We have been using Civil 3D 2012. When we initially loaded this version we were excited about the possibility of being able to generate intelligent piping system and associated profiles. As sophisticated as the program may be, the experience took me back to my earliest days of civil design within AutoCAD.
While there may be multiple ways to generate elements, if they don't follow a certain "work flow", they are buggy as can be and correct profiles will not be generated.
We also found that transferring data to and from Hydraflow was also full of bugs. It seems as though Autodesk has given up on further development and integration of Hydraflow.
With every new version, we are full of hope but it never fails, when it comes to practical application, we typically find that there is a glitch or bug that causes a problem, which, by the time we discover it, we have invested so much time and energy that we risk blowing our budget trying to fix things.
My question is, does anyone know if Civil 3D 2013 fixes anything or is it simply more of the same bugged up, temperamental software that never quite works as advertised?
You should consider that 2013 does fix things, while the possiblity (probability? certainty?) exists that other issues will arise. I have been working with AutoCAD/DCA/Softdesk since 1986 and have never seen a defect-free version. I would guess that users of our competitors' products would say the same.
I appreciate what you are saying. I also have been working with the program since the old DCA days.
I'm not saying there is a better platform. I am saying that, with all of their years developing the program, it shouldn't be as full of bugs and problems as it tends to be.
My problem is that we noticed a lot of these problems in the 2009 version and looked to the 2012 version to fix them but that was not the case.
I see that they are now offering a "suite" package that introduces some more new elements.
I would simply like to see them fix current issues.
I was hoping someone might have, after experiencing similar problems, tried the 2013 version and could tell me if they saw any real improvement.
My perspective…. Each version adds some new bells and whistles, and each version introduces some new bugs. Hopefully the former outweigh the latter. If you’re on subscription, then you’re receiving the new version each year. It’s up to you do decide when to physically upgrade.
How do you keep up with what is new, what is broken, what used to work but now doesn’t, what used to be broken and is now fixed, what features are really cool and bug-free, etc.? Monitoring the forums, reading C3D blogs, and talking to your reseller will generally cover it. You have to be proactive and that is an add-on to the cost of doing business as far as I’m concerned. I know some people work in a void and install every new version on day 1 and then act surprised when they run into something.
You are already here asking questions, which is a good sign. To answer your last sentence/question, I would say the fair answer is that yes, it’s the same old program with some new features, some new bugs, and some new fixes. If you have upgraded in the past, expect the same type of transition.
Do you guys work for Autodesk???
If not, I would suggest that you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
My co-worker said it best. If you bought a car or a television that was as bugged up as your software, would you see it as your responsibility to go find a fix for the problems? I doubt it. So, why would you be so complacent and accept it without complaint when it comes to your software?
Also, I can't speak for your reseller, but ours has provided little, if any real solutions. I honestly believe we are more knowledgeable than the reseller.
As for discussion groups and forums, sure, if you have endless hours to dig for answers you might get some resolution, and we have done so in the past. But to accept that as the cost of doing business seems asinine to me.
@Anonymous wrote:<snip>
While there may be multiple ways to generate elements, if they don't follow a certain "work flow", they are buggy as can be and correct profiles will not be generated.
We also found that transferring data to and from Hydraflow was also full of bugs. It seems as though Autodesk has given up on further development and integration of Hydraflow.
<snip>
My question is, does anyone know if Civil 3D 2013 fixes anything or is it simply more of the same bugged up, temperamental software that never quite works as advertised?
You should take it easy on RK. I don't think he is an employee, and he offers a tremendous amount of positive input to the DG.
You weren't very specific about your pipe problem, perhaps some more detail an you may get an answer that helps.
I've haven't encountered pipe or surface profiles being "buggy", and what's going wrong on you HF transfers? Wrong structure mapping?
I think the term "bugs" is tossed around too easily. Its a knee jerk reaction for when the program doesn't work the way I want it to work. I've seen many users frustrated with an operation and then the light goes on when they learn the ins and outs.
