Olá a todos,<\/P>
Atualmente estou fazendo um trabalho de consultoria para uma empresa petrolífera como geotécnico. Eles sabem que fiz aulas de arcgis na faculdade e assumem que eu sei tudo sobre o software, o que não é verdade. Eles querem começar a usar o Arcgis para fazer mapas com poços (pontos) e oleodutos (linhas). Eu olhei uma planilha explicando a diferença entre as três versões do Arcgis desktop, http:\/\/www.esri.com\/~\/media\/Files\/Pdfs\/library\/brochures\/pdfs\/arcgis1021-desktop-functionality-matrix.pdf<\/A> Eu realmente não acho que a empresa precisará do advanced porque pelo que entendo a principal diferença é que o advanced tem geoprocessamento de cobertura, o que eu não acho que será necessário. Além de fazer mapas básicos, eles querem ser capazes de fazer transformações de coordenadas de NAD 27 para WGS 84. Acho que isso seria possível na versão basic, mas não tenho certeza. Se alguém puder me fornecer alguma visão sobre o assunto ou dar exemplos do que outras empresas de petróleo e gás usam o software, eu realmente agradeceria! <\/P><\/P>Obrigado<\/P>-Rob<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>
<\/P>
Obrigado<\/P>
-Rob<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>
Robert,
Everyone has provided great advice and suggestions for you thus far. I'm going to play devil's advocate, though... the cost of your labor will most likely be well beyond any software costs to the company at the desktop level. You say it's a small petroleum company and budget may be a concern - don't let that stop you from making a recommendation if you really feel having more capable tools will allow you to do your work more efficiently, and perhaps, may even be required if you stick with the Esri ecosystem, depending on your project requirements.
You should weigh the pros and cons of needing to go back and ask for more capable software should you need it - after you've already gone through the initial scoping process since they believe you know everything about the software - it's ok to tactfully explain this is not the case. You can live and breathe GIS for a decade and still find surprises every day.
Having said that, unless you need some of the extensions, which it doesn't sound like you do, the Standard level should work well. If you find it doesn't, there are generally open-source alternatives. Just make sure you keep a record of your scopes/specs in case, 6 months from now, it creeps into an area that needs extensions, or an advanced license (when the client is asking why you are charging them more money for software, it'll come in handy).
Robert:
From what you have related so far, it sounds like Standard fits what you need. However, available budget will likely be a limiting factor, so I'd try to get a sense from your sponsors how flexible the budget is.
Also, there are some other considerations when purchasing GIS that people often don't take into account:
1. Maintenance/Updates. The software does change over time. Buying a copy of ArcGIS will give you the software now, but after a year it will start to become obsolete and over time will essentially have to be replaced or upgraded. So keep that in mind for long-term budgeting, i.e. this is not a "buy it once and you are done" software. You will have to plan out budget to keep ArcGIS updated, be it by purchasing Maintenance or re-purchasing ArcGIS in a few years. Also, depending upon your needs, it may be worth it to purchase Maintenance not only for the continual upgrades but also for the Tech Support that comes with it.
2. Extensions. Depending upon what things you forsee doing with GIS, you may need to buy an Extension. As one example, the Spatial Analyst extension is very popular with many GIS users. You may not need any extensions right away, but keep them in mind, as inevitably as one gets GIS up and running folks will say "hey, this is cool, but can you do this additional task also". My experience is that if you can budget extensions in up-front, it is easier to implement them than if someone asks for a task to be done requiring an extension and one has to tell the requestor it will cost a few thousand dollars to get the Extension to make that possible. Also, having an extension involves maintenance and upgrade considerations (see #1).
Chris Donohue, GISP
ArcGIS for Desktop
ArcGIS for Desktop | Pricing
Some other links highlighting what functionalities are available with the different License levels. I guess looking at these you can get an understanding as to what you need.
It also might be worthwhile to see if any open source GIS solutions would meet your needs, such as QGIS or GRASS.
OSGeo.org | Your Open Source Compass
Thank you, I think standard is what they will need, I would just hate to tell them to spend more money than they need to since it is a pretty small company!
ArcGIS Desktop Advanced will let you use some of the geoprocessing tools (Feature to Point/Line/Polygon; Split, erase, identity, update, etc).
Apart from the additional geoprocessing tools, some of the advantages of ArcGIS Desktop Standard over the Basic version are as follows
1) Storing data in Enterprise Geodatabase / File Geodatabase (multi-user editing).
2) Building topology.
3) Raster mosaicking and many more.
I think you can take a better decision, as the requirement of the client is best known to you.
Membros conectados podem postar, seguir atualizações e mais. Novo aqui? Registre uma conta gratuita.
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.
