{"id":580,"date":"2012-05-13T12:56:09","date_gmt":"2012-05-13T12:56:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.geoplanit.co.uk\/?p=580"},"modified":"2012-05-16T09:00:52","modified_gmt":"2012-05-16T09:00:52","slug":"arcgis-planning-engine-whats-in-a-name","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.geoplanit.co.uk\/?p=580","title":{"rendered":"ArcGIS Geodesigner or Planning Engine? What’s in a name?"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPDATED on the 16\/05\/2012 – I’ve updated this\u00a0article\u00a0as I got it completely\u00a0wrong, scroll to the bottom to find out more…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ve been thinking about how ESRI will integrate CityEngine with ArcGIS… either they are going to embed CityEngine functions within the core product, not ArcGIS basic but maybe standard or pro versions. \u00a0Perhaps as a procedural modeller toolbox? \u00a0 Alternatively they are going to produce an industry specific product.<\/p>\n

Personally I hate products being chopped up for different industries (I’m looking at you Autodesk and Adobe), but in some cases it can make sense. \u00a0For example urban designers have different requirements to geologists, so why would they want the same tools or have to pay for them? \u00a0 \u00a0Of course \u00a0I would point point out that limiting features based on profession can mean we won’t be able to learn from others!<\/p>\n

Personally I think the name CityEngine is limiting your product, this is a procedural modeller which can just as easily do trees and agriculture as houses and\u00a0skyscrapers. \u00a0So what will it be ESRI?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

My choice? \u00a0ArcGIS Planning Engine…. what’s yours?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n


\n<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

UPDATE\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Okay I got it\u00a0completely\u00a0wrong if anything it won’t be ArcGIS Planning Engine, it will be ArcGIS Geodesigner and here are a few reasons why:<\/p>\n