QTO Issues

[Anonymous]

Alright, getting back to wanting to use the QTO utilities after a 2 year hiatus. As of version 2010 QTO was virtually useless. If you tried to calculate volumes from your corridor by assigning Pay Items to your code syles either the wrong volume was reported or nothing was reported. Now I am using version 2012 and getting the SAME PROBLEMS! I must be losing my mind but don't tell me Autodesk has not fixed this big mistake? Please show me where I am wrong, but I realize it's too much to ask them to offer more than one free haul range in the mass haul utility (rendering that useless) but now they've failed to repair the QTO still? What are they doing and why should I continue to pay for a faulty product?

Jason

[fcernst]

Because I was relying on this working! This is what we paid for.

How are we suppose to penetrate the DOT market?

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Call Autodesk and request a refund or a major percentage returned in lieu of keeping the software to draw lines which is about all it's good for. If you are told no then keep going up the chain until you reach the president. I'll bet something will be done to wake these people up.

[Cadguru42]

---

@fcernst wrote:

Because I was relying on this working! This is what we paid for.

How are we suppose to penetrate the DOT market?

---

I'm not sure how Florida is doing it, but they use QTO in their plans. It'd be nice to see an example of how they or others actually use the QTO feature. That means it's possible, but they might have had to create some custom .NET applications to handle it. Maybe someone here can enlighten us?

[Anonymous]

Then why not use Bentley?

[Cadguru42]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Then why not use Bentley?

---

Because no one knows Microstation. The only engineers that use Microstation within a 100 mile radius is our state DOT. Some firms have a license of Microstation in order to convert their AutoCAD projects to DGN to meet the DOT requirements, but that's it. Most of them design using some form of AutoCAD. None of the colleges within a 100 mile radius even teach Microstation or use it in any fashion. 

You're a little panicky regarding C3D's shortcomings. Yes, something like the QTO needs major work and the mass haul system, but the productivity gains from alignments, profiles, feature lines, corridors, gradings, parcels, and survey points far outweighs the negatives such as the QTO being basically worthless (out of the box). 

Also, does Bentley have something even remotely close to 3ds Max that can read a C3D corridor and objects for rendering? I know that Mike guy that trolls these forums for Bentley likes to brag about their rendering engine, but it's nowhere near as good as 3ds Max nor as easily learned. I should know, my degree is in digital media and when I took it only 6 universities had a program for 3d design in the nation and 11 in the world. There are no Bentley products used in the digital media field nor taught unless in some obscured college where someone knew someone else. 

[Anonymous]

Who cares about rendering? We are engineers. Only the facts are important. If Bentley can get the job done I'll learn microstation.

[fcernst]

"You're a little panicky regarding C3D's shortcomings"

Yes, you are spot on...a little panicky.

This I have a sealed bid submitted that relies on us using Civil 3D to compute the quantities for the Construction Estimator on our team. I was sure we could do this efficiently with Civil 3D, because this will be a Corridor model.

See, this time I told him we would supply the quantities to him and not have them do it. They will just do the cost estimate portion, and provide the required Bid Assistance during the contractor selection phase, per the contract.

I'm also frustrated that I wasted the last two days setting up QTO for this project. Especially when the research clearly shows Autodesk has known about this since 2009, and has disclosed nothing...

[AllenJessup]

While this doesn't have anything to do with the issue of problems with QTO its self. The sanford.edu might not be the best link to use as a reference. I noticed that in most tests the operator was useing AECDWGSETUP to set the units to inch. There were also times the UNITS command was used. Since UNITS isn't safe to use in C3D and although AECDWGUNITS can be used, it's from the Arch. package. The recommended way to set units is in Drawing Setting from the Settings tab in the prospector.

Setting the units to inch in either manor will yield false results. This link may be a better example of how not to do it than a real test of the utility. However there is confirmation that there is errors in the QTO and that they become severe where the profile or side slopes are at a large percent.

I haven't done any QTO myself. So I can't comment completely on what's happening. When time allows, I'm going to see what I can do with it. I'm also interested in how the Florida DOT does it. I know they've been using the program for years and have a very good workflow developed for road projects.

Allen Jessup

[Anonymous]

Allen,

You are not paying attention. The QTO Manager is a falsely advertised piece of garbage. I used it in 2009 and again this year. It still doesn't work. Inexcusable.

Whether the Standford study used appropriate units is irrelevant here. Stop being an Autodesk apologist. People like you are among the reasons nothing useful gets fixed with this software.

[AllenJessup]

Jasono2009,

I may be you who hasn't paid attention. I never said there wasn't any problems with QTO. I never made any apologies for Autodesk. I simply pointed out that linking to faulty studies is not a good way to prove your point. Neither is hostility.

People like me? Well, we might be the reason something does get fixed. I read that study because I'm interested in finding out what is going on with this. There are many people who are getting bad results from the program. There are others who have been using it with no noticeable problem. So I can't just yell at Autodesk to FIX it. But if you want me to drop it. I will. As I said I don't use it personally.

Allen Jessup

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

You do not seriously mean people are using QTO without problems? Try it yourself and come back and tell us what you found. And while you're at it try using the Mass Haul on a real project and tell us what you found. Those are major problems that have and continue to be falsely advertised. Pretty sure if we put our heads together we'd have a case for partial reimbursement. And I mean every single user since 2009.

