What do you think about Trusted DWG?

[jorgeledezma]

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=6740482

[Anonymous]

And the more I thought about your answer (above) the more I now KNOW that
you can't allow your Users in your firm Internet access of any kind.

But I wonder how you've determined to undermine their abilities to access
the Internet and read your musings during their off-hours?

There's a query that might take you years to think up an appropriate
response.

Maybe the only means to quiet you down is just no longer reply?

--
Don Reichle
"The only thing worse
than training your staff,
and having them leave is -
not training your staff,
and having them stay."
Courtesy Graphics Solution Providers
----------------------------------------------------------
LDT/CD-2K4
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual 2.01GHz
XPPro 32bit SP2
2GB RAM
Dual WD800JD Hard Drives - 149GB Nvidia Stripe
Nvidia Quadro FX 1300 128MB
Dual ViewSonic 19-inch VA902b monitors


"Don Reichle" wrote in message
news:5205058@discussion.autodesk.com...
Then you should show us some proof of your abilties to "manage" - not just
argue your point until we are all blue in the face.

Or whichever other metaphor might cover the fingertips.

I - for one - am pleased we don't perform our tasks in the same firm.

--
Don Reichle
"The only thing worse
than training your staff,
and having them leave is -
not training your staff,
and having them stay."
Courtesy Graphics Solution Providers
----------------------------------------------------------
LDT/CD-2K4
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual 2.01GHz
XPPro 32bit SP2
2GB RAM
Dual WD800JD Hard Drives - 149GB Nvidia Stripe
Nvidia Quadro FX 1300 128MB
Dual ViewSonic 19-inch VA902b monitors


wrote in message news:5204602@discussion.autodesk.com...
James I believe in the tripod metaphor for the AutoCAD way to work.

1 leg are the end users
1 leg is the Cad manager
1 leg is the developer.

You are trying to take me to your field where you say you are: developer
field. Why are you continuing posting in the Cad manager forum, why don't
you post in the customizing discussion groups where sure you find someone
that can match your very deep lisp knowledge. James, I am more Cad manager
oriented.

[Evan Yares]

Randy,



You're spouting off like you know the reasons why Autodesk, Bentley, and the ODA do what they do -- yet you can't even get your basic facts straight.



I can't, and don't, speak for Autodesk or Bentley. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to speak for the ODA.

[rculp]

"" You're spouting off like you know the reasons why Autodesk, Bentley, and the ODA do what they do ""

Well I know business, marketability and profitability, and I know when it's a duck, it's a duck.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to speak for the ODA. ""

Well when you get to be a moderator here you get to tell me what to post. But that aside, I've been watching you guys for quite some time, and claims otherwise notwithstanding, you're basically a group that wishes to profit from someone else's work product without paying for it.

But you don't wish me to speak for the ODA, fine, here's your chance to speak for it. I've asked Jorge several times in these last couple of threads, and other ODA promoters on other forums several times but no one has come up with a decent answer. What possible benefit would AutoDESK receive by opening the DWG format? What possible benefit would the average user receive? And what are the negative impacts that will be expected from a market flood of wanna-bes? How would the possible lost profitability of AutoDESK affect the future development of the program?

[Anonymous]

How exactly does this boil down to me whining that "they won't play with
me"? Wanting to "own" my data is whining? If so then I apologize. And no
being forced to use a $3,000+ dollar program to access my data is not my
definition of owning my data. You can use your lame "if you don't like it
use something else" comment all you want, however as I've previously stated
dwg is the file format dictated by my industry. I am sure there things about
your industry that you don't agree with, do you just grin and bare it? I
forgot, Randy always gets what he wants.

I'll admit that the office file formats are not as complex as the dwg
format, however the complexity of a file format is irrelevant as the
aforementioned dgn and pdf file formats are almost, if not completely, equal
in complexity and their specifications have been released. Your complaint
about the excel file is valid too, however I doubt you are using Office 12
and the client was using a version of OpenOffice that supports Office 12 XML
formats. If this were true your formatting would be exactly the same.

There is a benefit to Autodesk releasing the specifications to the dwg
format, because that's what their customers (inadvertently) want. As stated
in other branches of this thread they want their data to be interchangeable
with Microstation and other CAD platforms. What makes me laugh is people
blaming Bentley for them not being able to accurately reproduce a file
format with a closed specification and praise Autodesk for being able to
work with dgn files. Has anyone ever considered the reason Autodesk products
can decode a dgn file accurately is because they had the dgn specification
in front of them to work with and didn't have to reverse engineer the format
like ODA did?

