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 - Feedback for Dave

34 REPLIES 34
Reply
Message 1 of 35
fcernst
5185 Views, 34 Replies

Civil 3D - Feedback for Dave

Dave Simeone wrote: "Hi folks

We’re interested in hearing any and all feedback on QTO or any other feature so that we can target future improvements that will make the most positive difference."

 

The new Civil 3D 2014 release has been characterized as “underwhelming” by the users in this group. This due to the lack of progress in implementing efficient design workflows, combined with the conspicuous lack of new features.

 

The perception is that Civil 3D management has lost its way, or is simply not capable of finding its way in this regard. It appears Dave either 1) does not listen to his professional engineer (PE) advisers, or 2) his professional engineer advisers are simply giving poor advice, and not bringing good ideas and workflow concepts to the table for Dave to consider.

 

The following are ideas to help make our Civil 3D design workflows better and much more efficient:

 

Engineering Design Workflow:

We need the storm drainage hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and computational tools to be placed back into the Model space environment so that we may interact directly with our digital terrain models.

 

Grading and drainage design is an intimately paired iterative process. To be effective and efficient, the two processes need to reside together in Model space.

 

The current Import/Export storm drainage analysis paradigm is horribly frustrating for engineers and designers. It was an inexpensive (cheap) way to go. Just slap it on…

 

I get offline emails from engineering firms telling me that they are realizing now that this is creating a severe bottleneck in their production, and they are wondering what we are doing to manage.

 

Solution:

We need to be able to physically select inlet inverts and culvert inverts directly off the model for analysis and have the data go straight into the hydraulic calculators. We had this interactive capability in LDD.

 

We need to be able to directly connect our tributary basins (Catchments) to our inlets, culverts and pipe networks.

 

We desperately need HEC 22 Method HGL/EGL calculation capabilities within our Pipe Network models, within the C3D Model space environment.

 

We need to be able to develop stage-storage-discharge curves directly from the grading design reflected in our proposed surface models.

 

We need to be able to develop and test multi-stage pond outlet control structures directly in Model space.

 

Hydrology Methods we need in model space for Site Development and Highway drainage design:

  • Rational Method
  • FAA Modified Rational Method
  • SCS (TR 20 and TR 55 Methods)
  • Hydraulic Calculators and Methods we need in Model space:
  • HEC 22 Method HGL/EGL calculations Tab in the Pipe Network editor.
  • Multi-Stage Pond Outlet Control structure calculator.
  • HDS 5 (HY8) Culvert Calculator
  • Standard Step water surface channel calculator
  • Open channel flow calculator (Mannings)
  • Orifice calculators
  • Weir calculators

 

Corridors:

Correct grading off a Transition:

We need correct orthogonal link projections to correctly create a TIN product across our curb and gutter, sidewalk and ditches when they are dependent on a transitioning alignment, feature line or polyline. The current workaround is to force the End User to go to the extra effort of creating an Offset Assembly. Offset assemblies require an additional Alignment and Profile. All of this has to be done by the designer solely for the purpose to realize the correct link projection orientations and subsequent correct TIN development.

 

Dynamic Alignments and Profiles:

We need dynamic alignments and profiles. When we adjust a ditch profile and hold the ditch Foreslope constant, the ditch moves out accordingly. We need the ditch alignment to dynamically move out with it and update the profile. The software currently does not do this. We have to do it by hand.

 

I mentioned this before in the forum, and somebody replied that he wasn’t sure you could do it. He mentioned “I think it’s a tiger chasing its tail”. He was referring to creating a circular reference.

 

Programmers however know this is easily handled with an iterative loop statement and a convergence tolerance. Excel for example, allows you to set a convergence tolerance when you set two equations equal to each other. This is the exact same principle.

 

Split Regions:

When we spilt a Region, say for a bridge, and purposely leave the resultant space vacant of any Corridor data, the Corridor Surface should respect that, and not triangulate across the gap. This would also save us from having to go to the extra effort of creating and implementing a Gap in our Material calculations that is also not dynamic!

