TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: sourdough on January 19, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
-
Hi all.
1. It is time to see if anybody is aware of the next Win OS (10) beta or otherwiese, and what kind of affect it will have on Civil 3D 2014 and higher. If so would you please post any preliminary results.
2. Is C3D 2015 available to lease from Autodesk... I found other Autodesk products, but not C3D... so curious if it might be.
Thanks in Advance
MJP
-
I installed Win10x64 TP several weeks ago (running Win8.1x64 for +/- 1 year), and have not encountered any issues so far, but I've admittedly been consumed with current Autodesk Betas instead of 2014-2015.
As for leasing, you'll want to contact your local reseller; We have both 2014-2015, but we're on subscription and use Infrastructure Design Suite.
Cheers
-
I installed Win10x64 TP several weeks ago (running Win8.1x64 for +/- 1 year), and have not encountered any issues so far, but I've admittedly been consumed with current Autodesk Betas instead of 2014-2015.
As for leasing, you'll want to contact your local reseller; We have both 2014-2015, but we're on subscription and use Infrastructure Design Suite.
Cheers
Okay, I see that the Premium subcription Infra. Design Suite can be done monthly or yearly... since I haven't looked at new C3D in a long time it almost sounds more reasonable to acquire than previously thought... thanks for the info..... We are using 2011 C3D and it works great for us, but pressure is mounting on an upgrade.
Again Thanks
MJP
-
From : http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Operating-system-compatibility-for-AutoCAD-and-AutoCAD-LT.html#section3 (http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Operating-system-compatibility-for-AutoCAD-and-AutoCAD-LT.html#section3)
Technically it is 'unsupported'
OS 32-bit 64-bit
Windows® 8.1 Windows 8.1,
Windows 8.1 Pro,
Windows 8.1 Enterprise Windows 8.1,
Windows 8.1 Pro,
Windows 8.1 Enterprise
Windows® 8 Windows 8,
Windows 8 Pro,
Windows 8 Enterprise Windows 8,
Windows 8 Pro,
Windows 8 Enterprise
Windows® 7 Windows 7 Enterprise,
Windows 7 Ultimate,
Windows 7 Professional,
Windows 7 Home Premium Windows 7 Enterprise,
Windows 7 Ultimate,
Windows 7 Professional,
Windows 7 Home Premium
Fasten your seat belts....as for pressure to upgrade, there is really very little 'new' to get excited about, except perhaps pressure pipes, and really they are not that spectacular - as there are no 'design' tools to use with them.
-
Okay, I see that the Premium subcription Infra. Design Suite can be done monthly or yearly... since I haven't looked at new C3D in a long time it almost sounds more reasonable to acquire than previously thought... thanks for the info..... We are using 2011 C3D and it works great for us, but pressure is mounting on an upgrade.
Again Thanks
No worries; I used 2011 for a few years myself, before upgrading to 2014-2015, and I definitely felt improved stability, etc. despite not as many new features as one might have hoped for. The biggest feature of 2015 for us, was the advent of exporting to Google Earth that is now built-in.
Not really a fan of the new subscription model, and I remind Autodesk of that every chance I get. :angel:
However, and this may not apply to others, when I looked at what it would cost us to renew an existing subscription (before I was hired on), as compared to not renewing, and starting a new subscription years down the road since we already had 2015 installed... We would have had to _not_ upgrade for 5 years just to break even in cost, never mind any potential production gains missed *IF* Autodesk does happen to release something of value during that time.
Given that, we opted to renew and take on new versions as we wish, until a better alternative is available for our situation.
Cheers
-
Okay, I see that the Premium subcription Infra. Design Suite can be done monthly or yearly... since I haven't looked at new C3D in a long time it almost sounds more reasonable to acquire than previously thought... thanks for the info..... We are using 2011 C3D and it works great for us, but pressure is mounting on an upgrade.
Again Thanks
However, and this may not apply to others, when I looked at what it would cost us to renew an existing subscription (before I was hired on), as compared to not renewing, and starting a new subscription years down the road since we already had 2015 installed... We would have had to _not_ upgrade for 5 years just to break even in cost, never mind any potential production gains missed *IF* Autodesk does happen to release something of value during that time.
This is mainly due to the PUNITIVE pricing model they employ that essentially coerces the customer into rationalizing their acceptance of the autodesk pricing model (subscription).
And in this particular case the user has nearly waited 5 years to upgrade, and has lost little in doing that.
-
This is mainly due to the PUNITIVE pricing model they employ that essentially coerces the customer into rationalizing their acceptance of the autodesk pricing model (subscription).
That's really not in either of our control, so ultimately a meaningless, despite correct observation, as it has no bearing on the decision making process.
And in this particular case the user has nearly waited 5 years to upgrade, and has lost little in doing that.
In this particular scenario, I respectfully disagree, having worked with 2011 for years prior to upgrading to 2014 myself.
Now, going 2014-2015, that's another story.
Cheers
-
This is mainly due to the PUNITIVE pricing model they employ that essentially coerces the customer into rationalizing their acceptance of the autodesk pricing model (subscription).
That's really not in either of our control, so ultimately a meaningless, despite correct observation, as it has no bearing on the decision making process.
Respectfully I disagree, in that should one be in a position to decide to be held hostage to this practice or not, at least one can be informed about it up front.
-
This is mainly due to the PUNITIVE pricing model they employ that essentially coerces the customer into rationalizing their acceptance of the autodesk pricing model (subscription).
That's really not in either of our control, so ultimately a meaningless, despite correct observation, as it has no bearing on the decision making process.
