a well thought of marketing trick

[Anonymous]

Amazing how many people fall for this marketing trick 98% of the people
maybe?
AUTOCAD 2000 ====> r-15
AUTOCAD 2000i ====> r-15i
AUTOCAD 2002 ====> r-16

now wonder why this product was so named

oh my version must be old I better upgrade to the AUTOCAD 2003 release


HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.DWG\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
....
...
..
.
on and on if look in the registry for your version

[Anonymous]

s miller wrote:

> Amazing how many people fall for this marketing trick ...

Perhaps the programmer who assigned the values for ACADVER described it
best.

2000 = 15.0
2000i = 15.05
2002 = 15.06

Terry

[Anonymous]

So what is your solution? How can we avoid this marketing trick?

Tore

"s miller" wrote in message
news:3BA25804.595666C9@psu.edu...
> Amazing how many people fall for this marketing trick 98% of the people
> maybe?
> AUTOCAD 2000 ====> r-15
> AUTOCAD 2000i ====> r-15i
> AUTOCAD 2002 ====> r-16
>
> now wonder why this product was so named
>
> oh my version must be old I better upgrade to the AUTOCAD 2003 release
>
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.DWG\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> ....
> ...
> ..
> .
> on and on if look in the registry for your version
>

[Anonymous]

I'm missing something? What's the trick?
We know when rel. 14 came out - we know when the others came out. The age of
each one is quite obvious.
Using 15.0X in writting programming code is simpler than "AutoCAD 2002"...

"Tore Hanson" wrote in message
news:9DB33A02AE5FB88AC95B8BAD6F4B06A1@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> So what is your solution? How can we avoid this marketing trick?
>
> Tore
>
> "s miller" wrote in message
> news:3BA25804.595666C9@psu.edu...
> > Amazing how many people fall for this marketing trick 98% of the people
> > maybe?
> > AUTOCAD 2000 ====> r-15
> > AUTOCAD 2000i ====> r-15i
> > AUTOCAD 2002 ====> r-16
> >
> > now wonder why this product was so named
> >
> > oh my version must be old I better upgrade to the AUTOCAD 2003 release
> >
> >
> > HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> > HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.DWG\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> > HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> > ....
> > ...
> > ..
> > .
> > on and on if look in the registry for your version
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2 is insulting
to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.

-Jon

Aaron Rumple wrote:

> I'm missing something? What's the trick?

[Anonymous]

simple answer--DONT BUY IT!! if enough of us professional designers
would boycott Autodesk's crass attempt to force us to constantly pay
them for something that we dont need or want, then maybe, just maybe,
their stockholders will listen to the marketplace's demands.

Tore Hanson wrote:
>
> So what is your solution? How can we avoid this marketing trick?
>
> Tore

[Anonymous]

Come on Jon. That is uncalled for;-(...

Bud

I guess you don't do much dimensioning.
"naturat" wrote in message
news:3BA28F91.149C800D@sonic.net...
> Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2 is
insulting
> to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.
>
> -Jon
>
> Aaron Rumple wrote:
>
> > I'm missing something? What's the trick?
>

[Anonymous]

You know Barry,

I remember thinking the same thing back when I moved from 2.6 to R9, then
R10, then R11, then R12, then R13, then R14 and so on. But after getting up
on the learning curve I found I was able to be more productive with each new
release. In fact in most cases it was waiting for my third party apps to
catch up that cost me the most time. But hey, I could always go back to my
drafting board;-)... I had the same problem with CorelDRAW. I hated the
new release when it first came out. then I used it for a while and found I
could do some very kewl things with it, and even get faster. All programs
move forward, just like the Operating systems. I know I don't want to go
back to R13 and Windows 95 ;-)...

Take care.