 

Immediately repair the defective QTO program. This is a serious management debacle and oversight. This is classified as a known issue from Autodesk that has frustrated users for 4 years the record shows, however management has chosen not to address.

 

Corridor Shrinkwrap Boundary:

Drastically improve the performance and consistency of this routine.

 

Daylight Cleanup:

We need Corridors to be aware of their neighbor Corridors and cleanup the intersecting daylight grading between them.

Street Capacity:

 

We need the Corridor object to compute cross sectional street storm flow capacity so we can adjust the street design and add inlets where needed in an iterative process. For example, the typical street capacity criteria are:

 

Minor Storm Event: No curb overtopping allowed

Major Storm Event: Depths of 12”-18” over gutter flowline are typically allowed. Flow not to encroach past ROW.

Buildings to be protected with the storm drainage design by providing 1.0 of minimum freeboard.

 

This is truly an iterative design process. In this design and analysis process, the design engineer is  required to adjust the Catchment Area that is tributary to the street, to determine the point where street capacity criteria would be exceeded, the place an inlet at that location to take runoff from the street. Then proceed down the Corridor (street), start a new Catchment that is tributary to the street, and so on, and so on.

 

This is why we need the drainage tools in Model space! We need to be able to add inlets and storm sewer to the Pipe Network through this design process, and concurrently perform the inlet sizing and storm sewer sizing (HEC 22 Method HGL/EGL analysis) in the Pipe Network editor.

 

Subassemblies:

Take heed to the vision Peter Funk describes in his video regarding subassemblies. Peter describes how we currently have way too many subassemblies, and should consolidate that down to about 5 very efficient and capable subassemblies to be offered on the Palette.

 

SAC:

Bring SAC into the C3D Model space environment for debugging purposes. This is another awkward and time consuming Import/Export paradigm implementation.

 

Add additional logic Flow Control Statements

 

Do While (While) loop – Really need this control for reaching out incrementally to test conditions, like the distance below EG.

 

Case Statement – Really need this to relieve us from our current parenthetical jungle of IF statements.

 

SSA:

I have submitted support requests only to find that they are “known issues” that have spanned over at least two new software releases. This is totally unacceptable.

SSA is marketed to be a hydraulically dynamic capable model that can implement the full St Venant equations. One of the typical reasons we turn to a hydraulically dynamic capable model, such as EPA SWMM 5, is to model dual drainage systems.  Dual drainage is the modeling of the storm sewer system and the street system together during the Major storm event when the storm sewer system is taxed beyond capacity, thus surcharging and flooding on to the street. Flows can reverse, and go back and forth between the underground storm sewer system, and the above ground street system.

SSA is marketed as having this capability, even showing colorful diagrams, of dual drainage analysis, when it clearly doesn’t.

The diagram below from the SSA help depicts dual drainage analysis, they are calling it the “upwelling” flow you can see coming up from the storm sewer pipe and out the inlet, on to the street system. However, the software fails in testing for this capability.

CaptureSSA.JPG

 

Quality Control Management:

The perception is that Dave lets the Civil 3D software fly out the door without implementing appropriate quality control (QC) management procedures. This perception has lingered since 2004.

 

The perception is that Dave relies on End Users to do the debugging for him. The perception is he understands that junior engineers and designers are the most effective and eager to please problem solvers around, and he is taking full advantage. Many of us have spent countless hours of our own time debugging issues for Dave. The perception is Dave relies on these people to flush out the issues for him at essentially no cost to his department’s budget.

 

The lack of Civil 3D quality control is wholly unfair to the design staff of our engineering firms. The debugging and reporting  time that is required due to the lack of Civil 3D quality control, directly affects our project variances (profit) and staff morale.

 

In the case of the extremely unstable initial Civil 3D 2013 release last year, staff engineers and designers struggled with the crashing and instability problems for virtually the entire year, until a service pack was released deep in to November.

 

This was after we as End Users flushed out the all the issues and debugged the software for Dave, having to provide detailed step by step information as he demands we do.