Hey there is always Mylars and Leroy pens. and remember:
If you are forced to eat an Elephant, don’t complain about it; Take one bite at a time.
You can flame me everyone does , But RK doesn't deserve it.
Joe Bouza
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
framseur,
There's a reason why Autodesk produces "more of the same bugged up, temperamental software." Engineers and surveyors buy it eagerly, hoping that their Herculean efforts to surmount buggy, torturous, overcomplicated software will exclude others from their craft. Same goes for the ridiculous hoop-jumping of college degrees and professional licenses.
There, I said it.
Drink the Kool-Aid. It's good for you.
Dave Stoll
Las Vegas, Nevada
@Anonymous wrote:
Do you guys work for Autodesk???
No, at least I do not.
If not, I would suggest that you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
My co-worker said it best. If you bought a car or a television that was as bugged up as your software, would you see it as your responsibility to go find a fix for the problems? I doubt it. So, why would you be so complacent and accept it without complaint when it comes to your software?
Right, if you bought a Chevrolet that "was as bugged up as your software", you might return it, or at the very least, use it until it was time to buy a new one, right? Then, there is no way you would buy another Chevrolet, right? See below.
Also, I can't speak for your reseller, but ours has provided little, if any real solutions. I honestly believe we are more knowledgeable than the reseller.
Can't help you with that much. Shop around before purchasing is all I can offer there.
As for discussion groups and forums, sure, if you have endless hours to dig for answers you might get some resolution, and we have done so in the past. But to accept that as the cost of doing business seems asinine to me.
A solution to your problem is easy, if we can use the car anology above. Get rid of Civil 3D and find yourself a new CAD vendor (Bentley?)..... What's that? You can't switch because you have tens of thousands of DWG files and your employees are training on Autodesk products? Welcome to the real world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't and shouldn't expect more from software companies, but there is a reality to the situation too. Sitting around waiting for it to happen isn't going to change things. I've made my share of complaints about the software over the years too, and sometimes we see results and other times not, so we do what it takes to work around the situation.
This is the nature of software development that has major yearly releases. I get my job done regardless of the "bugs" in this software and I am an early adopter. Would I like some features work "better"? Of course. Autodesk is incredibly helpful when you have problems (assuming you are on subscription). And they should be because Civil 3D is expensive. Communicating with Autodesk about your difficulties can get the results you want. There are tons of helpful and knowledgable persons on this forum that will gladly assist in finding solutions.
If you want solutions just ask the right questions.
I agree with the original comment. There are bugs and problems that have been spanned many, many releases. I found that Autodesk acts somewhat like a monopoly and doesn't fix bugs simply because they don't have to. We simply have to find work arounds, but we should all be used to that by now....
In my experience the biggest bug is somewhere between the keyboard and the chair
Joe Bouza
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Stick with C3D 2012 if you're worried about bugs. C3D 2013 has been the worst release I've ever seen of Civil 3d. So many little things just won't work that individually wouldn't matter much, but there are enough of them to frustrate the hell out of you.
I've never been one to recommend not going to the latest release, but C3D 2013 has been the first time I've ever done that.
I think that engrtech's experience is a great example of the complexity of this software/hardware combinations and how we all use it differently. We upgraded to 2013 immediately and only had one problem that was fixed with SP1. Most problems do originate with the user and some with hardware/software problems. Also, remember that it's not Autodesk's responsibility alone when problems arise.
Back to the car analogy, a car is made to do one thing. Drive. It either works or it doesn't. You can drive from point A to point B or not. Along the way the air conditioning may break or a headlight need replaced but the car still functions as a car.
Civil 3D is used for widely various applications, from river dredges to utility design and anything in between. Some little parts of the program may not work the way we like but we can still get our jobs done. We don't live in a perfect world where everyone can be considered and appeased and realizing this is the first step to curing many of our "problems".
I've been following this conversation with some interest, since we are on the cusp of upgrading from 2011.