Bud



"Barry Shev" wrote in message
news:3BA386D1.68320D5E@netvision.net.il...
> simple answer--DONT BUY IT!! if enough of us professional designers
> would boycott Autodesk's crass attempt to force us to constantly pay
> them for something that we dont need or want, then maybe, just maybe,
> their stockholders will listen to the marketplace's demands.
>
> Tore Hanson wrote:
> >
> > So what is your solution? How can we avoid this marketing trick?
> >
> > Tore

[Anonymous]

Could I maybe suggest my sequence of upgrades

> AUTOCAD 2000 ====> r-15
> AUTOCAD 2000i ====> r-15i
> AUTOCAD 2002 ====> r-15ii

Bruce Bromley



"s miller" wrote in message
news:3BA25804.595666C9@psu.edu...
> Amazing how many people fall for this marketing trick 98% of the people
> maybe?
> AUTOCAD 2000 ====> r-15
> AUTOCAD 2000i ====> r-15i
> AUTOCAD 2002 ====> r-16
>
> now wonder why this product was so named
>
> oh my version must be old I better upgrade to the AUTOCAD 2003 release
>
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Autodesk\AutoCAD\R15.0
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.DWG\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AutoCAD.Drawing.15
> ....
> ...
> ..
> .
> on and on if look in the registry for your version
>

[Anonymous]

Have to agree with Jon on this one.
Its nothing but a joke!!

Bruce

"Bud Schroeder" wrote in message
news:8EEA9B8BCC70AB3523F99A4CCDF0BB69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Come on Jon. That is uncalled for;-(...
>
> Bud
>
> I guess you don't do much dimensioning.
> "naturat" wrote in message
> news:3BA28F91.149C800D@sonic.net...
> > Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2 is
> insulting
> > to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.
> >
> > -Jon
> >
> > Aaron Rumple wrote:
> >
> > > I'm missing something? What's the trick?
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Sorry you feel that way Bruce. I disagree. I also know Jon and that is
why I am disappointed in the comments. AutoCAD 2002 is a great release of
AutoCAD! But as a long time user, I know people are slow to adopt a new
release. That is just the way it is and always has been. BTW, I had to
load up my R12, R13 and R14 last week. I can tell you this much. I'll keep
my AutoCAD 2002;-)...

Also instead of saying it is a joke, why not contribute to what you and Jon
would like to see in it. That would be the constructive way to do this.

Take care.

Bud


"Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
news:91606A5CD126CD2F3F3248BFD3C426BB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Have to agree with Jon on this one.
> Its nothing but a joke!!
>
> Bruce
>
> "Bud Schroeder" wrote in message
> news:8EEA9B8BCC70AB3523F99A4CCDF0BB69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Come on Jon. That is uncalled for;-(...
> >
> > Bud
> >
> > I guess you don't do much dimensioning.
> > "naturat" wrote in message
> > news:3BA28F91.149C800D@sonic.net...
> > > Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2 is
> > insulting
> > > to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.
> > >
> > > -Jon
> > >
> > > Aaron Rumple wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm missing something? What's the trick?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Bud.

What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we were
forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to 2002 that a
typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that can
justify the cost.

I know of all the new features & personally cant see the monetory value of
upgrading anywhere justifies the cost.

Bruce


"Bud Schroeder" wrote in message
news:172E699F140DD7FDE371589EE4539AD5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Sorry you feel that way Bruce. I disagree. I also know Jon and that is
> why I am disappointed in the comments. AutoCAD 2002 is a great release of
> AutoCAD! But as a long time user, I know people are slow to adopt a new
> release. That is just the way it is and always has been. BTW, I had to
> load up my R12, R13 and R14 last week. I can tell you this much. I'll
keep
> my AutoCAD 2002;-)...
>
> Also instead of saying it is a joke, why not contribute to what you and
Jon
> would like to see in it. That would be the constructive way to do this.
>
> Take care.
>
> Bud
>
>
> "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> news:91606A5CD126CD2F3F3248BFD3C426BB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Have to agree with Jon on this one.
> > Its nothing but a joke!!
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > "Bud Schroeder" wrote in message
> > news:8EEA9B8BCC70AB3523F99A4CCDF0BB69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Come on Jon. That is uncalled for;-(...
> > >
> > > Bud
> > >
> > > I guess you don't do much dimensioning.
> > > "naturat" wrote in message
> > > news:3BA28F91.149C800D@sonic.net...
> > > > Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2
is
> > > insulting
> > > > to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.
> > > >
> > > > -Jon
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Rumple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm missing something? What's the trick?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms do). If so the
block attribute tools will pay for themselves very quickly....
Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will eliminate a
lot of errors - which is money in the bank.

"Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Bud.
>
> What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we were
> forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to 2002 that
a
> typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that can
> justify the cost.

[Anonymous]

Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 & DBase (the good
ol dos days LOL )

Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings having
consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need that feature on
an ongoing basis.

The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.

I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy on forced
upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release unlike others
the value is not there comparitively
IE
R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It took until the
C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of other niceities.
R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money IMHO.

Bruce


"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms do). If so the
> block attribute tools will pay for themselves very quickly....
> Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will eliminate a
> lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
>
> "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Bud.
> >
> > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we were
> > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to 2002
that
> a
> > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that can
> > justify the cost.
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

I'm not agree with you, acad 2002 is good patch ! .... but it would be free.

Now you pay for the patch, you pay for the Express Tools and tomorrow ?

Layer translation .... ok to pay for it ......but in a Express CADmanager
Tools

BTO

(sorry for my poor english)

Bruce Bromley a écrit dans le message :
D6D748D981F5FB912419B54AF5133894@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 & DBase (the
good
> ol dos days LOL )
>
> Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings having
> consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need that feature
on
> an ongoing basis.
>
> The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.
>
> I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy on forced
> upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release unlike others
> the value is not there comparitively
> IE
> R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
> R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It took until the
> C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
> R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
> R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of other
niceities.
> R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
> Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money IMHO.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> "Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
> news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms do). If so
the
> > block attribute tools will pay for themselves very quickly....
> > Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will eliminate
a
> > lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
> >
> > "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> > news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Bud.
> > >
> > > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we
were
> > > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to 2002
> that
> > a
> > > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that can
> > > justify the cost.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

You can always stop upgrading: it is a choice you have, no one
can 'force' you to do it.
There is nothing wrong with just stopping, a lot of firms I know
will stop for now at R14, even past January2002. Their choice,
and yours too if you wish 😉

--
Dean Saadallah
www.pendean.com
---
"Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
news:D6D748D981F5FB912419B54AF5133894@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 &
DBase (the good
> ol dos days LOL )
>
> Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings
having
> consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need
that feature on
> an ongoing basis.
>
> The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.
>
> I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy
on forced
> upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release
unlike others
> the value is not there comparitively
> IE
> R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
> R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It
took until the
> C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
> R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
> R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of
other niceities.
> R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
> Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money
IMHO.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> "Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
> news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms
do). If so the
> > block attribute tools will pay for themselves very
quickly....
> > Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will
eliminate a
> > lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
> >
> > "Bruce Bromley" wrote in
message
> > news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Bud.
> > >
> > > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in
upgrading (we were
> > > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from
2000i to 2002
> that
> > a
> > > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit
from that can
> > > justify the cost.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

I agree with what Bruce says here in a later email. Having been with AutoCAD
since the old 2.x days some 16 or so years ago, I've seen various versions of
ACAD that were huge leaps forward in CAD, and others that were jokes. In my day
to day CAD work doing 2D drafting for Arch and Elec, doing 3D modeling and
rendering, being a systems manager and finally doing tutoring and ACAD training
I find that the few commands that were included with ACAD aren't of that great
of a benifit. I perfectly understand ACAD's desire to move people forward so
they aren't having to maintain support for obsolete versions, but when moving
forward there should be something there to make people want to upgrade. I find
the very thought of being asked to buy extension packs that will be inculded in
the next version to be insulting. Why buy now when I can get it free in a
year. If I do buy now, why should I have to pay for it in the next upgrade. As
for the tools themselves, the layer stuff doesn't do much for us - as a
consultant I'd have to setup a translator for every client - get more than a few
clients and it quickly becomes more time consuming than it's worth esp. if the
clients aren't consistent themselves. As for the standards - having standards
is great, policing it is time consuming and unless you can do something about
it, most architects will thumb their noses at a cad manager telling them how to
draft. XML... I'll wait for the movie 🙂 There's only about 16 or so new
commands total in the new verision....