 

The “step by step’ requests from Autodesk have to stop. This should change to where we simply notify Autodesk Support that we have found a problem. Invest some money into your troubleshooting staff and their procedures. Autodesk Support tells me they have no other diagnostic tools for the software than what we have as Users. Shame on Dave for this!

 

Take the second QTO problem where its formulas do not currently do simple math correctly. I simply stated that to Support.

 

However, they asked me if I could take the time to do a video to essentially just show them the math!   Unacceptable!

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
34 REPLIES 34
Message 2 of 35
Cadguru42
in reply to: fcernst

Another item that really needs to be addressed is what data from an object is available for reports or to other objects. For instance, pipe and structure tables are virtually useless. I don't understand why the tables can't be customized just like the basic Autocad tables can. If you want to add your own column or row to the table, you're out of luck. That's a pretty simple function, yet we can't do that. Another is a way to link points to an alignment. Why can't a point table reference an alignment? We're required to put a control point table on the existing layout sheets that includes the northing, easting, elevation, as well as the station & offset from the nearest alignment. That's not possible with the built in point table. 

 

Also with pipe networks, it's very annoying that the inverts for connecting pipes are always at the center of the structure. That's not the way in the real world they are built by. Also, I have yet to see a way to have a double pipe run that share the same structures work correctly. For instance, I can attach two pipes to a single endwall, but they always connect towards the center of the structure. That's not how it works in the real world. If I move a pipe along the structure to get it close to where it would actually come out it will either reset it's elevations or lose its connection to the endwall. After moving the pipe and if it's still connected to the endwall, the grips disappear for the pipe forever. I can no longer grab the ends of the pipe to move it or reconnect it or anything else. Box culverts are another issue. They are structures that act like a pipe. When you have a straight box culvert there isn't an issue. However, a box culvert that has a bend(s) in it causes the objects to not be modelled correctly. It wants a structure to attach to between each "pipe", but there isn't one in the real world. Then you have the overlap on the inside angle and a giant gap on the outside. How do you handle inlets that drop directly into the culvert? I've had to make two separate pipe networks that don't interact with each other, yet in the real world they do. A lot of these issues could be fixed by using parametric solids, but that leads to other issues about how to control the objects. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I love C3D and wouldn't switch to anything else out there right because there's nothing else as good as C3D. But there are a lot of glaring issues that just don't work as advertised or are so limited as to be useless. There are many workarounds that have to be used to get around the limitations. I believe a lot of the issues are due to the yearly release cycle imposed upon the Civil team, as well as the rest of Autodesk. That's too quick a turnaround in order to develope new features, fix existing problems, and fix any new bugs due to new features. Features, such as the QTO system, just don't get any new work because it isn't "new" anymore. To Autodesk, it's a fully functional feature that could use some tweaks, but it's not important enough to spend resources working on because they're working on other issues. Same with the issue of Map (C3D) not reading the actual units defined in the header information for a GeoTIFF. It'll probably never be fixed because it's not a bug in their mind. 

C3D 2022-2024
Windows 10 Pro
32GB RAM
Message 3 of 35
dgorsman
in reply to: fcernst

Thats a tad inconsistent - tell AutoDesk the product isn't following the proper steps, then refusing to tell them the steps that *should* be taken.  They aren't mind readers, or even civil designers.  They are programmers and managers first.  While they may know some ways of getting things done, they won't necessarily know the best way, the ideal work process that the users want to implement, or the different work processes that other users require.  Its *very* frustrating to ask for input, get told "You already know what to do", then when the product is put in to the wild be told "WTF, thats not what we wanted!".  Software design is very much a collaborative effort, requiring listening and work on both sides.

----------------------------------
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 4 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: dgorsman

"Thats a tad inconsistent - tell AutoDesk the product isn't following the proper steps, then refusing to tell them the steps that *should* be taken"

 

You're not following me on this. I'm saying we shouldn't have to spend our project work time (or personal time) performing all of these demonstrations and proofs to Support the claim that the product has a programming defect in a certain area. 

 

I'm not  proposing to not convey engineering methods, steps  or recommended workflow information..