Respectfully I disagree, in that should one be in a position to decide to be held hostage to this practice or not, at least one can be informed about it up front.
As I prefer clarity to agreement, you may disagree all you wish, and even turn this thread too into yet another mind-numbing rant if you so choose (I respectfully implore you to not, of course)... You do still however, incorrectly presume the decision maker(s) are somehow uninformed.
In all seriousness... Who legitimately makes such a decision, particularly after so many years of not upgrading, and isn't 'informed'...? :-o
Nobody is 'held hostage'... A customer chooses to, or not to use their product(s), it's just an overhead expense... That customer may have made a unwise decision, or even come to regret their decision, but it is their choice to make, and they shall one way or another.
If one is somehow put-off by the subscription model, that's entirely fine.
Not willing to play Autodesk's game...? Cool beans.
Keep using the same legacy versions you already have, while you find another product you are willing to support with your hard-earned dollars, and kindly recommend that instead.
Cheers
-
Why must you defend the autodesk subscription model? Do you work for them?
I doubt this as you even express some disaffection for it as well.
I think you want to push this discussion to the point of a rant.
Point is, your definition of clarity is to restate the autodesk sales kit to justify the subscription model, which is coercive and not
beneficial to the customer nor conducive to overall product development or quality of same.
-
Why must you defend the autodesk subscription model? Do you work for them?
I doubt this as you even express some disaffection for it as well.
I think you want to push this discussion to the point of a rant.
Point is, your definition of clarity is to restate the autodesk sales kit to justify the subscription model, which is coercive and not
beneficial to the customer nor conducive to overall product development or quality of same.
You clearly do not participate in any of the product Betas :2funny: - if you did, methinks your misunderstanding of my position, that I work for them, represent their interests, etc. would be crystal clear. :-D :angel:
What I want, is for you to harness the energy that you so willingly spend on petulant comments, and instead use that potential to offer any alternative solution that you're actually willing to support, my friend. I do not like how often you come off as ranting (which is often), and certainly you'd benefit from something, anything, 'more' positive than this, no?
Do I prefer their products over Micro-crap, yes. Do I user their products daily for production, develop apps to enhance their products, and publish a very small amount of my development, yes and yes. Do I participate in product betas to try and affect the new features, yes.
I have, however, turned down a free trip, and hotel stay at AU for the past three years, I've never applied for a job with (nor worked for) Autodesk, and I've never received any sales kit; is that something authorized trainers receive? :?
In any event, you already know that I do not personally care for Autodesk's subscription model (and I am sure to tell them so each-and-every-chance I do get in discussions), but 'subscription' is nothing new, and I do not make decisions on what suites my position.
Instead, I seek all reasonable alternatives, and make a decision that serves my employer's interest in terms of cost/benefit.
Subscription is neither all bad, nor all good... It's a simple business decision in order to acquire, or replace a production tool, an overhead expense for product, or services.
What do we need to complete our work? What do we want to do differently? Does this package meet those requirements? How much does it cost to, or not to use this option vs. that? It's really quite plain, and no more complicated than any other business decision.
Gotta get back to work, my friend; feel free to contact me offline, if you so choose. :beer:
Cheers
-
More people should be more vocal and vote with their wallets, to affect real change regrading
product development, stability, and intra-operability. As working 'quietly' behind the scenes such as yourself
really appears to have limited if any effect.
There are many paths that lead to the same place.
-
Keep using the same legacy versions you already have, while you find another product you are willing to support with your hard-earned dollars, and kindly recommend that instead.
Cheers
Personally I would recommend either 'Advanced Road Design' (ARD) which runs on AutoCad or Bricscad; or '12d'. I've used both and both are not only a lot more powerful than Civil 3D but a lot more stable too. ARD is as easy if not easier to use than Civil 3D and cheaper also. 12d has a fair learning experience to it although is more powerful yet again and can handle large datatsets with ease that Civil 3D falls over on; it is more expensive than Civil 3D though. Neither of these programs requires a subscription.
Once people get out of the mindset that Civil 3D is the 'best;' as they are the biggest it is surprising how many other design packages are available out there that trump it. The two I mentioned above certainly do although I'm sure there are many others.
-
To AutoDesk credit they do have a large and fairly loyal following in C3D, the predecessors were the 1st graphical Civil CAD package affordable to the local Civil Engineering firms. Although they did come amazingly close to losing the entire following with a couple of blunders they made early on. The folks that use C3D, do not want to train their entire staff to utilize other software that they are not convinced will be equivalent, and Auto Desk knows this. If it was not for the development of Intellacad by the aforementioned predecessor the price of C3D would be even higher.... (one of ADesk blunders)
-
To AutoDesk credit they do have a large and fairly loyal following in C3D, the predecessors were the 1st graphical Civil CAD package affordable to the local Civil Engineering firms. Although they did come amazingly close to losing the entire following with a couple of blunders they made early on. The folks that use C3D, do not want to train their entire staff to utilize other software that they are not convinced will be equivalent, and Auto Desk knows this. If it was not for the development of Intellacad by the aforementioned predecessor the price of C3D would be even higher.... (one of ADesk blunders)
Add to the mix companies have paid 'subscriptions fees' and they are less likely to move to another product.
For many reason, loss of the fees, and someone will have to admit the decision was wrong (most are reluctant to do that)
and the cost to transition away.
Now if there was a move by those others to offer some form of graduated pricing, to allow a low cost threshold to
allow a company to try their product with limited financial risk, and something along the lines of a 'pilot' team to assist the transition
they could win some more customers.