In previous releases like from r14 to A2k there was tons of publicity, there
were 128 reasons to upgrade... there was all this good juicy stuff. In A2ki to
A2k2 it's hard to even find much coming from Autodesk's marketing saying it's
good. I find that if the marketers can't find much in the way of positive
selling spin, there ain't much to the product to sell.

The pluses....
3D orbit center is cool and should have been in the original.
True Assoc. Dims... very cool - one of the big pluses in my book that make it
worth while.
Saved Name change on crash - a nice tool since it crashes allot under Win9x.
However, while this is a nice plus, on the neg side of this we're finding that
about 10% of the time when it does crash it takes the file with it and creates a
totally corrupt file that crashes ACAD on recovery. I've been trying to focus
when/how this is happening before I post anything more on it, but it seems like
it has to do with the xref edit functions.
The scale text function is great, but it's more like a express tool at this
point.

My suggestion to Autodesk at this point to make people less grumpy with their
purchases and upgrades would be to not do the Express Tools. To hold off on the
Extensions. Quit trying to bilk the coustomers for more money. Instead wait
the 18 months and roll it all up into a single package with bug improvements,
further functionality, etc. and call it a new version.... and to wait till the
year 2002 before selling the 2002 version. This will make the product appear
like it has allot more to it, and it will rather than feeding it to people
slowly.

-Jon



Bud Schroeder wrote:

> Sorry you feel that way Bruce. I disagree. I also know Jon and that is
> why I am disappointed in the comments. AutoCAD 2002 is a great release of
> AutoCAD! But as a long time user, I know people are slow to adopt a new
> release. That is just the way it is and always has been. BTW, I had to
> load up my R12, R13 and R14 last week. I can tell you this much. I'll keep
> my AutoCAD 2002;-)...
>
> Also instead of saying it is a joke, why not contribute to what you and Jon
> would like to see in it. That would be the constructive way to do this.
>
> Take care.
>
> Bud
>
> "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> news:91606A5CD126CD2F3F3248BFD3C426BB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Have to agree with Jon on this one.
> > Its nothing but a joke!!
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > "Bud Schroeder" wrote in message
> > news:8EEA9B8BCC70AB3523F99A4CCDF0BB69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Come on Jon. That is uncalled for;-(...
> > >
> > > Bud
> > >
> > > I guess you don't do much dimensioning.
> > > "naturat" wrote in message
> > > news:3BA28F91.149C800D@sonic.net...
> > > > Because the amount of program that's been changed from A2ki to A2k2 is
> > > insulting
> > > > to anyone who spent the money on it or will have to in the future.
> > > >
> > > > -Jon
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Rumple wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm missing something? What's the trick?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Anonymous]

Thats a great idea. Stop upgrading and each of our $7,500 license lapses
after a couplke of years.
(Yes each seat cost $7,500 in Australia)

Bruce


"Dean Saadallah" wrote in message
news:EED675EDEB9011F9C5F2E22BD63CB8DC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> You can always stop upgrading: it is a choice you have, no one
> can 'force' you to do it.
> There is nothing wrong with just stopping, a lot of firms I know
> will stop for now at R14, even past January2002. Their choice,
> and yours too if you wish 😉
>
> --
> Dean Saadallah
> www.pendean.com
> ---
> "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> news:D6D748D981F5FB912419B54AF5133894@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 &
> DBase (the good
> > ol dos days LOL )
> >
> > Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings
> having
> > consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need
> that feature on
> > an ongoing basis.
> >
> > The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.
> >
> > I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy
> on forced
> > upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release
> unlike others
> > the value is not there comparitively
> > IE
> > R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
> > R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It
> took until the
> > C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
> > R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
> > R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of
> other niceities.
> > R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
> > Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money
> IMHO.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > "Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
> > news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms
> do). If so the
> > > block attribute tools will pay for themselves very
> quickly....
> > > Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will
> eliminate a
> > > lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
> > >
> > > "Bruce Bromley" wrote in
> message
> > > news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > Bud.
> > > >
> > > > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in
> upgrading (we were
> > > > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from
> 2000i to 2002
> > that
> > > a
> > > > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit
> from that can
> > > > justify the cost.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Actually I have to disagree about the 12 to 13 upgrade being appalling. I
work in 3D and version 13 was a godsend. The 3D tools have been getting
better and better all the time. Of course if you are strictly a 2d drafter
then I understand your opinion. However not everyone uses Autocad the same
way. Perhaps Autocad Light would be a less expensive route for strictly 2D
work?

