Is There a Point to the Augi Top Ten?

Every week I get emails from AutoCAD users wondering how to perform a certain task or get around a bug. (And that makes me wonder why they're asking me and not Autodesk. But that's beside today's point.)

I've been answering questions from AutoCAD users for more than 20 years now. (One of the earliest was, "Does AutoCAD run on Sun Microsystems or Apollo workstation computers?" At the time, the answer was, "Not yet." How things change in a mere couple of decades!) Since Feb 1995, I've logged about 900 questions from AutoCAD users -- that's roughly 1.5 a week, consulting services done free. It interests me to see what problems ground-level users are having.

For the last decade or so, the most common question asked of me has been about linetypes, a feature that's remained static in AutoCAD since Release 13.

Which makes me wonder why linetypes don't appear on the Augi Top Ten list. Augi is the Autodesk-funded User Group International, admirably run by volunteers on a free membership basis. They poll their members every so often, wondering what new features they most would like to see in the next AutoCAD.

In an earlier posting, I noted that none of the Top Ten (released last August) made it into AutoCAD 2007 (released seven months later). Shaan Hurley of Autodesk kindly explained to me that (1) there wasn't enough time; (2) Augi has three Top Ten lists a year; and more recently(3) he posted to Autodesk's Weblog that four out of a Top Ten list made it in.

Here's the parts I don't get:

1. Why aren't linetypes at the top of the Augi Top Ten?
2. Or even in the Top Ten at all?
3. Why are there 3 Top Ten lists a year, when AutoCAD is released just once a year?
4. Why is 7 months not enough time for software that's released every 12 months?
5. Do Augi executives know which features are going to be added to the next release of AutoCAD months (or years) before anyone else? (There's no point voting for features that are going to be included in the very next AutoCAD.)
6. Why did Autodesk include only 4 of the Top Ten features? Why not all 10?
7. Shouldn't that be 4 out of the Top 30, if there are 3 Top 10 lists a year?
8. If Autodesk includes just 4 (out of 30) requests in annual releases of AutoCAD, how big is the pile of ignored requests getting?
9. With a number as small as 4, could it be coincidence? (Autodesk was going to include them anyhow, and gosh darnit, wouldn't you know it, Augi happened to list them as well.)

Which leads to The Big Question: Autodesk tells us editors that they have the feature sets planned out until AutoCAD 2010, so is there any point to Augi having a Top Ten?

Like I said, I'm constantly being asked about linetypes, but Augi and Autodesk are oblivious to the need. Just this morning, I got asked yet again about parallel-line linetypes, and why defining them in acad.lin doesn't work in drawings. It's a decades-old problem that no one in power seems interested in fixing.

The answers could be as simple as this:

- The kind of user that joins Augi knows about linetype's limitations and isn't bothered by them.
- Making linetypes more flexible is such a difficult programming problem that Autodesk hasn't been able to rewrite the linetype code without a major overhaul of AutoCAD itself.

If nothing else, I want linetypes in AutoCAD fixed so I no longer need to answer questions about them!

Comments

[Brenda - AUGI Wish List]

Better linetypes was number 5 on the list presented to Autodesk in November 2005. It obviously couldn't be included in AutoCAD 2007, but I'm sure it is being looked at.

[Evan Yares]

"Making linetypes more flexible is such a difficult programming problem that Autodesk hasn't been able to rewrite the linetype code without a major overhaul of AutoCAD itself."

Bingo.

I believe that Autodesk has painted themselves into a corner on this one. It has to do with software architecture, and how objects are enumerated. Remember that linetypes apply not just to lines -- but to most all vector oriented objects, including ARX objects. AutoCAD has to be able to enumerate complex linestyles in 2D, 3D, in sheet sets, to printers... and more.

I suspect that it'd take more than just ripping out some code and redoing it.

But then, I'm only vaguely aware of AutoCAD's architecture. Chances are that there are only a handful of people at Autodesk who could even reasonably estimate the difficulty of the task -- and they're *not* managers.

(By the way -- I'm not picking on AutoCAD here. Unless a program has complex linetypes built in pretty early on, they're going to be incredibly hard to add. If Autodesk manages to get them added to AutoCAD, I think it'll be great for users.)

[Brian Myers]

Brenda posted a very good reply to your questions on the AUGI Forum here: http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=36917

In the future, you may wish to address the questions to one of the Wish List folks involved with AUGI, myself being one of them and Brenda, who answered your question on AUGI, being another.

