So here is a viewpoint question. I am working on small land development projects. Building, some parking, maybe a small access road, stormwater pond. I need to do site drainage and ulities as well. Which would be the better application to use, Geopak or Inroads, and why? I lean tward Geopak, but I am not that familiar with Inroads to say why not use it. Thoughts?
Will the future Civil Platform have "site modeler"? I currently use InRoads but on some projects the tools of Geopak and/or Powercivil would be nice.
I would concur with my Benley colleagues that the GEOPAK Site Modeler functionality is ideal for just that, Site Modeling. It contains associativity within "features" and autoclipping and automerging for the overall site dtm. it is similar in behavoir to the Roadway Designer's target aliasing and surface clipping. I am using InRoads terminology since I am pretty sure that Brian uses (used) InRoads at on point in time.
It contains, automatic contour and triangle/surface updating and instant design feedback illustrations of the site design. This is just a couple of the benefits.
As to the future, I am not making any predictions. That is above my pay grade LOL. However, as we have put the InRoads Roadway Designer into the GEOPAK product line and the GEOPAK Quantity Manager into the InRoads Product line, I can foresee further integration along these lines. Taking the best of the best and merging them together.
This minimizes the interruption of current knowledge and workflows and gives the option to the user to transition into new functionality.
I am sure we will keep you posted on any developments as they occur.
HTH
Thomas Taylor
Neil Wilson (aka Neilw)
Power Civil v8i 08.11.07.245
AutoCAD Civil 3D 2018