TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: BlackBox on April 18, 2016, 10:41:16 AM
-
From Help Online:
http://help.autodesk.com/view/CIV3D/2017/ENU/?guid=GUID-A2D82D86-C85C-42C0-BA42-B62948A58FDA
A few of my favorites, are the improvements to Data Shortcuts, the introduction of External Style Management, and the the ability to create Object and Data Shortcut Subfolders.
I am glad that they've finally added some Pressure Network Content other than ductile iron, especially after all these years, but I'm still not sure pressure networks are sufficient to stop using [gravity] pipe networks + null structures for utility design. *shrugs*
Cheers
-
MEH....highly underwhelming
-
MEH....highly underwhelming
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leygrtnRTu1qzu18ao1_400.gif)
-
(http://i.imgflip.com/12p2k9.jpg)
-
(https://ladylibertyslamp.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/yao-ming-meme.jpg)
-
MEH....highly underwhelming
Have you ever thought of moving over to Bentley products?
-
MEH....highly underwhelming
Have you ever thought of moving over to Bentley products?
almost as often as I volunteer for snake bite venom testing
-
MEH....highly underwhelming
Have you ever thought of moving over to Bentley products?
almost as often as I volunteer for snake bite venom testing
:) Just a thought..
-
No updates applicable to our production for construction docs...super lame :/ Can't convince the powers that be to update, when there's nothing to brag about
-
Still, seems like enough to upgrade to 2017 instead of 2016.
Thanks for the info.
-
Still, seems like enough to upgrade to 2017 instead of 2016.
Thanks for the info.
if ONLY to miss the bugs in 2016 and deal with different ones in 2017....that is a plan
-
Still, seems like enough to upgrade to 2017 instead of 2016.
Thanks for the info.
I'm upgrading to 2017 just for this (http://quuxsoft.com/SincpacC3D_Help/SP_PGExport.htm), and this (http://quuxsoft.com/SincpacC3D_Help/SP_PGImport.htm)... But I am in all fairness, completely biased. :-D
-
Still, seems like enough to upgrade to 2017 instead of 2016.
Thanks for the info.
if ONLY to miss the bugs in 2016 and deal with different ones in 2017....that is a plan
One could say that about any version.
-
Still, seems like enough to upgrade to 2017 instead of 2016.
Thanks for the info.
if ONLY to miss the bugs in 2016 and deal with different ones in 2017....that is a plan
[You] say that about [every] version.
FTFY :wink:
-
Out of curiosity, have any serious issues come up in 2017 vs. 2016?
We're about to upgrade and the only reason we're hesitant on 17 is the lack of service packs.
-
Out of curiosity, have any serious issues come up in 2017 vs. 2016?
We're about to upgrade and the only reason we're hesitant on 17 is the lack of service packs.
No serious issues that I've seen so far - Just be aware that if you do find one (or more), there's no going back to 2016 without a boat load of LandXML, as compatibility is broken.
-
Out of curiosity, have any serious issues come up in 2017 vs. 2016?
We're about to upgrade and the only reason we're hesitant on 17 is the lack of service packs.
No serious issues that I've seen so far - Just be aware that if you do find one (or more), there's no going back to 2016 without a boat load of LandXML, as compatibility is broken.
Yeah. :\
-
Out of curiosity, have any serious issues come up in 2017 vs. 2016?
We're about to upgrade and the only reason we're hesitant on 17 is the lack of service packs.
No serious issues that I've seen so far - Just be aware that if you do find one (or more), there's no going back to 2016 without a boat load of LandXML, as compatibility is broken.
WAIT A MINUTE~!
Somewhere along the lines 2015 was it...they touted the fact that there was now at least one version backward compatibility....right?
Only to break it ? Really the benefits of 'subscription' to the users are less than zero.
-
2013-2016 can go either direction, with a few object exceptions I can't recall at the moment. I know they made the choice to break compatibility at this release because AutoCAD was supposed to go to a new DWG format as well. However, the new DWG format has been slower to implement than was planned so 2017 kept the 2013 dwg format...thus leaving the C3D team with their new features that can not be made to work within the constraints of the 2013-2016 C3D code. People want things to get better with C3D, yet when they get it they complain about not being able to go backwards. I can't use the alternator from my 2013 F-150 on my 1998 F-150, should I complain to Ford about not being backwards compatible?
-
2013-2016 can go either direction, with a few object exceptions I can't recall at the moment. I know they made the choice to break compatibility at this release because AutoCAD was supposed to go to a new DWG format as well. However, the new DWG format has been slower to implement than was planned so 2017 kept the 2013 dwg format...thus leaving the C3D team with their new features that can not be made to work within the constraints of the 2013-2016 C3D code. People want things to get better with C3D, yet when they get it they complain about not being able to go backwards. I can't use the alternator from my 2013 F-150 on my 1998 F-150, should I complain to Ford about not being backwards compatible?
