What do you think about Trusted DWG?

[jorgeledezma]

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

[Anonymous]

but the pdf import is not nice, its very cartoonish

Dave Drahn
|>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.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[Anonymous]

aye.

"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5208348@discussion.autodesk.com...
but the pdf import is not nice, its very cartoonish

Dave Drahn
|>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.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[Anonymous]

I've been using autodesk products to import DGN format for years. They are
only adding a portion of existing vertical products to the base product.

"Michael Kolster" wrote in message
news:5208094@discussion.autodesk.com...
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 thought you might have something there. Maybe this was just a myth started
by autodesk or their supporters. So I checked with the engineer at the desk
next to mine. He was working for our state DOT at the time.

He says it went even further than deep discounts on the software. They were
also getting high end workstations to run the software and being flown to
different parts of the country for training. Even with this they had
considered switching to AutoCAD after a few years. But they didn't want to
spend the money.

I just asked him this question out of the blue. We'd never discussed it
before. He new what I was talking about right away.

Don't get me wrong. I think it was a brilliant marketing move on Bentley's
part. And as I've said about autodesk. I expect companies to engage in
marketing. Some people forget that providing a product or service is
something that a company has to do to make money. Making money is what their
real focus is on. If they could find a way to make the money without
producing a product they'd do that. I know that individuals in a company may
think differently. But as a whole this is what a "for profit" company is
about.

Allen

"Michael Kolster" wrote in message
news:5208080@discussion.autodesk.com...
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:

[Anonymous]

I'm sure you know that ESRI did the same thing for the GIS folks out here.
Give the software away to get them hooked on using it then they'll come back
and "pay" for the upgrades and extras a few years later when all their data
is in ESRI format. Take a look at the GRANTS page on their web site and see
where all the freebies are going to.

Murph
--
http://mappingitout.blogspot.com/

<
"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5208692@discussion.autodesk.com...
I thought you might have something there. Maybe this was just a myth started
by autodesk or their supporters. So I checked with the engineer at the desk
next to mine. He was working for our state DOT at the time.

He says it went even further than deep discounts on the software. They were
also getting high end workstations to run the software and being flown to
different parts of the country for training. Even with this they had
considered switching to AutoCAD after a few years. But they didn't want to
spend the money.

I just asked him this question out of the blue. We'd never discussed it
before. He new what I was talking about right away.

Don't get me wrong. I think it was a brilliant marketing move on Bentley's
part. And as I've said about autodesk. I expect companies to engage in
marketing. Some people forget that providing a product or service is
something that a company has to do to make money. Making money is what their
real focus is on. If they could find a way to make the money without
producing a product they'd do that. I know that individuals in a company may
think differently. But as a whole this is what a "for profit" company is
about.

Allen

[rculp]

"" 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. ""

Probably not many around that are still there. It was the marketing sept of Intergraph when they first got in bed with Microstation in the mid 80's. I was contracted into the Illinois DOT at the time they got 6 free seats and 3 free training sessions. When I spoke with the MSTA rep at the time (I was looking ofr a freebie for my company), they had targeted 30 key state DOTs for "seeding". After reviewing what I was doing, we weren't large enough nor strategically postioned to warrant a freebie, but we did get 2 radically discounted seats of MSTA for right at $1500 because we did have people in a couple of the NOT targeted DOTs.

[Anonymous]

Blah, Blah, Blah. No substance once so ever, just words.

1) Lets see, MS actually understands units like an inch vs. a meter and
requires no scaling or moving while working together. It allows the use of
survey foot and us foot in design and large state plane coordinates work
perfectly fine but AutoCAD errors off which Autodesk says is a operating
system issue, right.
2) CUI is an improvement sure but it is not close to MS storing the
interface in a centric DGNLIB and ACAD doesn't allow for the flexibility of
use on a project level with user level that can be managed from one central
location on the network
3) PDF support in 2007 is still not close to the PDF support of MS 2004
Edition
4) The use of color tables and integrated use of pantone colors are much
more open
5) Licensing support and management is way more superior. If my Bentley
license server dies all my users can work for up to 30 days. They allow us
to actually exceed my licenses and it is up to me to decided that I need to
stay legal and purchase additional ones. I can manage multiple sites and
see who and what is being used at any give time.
6) Bentley allows me to swap out my software package for another based on
their list value once a year so I am not stuck to using or not using a
package if my jobs or priority change
7) MS Design History that allows you to roll back to a previous state or
revision is like having an undo that never forgets
8) Task Navigation that allows a user to use tools based on a task and can
be managed for a central location
9) MS out of the box 3d rendering is way superior to ACAD even with 2007
finally adding support for things that MS did 10 years ago
10) Element transparency and dialog transparency
11) Google support from basic MS
12) Multiple views and multiple model spaces
13) Superior image speed and management
14) Accudraw precision drawing is so much quicker - Even AutoCAD recent
attempts don't come close