As for me I am done helping them fix their software. Bottom line: If I performed my job with the same shoddy nonresponsiveness I'd be gone a long time ago.

[troma]

Jasono2009,

Allen is trying to help.  He says don't try to prove your point using a faulty study; in other words prove the point better to absolutely prove to Autodesk that this is garbage and needs to be fixed.  If you use a faulty study, Autodesk can pick holes in your argument.

Fred Ernst has a discussion going over here that you may have noticed.  He seems to be providing proof to autodesk about the problem.  Real evidence is what is needed to get a fix, not hostility; especially not hostility towards someone who has not caused the problem, can't solve it, and is trying to help you to find the right way to make your point.

[Anonymous]

Since when do I have to prove anything to Autodesk? Their software is being falsely advertised. Test it yourself. I am tired of reading how we have to prove our point, as if Autodesk can't verify it themselves. And don't tell they didn't know about it since 2009.

[Neilw_05]

Good point about rendering. Some companies with large budgets and contracts can afford to spend resources on producing high quality renderings but I expect they are a minority among the users of this product. Smaller companies typically don't have budgets or clients willing to pay for that. Also I believe there is a translation process involved to render C3D drawings in 3DS Max so there are data management issues to deal with.

However as far as I know we can't produce a 3D PDF or DWF from C3D anyway, so it requires some hoop jumping or having to learn and use additional software to get that kind of output.

As far as Bentley is concerned, they have been putting a lot of emphasis on visualization into the core product, Microstation, such as incoporating the Luxology rendering engine. On top of that they have included visualization tools specific to the civil industry such as the ability to place randomized animated vehicles on roadways along with landscaping tools that can place randomized 3D vegetation. All this is done without any translation process, and they can directly output to 3D PDF.

For me I'd find that more useful than the workflow we have with C3D.

I don't claim to be an expert on this topic so feel free to correct me if I am missing something.

I should mention that Bentley's QTO tools can summarize quantities on a per sheet basis. Try that with C3D on a pipe run that spans multiple sheets.

[tcorey]

Neil, in the Autodesk world, what you describe is the domain of Civil View, an AutoCAD Civil 3D/Autodesk 3DS Max Design-based tool that is part of Infrastructure Design Suite Premium. All Civil 3D subscribers as of March 28, 2013 are being offered a free upgrade to Infrastructure Design Suite Premium. If you need high-end rendering, automated vehicles, etc., $55.00 more per year on subscription will provide that. If you can't use those tools plus Raster Design, Navisworks Simulate and Infraworks, then you can opt out of the offer and save the $55 per license per year.

[Neilw_05]

We upgraded to Infrastructure suite in 2011 but I never had time to explore all those tools until recently, when I took a look at Infrastructure Modeler. After spending a few days with it I decided it was not all that useful for our type of projects, so I don't feel it is a worthwhile investment of time (learning and training) to implement it into our workflow. The only tool that is of use to us is Raster Design, and that itself is a rare occasion.

I suppose if you need to do fancy renderings and animations then there is a need for those additional tools. There was a recent post about the upgrade offers being a bait and switch tactic. I was suprised when it was mentioned there is a cost to downgrade from a suite. I inquired of our reseller and they consulted with a regional manger. The cost to downgrade from our premium suite is over $3400.

[GTVic]

Sorry to revive an old thread but it appears as though at least the 2D areas and lengths issue is resolved with the Toolspace > Settings > Quantity Takeoff > Commands > Takeoff > Computer Takeoff Options > Computation Type = 3D setting. I'm not too clear about the other issues raised related to volumes with depths other than 1' or 0.5'.

Could this be clarified and possibly marked as solved?

Ditto for the other thread that was linked: QTO Not Working Confirmation

[Anonymous]

This issue is not solved.

[Cadguru42]

---

@GTVic wrote:

Sorry to revive an old thread but it appears as though at least the 2D areas and lengths issue is resolved with the Toolspace > Settings > Quantity Takeoff > Commands > Takeoff > Computer Takeoff Options > Computation Type = 3D setting. I'm not too clear about the other issues raised related to volumes with depths other than 1' or 0.5'.

Could this be clarified and possibly marked as solved?

Ditto for the other thread that was linked: QTO Not Working Confirmation

---

This has not been solved and is still present even in 2016. 

[Joe-Bouza]

I have come to understand and live with the short coming of QTO as it relates to corridor calculations. I have had confirmation with Autodesk that Formula assignment to corridor links does not work. Ok so I decided to get on with the day to day work, since my complaining doesn't get me any closer to getting the quantity. I do what we all do I work around it.

This still doesn't solve the 2d/ 3d projection of area, but a fudge factor gets me through my routine:

Knowing that formulas do not work on corridor links I take them out and let it report the 2d area, and insert QTO into acad as a table, then add the conversion formula in the table, and I'm done.

I know this doesn't  work for everyone and I'm not trying to say it is for everyone. Just thought I'd share.

Is it a drag that we pay for something advertised that doesn't work? Yes, but we still have to get the job out the door no matter how the QTO is done; by computer or hand. Are we all going to revolt to get our money back? Unlikely, but I'm sure the venting helps