Regarding to (I find C3D to be the best available tool on the market) do you have any idea about Bentley Product like MX Road, InRoad, etc.
I would like to know your opinion for these product and what is the difference between it and Civil 3D
The Bentley products are kind of a competitor to C3D. They tend to work in a very different manner, although they share a lot of the same things, just with different terminology. For example, in AutoCAD, you have layers, blocks, and can explode items. In Bentley, you have levels, cells, and can drop items. These are all essentially synonymous terms, but it can be very confusing if you are highly-skilled in one of the pieces of software, then try to use the other one. It feels a lot like learning a different language.
There are also different paradigms of usage... In the Bentley products, you tend to always be in a command. It's more like being in a specific "user mode". This is different from the AutoCAD paradigm, where you run a command, and then the command ends.
One of the other confusing aspects of Bentley stuff is that they have multiple different "vertical apps", all of which cater to a specific usage (InRoads or MXRoads, GeoPak). Bentley also has PowerCivil, which is probably the closest to being a direct competitor to Civil 3D.
There are strengths in each piece of software. Some things that are difficult in C3D are easy in one of the Benltey products, and vice-versa. They also tend to use different data formats (DGN for Bentley, DWG for Autodesk). And both pieces of software can ostensibly convert data from one to the other (Bentley actually seems better at converting data to/from DWG, Autodesk is not-so-good at converting data to/from DGN). However, in practice, this conversion is fraught with issues on both sides, and doesn't really work so well.
By far, most of the other companies we work with are using Autodesk. And even some of the formerly Bentley-only shops, like Colorado DOT and the Army Corps, seem to be using Civil 3D more and more. Given the fact that we have years and years of experience with Autodesk software, it is FAR easier for us to be productive in Civil 3D than in any of the Bentley products, and we also don't have to deal with the compatibility problems, since virtually everyone else we work with is using Autodesk products. (Although C3D tends to have annual releases that are incompatible with each other, and there are also problems converting data from C3D to/from Land Desktop, so there's that drawback to Autodesk stuff...)
I've heard that people who start out learning in AutoCAD tend to prefer AutoCAD, while people who start out learning Microstation prefer Microstation. And there are ways of configuring Microstation so it behaves a lot more like AutoCAD. So your mileage may vary.
It's good that there are competing platforms - the competition keeps both companies on their toes, and forces improvements in both. But we favor Autodesk products, for the reasons mentioned above. As time goes on, it seems fewer and fewer of our clients are using Microstation products, and more and more are switching to Civil 3D. And as that happens, it's getting easier and easier to find new hires that already know Civil 3D, so that pool of talent is growing. I know in our local area, it's VERY HARD to find a Microstation expert. And it's probably still easier to find someone with Land Desktop and/or Carlson Civil experience. But the pool of Civil 3D talent seems to be growing faster than any other, especially now that Land Desktop is effectively dead.
There was a heavy debate going in this thread recently, including comments from some people who do use both Autodesk and Bentley software.
MX will run also in AutoCAD, up to 2012 but only as 32bit for the moment. Both systems have their own positives but Civil has made some ground into the MX user base here in the UK in the last couple of years
Can you explain more about ( Both systems have their own positives )
At first I was happy that the help was actually usable in 2013. However, that quickly diminished when I do a search for "chain figure". Why search for that? Under survey figure properties there is a new button on the upper right corner about converting from a vector based figure to a chain based figure. I wanted to know what this is. The help file has nothing under "What's new" regarding this nor does the search show anything. Just browsing through the survey figure part of the help guilde has nothing regarding this new "feature", either.
There is also nothing in the help files about the Map command MAPIINSERT being changed how it handles reading metadata. There is also nothing in the help itself or What's New regarding the survey database being a new format and that all of the existing ones have to be migrated.
At least the help system itself has been "fixed", but the contents are lacking.
A not so great feature of C3D 2013 is that the survey database you refer to has been gutted by the survey figures editor no long working!! See attachement, and you will notice the points no longer populate the editor. This makes the whole survey functionality inoperable.
Hopefully a hotfix will issue sooner than later.
WHY keep pushing out these yearly releases, when each one seems to have as many problems as it fixes...?
It's a nightmare for us as users. It's a nightmare for us at Quux Software, as developers of add-ons. And I'm sure it's a nightmare for many at Autodesk, who have to try to make sure that everything is working in 14 (I think?) different language releases. WHO views this as a good idea...?
As an end-user, I'd MUCH rather see fewer releases, IF we could get GOOD releases that don't force us to trouble-shoot so many problems with each one. And also, fewer releases would let us work MUCH more easily with other companies, because then it would be far-more likely that we're all on the same release. Since every version of C3D is incompatible with every other one (with problems going forward, and impossible to go back), this is becoming a BIG DEAL.
Funny, first few messages was actually praising C3d 2013 but in less than 20 messages, the title has turned scarcastic, LOL.
I totally agree about the yearly releases, why not have a 3 year cycle that matches the release of new dwg format with 1-2 SP per year? Between major releases, publish new features (that is to be released in the next major release) in the lab to let the trailbalazers debug them for you.
why not have a 3 year cycle that matches the release of new dwg format with 1-2 SP per year? Between major releases, publish new features (that is to be released in the next major release) in the lab to let the trailbalazers debug them for you.
While this makes great sense from the view of both developers and users. It doesn't make as much sense from a bushiness standpoint. One of the reasons Autodesk switched to yearly releases is that they were having trouble justifying a yearly Subscription fee when only releasing software every 2 to 3 years.
It can also be more difficult on the user side because I would have trouble justifying the cost of Subscription if we only got a new release every 3 years. Don't get me wrong. I'd rather see the 3 year cycle. But trying to explain to our purchasing dept. Might get very interesting.