Topic: Civil 3D 2017 | New Features

[BlackBox]

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.

[alanjt]

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. :\

[mjfarrell]

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.

[Jeff_M]

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?

[rkmcswain]

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.

[Jeff_M]

.... 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.

[nobody]

Anyone make the do everything for me button yet?  I want that really bad.  Maybe I'll just go sweep a sidewalk or something. 

[Dinosaur]

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.

[BlackBox]

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*

[MSTG007]

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.

[alanjt]

I have zero care about backwards compatibility.
I was just curious about 2017 functionality opinions.

[BlackBox]

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).

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).

[MSTG007]

Geesh, you have a lot on your plate! How do you not go stir crazy? lol.

[BlackBox]

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 (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.


Cheers

[rkmcswain]

@BB

800lb Gorillas rule.