Do you want me to go on? You always say you know MS but you obviously don't
really know or you are so blinded by Autodesk propaganda that you fail to
see it. Bentley is so much more open and flexible that it is not even
close. Autodesk is so much more heavy handed. If they are so flexible why
won't they continue support for ACAD 2000i if I want to use it, Bentley will
let me stay on support with V5 if I wanted to. How about licensing I listed
above, heavy handed, what a joke.



wrote in message news:5208286@discussion.autodesk.com...
"" 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.


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

[Anonymous]

Ah, there is the rub. You are talking about Intergraph not Bentley.
Intergraph used to be more interested in using the software to sell their
overpriced hardware and very well I might add.

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5208692@discussion.autodesk.com...
I thought you might have something there. Maybe this was just a myth started
by autodesk or their supporters. So I checked with the engineer at the desk
next to mine. He was working for our state DOT at the time.

He says it went even further than deep discounts on the software. They were
also getting high end workstations to run the software and being flown to
different parts of the country for training. Even with this they had
considered switching to AutoCAD after a few years. But they didn't want to
spend the money.

I just asked him this question out of the blue. We'd never discussed it
before. He new what I was talking about right away.

Don't get me wrong. I think it was a brilliant marketing move on Bentley's
part. And as I've said about autodesk. I expect companies to engage in
marketing. Some people forget that providing a product or service is
something that a company has to do to make money. Making money is what their
real focus is on. If they could find a way to make the money without
producing a product they'd do that. I know that individuals in a company may
think differently. But as a whole this is what a "for profit" company is
about.

Allen

"Michael Kolster" wrote in message
news:5208080@discussion.autodesk.com...
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]

NWA

"Michael Kolster" wrote in message
news:5209308@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ah, there is the rub. You are talking about Intergraph not Bentley.
Intergraph used to be more interested in using the software to sell their
overpriced hardware and very well I might add.

[Anonymous]

"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."

We don't. We are an owner operator and if you want to do work with us and
you are smart you will use the software format we specify.
~~~~~~~~

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

Autodesk was already mentioned but ESRI is another major one. Their format
and additional features make it much more difficuilt to reverse engineer so
yes the opening of the DGN format has helped with interoperability.
~~~~~~~~~

"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."

See previous post
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"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."

I hear this all the time but once you learn an interface and the short cuts
to drive it they really are not that difficult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Microstation. and it's more expensive to boot."

Not even close, Autodesk wins hands on the keyboard. BTW, MicroStation is
more expensive but it also does a ton more than AutoCAD.

[Anonymous]

beg to differ, Cui was not an improvement!
Its funny but the reason Bently gives better support might be that its maket share is more fragile.

One thing I never liked about MS is that its command box is not active by default.
In acad, you can type z (space) at any time and it takes it at the command line.
In MS, you have to pick the command box before typing anything.
I would love to know how to make MS act like acad with the command line, as that is how I do most commands.

Its true that onyone who downplays the other software, has never used it enough. They both are really powerful once you
know them and have things set up. The rythms between the two are odd though, for sure. I have not used MS since 5.0,
so I am wondering if the command line acts like it used to.

Michael Kolster
|>Blah, Blah, Blah. No substance once so ever, just words.
|>
|>1) Lets see, MS actually understands units like an inch vs. a meter and
|>requires no scaling or moving while working together. It allows the use of
|>survey foot and us foot in design and large state plane coordinates work
|>perfectly fine but AutoCAD errors off which Autodesk says is a operating
|>system issue, right.
|>2) CUI is an improvement sure but it is not close to MS storing the
|>interface in a centric DGNLIB and ACAD doesn't allow for the flexibility of
|>use on a project level with user level that can be managed from one central
|>location on the network
|>3) PDF support in 2007 is still not close to the PDF support of MS 2004
|>Edition
|>4) The use of color tables and integrated use of pantone colors are much
|>more open
|>5) Licensing support and management is way more superior. If my Bentley
|>license server dies all my users can work for up to 30 days. They allow us
|>to actually exceed my licenses and it is up to me to decided that I need to
|>stay legal and purchase additional ones. I can manage multiple sites and
|>see who and what is being used at any give time.
|>6) Bentley allows me to swap out my software package for another based on
|>their list value once a year so I am not stuck to using or not using a
|>package if my jobs or priority change
|>7) MS Design History that allows you to roll back to a previous state or
|>revision is like having an undo that never forgets
|>8) Task Navigation that allows a user to use tools based on a task and can
|>be managed for a central location
|>9) MS out of the box 3d rendering is way superior to ACAD even with 2007
|>finally adding support for things that MS did 10 years ago
|>10) Element transparency and dialog transparency
|>11) Google support from basic MS
|>12) Multiple views and multiple model spaces
|>13) Superior image speed and management
|>14) Accudraw precision drawing is so much quicker - Even AutoCAD recent
|>attempts don't come close
|>
|>Do you want me to go on? You always say you know MS but you obviously don't
|>really know or you are so blinded by Autodesk propaganda that you fail to
|>see it. Bentley is so much more open and flexible that it is not even
|>close. Autodesk is so much more heavy handed. If they are so flexible why
|>won't they continue support for ACAD 2000i if I want to use it, Bentley will
|>let me stay on support with V5 if I wanted to. How about licensing I listed
|>above, heavy handed, what a joke.
|>
|>
|>