Stated very well sir.
I know there are good technical reasons, but I do wish that the simple items that haven't changed (alignments, surfaces, cogo points) would survive the backwards trip, even if the upgraded items (corridors, pipe networks, pressure networks) do not.
-
.... but I do wish that the simple items that haven't changed (alignments, surfaces, cogo points) would survive the backwards trip, even if the upgraded items (corridors, pipe networks, pressure networks) do not.
I wholeheartedly agree! Cogopoints & surfaces haven't changed in 10 years, so why those can't survive is a mystery to me.
-
Anyone make the do everything for me button yet? I want that really bad. Maybe I'll just go sweep a sidewalk or something.
-
Anyone make the do everything for me button yet? I want that really bad. Maybe I'll just go sweep a sidewalk or something.
I had one of those for 2004 LT on my final gig. All it had to do was import a DXF from our engineering software into a copy of our template, zoom extents and save ... most of the engineers and half the techs still managed to muck it up with amazing regularity but few had any AutoCAD exposure at all and the rest didn't want any.
-
LandXML *wouldn't* be such a crappy option, if it didn't implicitly require that you loose any, and all applicable Layers, or Styles, etc. - even if this cannot be included within LandXML schema (interoperability?), this *should* still be possible from C3D --> C3D, IMO.
*throws a penny into the wishing well*
-
Anyone make the do everything for me button yet? I want that really bad. Maybe I'll just go sweep a sidewalk or something.
I had one of those for 2004 LT on my final gig. All it had to do was import a DXF from our engineering software into a copy of our template, zoom extents and save ... most of the engineers and half the techs still managed to muck it up with amazing regularity but few had any AutoCAD exposure at all and the rest didn't want any.
I am with you on that one. Over here I have a similar setup for plan setups. All Script / Macro based.
-
I have zero care about backwards compatibility.
I was just curious about 2017 functionality opinions.
-
I have zero care about backwards compatibility.
I was just curious about 2017 functionality opinions.
Unless someone else knows better, you're good to go then - 2017 seems to perform as good as 2016, and has a handful of new capabilities (more than 2015 + 2016 combined, IMO). :wink:
I haven't started using it for production yet, despite the fact that I have installed it on my workstation, as I'm too busy with work of my own to go around, set everyone up, and remove older versions (they do a lot of double clicking from File Explorer here) - I still have an engineer working in 2014, and some fellow designers in 2015 (never mind my Surveyor, who still uses 2000 + Eagle Point). :-D
-
Geesh, you have a lot on your plate! How do you not go stir crazy? lol.
-
Geesh, you have a lot on your plate! How do you not go stir crazy? lol.
Who says I don't?! Haha
It can be really tough at times, and certainly takes a toll - of the many gifts I possess, patience was not high on that list, which unfortunately comes out in posts, etc. more than I would like :oops: (i.e., gorilla vs chimp - inside joke @RK *yikes* ).
Yes, you could say that I do a few more things than most... Ultimately, there are worse problems to have though (like not having enough work), and I'm really wanting to reduce how much I do... There are simply more important things that I need to focus on outside of the workplace. :angel:
Cheers
-
@BB
800lb Gorillas rule.
-
@BB
800lb Gorillas rule.
:-D
-
2013-2016 can go either direction, with a few object exceptions I can't recall at the moment. I know they made the choice to break compatibility at this release because AutoCAD was supposed to go to a new DWG format as well. However, the new DWG format has been slower to implement than was planned so 2017 kept the 2013 dwg format...thus leaving the C3D team with their new features that can not be made to work within the constraints of the 2013-2016 C3D code. People want things to get better with C3D, yet when they get it they complain about not being able to go backwards. I can't use the alternator from my 2013 F-150 on my 1998 F-150, should I complain to Ford about not being backwards compatible?
I dunno, I have some old bullets that work just fine in a new gun, and some old guns that use new bullets just fine....lets compare apples to strawberries shall we?
-
The loss of compability seem overwhelmingly commercial. Shake the money tree! Especially for those you have to work with revit for some civil structures. Each year from now the same story or will 2018 like we used to with dwg?
-
who the hell ever knows with Autodesk, other than IF it forces ones decision to upgrade and or increases their revenue stream, well then that will most likely be what they do
-
Told my boss that 2018 was likely going to be a new dwg type and likely not backward compatible (we are still using 2014)... he basically told me to give Autodesk the bird lol... followed with (you can also tell them we aren't upgrading until 2020) haha....sucks because we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything. Our production pipeline (with 70 or so constant cad users) doesn't need the 3 or 4 items they focus on every year :(
-
.... we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything.
