Thinking about switching to LT 2002 from ACAD 2000i

[jgodak]

Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We are considering making this change to save some money here at our engineering office and I don't know what we would be losing if we do. Going from the full version of ACAD to LT seems a bit spooky. Our entire CAD standards system is based on LISP and I have heard that LT does (or did) not support LISP with 3rd party software attached. Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

That's a big step backwards. LT doesn't support 5% of the customization
available for full AutoCAD, and chances are it never will. If you depend on
LISP and/or VBA and/or ARX routines for productivity, you will be sorely
disappointed with the capabilities of *any* version of LT.
___

"jgodak" wrote in message
news:f1178d9.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We are considering making this
change to save some money here at our engineering office and I don't know
what we would be losing if we do. Going from the full version of ACAD to LT
seems a bit spooky. Our entire CAD standards system is based on LISP and I
have heard that LT does (or did) not support LISP with 3rd party software
attached. Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like somebody in your office is "spooky".

The cost of buying LT and the cost of upgrading
from AutoCAD 2000i can't be much different, but
the loss of tools is significant. If you are
talking about adding seats, maybe it makes sense
for limited use, for the short term, but why not
just get AutoCAD 2002 and finance it? Autodesk
will finance it on reasonable terms I think.

Jack


"jgodak" wrote
in message news:f1178d9.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We
are considering making this change to save some
money here at our engineering office and I don't
know what we would be losing if we do. Going from
the full version of ACAD to LT seems a bit spooky.
Our entire CAD standards system is based on LISP
and I have heard that LT does (or did) not support
LISP with 3rd party software attached. Any
opinions or suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks.

[Anonymous]

That's a big step foward. LT supports 95% of the customization
available for full AutoCAD without the overhead, and chances are it always
will.
If you depend on LISP or ARX routines for productivity, you will be surely
be appreciative of the capabilities of version of LT using some 3rd party
apps.

Regards Gary
www.ltfactory.com


___

"Paul Turvill" wrote in message
news:68ABD02F783ECE49161FF9931585EB22@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That's a big step backwards. LT doesn't support 5% of the customization
> available for full AutoCAD, and chances are it never will. If you depend
on
> LISP and/or VBA and/or ARX routines for productivity, you will be sorely
> disappointed with the capabilities of *any* version of LT.
> ___
>
> "jgodak" wrote in message
> news:f1178d9.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We are considering making
this
> change to save some money here at our engineering office and I don't know
> what we would be losing if we do. Going from the full version of ACAD to
LT
> seems a bit spooky. Our entire CAD standards system is based on LISP and I
> have heard that LT does (or did) not support LISP with 3rd party software
> attached. Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>

[Anonymous]

ROTFLOL
___

"Gary D'Arcy" wrote in message
news:70AE6855F627EADBCF0BD9978533B99A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That's a big step foward. LT supports 95% of the customization
> available for full AutoCAD without the overhead, and chances are it always
> will.
> If you depend on LISP or ARX routines for productivity, you will be surely
> be appreciative of the capabilities of version of LT using some 3rd party
> apps.
>
> Regards Gary
> www.ltfactory.com
>
>
> ___
>
> "Paul Turvill" wrote in message
> news:68ABD02F783ECE49161FF9931585EB22@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > That's a big step backwards. LT doesn't support 5% of the customization
> > available for full AutoCAD, and chances are it never will. If you depend
> on
> > LISP and/or VBA and/or ARX routines for productivity, you will be sorely
> > disappointed with the capabilities of *any* version of LT.

[Anonymous]

Share the PDF below with everyone in your office.

Comparing AutoCAD 2002 and AutoCAD LT 2002 Software:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/index/0,,617814-123112,00.html
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/files/1862824_AutoCADLT2002_WP_ACADvsLT.pdf

--
Dean Saadallah
http://www.pendean.com
Expanded Links Page
http://www.pendean.com/lt/links.htm
--

"jgodak" wrote in message
news:f1178d9.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We are considering making this
change to save some money here at our engineering office and I don't know
what we would be losing if we do. Going from the full version of ACAD to LT
seems a bit spooky. Our entire CAD standards system is based on LISP and I
have heard that LT does (or did) not support LISP with 3rd party software
attached. Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

It depends entirely on what branch of engineering you are in and how
your office works. One of the architects I work with frequently uses
out-of-the-box LT2002 throughout his office. They probably turn out
more per person than any other office I work with, and the quality is
just as good.

I do AEC type electrical engineering on LT2002, although all my toolbars
are lisp based. The only thing I haven't been able to do (yet) in LT
that I could do in full AutoCAD is create a toolbar button that appears
to toggle. Full AutoCAD has a lot of capability that's not in LT, but
it's capability that I do not and probably would not use. All I need is
2D, and for that LT is fine.

If you aren't changing the number of seats I agree with Jack that it
would be better to upgrade. Otherwise, base your decision on which
features you need.

Martin

jgodak wrote:
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me? We are considering making
> this change to save some money here at our engineering office and I
> don't know what we would be losing if we do. Going from the full version
> of ACAD to LT seems a bit spooky. Our entire CAD standards system is
> based on LISP and I have heard that LT does (or did) not support LISP
> with 3rd party software attached. Any opinions or suggestions would be
> appreciated. Thanks.