AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

Reply
*Pro
fcernst
Posts: 1,170
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
Message 1 of 21 (4,110 Views)

Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

4110 Views, 20 Replies
05-10-2013 07:00 AM

I continue to find and stumble over defects in the software when trying to do real work with the software on a current road widening project.

 

This issue actually applies to both of the Milling subassemblies. These are arguably two of the most important subassemblies in Civil 3D for civil engineers, Marketed and purported to be able to handle Milling, Leveling and Overlay operations. It does not Mill and Level when holding a Profile, and it does not create the Shapes properly for display and Quantity reports.

 

What is most unacceptable as a Customer are two things here:

 

1) This issue was recognized by a customer 7 years ago in 2006, and no one responded to them. See the screen capture below.

 

2) In the email reply Autodesk states their priorities are based on getting NEW software releases out the door.  The reply goes on to say from Autodesk indicates a fix more than likely will not occur until a NEW release of the software.

 

This is a totally unacceptable behavior pattern from Autodesk Management in how they continue to treat Customers who have bought and paid for the software, and rely on it for their livelihood. They continue to bury the engineering application Known Defects, and put out new Releases of the software with these defects going unaddressed. 

 

We are heading close to our Preliminary design submittal deadline. I have spent a tremendous amount of time troubleshooting this issue, and it has negatively affected and comprimised our Project schedule.

 

This is our main Subassembly to be used on the project. We use the cross slope control and automatic tolerance calculations performed by the subassembly to create the design, and use the subassembly's reporting capabilities to create Milling, Leveling and Overlay Quantity reports.

 

 

 

Capture.JPG

 

Capture2.JPG

 

This person noted this defect in 2006...7 years ago!

 

MillCapture.JPG

 

 

jj

 

 

jj

Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2015 SP2
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
*Expert Elite*
sboon
Posts: 2,226
Registered: ‎11-08-2005
Message 2 of 21 (4,068 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-10-2013 09:06 PM in reply to: fcernst

After reading your post I am not entirely certain that I understand all of your issues. 


fcernst wrote:
It does not Mill and Level when holding a Profile, 

Are you saying that the Use Profile option in the subassembly does not work as described in the help file?  What specifically is the problem here?

 

Steve
Please use the Accept as Solution or Kudo buttons when appropriate

Contributor
dsimenic
Posts: 22
Registered: ‎11-30-2008
Message 3 of 21 (4,061 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 12:17 AM in reply to: fcernst
I have similar experience with this (very important) subassemly. Road rehabilitation design is very, very important today, but any of funcionality about road rehabilitation design is not updated in Civil 3D since many last versions......
We (designers) need better and improved features (tools). I know that is complex, but this part of software must be improved.
*Pro
fcernst
Posts: 1,170
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
Message 4 of 21 (4,042 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 10:04 AM in reply to: sboon

Hi Steve,

 

The Milling-Leveling-Overlay subassemblies create three Shapes (Mill, Level and Overlay) based on the situational constraints encountered at each section: EG, User Defined Cross Slope Tolerances, Minimum Clearance, Overlay Thickness and Profile. 

 

The yellow cross hatch below is our Mill Shape. You can see the correct Mill Shape in the middle, and the incorrect Mill Shape being produced outside of this, where there is Leveling occurring.

 

Capture2.JPG

Below is a picture of another problem. We are in a Leveling portion of the project here. 

That is the Mill shape hatching again (yellow cross) you are seeing incorrectly between EG and the bottom of the Overlay. This should be the Level course.

We have a Minimum clearance of -0.10' set for the Milling here. The subassembly is not Milling into EG here for us either.

 

Capture.JPG

 

 

 

 

Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2015 SP2
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
*Expert Elite*
sboon
Posts: 2,226
Registered: ‎11-08-2005
Message 5 of 21 (4,023 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 06:20 PM in reply to: fcernst

I think I see part of the problem here.  The subassembly help file is badly written and, while it shows three shapes within the section it only displays two of them at a time.  If the Mimimum Clearance value is positive then the Overlay and Level shapes are created.  If the Minimum Clearance is negative then the Mill shape and the Overlay shape is created.  Note - these two will overlap.  

