>If I'm pessimistic (which might be true after a long days work), you might be described as overly compliant!
Really weird attempt at insulting me for explaining things you're skipping over.
>Don't forget that Civil3d is quite costly - Autodesk isn't your open source small indie developer - so if tangible progress was hindered by a .NET-upgrade and we are now on open roads where everything can be developed faster - I'm all for it. We'll see how it goes.
Again, this just shows your ignorance of the process and how convoluted having people who have never worked on certain code bases can be and untangling the spaghetti that was leftover from previous years. The only good aspect I've seen come from ORD is the modeling, plan production is absolutely awful. If we had to design everything in ORD, we'd be spending 3x the money by waiting for everything to open. You also get a pretty good amount of products available getting the AEC collection rather than individually buying subscriptions that are related to each other.
>It has now been a week and there havn't been any updates. What's more, the, by far!, most demanded in-progress-feature ("Link Revit Building into Civil 3D Drawing") has of course NOT shipped (and this stuff has been on there for two years now) which will further delay anything in the "Up next" section.
Okay? I don't really think that's their highest priority and we have zero clue how their teams actually function and who controls what. If you did bother to join the feedback forums and weekly webinars, this was discussed today. You also clearly don't understand you can't just add features and expect them to work perfectly. There's a ton of testing they have to got through when developing new features (especially brand new) that can hinder release of features.
>What does it take to get an item on the roadmap? It's not ideas or their votes (as @Cadguru42 demonstrated).
How are roadmap-items prioritized? It's definitely not votes, as you can clearly see.
Autodesk can do whatever they want, but if there's no recognizable link between user interaction and shipped features and the timeline is completely random then the whole process is a huge waste of time, a huge source for disappointment and in the end: arbitrary.
It literally is ideas, you two are making a big deal of top ideas not being implemented and just ignoring the fact that they simply might not be feasible. Just because the idea is upvoted a bunch DOES NOT mean that will get implemented or is even possible without years of work. You aren't even given a timeline, why are you complaining about a timeline? They don't give you dates for a reason, almost as if it's pretty complicated to create new features.
>Looking at major releases, 2018 comes to mind: "Offset profiles" (as incomplete as they are), "Connected alignments" (they made drafting SO much easier!), "Corridor bow-tie cleanup" (this stuff is really incomplete, but the goal is great!) and there was more - just compare that to the above!
You literally had to go back 7 years to get to a point where you could use an initial release to complain while ignoring the other 6 years of releases that have had a consistent trend to them. Please, provide the 'more' rather than pretending there was 'more'. You're saying 'more' and not expanding because it isn't true. I went back through every release in the past 8-10 years and verified it.
>I'd actually welcome a version that doesn't add any features but focuses on fixing existing bugs and aims for completing features that are now only at 70% but what's happening right now in my opinion is an unwillingness to touch core parts of the software.
>It's getting more and more like AutoCAD: Build weird, funky stuff in the name of progress while completely losing track of the fundamentals.
Again, you're just showing your ignorance of the software development process and replacing it with what you think is true.
