Hi, in my opinion, the simplest and most meaningful name for all customers and users would be Civil3DToolbox.
After a lengthy discussion with ChatGPT, I believe the best name would be Civil3DCator.
“Ca” refer to Camber, “t” refer to toolkit “or” refer to “origins”.
“Cato” refer to a historical figure Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman. He wrote “Origines”.
“Origines” is a Latin word meaning “origins” or “beginnings.” In the context of historical writings, “Origines” often refers to works that discuss the early history or origins of a particular society, civilization, or institution. For example, Cato the Elder’s work “Origines” was a historical treatise that explored the early history of Rome. It likely covered topics such as the legendary founding of Rome, the early Roman monarchy, and the establishment of the Roman Republic.
“Cato” is from “Catus”, which is a Latin adjective meaning “sharp” or “clever.”
TOOLKIT-DWG
\------------ TOOLKIT-CAD to Autocad api nodes
\------------ TOOLKIT-C3D to C3D api nodes
\------------ TOOLKIT-RVT to include Civil Comunication
\------------ TOOLKIT-EXT to inculde External Tools
\------------ TOOLKIT-ARK to include Arkance Systems
\------------ TOOLKIT-OMP to include Open Mep Autocad
Very basic and technic i know is just an idea
Pretty sure it’s just Civil 3D Toolkit and Camber which are merging into one repo… OpenMEP and Arkance will still be stand alone (though if we got all of Dynamo for Civil 3D Open Sourced they might be able to be rolled into the core via a PR)…
As to say that road design did not improve much after romans
After reading this I’d propose also ‘Cardo’ and ‘Decumano’ (the two main roads of any roman cities), from there you know where to start and then you can literally go anywhere.
Well if it is an integration project why stop only with Camber and Civil3DToolkit perhaps create a structure of namespaces to let open the door for future colaboration and posible integrations with others packages with amazing classes and methods will be interesting!! (I’m writing since user point of view i know is not so simple as that), but is already a great initiative!!
I personally won’t have any time to work on this for a few months, and Paolo’s time is limited as well. I would feel pretty confident about committing to having the first version ready by the end of summer, so let’s go with that for now.
Looks like we had a tie at the top for DynaCivil and Civil3DToolbox, so I’m just going to pick one so we can keep things moving. We’ll go with DynaCivil since it’s fresh and will provide a little more distinction/separation from the existing Civil3DToolkit.
Thanks for voting! I’ll get going with some preliminary stuff as soon as I’m able and keep you posted.
Firstly i am gratful for the contribution the authors have put into these packages.
Can the package not be called “WishTheseWasCivil3dOotb” .
On a serious note “DynaCivil” seems the better of the options because there may be elements within the package that are for “Autocad” and not just “Civils3D” therefore this seems a better package name.