On a side note I find it funny that you have such a problem with people
benefiting from someone else's work. If I recall correctly you were the one
whining on in a thread over at the swamp regarding placing commercial
restrictions on the code posted there as you would not be able to use it in
your own work. I can dig up a link if you'd like. Stick to your guns Randy!

--
Regards,
Tim
http://tjriley.infogami.com/pyacaddotnet


wrote in message news:5205013@discussion.autodesk.com...
"Deal with it is a valid response to the whine that "they won't play with
me". Which is al this boils down to.

Now to the only point for which you had a response. MS released their
specs, good for them. It profits them nothing to do so, so I'm curious as
to the reason for the move. But again it apples and pomegranates. The
comparative simplicity of the MS formats as compare to the DWG format makes
it a less than useful comparison. And as you've said Open Office just
doesn't compete with the "real" thing. That, however, does not keep the
cheap and cheesy from using OpenOffice. We got a spreadsheet just last
month that sent the cell formatting screwy, our goofuss client worked on the
file at home on OpenOffice to add 10 minutes worth of data that took us an
hour to straighten out. That will NOT improve with the release of the
source, cheap and cheesy will remain cheap and cheesy.

But that aside, there is NO benefit to Autodesk that would lead them to open
the source. NO benefit at all, and possible detriment to their profit
margin. The only possible result is a drain on their market base. Except
of course for those wishing to profit from some one else's work product.

[Anonymous]

there would be no benefit currently because there is no serious acad alternative.
Should the clones rise up to challenge acad, then a standard might do adesk some good.
But currently, adesk is dragging us around because it has the lead. No one would care if intellicad suddenly introduced
a new entity, but if adesk does to acad, everyone has to follow.
So at the time when we consider some clone the "leader", adesk will do all kinds of things to get back its market share.
I think that is several years out though if ever.

Randy Culp <>
|>"" You're spouting off like you know the reasons why Autodesk, Bentley, and the ODA do what they do ""
|>
|>Well I know business, marketability and profitability, and I know when it's a duck, it's a duck.
|>
|>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>
|>"" I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to speak for the ODA. ""
|>
|>Well when you get to be a moderator here you get to tell me what to post. But that aside, I've been watching you guys for quite some time, and claims otherwise notwithstanding, you're basically a group that wishes to profit from someone else's work product without paying for it.
|>
|>But you don't wish me to speak for the ODA, fine, here's your chance to speak for it. I've asked Jorge several times in these last couple of threads, and other ODA promoters on other forums several times but no one has come up with a decent answer. What possible benefit would AutoDESK receive by opening the DWG format? What possible benefit would the average user receive? And what are the negative impacts that will be expected from a market flood of wanna-bes? How would the possible lost profitability of AutoDESK affect the future development of the program?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[rculp]

"" Wanting to "own" my data is whining? ""

You do own your data. Whining is complaining when the format in which YOU've chosen to embed that data doesn't do what you want, knowing that it didn't do so before hand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" however as I've previously stated dwg is the file format dictated by my industry. ""

Maybe, but the industry does NOT force you to keep your data only in that format. That is a choice you've made. Data that I require retrievable for other purposes is kept separately from the DWG format because I know going in it will not be compatible with the other formats.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" the aforementioned dgn and pdf file formats are almost, if not completely, equal in complexity and their specifications have been released. ""

And as stated before, Bentley lost nothing releasing their DGN format because NOBODY wants it. And the PDF file does NOT carry near the complexity of data, if it does then that's your answer, you have no need of DWG, just save it as PDF.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" There is a benefit to Autodesk releasing the specifications to the dwg format, because that's what their customers (inadvertently) want. ""

Baloney, a few malcontents do and customers of other products do, but the vast majority of average users could give a flip if the format is compatible with MSTA. As you have said yourself in this very post DWG is the industry standard, the majority of users work in that format.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" What makes me laugh is people blaming Bentley for them not being able to accurately reproduce a file format "

I previously answered that, but apparently you missed it so I'll re-play. I don't care one whit what Bentley does or how compatible they are. What is less than honorable is their insistence in their sales tactics that Msta editing of AutCAD dwg is effortless and seamless. My gripe is their customers have been told that saving as a DWG from MSTA is as good as AutoCAD, and that just ain't so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Your complaint about the excel file is valid too, however I doubt you are using Office 12 and the client was using a version of OpenOffice that supports Office 12 XML formats. If this were true your formatting would be exactly the same. ""

