Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Civil 3D - Where is the Leadership?

77 REPLIES 77
Reply
Message 1 of 78
fcernst
2075 Views, 77 Replies

Civil 3D - Where is the Leadership?

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. 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
77 REPLIES 77
Message 21 of 78
ralstogj
in reply to: dgorsman

Thanks Scott for trying.

 

But as others have mention all the developmental features you mentioned really are used only by 20% of your product user base while the remaining 80% of us would rather see existing product feature enhancements (aka bug fixes with some PR spin). I would much rather like to go to the Civil3d 2015 launch and here there  are 2 new features and that 8 exisitng ones we have enhanced or better yet  make that 20 and 80. But generally the resellers are light weight uses of the product and proablably would not be even able to demostrate the enhancements.

 

Choosing the future development of the product based on labs feedback seems a bit strange. For example I use Civil3d everyday in the office and was looked forward to the Grading improvements. But when it came out in the labs it only worked on the latest version of Civil3d which most of us do not run until 12-18months after release due to you guessed it the bugs. So to trail it I had to install the latest version at home and do it there all on my own time that Autdesk gets for free as I have a passion for seeing Civil3d improved.

 

The problem Autodesk has is its internal systems are screwed in getting customer feed back communicated internally to the coding team. For example

 

Dana Probert visited New Zealand back in 2009 and attended a conference here and got a lot of great customer feedback that she wrote down and I  assumed was communicated back to someonet. Have any of the improvements occured no not really. Have we civil engineers taught ourshelves vb.net and written tools to work around some of the issues where we have access to things in the API yes. Should we have to do this for the most obvious program bugs . No!

 

Another issue that bugs me is you can not even round trip from Civil3d to SSA and have the pipe material maintained ( something the help says it should). Again something that worked in the oriiginal SSA tools when owned by BOSS and screwed up by Autodesk. Again a company driven by a Engineer who I guess taught himself programming. The source code that works is most likely lying in someone desk draw covered in dust. Again me a lone engineer can write better code in front of the TV at night to achieve something that Autodesk can not with all there resources.(somethings screwed)

 

What about the new Volumes Dashboard tools great added a couple of versions ago. What about the crab static un dynamic table it inserts in the drawing that does not follow the style of any of the dynamic tables coded into the program. Truely Rubbish now did this table feature even get into the program. Again write some of your own code to get around Autodesks failure should we have to no.

 

Perhaps it is time to stop sending the coding jobs to brother of the spammer that is abusing this forum and get some people that can do the job correctly or have someone do true QA testing on their work before it even gets into the program.    

 

While thats a great start to the morning now I feel better.

 

Seeing like most people in this forum we are working consultants its time to go to work and earn some money rather than give Autodesk constructive feedback for free.

 

 

 

 

Regards

Justin Ralston
http://c3dxtreme.blogspot.com/
Message 22 of 78
ralstogj
in reply to: Cadguru42

Check out 12D.com as an alternative it is used widely in Australia  and New Zealand gaining more clients everyday.

Regards

Justin Ralston
http://c3dxtreme.blogspot.com/
Message 23 of 78
neilyj666
in reply to: scott.sheppard

Ah yes....

Project Basejump - a great labs project with loads of positive feedback but sadly failed to deliver (for whatever reason) in the final product.

Interactive Terrain Shaping - a bit fluffy for my tastes and mainly intended for inexperienced users to point and press with no appreciation of what was being done and how it was being done.

Can't really comment on the other labs stufff as haven't used them....but as other people have pointed out, ad nauseam, the majority of existing users (especially subscription users) would happily forgo any new features as a trade off for a product that works as advertised.

 

I really like Infraworks and am very impressed with its graphics performance for the type of projects (large windfarms) I deal with although the learning curve is quite steep

neilyj (No connection with Autodesk other than using the products in the real world)
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.

EESignature


AEC Collection 2024 UKIE (mainly Civil 3D UKIE and IW)
Win 11 Pro x64, 1Tb Primary SSD, 1Tb Secondary SSD
64Gb RAM Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-11855M CPU @ 3.2GHz
NVIDIA RTX A5000 16Gb, Dual 27" Monitor, Dell Inspiron 7760
Message 24 of 78
Neilw_05
in reply to: neilyj666

If Infraworks is going to replace C3D we'll need support for ASHTO standards, spiral curves, super elevation, vertical curve design constraints, etc. And that's just for road design.

 

AFAIK it is a tool to create quick and crude 3D models for visualization. Are we to expect it to become a true design tool as some seem to be implying?

