Civil 3D 2017+ backwards compatibility

[CCarleton]

Edit: This is specific to C3D. A mod can move it as I placed it in the wrong forum.

Curious on people's input on this.

2010-2016 talk with each other, and in my experience most clients/contractors are running one of these versions. When 2017 released and it didn't talk to 2016 or below I assumed it was a new tier (or that was the gossip I had heard). IE: 2017-2023 were going to talk to each other. Instead, 2017 doesn't talk to 2018, and I assume it will be the same with 2019, 2020, etc.

We're a company that is updating yearly, in part because there's no real oversight on this stuff, and we have a particular client that upgrades every year so one department just outright upgrades and doesn't keep the old version. Because the Survey department needs to be compatible with every department they also upgrade and because every other department needs to be able to work with Survey drawings everyone else upgrades. It's basically a snowball of stupid if you ask me.

Since 2017+ isn't compatible with 2016 I've been keeping my department's template in 2016 with the logic that it allows us to be compatible from 2010+, and if a client was 2010 we could give them an intelligent drawing (because saving a 2017+ version down to 2016 dumbs the drawing down and potentially makes it useless to them depending on what they want). However, I believe in January 2019 our license gets updated to having access to 2019, 2018, and 2017 meaning I will no longer have access to 2016, and the drawing will probably be forced to 2017 whenever it gets updated.

So...what do. Am I being weird for keeping it in an old version, is there a better work around? Is it just a new turning point for CAD life for people using old products and they'll just have to upgrade to at least 2017 if they want intelligent drawings? How are other people handling templates in this new world were versions aren't talking to each other?

[rkmcswain]

AutoCAD DWG versions are as follows
DWG Version : (Software version that uses it as a default)

2018 : (AutoCAD 2018)
2013 : (AutoCAD 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
2010 : (AutoCAD 2010, 2011, 2012)
2007 : (AutoCAD 2007, 2008, 2009)
2004 : (AutoCAD 2005, 2005, 2006)
2000 : (AutoCAD 2000, 2000i, 2002)
R14 : (AutoCAD R14)
R13 : (AutoCAD R13)
and so on.... (see this for more details)

If you are talking about Civil 3D (you posted in the AutoCAD forum, not Civil 3D?) - then all of the above remains true for DWG versions, but Civil 3D strayed away from tradition and made a change to the AEC object architecture for C3D 2017, that made the Civil portion incompatible with earlier versions.

Civil 3D backwards compatibility **only** existed between the 2013 through 2016 versions. For example, C3D 2012 was not backwards compatible with C3D 2011, even though they shared the same DWG format. The same is true for all other versions of C3D, except 2013 through 2016. You cannot send your client with C3D 2010, a C3D 2016 DWG and expect it to work in their C3D 2010.

We have the same problems as you describe, except the DWGs here are round tripped. Survey references Production drawings, and Production references Survey drawings.
So they each work in both versions as needed. All new projects are started in C3D 2017.

As time goes on, the "2017" can be replaced by "2018", "2019", etc. as needed.

[CCarleton]

If you are talking about Civil 3D (you posted in the AutoCAD forum, not Civil 3D?)

Yup, looks like I clicked my wrong bookmark and ended up in General CAD. A mod can move it if they want.

Civil 3D backwards compatibility **only** existed between the 2013 through 2016 versions. For example, C3D 2012 was not backwards compatible with C3D 2011, even though they shared the same DWG format. The same is true for all other versions of C3D, except 2013 through 2016. You cannot send your client with C3D 2010, a C3D 2016 DWG and expect it to work in their C3D 2010.

Oh, fair enough. I started CAD in 2010, but that company didn't utilize C3D until like 2014 when they acquired a survey team, and then I left shortly after to a company that's been using it for a long time.

We have the same problems as you describe, except the DWGs here are round tripped. Survey references Production drawings, and Production references Survey drawings.
So they each work in both versions as needed. All new projects are started in C3D 2017.

