Civil 3D Toolkit Phase 2

Fellow Dynamo users, first of all, THANK YOU!!! for adopting the Civil 3D Toolkit, it’s been 1 year and 5 days since Safi and I released it and the response has been amazing so far :partying_face: :fireworks: :birthday:
It is now time to think a little bit about what happened over the past year and where this is going in the future.

I’m starting to receive private requests to be involved in the development of the Toolkit and this got me thinking, I need to make a few clarifications as well.

As always, please do not make the conversation private, there is no point in doing that, I’m opening this post for this very reason.
The Toolkit is not Open Source, for me to do that I need to forego an internal approval process and it might take a while. So for now forget about it.
For this reason, we cannot take direct inputs to the code from external contributors, even when the code is awesome and the developer is trustworthy.

Nevertheless, there is a ton of work to do and for those of you that would like to “give back”, we can create an opportunity. Below a few things that comes to mind.

What would be definitely advantageous is a systematic analysis of the current nodes checking the following:

  • Naming (nodes, ports, shelves, etc.), does it make sense for the Dynamo standards? Is it clear enough for the end user?
  • Tooltips, same as above
  • Error messages associated
  • Redundancy, are there multiple ways to do the same thing? Is it possible to reduce the nodes using inheritance on nodes?
  • Current Functionalities (it requires to define naming conventions, template, standards to follow, metadata to attach, etc…):
    • Create separate DYN files for each node with test case and common dataset when necessary (e.g. Pipe Network 3C in the samples shipped with Civil 3D)
    • Report on passed / failed to spot bugs/defects
    • Prioritize bug fixing per impact (I want to do it for real, as if you had to put a budget of hours against it so careful what you wish for)
    • Capture Logs per file (performance and insight)
  • New Functionalities (it will require to define naming conventions, template, standards to follow, metadata to attach, etc…):
    • Collect use cases and datasets (it requires to define naming conventions, template, standards to follow, etc…)
    • Python scripts mockup (I cannot accept external contributions in C# unfortunately)
    • Prioritize per impact (I want to do it for real, as if you had to put a budget of hours against it so careful what you wish for)

With this, I’m officially opening the phase 2 of the Civil 3D Toolkit.

17 Likes

Thanks Paolo!

Can you suggest a format for this information that would be most helpful as you parse through it?

3 Likes

Congrats on the 1 year anniversary! The toolkit is a great help and I’d be happy to help where I can :smiley:

4 Likes

I’m actually open to suggestions. I’ve opened a public GitHub repo for this: https://github.com/paoloemilioserra/Civil3dToolkit

We can leverage the tabs there to discuss in more details

6 Likes

Started a project on GitHub here with basic Kanban approach https://github.com/paoloemilioserra/Civil3dToolkit/projects/1

Uploaded a set of test cases to be reviewed/updated.

3 Likes

Capture

OK so taking these three for example - if an error is found, would you like to see that logged in the “Issues” tab, or would you like it posted in this thread?

2 Likes

Use the issues on GitHub, I think it’s cleaner and we can add tags

4 Likes

1.1.16 is out
What’s new:

  • Create and (partially) Edit Corridors, Baselines, BaselineRegions, Assemblies, AssemblyGroups, Subassemblies, SubassemblyPoint, SubassemblyLink, SubassemblyShape, TkSubassemblyParameters (these are the parameters on the actual subassembly to not confuse with the applied subassembly parameters we have in Dynamo OOTB)
  • Extract TkCorridorFeatureLines on Feature Line based corridors
6 Likes

Hi, great, does this really mean I can avoid partially Subassembly composer (SAC)? Could you please help me to understand how nodes SubassemblyPoint, SubassemblyLink, SubassemblyShape work?
I do not know where to find link object to create SubassemblyLink.

no, you still depend on the SAC