James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[Anonymous]

lol, I guess I have to give you that on the CUI. I'm hoping that it will be
a true statement soon. It shows promise.

You can make the keyin focus by using the esc key and in the XM version just
released you can do it by just hitting the enter key although you won't need
it as much because the also added something called keyboard mapping. All
placement tools are mapped to a letter and modification tools are mapped to
a number. a simple Q will put you into the place line tool. These can also
be customized to something different if choose. This also ties into task
navigation which allows you to set up standards that will set your layer
based on the task so your line goes automatically on the right layer. Very
cool stuff.


"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5209404@discussion.autodesk.com...
beg to differ, Cui was not an improvement!
Its funny but the reason Bently gives better support might be that its maket
share is more fragile.

One thing I never liked about MS is that its command box is not active by
default.
In acad, you can type z (space) at any time and it takes it at the command
line.
In MS, you have to pick the command box before typing anything.
I would love to know how to make MS act like acad with the command line, as
that is how I do most commands.

Its true that onyone who downplays the other software, has never used it
enough. They both are really powerful once you
know them and have things set up. The rythms between the two are odd
though, for sure. I have not used MS since 5.0,
so I am wondering if the command line acts like it used to.

Michael Kolster
|>Blah, Blah, Blah. No substance once so ever, just words.
|>
|>1) Lets see, MS actually understands units like an inch vs. a meter and
|>requires no scaling or moving while working together. It allows the use
of
|>survey foot and us foot in design and large state plane coordinates work
|>perfectly fine but AutoCAD errors off which Autodesk says is a operating
|>system issue, right.
|>2) CUI is an improvement sure but it is not close to MS storing the
|>interface in a centric DGNLIB and ACAD doesn't allow for the flexibility
of
|>use on a project level with user level that can be managed from one
central
|>location on the network
|>3) PDF support in 2007 is still not close to the PDF support of MS 2004
|>Edition
|>4) The use of color tables and integrated use of pantone colors are much
|>more open
|>5) Licensing support and management is way more superior. If my Bentley
|>license server dies all my users can work for up to 30 days. They allow us
|>to actually exceed my licenses and it is up to me to decided that I need
to
|>stay legal and purchase additional ones. I can manage multiple sites and
|>see who and what is being used at any give time.
|>6) Bentley allows me to swap out my software package for another based on
|>their list value once a year so I am not stuck to using or not using a
|>package if my jobs or priority change
|>7) MS Design History that allows you to roll back to a previous state or
|>revision is like having an undo that never forgets
|>8) Task Navigation that allows a user to use tools based on a task and can
|>be managed for a central location
|>9) MS out of the box 3d rendering is way superior to ACAD even with 2007
|>finally adding support for things that MS did 10 years ago
|>10) Element transparency and dialog transparency
|>11) Google support from basic MS
|>12) Multiple views and multiple model spaces
|>13) Superior image speed and management
|>14) Accudraw precision drawing is so much quicker - Even AutoCAD recent
|>attempts don't come close
|>
|>Do you want me to go on? You always say you know MS but you obviously
don't
|>really know or you are so blinded by Autodesk propaganda that you fail to
|>see it. Bentley is so much more open and flexible that it is not even
|>close. Autodesk is so much more heavy handed. If they are so flexible
why
|>won't they continue support for ACAD 2000i if I want to use it, Bentley
will
|>let me stay on support with V5 if I wanted to. How about licensing I
listed
|>above, heavy handed, what a joke.
|>
|>
|>

James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[rculp]

"" 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. ""

Oh, I see. Using the opening PDF as an excuse to call for the opening of the DWG format is still apples and candy wrappers. While the individual formats may or may not have the same complexity, one is a format from which I can glean an enormous amount of complex data, while the other is little more than MS Paint. There is that better?