 

Take the QTO formula example, second problem. This is the problem of the Formula editor simply not doing math correctly, very simple math. They don't need a video,my example drawings, my Material List, my Formula file to confirm this for themselves.

 

How many people are tired of having to do these elaborate proofs?

 

Make sense?

 

'They aren't mind readers, or even civil designers."

 

Right, this seems to be Dave's big  issue. He is not listening to advisement from his Civil PE advisors, or they are not giving him proper advice on standard industry practice needs.

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 5 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: dgorsman

"Software design is very much a collaborative effort, requiring listening and work on both sides."

 

Yes, I can see that.

 

Let me ask you, how many wish list items do you see implemented in C3D 2014 now? There is a plethora of information we have all provided there for Dave. 

 

Have you been over to the Stormwater forum? All you hear is crickets over there... Conspicuously no support from Autodesk, although they advertise these forums are to be used for Support. Look at how many questions over there with no repiles. No collaboration going on there.

 

Hopefully my attempt at a collaboration attempt above, with a long list of suggested workflow implementations suited to civil engineers and designers, will get some run.

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 6 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: fcernst

Dave,

Here is an engineering problem that your programmers can help us out with immediately. Real world ditch design is a tremendous challenge to try and accomplish in Civil 3D with the current tools. There has been no significant advancement in assistance for the designer in ditch logic control flow since LDD.

 

The typical ditch spatial movement requirements consists of a horizontal (offset) movement coupled with a vertical movement in the XZ plane. This XZ plane movement is a function of two typical parameters: a longitudinal profile in the YZ plane coupled with the designer’s typical desire to maintain a constant ditch foreslope in the XZ plane.

 

In the example question below from a user, there is a typical additional criterion of the designer requiring the ditch to be embedded in firm existing ground at a minimum depth, this case 0.3m.

 

All the current ditch and daylight subassemblies you offer do not solve this typical scenario. This is what your subassemblies do in this scenario, they either:

 

1)      Trim off the Ditch Out link (Daylight Standard). Then the designer does not achieve the required ditch capacity, in this case a 0.3m basin depth.

 

2)      Creates a berm in this Fill ditch scenario. Engineers typically do not like to create perched flow conditions with a ditch berm. It is a large liability if there is a failure. A failure directs all of the concentrated ditch flow from the upstream tributary area on to one property at the failure location. Led Zeppelin has discussed and described this levy breaking scenario thoroughly.

 

We need the required effective vertical and horizontal transition (XZ plane) information sent to the foreslope link, based on the:

 

1)      the movement requirements to effect the test point criterion

2)      the movement requirements to effect the minimum longitudinal profile requirements (YZ plane).

 

This is again where we need dynamic corridor Alignments and Profiles to move and update themselves, as mentioned previously. We do this all by hand now, incrementally.

 

This typical ditch and daylight overall capability, should be implemented in one of the five (5) Uber subassemblies that Peter Funk suggests Civil 3D consolidate its subassembly offerings down to.

 

 

Capture.JPG



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 7 of 35
jmatthei
in reply to: fcernst

Overall, I agree with Fred Ernst.  After seeing what the Architects can do in Revit, I feel like I'm watching Windows and forced to work in DOS.  I get that Civil work might lag behind the architecturals in programming, but it doesn't feel like we're catching up.  With one important exception, I get the feeling that Autodesk *thinks* Civil 3D is a good, mature product that only needs minor tweaks and improvements.

 

It is not.  We use it because there is nothing better on the market yet.  We don't love it.  We don't have loyalty to it.  We don't think Autodesk is responsive, or preparing a great product for us.  They've been a monopoly so far on dynamic TINs and pipe networks, so we've been forced to stick with the product.  It's true Land Desktop was great in 2000, and Civil 3D was a nice step forward in making a dynamic version of LDD...but the program stagnated.  I know pressure pipes are new, but really how much work is it to add valve/bend functionality when you already have sewer pipes and manholes?  We still can't easily do Wyes and Tees in sewers, or pavements outside of corridors, or streetlights, or trees, or (etc.   etc.   etc.  )

 

That said, I see some light at the end of this tunnel:  1)  Bentley looks like they're about to overtake Civil 3D on the site-BIM front.  That's a good thing, having competition.  And C3D already doesn't talk to Revit well, so a Bentley product wouldn't be any worse.  2)  Another department at Autodesk itself appears to be turning Infraworks into a Civil 3D replacement--it now includes tools for roadway plans and profiles, and creation of pipes and structures...

