>I'm trying to work out whether trying to use CT for a Studio project is going to save time or whether it's quicker just to use Studio (of which I am not a fan at all).
I'm quite convinced that it's never quicker to 'just use Studio'. But that's of course my personal opinion, though based on many Studio projects. In my opinion there are just too many shortcomings in the interface that limit effective translating. The design of the F/R dialogue box, the slow respond to actions like 'assign a status to all segments' etc., just spoil my personal experience with Studio.
Also, SDL is a big organisation, mainly focussed on big clients. When you have an issue, you'll be contacted and they'll listen to you. And that's it.
Studio doesn't have auto-assembling, which can be very handy. It has all kinds of plugins, which are just that: different pieces of software, connected to each other. Just like many parts of the main program (Multiterm for instance, still a weird duck in the biesbos). Lately I received packages from a client with a termbase. Studio 2015 couldn't open them. Support ('I'm available after 15:00 PM this week', which is about the time that I leave office to start running) reported: we don't know what's causing this issue. Duh.
>
>I've looked at various postings and resources on this subject, but it is still not clear to me how easy it is to work with Studio packages in CafeTran in practice. There are a lot of forum postings about how to get around this or that limitation of processing Studio files in CT, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I have all confidence.
>you want to use Studio's termbase (you've got to convert it somehow into a text or Excel file)
I hardly ever get a termbase, and when I get one, it's empty or only contains the source terms. Bummer.
>you want to leave a comment in Studio (CT's note is not maintained as Studio's comment at the moment)
If enough CafeTran users would like to have this feature, I'm sure that Igor will listen to that.
>you want to add extra formatting (i.e., one that is not shown as tags)
That's a difficult one. On the other hand: how often do you need that?
Other things:
>Also, SDL is a big organisation, mainly focussed on big clients. When you have an issue, you'll be contacted and they'll listen to you. And that's it.
I meant: when you're 'only' a freelancer, they'll have the courtesy to contact you. But that's it then.
There's no Igor trying to help you, even in the early evening. Of course this is related to an installed user base, but it's a great support.
After you finish the translation of sdlppx package, finalize it and then export back to package via Project > Export > To package.... Then, you have two options for the export: a Project package or Return package.
The translated return package (sdlrpx) should be opened in Studio which created the normal (sdlppx) package. If you did not create this project yourself, export to as a normal project package (sdlppx) to review it in your installation of Studio.
Igor
amos
I've been using CafeTran for a while yet, but I haven't got around to using it for a Studio project.
I'm trying to work out whether trying to use CT for a Studio project is going to save time or whether it's quicker just to use Studio (of which I am not a fan at all).
I've looked at various postings and resources on this subject, but it is still not clear to me how easy it is to work with Studio packages in CafeTran in practice. There are a lot of forum postings about how to get around this or that limitation of processing Studio files in CT, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
If any of the experienced hands could give a quick run-through of the basic process for and, in particular, pitfalls of translating a straightforward Studio Package in CT, I would be very grateful.
Many thanks,
Jeremy