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

"" No, you really don't. All you're offering here is more speculations. ""

Part of my business is providing skilled designers to engineering firms around the country. We communicate on a regular basis with a large portion of the industry design end users in an attempt to meet their needs. So I am quite familiar with what a good chunk of the design community is doing. In the last year we've had hundreds of queries for skilled AutoCAD help ranging from Plain-Jane to any of the desktop verts to Revit and INventor. PDS help (especially admin) is the second most requested, after that is a big gap before you get to Pro-E, Msta, VersaCAD, Intellicad, Plant-4D, SolidWorks and others. In the all years I've been associated with this business we've never had a request for a PDF creator, nor have we had a request for someone that could work on a clone of MSTA.

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

"" Bringing up the fact that they claimed it would error free has nothing to do with anything. ""
...
"" Of course ActiveX components aren't going to run in Firefox on a Unix or Mac. ""

That IS the point, GENIUS. We already have a plethora of loose canons making claims of full compatibility that isn't there, and we already KNOW that they won't run identically. Opening the format will only fuel that insanity.

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

"" That doesn't change the fact that you are benefiting from others work ""

Yes I am.

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

"" In the previous post you complained about "those wishing to profit from some one else's work product", ""

No complaint, but a comment relating to the whine coming from those who disdain the closed DWG format.

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

"" 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. ""

Well here let me explain the difference. If someone says, "hey you can't use that commercially", I'll say cool and go look for something else. There are some that post at the swamp that use a disclaimer in their code to that effect, and I respect that wish. Now we have some 250 posts relating to opening the DWG format. AutoDESK has stated it's a proprietary format, and I respect that every bit as much as I would your code. In either case, whining that it's not open is just so much sour grapes from those wishing to benefit from someone else's work product without paying for the privilege.

(In the DWG case, I can see a severe detriment to my current operation if the format is opened and have so stated.)

Now, if you can't see that difference, it's only because you so choose.

[Anonymous]

You win Randy. I'm done arguing about this subject. However I feel I need to
end with one last comment.

My quote(s):
"" Bringing up the fact that they claimed it would error free has nothing to
do with anything. ""
...
"" Of course ActiveX components aren't going to run in Firefox on a Unix or
Mac. ""

Your Quote:
That IS the point, GENIUS. We already have a plethora of loose canons
making claims of full compatibility that isn't there, and we already KNOW
that they won't run identically. Opening the format will only fuel that
insanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ActiveX isn't an open standard, you need to understand the difference. You
see when things are released as an open standard then interoperability can
occur. There are reasons that the IEEE, ECMA and IETF are around, to develop
or accept submissions as standards. Once these standards are defined then
everyone who has access to them can develop products that work with them
correctly. I mentioned PNG files as an example as they have an open
specification[1], that's why they are rendered correctly on pretty much any
image viewer.
To put it in terms you may be familiar with, it's something similiar to ANSI
or ISO standards. If two 3" flanges are built to ANSI standards then you're
pretty much guaranteed that they will work together. If you need more
examples peruse the Fasteners section of the Machinery's Handbook[2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/
[2] http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=309

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

[Anonymous]

Randy Culp wrote:
> "" 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. ""
>
> Oh, I see. Using the opening PDF as an excuse to call for the opening of the DWG format is still apples and candy wrappers. While the individual formats may or may not have the same complexity, one is a format from which I can glean an enormous amount of complex data, while the other is little more than MS Paint. There is that better?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "" No, you really don't. All you're offering here is more speculations. ""
>
> Part of my business is providing skilled designers to engineering firms around the country. We communicate on a regular basis with a large portion of the industry design end users in an attempt to meet their needs. So I am quite familiar with what a good chunk of the design community is doing. In the last year we've had hundreds of queries for skilled AutoCAD help ranging from Plain-Jane to any of the desktop verts to Revit and INventor. PDS help (especially admin) is the second most requested, after that is a big gap before you get to Pro-E, Msta, VersaCAD, Intellicad, Plant-4D, SolidWorks and others. In the all years I've been associated with this business we've never had a request for a PDF creator, nor have we had a request for someone that could work on a clone of MSTA.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "" Bringing up the fact that they claimed it would error free has nothing to do with anything. ""
> ...
> "" Of course ActiveX components aren't going to run in Firefox on a Unix or Mac. ""
>
> That IS the point, GENIUS. We already have a plethora of loose "canons" making claims of full compatibility that isn't there, and we already KNOW that they won't run identically. Opening the format will only fuel that insanity.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "" That doesn't change the fact that you are benefiting from others work ""
>
> Yes I am.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "" In the previous post you complained about "those wishing to profit from some one else's work product", ""
>
> No complaint, but a comment relating to the whine coming from those who disdain the closed DWG format.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "" 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. ""
>
> Well here let me explain the difference. If someone says, "hey you can't use that commercially", I'll say cool and go look for something else. There are some that post at the swamp that use a disclaimer in their code to that effect, and I respect that wish. Now we have some 250 posts relating to opening the DWG format. AutoDESK has stated it's a proprietary format, and I respect that every bit as much as I would your code. In either case, whining that it's not open is just so much sour grapes from those wishing to benefit from someone else's work product without paying for the privilege.
>
> (In the DWG case, I can see a severe detriment to my current operation if the format is opened and have so stated.)
>
> Now, if you can't see that difference, it's only because you so choose.
I just thought your "turn of a phrase" might bear some interest to those
of us who take pleasure in these type of slips Randy;
http://tinyurl.com/ma5n5