To further add to what Brenda has said, Autodesk in the past has about 3 releases in advance planned out, but they will work in other commands/features as they fit well into the feature set.

To directly address your "big question" which was "so is there any point to Augi having a Top Ten?" Yes there is. See, by the time software hits the shelves the Alpha and Beta testers have been looking at the software since likely October or November. That means it hasn't been 7 months to implement a few wishes, they had more like 3 months during the time period where the programers are at their busiest. They are getting the progam ready for the Alpha testers to do their magic and management is breathing down their necks to make that dead-line on features decided upon much earlier. That being said, Yes, AUGI's member opinions do count... but at least give Autodesk a year to schedule some of the new features in.

As far as line types, if there is demand for it then nominate it, if the demand is as great as you mention then they should do well. Personally I don't care for the creation process of lines either, but at the same time I'm not sure if that meets a customer demand.. that's what the AUGI Wish List is for to help judge some of that demand.

In short, while I'm skeptical at times about the AUGI-Autodesk relationship, I have no doubt the AUGI volunteers believe in their efforts and that Autodesk does care about customer opinions... especially any opinions that could have a positive impact on their bottom line.

[MIchael Robinson]

Unfortunately, Bryan, the big question “Is There a Point to the Augi Top Ten?” cannot be answered by anyone on the AUGI Wish List team, nor should it be IMO. I personal believe that there is a point to the wish list and I am sure everyone on the wish list team would also believe that there is a point otherwise why you be involved? (Rhetorical question) This position usually blinds us to the validity of the program or ways to make it better.

This article is meant to spark conversation, which it has done. I believe this type of conversation is good; it ultimately helps make the wish list better. The wish list is not perfect, there is always room for improvement, and the greatest leaps forward usually come from asking the tough questions.

AUGI might be best served to REALY ask some questions. Bryan, you and the rest of the wish list team have an opportunity here, don’t just shrug it off and say “yes”, but to really ask the question. Is it worth it? “Yes”…Why?…Why is this questions being asked?…Can it be improved?…How?…What else can be done?

[Brian Myers]

Michael,

That wasn't the question. In fact, he stated that AUGI members have good intentions in their effort. But he publically called out Autodesk and the process and to those of us that work with this daily, he looked amazingly uneducated about how the process works from AUGI's end and from Autodesks end as well.

Could the process be better? Sure. Do you publically use facts that are incorrect to justify your point without asking anyone involved in the process? Maybe. Do you intentionally not do any investigation or use the wrong facts to back up your point? To me that's ethically wrong and what happened in this case.

One email.. one post... and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Or perhaps we would. But at least it would have been based on facts and for a Blog that has educated so many, now I have difficulty trusting the reliability of any facts posted within.

[Brian Myers]

I was a bit harsh in my previous answer.. I'm sorry...the questions asked were valid ones. My issue is with asking those questions in a public forum without asking any AUGI members first. We could have answered all 9 (with exception of the "Big Question" and provided a good answer.

[Michael Robinson]

Bryan, no apology is needed, you know that.

I think what you have some good points, but I would point out the big question as I read it is “Is There a Point to the Augi Top Ten?” it is the title of the article, at the top of the article and is referred to though-out the article. I think it is the question he is asking, but then again I did not write the article so maybe you are correct. That is what I took as the “big question”…besides we both know 42 is the answer .

Mike

[Brian Myers]

LOL 42... yes, I could use a Pan-Galactic Gargle-Blaster now. ;-)

[Martyn Day]

Concerning the AUGI - the 'I', as in International doesn't really hold any water here in the UK. The Autodesk User Group here went into melt-down, I think the last members retired, or voted themselves off . From my last conversations with them before they went back into hiding, the UK user group had come under considerable pressure to be merged into AUGI.
From the UK's perspective the AUGI has seemed and still seems very North American centric.
The UK team had done a very useful job on setting layering conventions for the AEC industry. I think that was their greatest contribution - standardisation.
My problem with these kind of organisations is the limits on freedom of speech that seems to be evident, perhaps due to the source of the funding or over zealous officers. In my experience, a good user group should always be on the verge of revolting :-)

[Eric Wing - ATP Manager]

To begin with, the only reason I am condescending to even reply to this is because this is the third time I have seen it.