 

You didn't answer my previous question but I am guessing that you are using a profile to control the finished elevation.  This creates a situation where it is possible to get both milling and levelling conditions within the same section.  Unfortunately the programmers did not allow for this scenario so you get either Level or Mill, but not both.

 

I've attached two views of the same section showing what happens when the minimum clearance is flipped from positive to negative.

Clipboard01.png

 

Clipboard02.png

 

Unfortunately this is a prime example of the situation where the programmers and users have a different understanding of what should happen.  Reporting this as a defect is probably inappropriate.  The programmers have done what was originally asked of them, but the effect of using the profile option was not properly documented.

 

Steve
Please use the Accept as Solution or Kudo buttons when appropriate

 

*Pro
fcernst
Posts: 1,170
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
Message 6 of 21 (4,014 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 07:17 PM in reply to: sboon

Steve,

 

I stated clearly in the first message this problem occurs when using a Profile. I mention Profile control again in the second message.

 

This is definitely a very serious defect, and this can not be the programmers intention, that makes no sense to me.

 

How can you not see in this example below (and both of yours for that matter) that there are three Shapes to create and report quantities for, and Milling needs to occur under the Leveling courses if the Minimum Clearance is set to a negative value? The Help is quite clear on this.

 

There is 1) Milling around the Crown area, 2) Leveling Course outside of the Crown area, and 3) the purple Overlay layer. If you perform Material quantities on this Corridor, only Mill and Overlay are reported. That is not correct.

 

In additon, there is no Milling occuring under the Leveling courses, even though the Minimum Clearance is set to -0.10.

 

This is why it is has been sent back to Development...after many people from Autodesk looked at it this past week, I have been told.

 

I can not explain it any clearer, I believe.

 

Capture.JPG

Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2015 SP2
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
*Expert Elite*
sboon
Posts: 2,226
Registered: ‎11-08-2005
Message 7 of 21 (4,004 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 08:27 PM in reply to: fcernst

Fred,

 

Quoting from your original post:

"It does not Mill and Level when holding a Profile, and it does not create the Shapes properly for display and Quantity reports."

 

I interpreted this sentence to mean that you were reporting two separate problems.  You did not elaborate so I started by testing the Use Profile parameter.  It worked for me so I asked for clarification and more detail in my first posting.  I did not get a definite answer so I continued with my experiments.  Eventually I concluded that you must have been using the profile option and I posted with a statement to that effect.

 

Your comment that "this can not be the programmers intention, that makes no sense to me" is exactly the point I was trying to make.  The programmers on the development team were given direction by someone else about what the subassembly was supposed to do, and as far as I can see they achieved that.

 

As far as Autodesk is concerned a defect means that the software does not do what the development team were told it should do.  You expected the subassembly to do something else, and complain that you did not get the behaviour you want.  Blame the Civil Engineer who provided the original explanation of the milling and overlay construction process if it makes you feel better.

 

Steve
Please use the Accept as Solution or Kudo buttons when appropriate

*Pro
fcernst
Posts: 1,170
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
Message 8 of 21 (3,997 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 09:16 PM in reply to: sboon

Steve,

 

Let's take this slower...

 

1) The subassembly is creating Mill Shapes both above and below the exisiting ground..which is nonsense. Agreed?

2) The subassembly will create Level Shapes above the Overlay, below existing ground..which is nonsense..Agreed?

 

'Unfortunately the programmers did not allow for this scenario so you get either Level or Mill, but not both."

 


Yes, you definitely need to be able to create all three Shapes in one Section...not just Mill and Level all categorized as Milling, or Mill and Level called all catergorized as Level Course

 

This is what the Customer was asking about 7 years ago in 2006!  No one answered. There was also a flare-up in 2009 over this issue, where another now "Expert Elite" Reseller was berating a Customer that they just needed to use the settings correctly.

 

No engineer, would ask a programmer to do this. It is ludicrous to think so.