[rculp]

Tim you're choosing to miss my point, so I'll try one more time. You brought up ANSI standard, let's look at ASTM is that "standard" enough for you? On the shelf above my desk are (4) 3/4" dia. bolts, one is a little longer than the others, but other than that they seem exactly alike. Each bears the appropriate head markings indicating that they should be A-325 high strength bolts. The "STANDARD" was openly available, the production and testing methods extremely well documented and each of these bolts are claiming 100% compliance by the markings. The problem is these bolts will fail completely at about 20% of the load that they should.

We buy our bolts through known suppliers that are diligent in maintaining the integrity of their product and ours, and we go an extra step to test samples ourselves. One of our competitors was looking to save a buck and ended up installing several hundred of these in a major structure. Everything looked the same, the papers were right, everything fine except performance. One of the guys from the competitor made an open comment aimed at no one in particular that this would have been avoided if there were only one supplier.

Now I'm not saying the two scenarios are near the same, but over the years I've loaded tons of software (so have you) that have made grandiose claims of one kind or another, only to be disappointed that the fact did NOT match the hype (Intellicad being one of them, sorry). Opening the DWG format will only make that worse. We've all gotten cra99y files from guys who actually use AutoCAD, can you image the garbage from the same drafter using a freebie clone that's only close but not quite?

I can see the possible costs of opening the format, and you may not agree, but I've asked you and Jorge and even Evan for some solid benefits to me for opening the format, despite the volumes of rhetoric none of you have offered a single one. I find that more telling than my conjecture.

[rculp]

"" I just thought your "turn of a phrase" might bear some interest to those of us who take pleasure in these type of slips Randy; ""

Snort, Doncha just hate when you mispell a word and it's still a word? 😉

[Anonymous]

Randy Culp wrote:
> "" I just thought your "turn of a phrase" might bear some interest to those of us who take pleasure in these type of slips Randy; ""
>
> Snort, Doncha just hate when you mispell a word and it's still a word? 😉
That's why losing MS Office recently caused me to turn to a competitor
of OE - Thunderbird, along with OpenOffice.

I least I now have a Spell Checker that I can teach some new words to -
like mistrakes! 😉

And it takes those typing scrawl characters, and makes caricature faces
from them in the posts when I read them now - but puts them back the way
they were on this reply for instance.

Computer Technology is with us to stay - I'm thinking.

See ya my friend.

But before I go, I was thinking that your use of "Doncha" might have
been in reference to your comment;
http://tinyurl.com/k4324
...not so!

Now I'll let SC go over the rest to see how I did. 😮

And I see that it won't check your portion, as I thought it was earlier
today.

So much for my "powers of observation"!


--
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

(though I will be glad to find the Extension or Add-on that will enable
me to stop Copying my signature from Notepad into each post. Though it
doesn't make me miss OE t-h-a-t m-u-c-h!)

[rculp]

"" Ah, there is the rub. You are talking about Intergraph not Bentley. ""

Intergraph was marketing Bentley Software (Microstation) at the time. The Bentley boys had gotten in bed with INtergraph in an effort to jump start lackluster sales in the mid 80's. One of Intergraph's first moves was to target DOT's, give out free seats and free training., get hooked, get 'em selling the software to their subs. You know, like a crack dealer in a high school. And it worked... very well ... MSTA still has a grip on the DOT market 20 years later.

[jorgeledezma]

"PDS help (especially admin) is the second most requested"

Oh! PDS works on MSTA, surprise!