As long as you don't have to work for others who are using a newer version, you'll be fine.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do have to work for or with others who jump on the new versions and then everyone has to upgrade, or deal with the pain of not doing so.
Yeah, either way is painful actually...
-
Told my boss that 2018 was likely going to be a new dwg type and likely not backward compatible (we are still using 2014)... he basically told me to give Autodesk the bird lol... followed with (you can also tell them we aren't upgrading until 2020) haha....sucks because we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything. Our production pipeline (with 70 or so constant cad users) doesn't need the 3 or 4 items they focus on every year :(
More people, and companies need to send this message very loudly to their vendor, and or Autodesk directly.
The development pipeline and lack of response to problematic features or functions within Civil 3d should be an embarrassment to Autodesk.
All of the crapply label functions and or lack of function in gravity pipes alone should cause every programmer/developer at Autodesk to quit in shame
over their total failure.
-
Told my boss that 2018 was likely going to be a new dwg type and likely not backward compatible (we are still using 2014)... he basically told me to give Autodesk the bird lol... followed with (you can also tell them we aren't upgrading until 2020) haha....sucks because we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything. Our production pipeline (with 70 or so constant cad users) doesn't need the 3 or 4 items they focus on every year :(
More people, and companies need to send this message very loudly to their vendor, and or Autodesk directly.
The development pipeline and lack of response to problematic features or functions within Civil 3d should be an embarrassment to Autodesk.
All of the crapply label functions and or lack of function in gravity pipes alone should cause every programmer/developer at Autodesk to quit in shame
over their total failure.
Autodesk be like....
(http://i.imgur.com/Wk70gO2.gif)
-
They would be crying, if 20% of there customers told them to stuff their latest 'upgrade' and cancelled their subscriptions.
-
Told my boss that 2018 was likely going to be a new dwg type and likely not backward compatible (we are still using 2014)... he basically told me to give Autodesk the bird lol... followed with (you can also tell them we aren't upgrading until 2020) haha....sucks because we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything. Our production pipeline (with 70 or so constant cad users) doesn't need the 3 or 4 items they focus on every year :(
More people, and companies need to send this message very loudly to their vendor, and or Autodesk directly.
The development pipeline and lack of response to problematic features or functions within Civil 3d should be an embarrassment to Autodesk.
All of the crapply label functions and or lack of function in gravity pipes alone should cause every programmer/developer at Autodesk to quit in shame
over their total failure.
Autodesk be like....
LMAO ..........
-
They would be crying, if 20% of there customers told them to stuff their latest 'upgrade' and cancelled their subscriptions.
True, but they know that will never happen. Not even 0.02%
Planned obsolescence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
-
They would be crying, if 20% of there customers told them to stuff their latest 'upgrade' and cancelled their subscriptions.
True, but they know that will never happen. Not even 0.02%
Planned obsolescence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
Precisely.
-
They would be crying, if 20% of there customers told them to stuff their latest 'upgrade' and cancelled their subscriptions.
True, but they know that will never happen. Not even 0.02%
Planned obsolescence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
yeah, except the NEW stuff isn't any different or better than the 'obsolete' stuff.
perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of the term?
totally different than Forced path to Upgrade
-
I literally LMAO'd bahahahhahaha
Told my boss that 2018 was likely going to be a new dwg type and likely not backward compatible (we are still using 2014)... he basically told me to give Autodesk the bird lol... followed with (you can also tell them we aren't upgrading until 2020) haha....sucks because we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything. Our production pipeline (with 70 or so constant cad users) doesn't need the 3 or 4 items they focus on every year :(
More people, and companies need to send this message very loudly to their vendor, and or Autodesk directly.
The development pipeline and lack of response to problematic features or functions within Civil 3d should be an embarrassment to Autodesk.
All of the crapply label functions and or lack of function in gravity pipes alone should cause every programmer/developer at Autodesk to quit in shame
over their total failure.
Autodesk be like....
(http://i.imgur.com/Wk70gO2.gif)
-
.... we're at 2014 still but nothing has convinced us upgrading is worth anything.
As long as you don't have to work for others who are using a newer version, you'll be fine.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do have to work for or with others who jump on the new versions and then everyone has to upgrade, or deal with the pain of not doing so.
Yeah, either way is painful actually...
And as long as you aren't looking at an update to OS, or potentially rolling out 4K/UHD monitors. While you might be able to fudge an older piece of software onto a new OS or hardware there are no guarantees.