I agree that a lot of errors are of the PICNIC kind, and I don't expect perfection. But the most important point made so far, I think, is dasindog's: we all use different parts of the program, so a bug that ruins one person's life doesn't affect someone else at all. So I'm really interested to know what type of bugs you've encountered, engrtech.
For example, I rarely deal with cogo points, but I use feature lines all the time. I don't use 3D views, everything is in 2D wireframe. Alignments, profiles, sections, surfaces are everyday work. Assemblies & corridors I use less often, but often enough. Pipes have never been good enough in profile view so far; we've been reduced to using wipeouts or turning off the profile display after tracing over them. Any improvements there would be welcome.
So where are the bugs, please? What parts of the program are you using? What parts are dirty, what parts are clean?
Mark Green
Working on Civil 3D in Canada
My use of Civil 3D seems very close to yours. I would be interested in hearing more about your issues with pipe networks displayed in profile view. I use this very often so maybe I could be of some help there.
I'm with Dustin, we have gone from 2009-2012-2013 and are having good success.
Troma, like Dustin said, can you elaborate on some of the problems?
Engrtech, we are having good success with the pipe networks so more info would be appreciated.
1. Draw the inside wall of the structure, not the outside. (we got around this by making structures with 1mm wall thickness)
2. Draw pipes to the wall of the structure, not the centre. I know you can hide the pipe inside the structure, but you can tell it is not at the invert elevation at the wall. The lower pipe should match right to the bottom corner of the structure rather than going underneath it (with zero sump).
3. Don't draw the structure rim. Just draw the two sides, and trim them off at the road profile.
4. 'Trim' or hide the structure wall where a pipe is entering.
5. Draw connected pipes as true elipses rather than polygons.
I might think of more, but that'll do for now.
Mark Green
Working on Civil 3D in Canada
Those are some very specific drafting related requests. I think it would be well worth your time to evaluate displaying pipes and structure as civil 3d does by default. I can't imagine the amount of time one could spend applying these standards to a large set of structures and pipes.
The point I'm trying to get across is... are the drafting standards getting in the way of production time and is that communicating something important about the design or is it merely a preference in graphical representation?
I was thinking the same thing and not very consistent. Why have VERY specific and super accurate graphics for the display of the pipe, but then not want to show the rim correctly? Most structures (in our area) are not at CL of the road and they truly are lower (10' offset at 2% cross= 0.2' lower than CL).
I understand your desires for drafting consistency, but we took the approach of , does it make a difference in construction?
Typically they have 11x17 plans that are at 1"=40' with a vertical exaggeration. At that size/scale does it really matter how the graphics look? They are going to construct based on the noted elevations.
Back to the original reason for the thread. I personally don't consider these bugs but more a lack of flexibility in customizing the output to meet your standards.
I attached a drainage sheet out of a current project that is completely setup with everything dynamic. No edits to the structures or pipes or notes (other than dragging them around for clarity).
I don't mean to hijack this thread. I guess I should hop on over to the wishes forum with my list. But you have answered my question anyway: C3D 2013 doesn't fix anything on that topic.
Maybe 'fix' is a bit harsh, since this isn't something 'broken'. It is working as intended. But really, how hard could it be? We can draw the centreline, inside wall or outside wall of pipes, so why not the inside wall of structures? We can hide the end of the pipe in the structure, why can't we hide the piece of sturcture crossed by the pipe? Bruce I can use your argument against yourself: at the scale of drawings on paper, why would you want to see the rim of the structure? It is no more than meaningless clutter. The drawing looks clean and polished without it. It doesn't add any information for the end user.
Yes, these are 'only' drafting standards. But this is intended to be a drafting program. I don't care about the 3D model of the pipes any more than I care about the spec's of my computer or plotter: it is a means to an end, not the end itself. The intended end result is good-looking clean uncluttered drawings that have all the necessary information. Us drafters here have managed to persuade our overlords to ignore the clutter on preliminary drawings until the design is finalized. But when drawings go for approval or construction they need to be clean.
Mark Green
Working on Civil 3D in Canada
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.