And therein lies the rub. I can just imagine the level of garbage produced by whatever version of whatever program is geared to whatever version of AutoCAD to produce this file in it's current state of disrepair. And when it doesn't all go just right, we lose manhours and that's money.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" If I recall correctly you were the one whining on in a thread over at the swamp regarding placing commercial restrictions on the code posted there as you would not be able to use it in
your own work. ""

Don't bother here ya' go:
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=4398.msg53182#msg53182

If you will notice from a review of the entire thread it had nothing to do with individually closed sources, but rather the closing of the entire forum to shared data. The original comment promoted closing the use of ALL data posted to that forum for commercial use so that if someone posted (command "line") I would not be free to copy that line and use it commercially. I offered my opposition to that restriction of that forum. But that said, had the good fellows of the swamp chosen to so close that forum to commercial use, I would have happily complied with their desires. Thankfully they did not.

[rculp]

"" I'd be willing to wager that there are quite a few corporations out there taking advantage of the open DGN format "'

Cool, name two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" I'd be ecstatic knowing that I can access my data without having to use a Bentley product. ""

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you'd still need an interpreter of some kind right? Either MSTA or some other less diligent 3rd party wanna-be, right? Which would you rather use to insure hte integrity of your precious data?

As with the OpenOffice debacle there are no guarantees except with the originating interpreter, even when the source is available.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" They decoded the DWG file format, it has nothing to do with
Autodesk releasing the specifications for DWG. It's already done,""

Only partially, and only prior to R2007 currently.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" is the end user would be given a 99.999999999999% guarantee that the drawings would be interoperable between
all CAD software. ""

Oh, who is giving this "guarantee"? Such has NOT been the case with previuosly opened formats, open Office being but one example as are the half dozen PDF writer readers I've seen offered. You've been taking Bentley leasons in creative propaganda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" As an end user I can see why you wouldn't want anything
like that. ""

I still need "something" through which to retrieve my data. Either a company with which I have a 22 year track record, or two guys in their garage with a snazzy website and a degree in creative marketing. And the first casualtiy of this new "feature" will be lost recources for developement of future releases of the company with which I have a 22 year track record. Show me again where I benefit.

[Evan Yares]

"" I'd be willing to wager that there are quite a few corporations out there taking advantage of the open DGN format "'



Cool, name two.



I'll name one: Autodesk. They use the ODA's DGN libraries in the 2005/2006 versions of Map, LDT, and Civil 3D.



I'm not sure that giving you any more names would change your opinon.

[rculp]

"" I'll name one: Autodesk. They use the ODA's DGN libraries in the 2005/2006 versions of Map, LDT, and Civil 3D. ""

Absolutely correct, to be compatible with those civil firms working with DOTs still married to Msta. I really forgot about those guys.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" I'm not sure that giving you any more names would change your opinon. ""

Aw go on, name a few, otherwise it looks like a cop out.

[Anonymous]

"Maybe, but the industry does NOT force you to keep your data only in that
format. That is a choice you've made. Data that I require retrievable for
other purposes is kept separately from the DWG format because I know going
in it will not be compatible with the other formats."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok Randy, you're right. I have chosen to keep my data in a single
proprietary format. From now on I will keep all of our 75,000+ drawings in
both dwg and dxf format as it's an open standard. Why didn't I think of this
a while ago, I mean there is very little risk of error in having duplicate
drawings. Also my server space was looking a little plentiful so the
additional 75,000+ files at three times the file size should do a fine job
of filling it up.


"And as stated before, Bentley lost nothing releasing their DGN format
because NOBODY wants it. And the PDF file does NOT carry near the complexity
of data, if it does then that's your answer, you have no need of DWG, just
save it as PDF."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And as I stated before, who says nobody wants the DGN format, you? I'm sure
there are quite a few people out there who use DGN files and are quite happy
that the specification has been released.
Also how exactly do you know the level of data complexity in a PDF file?
Have you reviewed the PDF specifications and compared them to the DWG
specification available from the ODA site? If not then you have no point of
reference and probably shouldn't be commenting on it.