Neil Wilson (a.k.a. neilw)
AEC Collection/C3D 2024, LDT 2004, Power Civil v8i SS1
WIN 10 64 PRO

http://www.sec-landmgt.com
Message 25 of 78
dgorsman
in reply to: Neilw_05

I'd certainly prefer not.  Visualization tools in Infraworks/3DS MAX Design, technical design tools in Civil3D.  Let each product team focus their efforts on a specific area.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 26 of 78
doni49
in reply to: dgorsman

I used to use AutoCAD even for architectural drawings.  Then we got Revit -- OMG the difference (improvement)!  In Revit, I can create plans and elevations for the basic shell of a house (including doors and windows) in an hour maybe less.  That would've taken MUCH LONGER (days?) using straight AutoCAD.  I can't say how long it would've taken with Acad for Arch as I've never used it.

 

Now I love the concept of 3D modeling and have wondered if we'd ever see something similar for our civil work.  This Inframap does look promising.



Don Ireland
Engineering Design Technician




If a reply solves your issue, please remember to click on "Accept as Solution". This will help other users looking to solve a similar issue. Thank you.


Please do not send a PM asking for assistance. That's what the forums are for. This allows everyone to benefit from the question asked and the answers given.

Message 27 of 78
rwhitlock1
in reply to: ralstogj

I have noticed some interesting parallels between CIvil 3D and Infraworks.

 

I recall that back in 2005 or there-abouts, Civil 3D was released as something of a "technology preview" for the adventuresome to play with. It appeared to be the next generation of design software that was intended to replace LDD although Adesk initially didn't seem willing to make that anouncement.

 

I'm curious to see if Infraworks is to Civil 3D what Civil 3D was to LDD. 

Message 28 of 78
jmatthei
in reply to: ralstogj

Good point rwhitlock.

 

Autodesk can be quite opaque with their future plans.  And maybe we'll all be wrong and the next big push will actually be incorporating all the Civil 3D features into Revit!

 

That would actually be kind of nice, and eliminate all the pain of the building/site interface where we have things like plazas under canopies with architectural railings, and rainwater cisterns on the site connected to building piping, and pumps with all their associated electrical and mechanical work.  Sure there would be a software learning curve but it'd be worth it, I think.

 

I hear from our MEP engineers that Revit finally is letting them model everything properly...maybe the Revit people will start to get bored and look outside the building walls, and start pulling in the Civil3D people into one coherent product?

Message 29 of 78
Neilw_05
in reply to: jmatthei

Would you want to pay for an all-in-one product when all you needed was a small portion of it? Granted there needs to be direct interoperability between the products but the specialized tools for each industry should be modular.

 

I think Autodesk is commited to C3D along with all it's problems. It's not going away anytime soon.

Neil Wilson (a.k.a. neilw)
AEC Collection/C3D 2024, LDT 2004, Power Civil v8i SS1
WIN 10 64 PRO

http://www.sec-landmgt.com
Message 30 of 78
jmatthei
in reply to: Neilw_05

Neilw:

 

Well, the payment question is a different story--of course I'd rather not end up paying any more than we are right now 🙂

 

It wouldn't necessarily need to be the same program, but it would be pretty awesome if we could always share live models with our building partners, so we'd be aware of their doorway and piping moves the same way the MEPs are aware of wall and column moves.  The benefits of a shared model (or sets of referenced models are whatever) would also go the other way--if the architects move an exterior door they'd notice the sidewalks don't go to it anymore.  Theoretically everyone's supposed to notify everyone of changes that affect them, but we know in the real world that doesn't always happen.  QTO enhancements would get us more BIM-like, but maybe it's best to use the existing BIM groundwork?

 

Adding C3D to the Revit engine has some intriguing concepts:  We would start using the same terminology and workflows as our building partners, and we'd be able to do the same sorts of things they can.    It would probably make everything go more smoothly, and help end the "silo-ing" of the building and site software and project work.  Revit is in part a great tool because it dissolved the "silos" between architectural, structural, and MEP, but Civil and Landscape are still in their own silos apart from the others, and site electrical work just gets shoved into a crazy no-mans-land of software.  The Civil 3D programmers wouldn't be fired, just perhaps merged as the Civil group of the Revit team, and the BIM experts of Revit could work with the site experts of Civil 3D and get us some awesome results.

 

Of course that's all based on "getting everything to work properly".  A broken software package doesn't do anyone much good.  And of course Civil 3D like we have now would be continued for quite some time, too--for those who are happy with what it does, and don't work with buildings.

 

That's my vision anyway.  I know every company does different types of projects, but I think for Combined A/S/M/E/P/C/L/I integrated design firms, or those that do integrated projects with partner firms, it would come in pretty handy.

Message 31 of 78
Neilw_05
in reply to: jmatthei

Not to minimize your thoughts as they are certainly worth considering, but there are many possible solutions to the interoperability problems and I'm sure Autodesk is working on them as we speak.