 

So, is it right to write off Civil 3D?  Maybe.  If Infraworks and Bentley are competing with eachother to create true site-BIM we'll all be better off.  Given that we use lots of Autodesk products I'd even say that Autodesk has the advantage if two equivalent products are offered.  But if Bentley starts to offer something clearly better than the Autodesk, well,  we'll have to take our money elsewhere.

 

So this is my advice to Autodesk---we don't really care which software program or provider we use--if we can get Site-BIM that talks to Revit.  Maybe C3D isn't the right path for the future--but if not, you should really focus Site-BIM resources SOMEWHERE to keep our Civil Engineers and Landscape Architects in the fold.  Bentley hasn't YET offered us a compelling alternative, but they seem to be very focused on doing that soon.  You'll want to be ready when they do.

 

Jeremy

Message 8 of 35
troma
in reply to: jmatthei

I agree that competition is better than monopoly in any market. It can only make things better for the customers (us!).

Mark Green

Working on Civil 3D in Canada

Message 9 of 35
neilyj666
in reply to: fcernst


fcernst wrote: It is a large liability if there is a failure. A failure directs all of the concentrated ditch flow from the upstream tributary area on to one property at the failure location. Led Zeppelin has discussed and described this levy breaking scenario thoroughly.

 


Actually to set the record (!) straight, it was Memphis Minnie and Kansas Joe Mcoy in 1929 - Led Zeppelin merely "reimagined" the track; but what a great reimagining...Smiley Wink

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 10 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: fcernst

Dave,

 

One big frustration you hear about year after year, just as soon as the new person discovers it, is the resultant tributary basin (Catchment) that Civil 3D returns for the designer through the CREATECATCHMENTFROMSURFACE routine.

 

We have all seen the “thin slivers” of Catchment or Watershed area.

 

If this routine had its own voice, I’m sure it would say “I am simply returning what you ask of me, and that is the discharge to a “Point” on the surface.

 

Capture.JPG

 

I think there lies the problem, the incorrect logic of the routine’s “Prompt”.

 

Discharge to “points” are truly meaningless in the real world.

 

Everything that we would want to define a tributary basin for, has some length of “Capture Width”.

 

Think about it, an 18” RCP flared end section is really intercepting some width of frontal flow, maybe appx 3’-5’ for example. Not a "Point". You can extend this to the more emphasized example of the opening to a large culvert, or bridge.

 

Inlets of course have capture widths.

 

Regarding Area Inlets, we need the tributary area that drains to the perimeter of the inlet, not a point.

 

When we define the tributary basin by hand method, our departure points are from each side of our desired Capture Width and then we start heading up-basin, perpendicular to contours, eventually encapsulating the basin.

 

For example, consider a culvert or bridge with wingwalls, our two departure points to define the tributary basin start at the end of the wingwalls.  Same concept for the small culverts, etc.

 

Engineers always perform Offsite Tributary Basin analysis. This determines how much runoff is coming on to the project property from the offsite terrain. Typically we want the area that is tributary to some length of project property line.

 

Conclusion:

 

If the CREATECATCHMENTFROMSURFACE routine would prompt for a Capture Width, instead of a meaningless “Point”, the routine will have the correct instructions from the User it needs to return the desired tributary basin result.

 

No more slivers.

 

For scenarios where the engineer wants the tributary basin area for a sectional frontal flow condition: such as at a culvert, bridge, a road overtopping section, property line length, etc., this would be a two-point line segment.

