Civil 3D - Where is the Leadership?

[fcernst]

Service Pack 1 makes no mention of addressing the defective QTO routines, the defective Rehab Subassemblies not creating Mill and Level shapes correctly,  nor the defective Daylight subassemblies such as Daylight Standard and Daylight.

We need these working immediately for our Urban Corridor projects. We are required to demonstrate design capability in our proposals and these software defects make that prohibitive. It is extremely frustrating since we have paid for this capability initially, and then continue on subscription.

My reseller is no help. They say they have no influence with Autodesk whatsoever.

It is clear by what is produced, that the Senior Product leadership is not overseeing and effectively managing these Service Pack and Hot Fix updates. This product is in desperate need of attentive and capable Senior Product management.

The Civil 3D Senior Product management is perceived as aloof and out of touch regarding the state of this software, and our immediate User need to have these defects addressed and repaired. 

[fcernst]

...nor the defective Daylight subassemblies such as Daylight Standard and DaylightInsideROW.

[tcorey]

Fred, it sounds like you should be the leader of the Civil 3D development team. You seem to believe it's possible to put out a perfect product and fix errors "immediately." Do you think yours are the only bugs on their list?

The solutions you post here have been very in-depth and helpful to thousands, and you have found some important defects. The problem is with your lack of tact. You rant. You let your anger show.

Can't you find a way to tell us what's wrong with the software but be nice about it?

Submitted with best regards,

Tim

[fcernst]

 "immediately." ?????

Please.... please.... pay better attention Tim. 

I have clearly demonstarted previously how the defects with QTO has been present since 2009, and the defects with the Rehab subassemblies, specifically OverlayMillAndLevel2, since 2006!

Tim, we all understand you are a Reseller and need to sell the product, but please stand aside on these critical User issues. We as product consumers and customers, need the product in working order to generate revenue.

This area is where we desparately need credibility and sharp focus to get these important software issues and defects finally addressed.

Best Regards

Fred

[dgorsman]

I'm NOT a reseller.  And I'm in agreement with Tim.

[neilyj666]

I can certainly sympathise with Fred but the lack of bug fixes for long reported defects is deplorable. Tthe lack of any development for mass haul analysis is equally deplorable considering it is a major tool for earthworks efficency.

Earthworks efficiency is, of course, not as sexy as 360/cloud based stuff.

[rkmcswain]

Fred,

    I understand where you are coming from and agree with you (I have my own little list here)

Doing a little research before I made this reply, I ran across this reply (#12) from sboon and it says EXACTLY what I was going to say.

It's unfortunate, but there are things we just have to live with. I'm not making excuses for Autodesk, I think they should hire more programmers and "get it done", but what else are we going to do........drop Civil 3D and move to another solution? Know any success stories regarding that path?

[AllenJessup]

There was a project in Autodesk Labs regarding Civil 3D QTO in response to all the complaints. Unfortunately I missed the opening announcement and didn't know about it until they announced the close. I didn't look like there were many participants or that it went anywhere.

Allen

[jmatthei]

I have also found the improvements and fixes to Civil 3D to be slow and half-hearted.  I am grateful for the recent addition of pressure pipe components but this addition is an exception rather than the rule.  It appears they did the initial release of a "dynamic-ised" Land Desktop in 2007, made some improvements through 2009, then largely left the program on Autopilot after that.  I had expected a fully-functional Revit-Civil by now (with proper soil layers, subgrade management, QTO, and other Revit features), but have so far been greatly disappointed.

However, I think I know where the leadership has gone.  Have you seen Autodesk's webpage for Infraworks recently?  (http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-infraworks/overview)  Does it look familiar?  Most of these taglines are what they used to advertise Civil3D as being capable of doing, back in the day.  Infraworks started as a graphic modeling program, but now can handle roadway corridors, profiles, and pipe networks.  All they have to do is add detailing and sheet creation capabilities and it'll be ready to replace Civil 3D.  Hopefully that day will come soon, and hopefully it won't be another disappointment.

Jeremy

[jmatthei]

Interestingly, I just noticed the Civil3D "wishlist" forum has disappeared.

Not helping with their image of being aloof to the users.

--Jeremy

[dgorsman]

No it isn't, but that is a forum organization issue rather than a technical or product management one.

[ralstogj]

I would have to agree there appears to be no champion for Civil3d and its users. For example went the AU site to see if there were any good papers this year typed in Civil3d in to the search box and got no returns you can not even search by the product type as its not listed what rubbish. Some one dropped the ball 18 months ago and no ones picked it up. Time for a change why not start at the top.

[neilyj666]

I hope infraworks doesn't replace civil as I'm not convinced it is a serious engineering tool but it's great at the 3D views and flythroughs etc....

[scott.sheppard]

We continue to be interested in AutoCAD Civil 3D and have conducted several technology previews associated with AutoCAD Civil 3D:

* BIM Coordinator for AutoCAD Civil 3D and Revit Structure
* Bridge Modeler for AutoCAD Civil 3D
* Corridor Solids for AutoCAD Civil 3D
* Interactive Terrain Shaping for AutoCAD Civil 3D / AutoCAD Map 3D
* Project Basejump for AutoCAD Map 3D / AutoCAD Civil 3D
* Point Cloud Feature Extraction for AutoCAD Civil 3D
* River Analysis Extension for AutoCAD Civil 3D / AutoCAD Map 3D
* Shape Extraction for AutoCAD / AutoCAD Architecture / AutoCAD Civil 3D / AutoCAD Plant 3D / AutoCAD MEP / AutoCAD Mechanical
* Solid Cut Surface for AutoCAD Civil 3D ADN Plugin of the Month
* Subassembly Composer Technology Preview for AutoCAD Civil 3D

Technology previews are intended to get feedback. They help us determine the next step for a technology. In some cases the interest is low and we move on to other things. As long as I am posting, I will say that I know of no plan for Infraworks to replace AutoCAD Civil 3D. We view many of our products as companion products which is why we package them in suites.