"Baloney, a few malcontents do and customers of other products do, but the
vast majority of average users could give a flip if the format is compatible
with MSTA. As you have said yourself in this very post DWG is the industry
standard, the majority of users work in that format."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DWG is the standard in my industry, electrical engineering. I'm not
qualified to speak for the other industries just as you're not qualified to
say "the vast majority of average users could give a flip if the format is
compatible with MSTA". Do you really know what every firm in the world is
doing or wants to do with their data?


"And therein lies the rub. I can just imagine the level of garbage produced
by whatever version of whatever program is geared to whatever version of
AutoCAD to produce this file in it's current state of disrepair. And when it
doesn't all go just right, we lose manhours and that's money."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just like anything else in the computer world if everyone is working from
the same specification then there really shouldn't be that much room for
error. Last time I checked my png files look the same in Internet Explorer
as they do in Firefox..my image editing program too. My pdf files also look
the same in Adobe as they do in GPdf on Linux.

"Don't bother here ya' go:
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=4398.msg53182#msg53182

If you will notice from a review of the entire thread it had nothing to do
with individually closed sources, but rather the closing of the entire forum
to shared data. The original comment promoted closing the use of ALL data
posted to that forum for commercial use so that if someone posted (command
"line") I would not be free to copy that line and use it commercially. I
offered my opposition to that restriction of that forum. But that said, had
the good fellows of the swamp chosen to so close that forum to commercial
use, I would have happily complied with their desires. Thankfully they did
not."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So basically you object to sharing sources and information unless it
benefits you. That's the only thing I can see after comparing your previous
posts in this thread to your post over at the swamp.

[rculp]

"" From now on I will keep all of our 75,000+ drawings in
both dwg and dxf format as it's an open standard.""

No need or both, the dxf format would suit your purposes if you wish to keep the data electronically, but then again that is your choice. Personally, I have no trouble keeping the DWG format, but if you do, you still have options.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who use DGN files and are quite happy that the specification has been released. ""

And I repeat, "cool, name two"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Also how exactly do you know the level of data complexity in a PDF file? ""

Very true, I have not delved ito the complexity of the format. I have though delved into the complexity of the amount of data that can be retrieved from each format and for us it's not apples and oranges, it's apples and candy wrappers. I can not extract nearly the amount of data from a PDF as I can a DWG. But if you're so sold on the complexity of PDF format, then there's your answer, convert it to PDF and everything is golden, right? Or maybe you too must admit that the two are not comparable for data extraction?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" you're not qualified to say "the vast majority of average users could give a flip if the format is compatible with MSTA". Do you really know what every firm in the world is doing or wants to do with their data? ""

Probably not, but I do know what a significant percentage of US companies are actually DOING. They are increasingly going to a DWG format, (as you have stated it is the industry standard) while even Bentley is moving AWAY from the DGN format in favor of writing to several formats. So Bentley's release of the format is just o much smoke after a fire, "Here let me throw in my nickle, so now you have to throw in your $100 bill.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" if everyone is working from the same specification then there really shouldn't be that much room for error. ""

Oh cmon, and the tooth fairy will leave a quarter under your pillow too. Not a dozen posts ago someone (you I think) claimed that it would not impact Autodesk market base because AutoCAD would be so much better than the clones. Now you're saying they will be the same. Just today I opened a powerpoint file made with the latest version of MS PowerPoint in Corel Presentations 12 (according to their propaganda it should have been error free) the result was unusable. The same format can NOT overcome sloppy programing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Internet Explorer as they do in Firefox ""

So you're saying that IE and Firefox run ALL applications identically, completely error free with no gaps and/or glitches?? I've never pulled the trigger on a Firefox system, but from what I read on forums by Firefox users that isn't the general experience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" That's the only thing I can see ""

Then it's a problem with your eyes. I have no trouble at all with sharing unless it is a detriment to my profitability. If you frequent the swamp, you will know that I have shared what little I have to offer freely in hopes of a mutual benefit.

Sharing the DWG format will be a detriment to Autodesk profitability. It will reduce Autodesk's resources for future development, and flood the DWG database with cruddy little "almost" clones like the PDF market has become. ONLY those wishing to undermine AutoDESK's control of the market could possibly benefit.

I've asked several times what possible benefits either AutoDESK or I would gain from the release of the format. So far the closest thing to answer has been, "It's my data I should have access". Would you care to offer just one benefit I would gain that would not be offset by the level garbage that would result?