 

To determine the tributary area to an Area Inlet, where runoff attacks from all sides, we need to be able to define the Perimeter of the area inlet.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 11 of 35
dsimeone
in reply to: fcernst

Hi Folks -

 

Thanks for the feedback throughout this thread. It’s a mix of short and long term actionable requests. As we look at these and other improvements, we’ll reach out to people directly to dig deeper and to validate behavior/UI.

 

I should also set expectations… Just like with 10 year state transportation plans, we do our best to get the right mix to meet the needs of the people who ultimately buy and use our products. And just like with transportation projects, project “funding” is generally balanced to include high-profile projects, smaller improvements and routine maintenance. The mix shifts each year based on a number of factors and it’ll never be right to meet everyone’s needs. You’ve all been around enough to know that I can’t publicly share any details on future product plans so please don’t take "non-answers" to improvement plans on this public newsgroup as a statement that we are ignoring you.

 

Specifically to 3D area support in QTO - This is something that we’re actively reviewing and we’ll update you on if/how/when/ when appropriate.

 

Thanks

Dave Simeone




Dave.Simeone

Product Line Manager, Autodesk Infrastructure Products
Message 12 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: dsimeone

Dave,

 

"Specifically to 3D area support in QTO - This is something that we’re actively reviewing and we’ll update you on if/how/when/ when appropriate."


I want to make it clear that you realize and understand there have been three product defects identified with QTO, not just the 2D projected area problem:

 

  1. The 2D projected area problem
  2. The Pay Item formula problem of not doing correct math for computing volumes and tonnages (i.e, Item Area*PaveDepth).
  3. QTO is duplicating Item Areas for subassemblies such as the Urban Sidewalk.

Almas should (hopefully) be able to explain all of these defects to you now.

 

The appropriate time is soon as possible (ASAP),  to alleviate and provide remedy to the length of time Customers have waited for this marketed functionality of the software to operate correctly.

 

"I should also set expectations… Just like with 10 year state transportation plans, we do

our best to get the right mix to meet the needs of the people who ultimately buy and use our products."

 

Great news..This correlates that the 10 year Civil 3D 2005-Civil 3D 2015 development plan is close to fruition. Civil 3D 2015 is setting up to be one doozy of a crowd pleaser.

 

"You’ve all been around enough to know that I can’t publicly share any details on future product plans so please don’t take "non-answers" to improvement plans on this public newsgroup as a statement that we are ignoring you."

 

Yes, you will always have that perception to deal with that policy in place.

 

There are other main reasons that demonstrate Customers are ignored by Civil 3D mangement:

 

  1. The lack of QC before the yearly product releases as demonstrated by the highly unstable 2013 release with no service pack until late in November. Resulting in the perception that 2013 was mostly served as a release to effect a platform change to achieve backward incompatibility simply in order to generate income.
  2. The overwhelming evidence we have of Support documented  "Known Issues" that have been ignored and rolled over into release after release.
  3. The long list of features suggested on the Wish List being ignored and not implemented in the new 2014 release. The "Emperor's New Clothes" release.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 13 of 35
neilyj666
in reply to: fcernst

drive command broken in 2012 SP1 and not fixed in that release yet, surface transparency broken in 2013 and still not fixed (we are up to hotfix 3 now), layer manager bug causing double spacing in layer names in 2013 etc etc.

How can the breaking and not fixing of existing commands be allowed to slip through the net...presumably in the rush to make the release deadline. I'm sure there are many who would forgo new features in a release if the release was bug free and rock solid but of course the marketing people would not like this.....

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 14 of 35
mathewkol
in reply to: fcernst

Since Ernst didn't bother...

Thanks Dave for replying to this somewhat hostile thread in your usual very professional manner.
Matt Kolberg
SolidCAD Professional Services
http://www.solidcad.ca /
Message 15 of 35
dgorsman
in reply to: neilyj666

In the rush to avoid new features in favor of bug fixes, lets not forget that would preclude a few "minor" improvements like 64-bit support, Win7 support, Win8 support... if the last one was skipped at the last release the complaints about bugs would easily be replaced in volume (in both senses of the word).  There's a few targets (moving ones, at that) behind the scenes like OS support which most of us don't think about unless its right in our face.