[troma]

I believe the original post made the point that the focus should be on fixing the product so that it does what it already claims to do, rather than adding new features.

[troma]

---

@jmatthei wrote:

Interestingly, I just noticed the Civil3D "wishlist" forum has disappeared.

Not helping with their image of being aloof to the users.

--Jeremy

---

It disappeared for a while, but it has now returned and gone to retirement in the archived forums.

But you should look at the most recent post there, it has the promise of an Ideastation coming soon.  This is good news: my understanding is that an Ideastation means that the people working on the product will interact with us and our comments on it.  Hopefully we can focus them in the right direction.

[fcernst]

"...In some cases the interest is low and we move on to other things..."

Scott,

The list you offer here once again smacks of little substance to your engineer and civil designer Users, your Customers.

Hopefully the reason the interest is low is immediately self evident to you and senior management, and you (management) all have the ability to digest that feedback correctly. If not, we need others installed in the responsible management positions.

Again you continue to avoid the Elephant in the Room that is the List... the legacy... of confirmed defects with the engineering and design tools that you refuse to fix year after year, version after version, service pack after service pack, hot fix after hot fix. QTO since 2009, Rehab subassembly defects noted in 2006, various Daylight subassemblies, etc...

There are alo defects in your stormwater apps that management refuses to address (Modified Rational in Hydrographs, upwelling flows in SSA, etc.).

You continue to market the product as if the defective items are operational. That is perceived as a dishonest practice to all.

I have something for you to immediately "move on to". Fix the list of legacy confirmed defects in the software (QTO, Rehab subassemblies, Daylight subassemblies, Data Extraction, Modified Rational, etc....)  so that we may get up and running. See my list of support cases on this for the confirmed defects.

Regards

Fred

[Postmaster_G]

...but the ribbon looks so cool *rolls eyes*

Keeping up with the Joneses doesn't mean getting the same mercedes as the Joneses but the engine is broken!

New features is a buggy program is no match (imho) for a well running program.

I would much rather have less crashes than not have to type commands or get a less compatible file format.

The need to update the fancy and not the functional comes from the wealthy upper tier of the design group, I am sure of it.  Profits are always more interesting than pride in true success (for some that is).  No need to buy a new license/product to keep up with compatability, no profits.

Why couldn't it be like ubuntu linux or something where it is constantly updated in waves, but still the same engine?

1. Fix the underlying engine.

2. Sell the bare bones product with compatability for years to come (ACAD).

3. Sell addons that add functionality (corridors, feature lines, tool panels, etc. like an app store for real).

4. Sell the updates if needed to make your profits.

5. Everyone raves about your products - no one uses anything else.

6. Profit!!!

Hope that helps, Autodesk.

You are welcome.

[doni49]

---

@fcernst wrote:

I have something for you to immediately "move on to". Fix the list of legacy confirmed defects in the software (QTO, Rehab subassemblies, Daylight subassemblies, Data Extraction, Modified Rational, etc....)  so that we may get up and running. See my list of support cases on this for the confirmed defects.

---

Fred,

I whole-heartedly agree with you.  Just because there are work-arounds that allow us to "get around" a problem, does not negate the need to FIX THE PROBLEM at some point.

There are things on my list as well that I'm sure Autodesk views as "Improvements" that I actually see as BUG FIXES.  First and foremost would be to make it so that a user doesn't need to install a sub-assembly created in SAC as though it's a program.

[Cadguru42]

While I may not agree with Fred's tone, the substance is certainly true. The QTO function is completely useless for us and thousands of others. How can a feature that's supposed to calculate areas and volumes not do it correctly?

Most of us understand that there will always be some bugs in software, especially something new. The problem is that with Civil 3D the "new" has been in the software for years and never gets fixed. Things that previously worked that become broken are rarely fixed. How do major companies with much larger user bases, such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., get their software fixed in a decent time frame but with Autodesk it takes years or never even gets fixed? 

Just look at development of 3ds Max. The original creators of Max are begging Autodesk to let them take over the programming again because Autodesk has just stopped caring about the software. 

Civil 3D is now 10 years old. Why can we still not have a point table that references an alignment? Why can't profiles be dynamic to each other (Yes, I know it can be done by a convoluted method of the intersection wizard, but that's not really feasible)? Basic relational functions that should be a part of a BIM system just aren't there with Civil 3D after an entire decade of time. Autodesk needs to completely rethink their system of programming for their software. I've been a huge proponent of Autodesk and Civil 3D for ten years, but after seeing the lack of true innovation, lack of progress on the BIM front, and the list of bugs that keep growing, I'm seriously looking at other vendors. Bentley's SS3 actually looks pretty good and more advanced than C3D. That is something I thought would never happen, but Autodesk's lack of planning is causing them to lose their advantage.