[Anonymous]

Back that one up with some facts, please. The DWG compatibility is not to
convert AutoCAD users but to solve our issues with interoperability. People
don't buy MS, which is more expensive than ACAD, to do ACAD work but is sure
helps me get my work done when we have to deliver to companies that choose
to use other products for design such as Caltrans.

At least all Bentley products all talk to each seamlessly unlike Autodesk.
Also, Bentley actually listens to their users unlike Autodesk.

Nobody wants it huh? I guess you don't get out much. Our contractors seem
to be using it more and more...

I like ACAD and we use it exclusively in design here but MicroStation is way
more productive of a product. You always talk about Bentley marketing but
it is AutoCAD marketing that clouds your judgment. You seem to believe
everything they say. Also, you always talk about how heavy handed Bentley
is yet look at everything you are saying. Who is the heavy handed one?




wrote in message news:5204756@discussion.autodesk.com...
"" The fact of the matter is they opened their format, ""

Only to avoid appearing duplicitous. Without the ability to open DWG files,
Bentley would have folded up their tents long ago. And it cost them NOTHING
to open the DGN format, nobody wants it.

[Anonymous]

Not just to create another technical problem, but with ToolPac 10 you can
import a pdf as CAD...



"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204600@discussion.autodesk.com...
I might give you that on a technicality. But I was talking about a drawing.
Not a drawing in AutoCAD and a piece of text in adobe. Even with a piece of
text there are better file formats to send data to someone. If you want them
to be able to work with them.

Allen

"Tim Riley" wrote in message
news:5204594@discussion.autodesk.com...
Wrong. You see I have this little icon on my desktop called "Adobe Acrobat
6.0 Standard". As long as the document wasn't locked for editing I could
modify it as much as I wanted.

--
Regards,
Tim
http://tjriley.infogami.com/pyacaddotnet


"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204462@discussion.autodesk.com...
"For the record comparing Adobe to Autodesk isn't like comparing "apples and
pomegranates". Last time I checked pdf and dwg were both file formats for
storing information."

If I gave you a DWG file. You could open it and start working on it. If I
gave you a PDF. You could look at it of print it.

Allen

[Evan Yares]

Just as a matter of background -- if you look at Autodesk's total revenues within the AEC business segments in which Bentley operates, they're not appreciably different.

Bentley does have fewer customers than Autodesk -- but those customers tend to have higher seat counts, and use more software.

Yes, most people are surprised to hear this.

The only market segment where Autodesk has a dominant market power is in general-purpose 2D CAD. In all other segments, Autodesk competes with major companies -- ESRI, UGS, Dassault, PTC, Bentley and Intergraph, to name the most significant ones -- and these companies hold substantial entrenched market positions.

For many of the people on this forum, interoperability is an abstract concept. There seems to be an attitude that those who want interoperability should just use Autodesk products. Yet, in the real world, that's not going to fly. No matter how great Autodesk's tools may be, there are still large numbers of people who are going to continue using other tools.

In the real world, interoperability is important.

[Anonymous]

Yes. But I'm talking about sending it to someone who wants to do more than
look at it. Now they can import the PDF (if it was created in the correct
way) but the won't get anything as useful as a DWG or even a DWF.

I only sent PDF to two kinds of people. Those who I don't want to use the
date and those who can't deal with anything else.

Now if I don't want the recipient to be able to use the PDF. I'll have to
make sure I create it in a way that will not be importable.

Allen

"Dave Drahn" wrote in message
news:5207969@discussion.autodesk.com...
Not just to create another technical problem, but with ToolPac 10 you can
import a pdf as CAD...



"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204600@discussion.autodesk.com...
I might give you that on a technicality. But I was talking about a drawing.
Not a drawing in AutoCAD and a piece of text in adobe. Even with a piece of
text there are better file formats to send data to someone. If you want them
to be able to work with them.

Allen

"Tim Riley" wrote in message
news:5204594@discussion.autodesk.com...
Wrong. You see I have this little icon on my desktop called "Adobe Acrobat
6.0 Standard". As long as the document wasn't locked for editing I could
modify it as much as I wanted.

--
Regards,
Tim
http://tjriley.infogami.com/pyacaddotnet


"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204462@discussion.autodesk.com...
"For the record comparing Adobe to Autodesk isn't like comparing "apples and
pomegranates". Last time I checked pdf and dwg were both file formats for
storing information."

If I gave you a DWG file. You could open it and start working on it. If I
gave you a PDF. You could look at it of print it.