----------------------------------
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 16 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: jmatthei

"After seeing what the Architects can do in Revit, I feel like I'm watching Windows and forced to work in DOS.  I get that Civil work might lag behind the architecturals in programming,"

 

The grass isn't always greener.

 

You can check this out now. Those guys are having major issues also. They are complaining about lost billable hours .

 

Capture.JPG



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 17 of 35
fcernst
in reply to: mathewkol

Thanks…right now? I’m trying to think, thanks for what right now.

 

  • Thanks for not having QTO ready to go for my project... after four releases of QTO in the software?
  • Thanks for allowing me to spend last week setting up QTO for my project, only to start discovering the list of programming defects?
  • Thanks for allowing me to spend company time debugging all the issues concerning QTO for him at no cost to his budget?
  • Thanks for explaining what QTO is for, and how the software operates to him?

Dave’s lack of implementing an effective quality control program has affected my budget on this project now.

 

I need our CDOT Pay List we have ready to go in QTO prepared and ready to present at 1) Preliminary submittal, 2) Final submittal, and most importantly 3) the high profile Bid Assistance meeting with the Contractors and the City when Bid Documents are released.

 

Everyone involved with the project knows we are using Civil 3D because we stated so in our project winning proposal, and touted the efficiency that we can provide to this very linear project though the use of the Civil 3D Corridor object and its data output capabilities. So, I'm also "thankfully" marketing Civil 3D in the real world for Dave currently. 

 

I tailored this winning proposal in that manner because the City was very straight forward and clear, in expressing at the Pre-Bid meeting, that this is a project with a short fuse that needs to be designed and constructed by November due to this year’s City budget appropriation schedule. If this can’t be done, they will have to table the entire project. We won the project based on our qualifications score, budget and functional design "capabilities".

 

Maybe Dave should be thanking me for my well documented and concerted debugging and suggestion efforts. Working constantly with his Support staff behind the scenes.

 

Maybe there will be a reason for a thank you from me for Dave here in the future, who knows, it’s a hush hush policy.

 

There’s a big difference here to note.  I’m a paying Customer.

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 18 of 35
mathewkol
in reply to: dsimeone

I'm not sucking up to Dave, I like him and he doesn't deserve to be called out directly here in public.

 

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

Matt Kolberg
SolidCAD Professional Services
http://www.solidcad.ca /
Message 19 of 35
jmatthei
in reply to: fcernst

(This post is intended to be a reply to Fred's post about QTO on Revit, but it's showing up at the bottom of the screen.)

 

Fred - True, Revit's not perfect, but I work with quite a few Architects and MEPs who love it overall.  And it's taken a lot of repeated "education" to let them know that 1)  I'm not stupid,  2)  Revit really can't do sites, and 3)  I really can't do a lot of the things they expect me to be able to do.

 

Usually they don't believe me until I have them watch our screens while we work in Civil 3D.  Then the next question is why we're not using Revit like them:  I have to ask them to find ONE Civil Engineer anywhere, at any firm, that has made that work, using Revit for sites any bigger than a small building courtyard.  I have to personally show them the Autodesk page that says "Civil 3D is our BIM software for sitework".

 

In the end, they admit they can't find ANY Civils at any firms who can do Revit-level work, but there's always still a part of them that thinks we're just being obstinate as a profession.  I do want to be able to do Revit-level work for all site objects.  I'm sold.  I love seeing the instant sections and views that the architects do.  Most of my Civil coworkers are sold.  We just don't have the software yet to do it and it's frustrating.

 

And finally - I'm not out to blast Dave or anybody else.  My goal in writing on these forums is to help people know how they can make the software better, and warn them if they're veering off track before it's too late.  That said, the adequacy of this program does come up very frequently in our office, usually followed by the question of "Anybody find anything better yet?"

 

Jeremy

Message 20 of 35
neilyj666
in reply to: fcernst

I try to avoid using civil 3d and BIM in the same sentence unless they are joined by "isn't".......

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

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report