As time goes on, the "2017" can be replaced by "2018", "2019", etc. as needed.

Hm. So do you never need to provide outside clients with drawings or if that situation arises you just tell those clients tough kaboodles? Even though I was off with 2013 instead of 2010 the idea of keeping our templates in 2016 was to allow a certain level of backwards compatibility that 2017 and beyond currently doesn't provide.

[Wanderer]

Cool, I moved this thread from the AutoCAD forum to the Civil3D forum. Hope you can get some more eyes on it here. Cheers!

[remi678731]

Edit: This is specific to C3D. A mod can move it as I placed it in the wrong forum.

Curious on people's input on this.

2010-2016 talk with each other, and in my experience most clients/contractors are running one of these versions. When 2017 released and it didn't talk to 2016 or below I assumed it was a new tier (or that was the gossip I had heard). IE: 2017-2023 were going to talk to each other. Instead, 2017 doesn't talk to 2018, and I assume it will be the same with 2019, 2020, etc.

We're a company that is updating yearly, in part because there's no real oversight on this stuff, and we have a particular client that upgrades every year so one department just outright upgrades and doesn't keep the old version. Because the Survey department needs to be compatible with every department they also upgrade and because every other department needs to be able to work with Survey drawings everyone else upgrades. It's basically a snowball of stupid if you ask me.

Since 2017+ isn't compatible with 2016 I've been keeping my department's template in 2016 with the logic that it allows us to be compatible from 2010+, and if a client was 2010 we could give them an intelligent drawing (because saving a 2017+ version down to 2016 dumbs the drawing down and potentially makes it useless to them depending on what they want). However, I believe in January 2019 our license gets updated to having access to 2019, 2018, and 2017 meaning I will no longer have access to 2016, and the drawing will probably be forced to 2017 whenever it gets updated.

So...what do. Am I being weird for keeping it in an old version, is there a better work around? Is it just a new turning point for CAD life for people using old products and they'll just have to upgrade to at least 2017 if they want intelligent drawings? How are other people handling templates in this new world were versions aren't talking to each other?

HI
Actually you can move them back and forth its just a pain in the neck. but check into ACAD export and landxml import/export

[BlackBox]

Hm. So do you never need to provide outside clients with drawings or if that situation arises you just tell those clients tough kaboodles?

Nah, just Export C3D-->ACAD, or AecObjExplode any C3D Objects (a few times?) prior to WBLOCK a portion of your drawing, and send them the resultant DWG. If they need the C3D Objects, and are running an older version, send them LandXML too.

Even though I was off with 2013 instead of 2010 the idea of keeping our templates in 2016 was to allow a certain level of backwards compatibility that 2017 and beyond currently doesn't provide.

By using a 2016 template, Civil 3D 2017+ upgrades any legacy components at QNEW (which slows DWG open, etc.), and as soon as you SAVE said DWG using 2017+, it's now inherently not backwards compatible, no?


Cheers

[rkmcswain]

Hm. So do you never need to provide outside clients with drawings or if that situation arises you just tell those clients tough kaboodles?

I advise our teams to sit down and work out file formats and software versions with clients, partners, etc.*before* the project even starts.

Some don't listen and then I get a call a day after they make a submittal - asking why their client can't open our DWGS.

[CCarleton]

Nah, just Export C3D-->ACAD, or AecObjExplode any C3D Objects (a few times?) prior to WBLOCK a portion of your drawing, and send them the resultant DWG. If they need the C3D Objects, and are running an older version, send them LandXML too.

Hm. Honestly, I've never explored these kinds of methods. Kind of feeling silly.

By using a 2016 template, Civil 3D 2017+ upgrades any legacy components at QNEW (which slows DWG open, etc.), and as soon as you SAVE said DWG using 2017+, it's now inherently not backwards compatible, no?