Allen

[Anonymous]

Where do you get this stuff? Randy? He seems to be the only one saying it.
I have yet to run into a DOT that has been given Bentley software. Name one
contact at a state DOT that will back this claim of getting their software
for free or at unusually steep discounts. A DOT might have got discounts
based on volume but that is not uncommon. Even Colorado DOT, who recently
switched from AutoCAD, paid standard fees to do so.

I find it funny that the biggest offender of spreading propaganda is Randy
himself...

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204077@discussion.autodesk.com...
Very amusing. A link on that site lead me to the Open Design Alliance web
site. On that web site they offer free utilities to View, Test and Convert
DWG files. Lets read that again - View, Test and Convert DWG files. See DWG
files. Nothing to do with DGN files. If you a member you can download the
Bentley DGN Specification. But no one has done anything with them. So even
when they release their format for free. Nobody seems to be interested in
it.

If Bentley hadn't come up with a very smart marketing strategy years ago. I
don't think you would hear that much about them. Back then they practically
gave away copies of the software to municipalities. Especially state DOTs.
So since the municipalities all had their free copies of MSTA they started
requiring their consultants submit their work in DGN format. So consultants
that wanted municipal work had to buy MSTA. That's where I see the greatest
use on MSTA. In municipal consultants.

This sounds familiar doesn't it. Give the stuff away and maybe enough people
will jump on the band wagon.

Another very amusing thing is that one of the tools offered on the ODA site
is a program that "Tests DWG files for possible corruption." "Files that
fail this test are reported as corrupt." So with "Trusted DWG" autodesk is
simply following in a path already blazed by ODA.

Autodesk also helped pioneer the XML data transfer strategy. I work in Civil
and use LandXML regularly to save the proprietary objects used in LDT in a
format that can be read by many Civil Design programs. Including Bentley's
InRoads software. Although these were independent developments. Autodesk
lent their full support to these tools.

Allen

wrote in message news:5203640@discussion.autodesk.com...
DGN V8 Spec: Message was edited by: Discussion Admin

[Anonymous]

Why did Autodesk announce that they will be adding support for reading the
DGN format later this year then? It must have some weight if they had to
spend development time and money over other priorities. But then again, I'm
sure Randy will be glad to accept any excuse Autodesk tells for the change
in direction.

wrote in message news:5205021@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yeah MSTA is the engine for PDS (piece of c#@p if there ever was one). Yes
it has the lions share of that niche market, which is less than a third the
number of AuCAD seats in the market. In fact PDS is such a wondeful product
that they are selving it at the end of next year. They may be getting close
with SmartPLant.

But all that aside, no one cares about translating into DGN, nobody wants
to. The only foks that want DGN already have MSTA on board, what they want
is to be able to open and edit DWG in MSTA truly seamlessly, and that is
something that won't benefit AutoDESK a dime's worth.

[Anonymous]

I know this actually has little or nothing to do with your line of reasoning
here - so I'm kind of jumping into the pool and yelling 'shark', but with
ToolPac 10 you can actually import a pdf as CAD data (lines, arcs and crap).
It's not too intelligent and doesn't always work with shaded pdf's, but it's
basically a pdf vectorizer. Pretty fun even if not particularly useful to
me.

Another one, it has an 'Image Bind' that converts an attached image to
jillions of 2d solid squares colored with true color to mimic each pixel.
Creates large files, but it's just darned cool to look at ('specially when I
tested it with the 'Dusty in a T-Shirt and open Daisy Dukes' photo)



"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5208054@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes. But I'm talking about sending it to someone who wants to do more than
look at it. Now they can import the PDF (if it was created in the correct
way) but the won't get anything as useful as a DWG or even a DWF.

I only sent PDF to two kinds of people. Those who I don't want to use the
date and those who can't deal with anything else.

Now if I don't want the recipient to be able to use the PDF. I'll have to
make sure I create it in a way that will not be importable.

Allen

"Dave Drahn" wrote in message
news:5207969@discussion.autodesk.com...
Not just to create another technical problem, but with ToolPac 10 you can
import a pdf as CAD...



"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204600@discussion.autodesk.com...
I might give you that on a technicality. But I was talking about a drawing.
Not a drawing in AutoCAD and a piece of text in adobe. Even with a piece of
text there are better file formats to send data to someone. If you want them
to be able to work with them.

Allen

"Tim Riley" wrote in message
news:5204594@discussion.autodesk.com...
Wrong. You see I have this little icon on my desktop called "Adobe Acrobat
6.0 Standard". As long as the document wasn't locked for editing I could
modify it as much as I wanted.