 

But the bottom line is we have this product now and it must be capable doing it's job properly. There is no point in hoping for the next generation product to be it's salvation.

Neil Wilson (a.k.a. neilw)
AEC Collection/C3D 2024, LDT 2004, Power Civil v8i SS1
WIN 10 64 PRO

http://www.sec-landmgt.com
Message 32 of 78
jmatthei
in reply to: Neilw_05

I guess I see it as a combination of short-term goals and long-term goals, and the issue is that the Civil 3D leadership doesn't seem to be focusing on either of them, and it's frustrating a lot of people.

 

Short-term:  Yes, broken QTO sub-assemblies, and other routines are a big problem, and should be fixed.  Inexplicable software slowdowns are also a problem--and the speed-ups and extra stability now are appreciated, but there is still a good way to go on those.

 

Long-term:  Where is Civil 3D going?  I'm not as optimistic as Neilw that Autodesk really is working on inter-operability issues.  No real breakthroughs have occurred so far, and nobody at Autodesk seems to care.  We can't even have "sidewalk objects" across a site unless we make a special coridor for them.  I'll take breakthroughs anywhere I can get them of course, but Civil 3Ds progress toward any sort of full-BIM inter-operable software program has been so agonizingly slow I've given up on it.  I really hate explaining to clients and architects that our software is still stuck in the 1990s.  Maybe Autodesk will prove me wrong--I don't really care which program evolves into "Civil-BIM" as long as I can get it somewhere.  🙂  Civil 3D has some great base code, Revit has some great base code....Can't we mash these together somehow and get the killer Civil BIM application? And if not, why not? This is all one software company so they should be able to borrow code from eachother pretty easily.

Message 33 of 78
dgorsman
in reply to: Neilw_05

While it might be nice for those who interact with both Revit and Civil3D content on a regular basis, for those who interact with AutoCAD/verticals and Civil3D, integrating it into Revit would make interoperability much more difficult.

 

I'm somewhat curious as to what the relative user levels are for Civil3D interaction and Revit vs. AutoCAD/verticals.  I think that would be the driving factor as to whether Civil3D is Revit-ized or not.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 34 of 78
dgorsman
in reply to: jmatthei

Borrowing code won't work all that well.  Both programs have completely different design paradigms based on their target industry.  Try getting architects and structural designers to work like civil designers (and vice versa) - you're likely to get a worst-of-both-worlds solution.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Message 35 of 78
fcernst
in reply to: dgorsman

..Try getting architects and structural designers to work like civil designers (and vice versa) - you're likely to get a worst-of-both-worlds solution...

 


This is very true.

 

We have very distinct and separate engineering disciplines in A&E project work:

 

Civil

Structural

Mechanical

Electrical

 

We engineers are not allowed to practice and stamp drawings for work outside of our expertise and discipline. For example, we site Civil engineers take water and sewer service to 5 feet from the building and plug the ends.

 

The ME's and plumbing contractors take the design into the building from there.

 

Software development for each of the above disciplines needs to be very sharp and focused on the specific discipline. 

 

The downstream visualization  software applications should be able to take the design from each the above discipline specific design software applications, and amalgamate those design models into a visual presentation, seamlessly.

 

The downstream visualization software efforts should focus on visualization of the design models and not design.

 

The visualization software needs properly designed models from the upstream design software, in order for us to not end up with a Garbage Out visulization due to being fed Garbage In models from the upstream design software.

 

Civil 3D needs sharp focus and proper allocation of resources from senior management to first fix the perennial design tool defects, and then progress to integrating strom drainage into the Civil 3D model environment, to be sucessful.  

 

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 36 of 78
fcernst
in reply to: Neilw_05

We are currently putting, and have already invested, a lot of effort into a City corridor design proposal that is due Nov 1. Now with this news I have to seriously consider withdrawing.

 

I am concerned now concerned about suffering a damaged reputation, and the reality of getting sued, for not being able to deliver the material quantity estimates per the proposed design contract, once we are deep into the project and design process.

 

Here's what we all have to work with:

Material volume calcs are now defective, QTO is defective, the subassembly to create Mill and Level shapes for the Rehab portion is defective, there is a defect with Data Extraction. Not related to quantities, there is a defect with grip-edit of the PVI cursor. 

 

The project designers in this User group must be feeling queasy about this disfunctional lack of ability now to generate and deliver material quantites for their project managers. 

 

Where is the quality control supervision from Civil 3D senior management?