Correct, the method to the madness was that we could get a DWG in 2016 if needed. Some of us still have 2016, and we still have access to 2016 download as it stands so if someone had to provide a 2016 drawing it'd be possible to do, and it'd be easier to have a template in 2016 format rather than 2017+. I currently maintain 2016, 2017, and 2018 on my computer. Part of the reason we started paying closer attention to this was we had a client that we did a topo for that wanted an electronic drawing, and it was done in 2017 so the person ended up redoing it because the client has some lower version and we weren't aware of any methods to get around that problem. That incident caused me to choose not to advance the template to a new CAD version. I'm really not concerned with the slowness created by doing this to be honest, doesn't surprise me it's a thing though.

I'm familiar with LandXML, I've used it for surface exporting/importing, but I guess I never considered it for C3D objects in general. For some reason I just assumed it was for surfaces, not intelligent objects. Reviewing the prospector tab it looks like you can pretty much export anything to a LandXML file (Tested with cogo points from 2017 to 2016). For me the stuff I'd care about is moving over the surface, points and the survey figures along with any additional non-C3D objects.

So right now I'm trying to think through the workflow of properly downgrading a drawing for an earlier version, specifically with survey data with a database. I could export out a landxml of the surface, but for points I'm not sure I see the point (#puns) because we use survey databases for csv importing, I can just dump the database into any old drawing, and assuming it's been managed properly it'll be good to go (and I don't believe databases are picky about what version of CAD). I'd just dump the database into the new drawing and be done with it, and also get my survey figures. My only gripe with this method is that the surface would not be linked with the figures (for breaklines) or points. I'd almost argue just dumping the database in a new drawing and rebuilding would be best practice. If the surface was huge and required a lot of editing then maybe not. Theoretically if the surface was complete a LandXML of it would be fine I suppose, none of the objects would be interact at that point.

I advise our teams to sit down and work out file formats and software versions with clients, partners, etc.*before* the project even starts.

Some don't listen and then I get a call a day after they make a submittal - asking why their client can't open our DWGS.

I don't believe this. Are you insinuating that people don't plan ahead and just plow full steam ahead? That's-that's crazy. You're crazy.

In all seriousness I'm trying to ask the question when interacting with other departments, and if I ever get an outside client request (rare) I know better than to not ask at this point.

[BlackBox]

Hm. Honestly, I've never explored these kinds of methods. Kind of feeling silly.

Well, don't do that... We all start somewhere, and there's always room for improvement.

Correct, the method to the madness was that we could get a DWG in 2016 if needed. Some of us still have 2016, and we still have access to 2016 download as it stands so if someone had to provide a 2016 drawing it'd be possible to do, and it'd be easier to have a template in 2016 format rather than 2017+. I currently maintain 2016, 2017, and 2018 on my computer. Part of the reason we started paying closer attention to this was we had a client that we did a topo for that wanted an electronic drawing, and it was done in 2017 so the person ended up redoing it because the client has some lower version and we weren't aware of any methods to get around that problem. That incident caused me to choose not to advance the template to a new CAD version. I'm really not concerned with the slowness created by doing this to be honest, doesn't surprise me it's a thing though.

I'm familiar with LandXML, I've used it for surface exporting/importing, but I guess I never considered it for C3D objects in general. For some reason I just assumed it was for surfaces, not intelligent objects. Reviewing the prospector tab it looks like you can pretty much export anything to a LandXML file (Tested with cogo points from 2017 to 2016). For me the stuff I'd care about is moving over the surface, points and the survey figures along with any additional non-C3D objects.

So right now I'm trying to think through the workflow of properly downgrading a drawing for an earlier version, specifically with survey data with a database. I could export out a landxml of the surface, but for points I'm not sure I see the point (#puns) because we use survey databases for csv importing, I can just dump the database into any old drawing, and assuming it's been managed properly it'll be good to go (and I don't believe databases are picky about what version of CAD). I'd just dump the database into the new drawing and be done with it, and also get my survey figures. My only gripe with this method is that the surface would not be linked with the figures (for breaklines) or points. I'd almost argue just dumping the database in a new drawing and rebuilding would be best practice. If the surface was huge and required a lot of editing then maybe not. Theoretically if the surface was complete a LandXML of it would be fine I suppose, none of the objects would be interact at that point.