Tore

"Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
news:D6D748D981F5FB912419B54AF5133894@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 & DBase (the
good
> ol dos days LOL )
>
> Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings having
> consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need that feature
on
> an ongoing basis.
>
> The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.
>
> I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy on forced
> upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release unlike others
> the value is not there comparitively
> IE
> R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
> R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It took until the
> C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
> R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
> R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of other
niceities.
> R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
> Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money IMHO.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> "Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
> news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms do). If so
the
> > block attribute tools will pay for themselves very quickly....
> > Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will eliminate
a
> > lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
> >
> > "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> > news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Bud.
> > >
> > > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we
were
> > > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to 2002
> that
> > a
> > > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that can
> > > justify the cost.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Being a longtime AutoCAD user who rarely uses or has need for 3D, I really
have no basis to judge whether or not AutoCAD is basically a 2D or 3D
program. I know it works great for 2D.

In that regard I have a question - if I were to have a serious need for 3D
capability in the foreseeable future what are my best options?

1. Stick with AutoCAD
2. Seriously look at Autodesk Desktop
3. Look at other options

Does anyone use 3D seriously for working drawings for architectural
projects? I would be curious has to how that would work for details, wall
sections, elevations, etc. - drawings that field people actually use and are
familiar with.
--
Semper Fi
Marshall Caudle
"Tore Hanson" wrote in message
news:68F2748FBA521187252BD8B458C75766@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Actually I have to disagree about the 12 to 13 upgrade being appalling. I
> work in 3D and version 13 was a godsend. The 3D tools have been getting
> better and better all the time. Of course if you are strictly a 2d drafter
> then I understand your opinion. However not everyone uses Autocad the same
> way. Perhaps Autocad Light would be a less expensive route for strictly 2D
> work?
>
> Tore
>
> "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> news:D6D748D981F5FB912419B54AF5133894@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Weve been using data extraction from attributes since R11 & DBase (the
> good
> > ol dos days LOL )
> >
> > Layer translation is only as good as you consultants draings having
> > consistancy - but at the end of the day we very rarely need that feature
> on
> > an ongoing basis.
> >
> > The Cad starndards tools will be benificial.
> >
> > I am not knocking ACAD as a package just Autodesks philosophy on forced
> > upgrades and value for money. I just think with this release unlike
others
> > the value is not there comparitively
> > IE
> > R11 to 12 was a great upgrade.
> > R12 - 13 was Apalling & a real embarresment to Autodesk. It took until
the
> > C4 patch befor it was even close to a usable package.
> > R14 was no more in reality a bug fix for 13
> > R2000 was a good upgrade particulaly Plotting and allot of other
> niceities.
> > R2000 - 2000I was a yawn
> > Now R 2000i to 20002 is a joke with no real value for money IMHO.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > "Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
> > news:25CEB1F3048651EDBBD076990FE3803D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Do you still draw all your schedules by hand (lots of firms do). If so
> the
> > > block attribute tools will pay for themselves very quickly....
> > > Like wise the layer translation and CADD standards tools will
eliminate
> a
> > > lot of errors - which is money in the bank.
> > >
> > > "Bruce Bromley" wrote in message
> > > news:B41F9065BAEACEB5697CD4CC148752BD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > Bud.
> > > >
> > > > What I am getting at is what real benifit is there in upgrading (we
> were
> > > > forced to upgrade from 14 to 2000i including 2002) from 2000i to
2002
> > that
> > > a
> > > > typical medium sized Architectural Practice can benifit from that
can
> > > > justify the cost.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>