--
Regards,
Tim
http://tjriley.infogami.com/pyacaddotnet


"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5204462@discussion.autodesk.com...
"For the record comparing Adobe to Autodesk isn't like comparing "apples and
pomegranates". Last time I checked pdf and dwg were both file formats for
storing information."

If I gave you a DWG file. You could open it and start working on it. If I
gave you a PDF. You could look at it of print it.

Allen

[Anonymous]

"Very true, I have not delved ito the complexity of the format. I have
though delved into the complexity of the amount of data that can be
retrieved from each format and for us it's not apples and oranges, it's
apples and candy wrappers. I can not extract nearly the amount of data from
a PDF as I can a DWG. But if you're so sold on the complexity of PDF format,
then there's your answer, convert it to PDF and everything is golden, right?
Or maybe you too must admit that the two are not comparable for data
extraction?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both serve different roles, PDF is a raster based presentation format and
dwg is a vector based design format. Of course you aren't going to be able
to retrieve comparable amounts of data from both of them. That still doesn't
mean dwg is more complex format.


"Probably not, but I do know what a significant percentage of US companies
are actually DOING. They are increasingly going to a DWG format, (as you
have stated it is the industry standard) while even Bentley is moving AWAY
from the DGN format in favor of writing to several formats. So Bentley's
release of the format is just o much smoke after a fire, "Here let me throw
in my nickle, so now you have to throw in your $100 bill."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, you really don't. All you're offering here is more speculations.


"Oh cmon, and the tooth fairy will leave a quarter under your pillow too.
Not a dozen posts ago someone (you I think) claimed that it would not impact
Autodesk market base because AutoCAD would be so much better than the
clones. Now you're saying they will be the same. Just today I opened a
powerpoint file made with the latest version of MS PowerPoint in Corel
Presentations 12 (according to their propaganda it should have been error
free) the result was unusable. The same format can NOT overcome sloppy
programing."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey genius, the latest version of MS PowerPoint files are not an open
standard. Corel still had to decode the file format. Bringing up the fact
that they claimed it would error free has nothing to do with anything.
I claimed Autodesk's market base wouldn't be grossly impacted as it's
superior design software, not because of it's support of the dwg format. I
was saying they'd be able to render dwg the same.


"So you're saying that IE and Firefox run ALL applications identically,
completely error free with no gaps and/or glitches?? I've never pulled the
trigger on a Firefox system, but from what I read on forums by Firefox users
that isn't the general experience."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Use your head man. I said png files not ALL applications. Of course ActiveX
components aren't going to run in Firefox on a Unix or Mac.


"Then it's a problem with your eyes. I have no trouble at all with sharing
unless it is a detriment to my profitability. If you frequent the swamp, you
will know that I have shared what little I have to offer freely in hopes of
a mutual benefit."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But you're still using other peoples technology commercially for free. I
frequent the swamp and I know you contribute there. That doesn't change the
fact that you are benefiting from others work, even if others are benefiting
off of yours. In the previous post you complained about "those wishing to
profit from some one else's work product", which is exactly what you are
doing. So like I said, you're against the sharing of information unless it
benefits you in some way.

[rculp]

"" People don't buy MS, which is more expensive than ACAD, to do ACAD work ""

Very true, they keep MS because they're heavily invested in it, but to survive they have to work in a DWG world. Neither of which is Autodesk's concern.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" At least all Bentley products all talk to each seamlessly ""

..yeah that's a good one...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Nobody wants it huh? ""

Nope, not the open format of DGN. A few use it for the miniscule portion of the market that would like a level of interoperability between DWG and DGN, but even that was accomplishable prior to the opening of the DGN format.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Our contractors seem to be using it more and more... ""

OpenDGN?? I've asked before, Name two that use OpenDGN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" but MicroStation is way more productive of a product. ""

Oh, now that's just silly, it's not even close. There is a reason that DWG became the industry standard. The inherent flexibility of AutoCAD that allows it to be easily tailored to the individual needs and productivity of the users puts it lightyears ahead. MSTA customization features are even more heavy-handed than the program.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Also, you always talk about how heavy handed Bentley
is ""

It is. It requires a much more intensive interface with the user to accomplish the same tasks, though V8 is a much better tool than past versions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Who is the heavy handed one? ""

Microstation. and it's more expensive to boot.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~