It is very hard for me to swallow that this biased rant is even being published. The context has zero credibility, as does the author. To begin with, the issue of adding a specific linetype to the acad.lin file is a very small, personal issue. But this author, and this publication wishes to knock the credibility of AUGI over the topic in a very unprofessional manner. The author believes that the programmers at Autodesk aren't smart enough to code a simple linetype? Quite the contrary. When wishes from users arrive, there is a process in place which weeds out the wishes that actually exist. Multilines have existed in AutoCAD for quite some time. I, for one, need to know what the distance is between my lines. Now, if it is a sketch program that you require...I'm sure one can be obtained from....say... CompUSA. I hear that non CAD savvy people are saying good things about Autodesk sketch as well. I very much hope that this "wish" never sees the light of day. I have enough of a battle trying to prove that computer drafting IS more accurate than the old hand drafting style. Please don't insist on adding inaccurate capabilities to my drafters.

The AUGI top 10 has well served the CAD community, and has had a tremendous effect on the performance of the Autodesk products. It will continue to exist with or without the mindless comments from random, dime-a-dozen, spiteful, angry little bloggers.

Anyone reading this…. I think it’s a blog….who wished to debate me on this issue, feel free. But, I advise you to carefully research the topic before proceeding.

Furthermore, if you wish to learn about multilines, please check the AUGI Training Program (ATP) There will be a class coming along shortly. They are very easy to manipulate and accurate.

[Tony Tanzillo]

Tell me, what do you think about a software company that asks its customers to tell them what they would like to see added to the product they're using, then turns around, and stabs them right in the back, by not adding those things to the product they're using, but rather adding them to the product or 'crossgrade' they want to sell them next ?

[Darren Young]

Does the AUGI Top 10 (30 now) list serve a purpose? Yes.

The "30" list is to help provide feedback to Autodesk earlier in the design cycle. A top 10 list presented at AU the end of November doesn't do much for a product released in March.

But more to the point of the purpose of the top 10 (30) list...

The list serves as an officially recognized vehicle for Autodesk product users to make their product improvement wishes known to Autodesk. Autodesk get's bashed often enough for not listening to it's user base, this is one way, a very visible way, to let users know that they do listed.

Does everything make it into the product? For the religious inclined, perhaps you can understand this analogy...while you may pray to your particular flavor of god for things, God's always listening but doesn't always say yes.

No I don't think Autodesk is God. Carol Barts isn't God or even Carl Bass although I have heard many describe Lynn Allen as a goddess but that's beside the point.

But frankly, I don't want end users designing the product I make my living with. Most don't understand software development or proper software architecture and blindly following them will quickly kill your product.

I recall back around release 2002/2004 most of the users (many of them power users) thought AutoCAD was a dead product. It's reached maturity and there's not much left to do with it. I never believed it but for those that did, do you want them desinging the next AutoCAD? I certainly don't.

My nature, top lists are typically (not always) seemingly smaller request items (although not always technically small) and aren't very "big picture" and it's those "big picture" items that will push your prodcut to the head of the pack in the market place. Hence, Autodesk's strategy of each release having a "theme" instead of the doomed "extension" approach of years gone by.

I recall several years ago, one of the Inventor wishes submitted to AUGI was "Make Inventor more like Mechanical Desktop". Do you want this person designing the product you work with every day? After all, if you want Inventor more like MDT, couldn't you use...ummm...lets say...MDT? Making Inventor like MDT is what they said, but it's not what the user truely wanted.

If you watch closely, you'll see that many people typically ask for things that will solve their problems. But what they are asking for are things that typically address the symptoms not eliminate the problem in the first place. And that by itself, leads to a lot of the "top list" items not being put in the product.

As someone who manages the installation and customization of a large number of CAD users, its obvious to me if not anyone else, that those seemingly "little" requests from my end users about 50% of the time will bite me in the rear when I least expect it as they are typically bigger issues than the end user realizes. And that's why a number of many of their little requests, don't get done. I lead them they don't lead me. I'm paid to have the bigger picture in mind while their paid to draft and design. Blur that relationship and while there may be some short term qucik gains, the long term pains will quickly overcome them.

[CB]

Right on TONY!!!! Its good to see that not everyone is dupped into the waste of time that is the "wish list".

[Brenda]

Tony,

I call it a company that wants to make money. I could be wrong, but isn't that what being in business is all about? They could just keep developing a product without looking for feedback; they are still going to charge money for it - that is what businesses do. At least this way, there is some feedback involved.

But then again, no one ever said you have to use or like the wish list; it just isn't necessary to bash it.