You do what you want, just know that you need not upgrade (and thereby lose) your 2016 template, just because you upgrade it to 2017+ and save it as a version-specific template. Make some major helpful change to your 2016 template, you can still upgrade that and save it as your newer, version-specific template (after backing up, of course, just in case).

Survey DB is very helpful if you need to provide 2016 C3D drawings, LandXML is helpful for pretty much everything else (you lose Layer and Style assignments for COGO though; Grrr), and is especially useful for Surfaces that the recipient need not rebuild.

Your firm must get paid a lot more than we do, as you're absorbing all of the labor for providing something that works for the recipient, instead of giving them what you have and they're able to make it work... As example: we inherited a large +/- 540 AC subdivision, and the initial firm only provided us Vectorworks (VWX) file, despite my asking them to export it to DWG (which it can do)... I ended up having to download a Vectorworks trial to do same for myself to meet some early stage deadlines. Semper Gumby Haha


Cheers

- - - Updated - - -

... Civil 3D 2017+ upgrades any legacy components....

If memory serves, there may be an issue with Pipe Network Rules; I vaguely recall reading a KB article that basically said you need to recreate Rules, but that may have been when we migrated from 2014/2015 to 2016. Not sure if newer versions (finally!) handle this for you or not.

[CCarleton]

You do what you want, just know that you need not upgrade (and thereby lose) your 2016 template, just because you upgrade it to 2017+ and save it as a version-specific template. Make some major helpful change to your 2016 template, you can still upgrade that and save it as your newer, version-specific template (after backing up, of course, just in case).

Right, but someday I won't have access to 2016. It sounds like you're saying keep the 2016 version off in a secret spot for myself, update it, then save it to the server in a 2017 version for people to use. The reason I decided to inquire how other people are managing templates is that, on the horizon, I'll be losing access to 2016 and someday, whenever it happens, a client is going to get a drawing they can't open because they run 2013-2016. And if they can't use it they can't downgrade it themselves, we'll have to be the ones to do it at that point either through downgrading to their version or just giving them landXML files.

Survey DB is very helpful if you need to provide 2016 C3D drawings, LandXML is helpful for pretty much everything else (you lose Layer and Style assignments for COGO though; Grrr), and is especially useful for Surfaces that the recipient need not rebuild.

I tested with cogo points from 2017 to 2016. I'm pretty sure Layer and style assignment was fine? Although...couldn't you select all the cogo points and apply description keysets?

Your firm must get paid a lot more than we do, as you're absorbing all of the labor for providing something that works for the recipient, instead of giving them what you have and they're able to make it work... As example: we inherited a large +/- 540 AC subdivision, and the initial firm only provided us Vectorworks (VWX) file, despite my asking them to export it to DWG (which it can do)... I ended up having to download a Vectorworks trial to do same for myself to meet some early stage deadlines. Semper Gumby Haha

Can't really comment on this I guess, haha. It really hasn't been a hassle to keep it in 2016 format and I'd have no problem telling people using super old versions of CAD or LandDesktop tough kaboodles, get with the 21st century. There is only so much you can do and if you're going to run CAD 2005 or something then sucks to be you.

Maybe I'm being a bit aggressive or young and dumb, but I feel like if you're hired to provide a product and your product doesn't work for the client you've failed the client, provided of course you haven't been asked to provide a CAD drawing in 2017, you do, and then it turns out the project manager didn't understand that 2017 wouldn't work in 2016. Sure, we'll fix it for you...for more money. But if you leave them high and dry they're never going to hire you again, sometimes that matters sometimes that doesn't. At the very least I want to know how to approach the problem and get some sort of a product put together for them (such as quick and easy landXML), and maybe that's all I should worry about doing in the future: Here's a surface, here's some points, here's some survey figures. Have fun.