 

I fully expect the subassembly to do things correctly. This not a difference of opinion issue, this is physical reality. i.e., Mill does not go above existing ground.

 

This is a serious defect, and inexcusable it has been this way for so long in $7500 software.

 

We have Preliminary Cost estimates for this project due next week, and the software is not differentiating between the Shapes for quantity reports. It is over reporting Mill where there is Level.

 

You are the third or fourth "Expert Elite" recently who absolutely refuses to hold Autodesk accountable for anything? Why is that? 

 

 

 

 

Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2015 SP2
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
*Expert Elite*
Jeff_M
Posts: 4,521
Registered: ‎07-22-2003
Message 9 of 21 (3,988 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-11-2013 11:35 PM in reply to: fcernst

Don't like how the design team programmed the stock subassemblies? Fortunately they were kind enough to provide the source code so you can make them work to your specs! I've had the need to do so for 4-5 of the stock subassemblies, and I'm sure there are others that I don't use which could use some tweaking.

 

StockSubAssembly Source code

 

You also have the option of creating your own from scratch with the SAC. 

 

And before you say anything about my EE status, please understand that this was something bestowed on some of us END USERS who have done our best to help others work through their problems. It's not that we are perfect, or know more than you, or claim to be able to solve all issues, or even agree that the program works as we think it should. We just do our best to help those looking for help. If you dont want whatever help we might be able to provide, then you should keep your interactions with Autodesk private by using the Subscription support.

Jeff_M, also a frequent Swamper
*Pro
fcernst
Posts: 1,170
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
Message 10 of 21 (3,977 Views)

Re: Confirmed Defect - OverlayMillAndLevel2 Subassembly

05-12-2013 05:15 AM in reply to: Jeff_M

"Don't like how the design team programmed the stock subassemblies?"

 


.. This has absolutely nothing to do with "liking".

 

The Milling subassemblies are generating and reporting absolute physical nonsense (i.e, Milling does not physically lie above Existing Ground), that needs to be corrected ASAP so that we civil engineers/designers can use it. This does not seem to be absolutely clear yet, to you and Steve.

 

That is why it is back in Development.

 

This subassembly is critical for Road Rehab work in Civil 3D. In our project, we are Milling and moving the Crown over anywhere from 6" to 24".

 

I absolutely do not have time to re-program the Milling subassemblies and make these project deadlines. Autodesk owes all of us Customers these subassemblies in working order ASAP!  I and others give enough of our free engineering troubleshooting services to the Civil 3D Management team, let alone having to consider doing our own programming fixes of documented issues and defects.

 

In fact, I have already invested a great deal of time creating a ditch subassembly in SAC to address our needs for reaching out and first testing conditions before it decides what type of ditch scenario to create. This capability has been asked for many times by Customers in this forum.

 

There was a post this week about the Daylight Standard subassembly not working correctly. The subassembly is INCORRECTLY trimming off his Ditch at the intersection with existing ground. You may have seen it. Steve 

also commented on it. I am sure this User, feels as frustrated as me encountering the software defects, through a long week of work and deadlines. This again, is not an issue about "Liking".

 

There are many techinical issues with the software that serve to detrimentally affect project schedule, that need to be addressed to tighten up the software so that it may be used rigorously on projects by engineers/designers.  

 

It is extremely frustrating to be up against a deadline, and you are troubleshooting the software over and over, saying to yourself "this isn't working right..Is it me..something I'm doing wrong?"...You are on your own time doing this, losing your company valuable revenue, and creating Project delays. Then you start to get angry when you discover, in the end,  that it is due to a software defect. Then you want to go absolutely through the roof, when you find find out it has been a "Known Issue" that has gone unaddressed through previous releases of the software.

 

Then... you become fully incensed, when you are literally told by the Civil 3D team "We will get to repairing this defect when we can, but to be realistic, putting out new releases of the software (with the known defects still in the software) is our first priority.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2015 SP2
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Announcements
Do you have 60 seconds to spare? The Autodesk Community Team is revamping our site ranking system and we want your feedback! Please click here to launch the 5 question survey. As always your input is greatly appreciated.