 

Is it aloofness to the existence of these problems, or a stubborn refusal to address the problems? I think a combination of both. It was demonstrated earlier this year that senior management does not have the knowledge, nor awarenss of how QTO functions, nor QTO's capabilities. They continue to roll out shockingly major defects in the software in the new versions and also the service packs.

 

Support seemed baffled by the defect I submitted for the OverlayMillAndLevel2  earlier this year, taking two weeks after back and forth discussion with me, to finally confirm the defect for themselves. This was astonishing to me because this defect was noted by a user in this discussion gropu back in 2006.

 

We need a significant  change in management style to address this negative trajectory that Civil 3D is experiencing.

 

Please express your thoughts to Autodesk costomer service feedback so we can effect a positive change now.

 

 

 

 

 

Capture.JPG



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 37 of 78
Cadguru42
in reply to: fcernst


@fcernst wrote:

We are currently putting, and have already invested, a lot of effort into a City corridor design proposal that is due Nov 1. Now with this news I have to seriously consider withdrawing.

 

I am concerned now concerned about suffering a damaged reputation, and the reality of getting sued, for not being able to deliver the material quantity estimates per the proposed design contract, once we are deep into the project and design process.

 

Here's what we all have to work with:

Material volume calcs are now defective, QTO is defective, the subassembly to create Mill and Level shapes for the Rehab portion is defective, there is a defect with Data Extraction. Not related to quantities, there is a defect with grip-edit of the PVI cursor. 

 

The project designers in this User group must be feeling queasy about this disfunctional lack of ability now to generate and deliver material quantites for their project managers. 

 

Where is the quality control supervision from Civil 3D senior management?

 

Is it aloofness to the existence of these problems, or a stubborn refusal to address the problems? I think a combination of both. It was demonstrated earlier this year that senior management does not have the knowledge, nor awarenss of how QTO functions, nor QTO's capabilities. They continue to roll out shockingly major defects in the software in the new versions and also the service packs.

 

Support seemed baffled by the defect I submitted for the OverlayMillAndLevel2  earlier this year, taking two weeks after back and forth discussion with me, to finally confirm the defect for themselves. This was astonishing to me because this defect was noted by a user in this discussion gropu back in 2006.

 

We need a significant  change in management style to address this negative trajectory that Civil 3D is experiencing.

 

Please express your thoughts to Autodesk costomer service feedback so we can effect a positive change now.

 

 

 

 

 

Capture.JPG


Not to take away your point, but can't you do quantities the old "manual way"? We noticed on a project a couple of years ago that the quantities listed from the QTO weren't correct, so we did it the old fashioned way. 

 

I wonder how the State of Florida is handling the QTO defects considering they use QTO for their projects. Did they write their own formulas and/or DLLs to correct for the problems? I'd love to know what they're doing or has Florida been using incorrect quantities for all of their Civil 3D designed projects?

C3D 2022-2024
Windows 10 Pro
32GB RAM
Message 38 of 78
fcernst
in reply to: Cadguru42

can't you do quantities the old "manual way"? 

 


What is your point engrtech? 

 

We could do road profiles by hand, and draw contours by hand, but that makes us non-competitive in today's business environment.

 

You have to be competitve to win projects and build reputation. You must be far removed from this part of the process.

 

I don't understand these type of comments at all....



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 39 of 78
Cadguru42
in reply to: fcernst


@fcernst wrote:

can't you do quantities the old "manual way"? 

 


What is your point engrtech? 

 

We could do road profiles by hand, and draw contours by hand, but that makes us non-competitive in today's business environment.

 

You have to be competitve to win projects and build reputation. You must be far removed from this part of the process.

 

I don't understand these type of comments at all....


I don't mean do hand drafting and I never said that. What I mean is that if you need to do quantities you can still do it through just drawing polygons to get areas then calculate volume by adding a depth. You could also just trace closed polylines on cross sections to do your average end area calculations for quantities like that. You can also still use volume surfaces to get quantities. There are many other methods of getting quantities that exist using the software without having to rely on QTO. If you're relying solely on QTO for quantities then you're doing something wrong. 

 

I'm with you on wanting Autodesk to fix the giant mess that's QTO and it should have been done yesterday, but it seems a little reckless to rely solely on a flawed feature of software that's only been there for four years when civil designs have been done for decades without it. 

C3D 2022-2024
Windows 10 Pro
32GB RAM
Message 40 of 78
fcernst
in reply to: Cadguru42

 

There are many other methods of getting quantities that exist using the software without having to rely on QTO. 

 


No, that's the whole point...It's not just QTO now. I'm pointing out the defect  just confirmed this week with computing Material Volumes. 

 

The C3D software is in an obvious downward trajectory. I don't see why you bother to mention drawing polygons and doing things the "old fashion way"..

 

Again, what is your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report