Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

100 REPLIES 100
Reply
Message 1 of 101
Anonymous
1822 Views, 100 Replies

2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

After reviewing all the great new 3D features of 2007 I really have to say
who cares.
If I want to do 3D design I'm going to use inventor or revit.
But really I'm thinking how can we get a 2D only AutoCAD?
I wish some company would come out with a 2D only clone of AutoCAD
and sell it for less. Hey autodesk could do it and just concentrate on the
2D
features. I'm sure a 2D only AutoCAD would run faster then the current
bloatware.
My company pays alot of money each year to Autodesk and for that money
Autodesk
is giving us 3D features that we will never use. Maybe 1% of my company
will use any of the 3D
features of AutoCAD. That 1% probably would be better off using Revit
anyways.

I want a 2D only AutoCAD.
We already have 3D CAD software, how about a 2D CAD software for less money
and better features!

Am I alone in this opinion?

--
Dave
100 REPLIES 100
Message 61 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Lets say my company needs 50 seats of autocad
Lets say AutoCAD sells for $3000 a pop so thats $150,000 plus tax &
subscription
Now if I was an ADN and deployed 50 seats of autocad with all the 2D
features and LiSP
what would that cost in comparison to the $150,000 for full blown autocad?

--
Dave

"Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message
news:5111185@discussion.autodesk.com...
David Allen wrote:

> I wonder if the 3D features can be taken out of the OEM and what does
> the OEM cost per seat?

OEM is priced based on the features you intend to include. However its
designed for developers who want to produce a closed system with a fixed
target audience. I don't think you could get it, and you wouldn't want
it if you could.

Terry
Message 62 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

From this thread I think you can see there is enough people who want LT and
LiSP
I don't think asking for one more version of AutoCAD is complaining.
They already have verticals for every market, how about the 2D market?

--
Dave

wrote in message news:5111246@discussion.autodesk.com...
Here's an idea, how bout Autodesk release a version of AutoCAD specifically
taylored for everyone who complains. I'm trying to not be to critical but if
you don't like the software and it does not do what you need, don't use it,
stop buying it. There are other options for people, I think you called them
"cad users", who can only handle the concept of 2D and they will fit in with
your "cheaper" requirement.

AutoCAD is designed to be used in a large variety of situations and hence
may have features you will never use, but for the majority of its users,
lets call them "design draftsperson" its exactly what they need.

My Dad says "look at the job, get the right tool, do the job, done"

Message was edited by: Daniel Membry
Message 63 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the problem is here.

AutoCAD (the full blown version) has just enough 3D capabilities to be
dangerous. It's not a fully-fledged 3D program in most people's eyes. It's
nowhere NEAR the 3D program VIZ or max is, with its complex lofting, subdivision
surfaces, incredible material creation, crazy lighting options, subobject
animation, etc.

And I would bet this is still true with 2007's new 3D engine. From what I've
seen it's certainly a step up, but given the current feature set that is NOT
saying much.

Almost every graphical object in AutoCAD has a 3D component - that's a property
of the coordinate system used. Sure, most often that's "0." But most people use
Acad as a basic way of drawing very accurate 2D shapes which they then import
into VIZ/max for extrusion into the 3rd dimension. I use it all the time to
create basic shapes that turn into crazy lofts in max, because 2D drawing in Max
is complete torture.

But even if you can get some decent 3D stuff from AutoCAD without the extra
gymnastics - and it imports into max without turning inside out - what's the
hurt? Editable solids? About frickin time! Sketchup like push-pull? Sweet, but,
whatevah.

The 3D command set in AutoCAD is still slight compared the the whole. Thus, it
seems nutty to demand a "2D" AutoCAD option, when in fact it wouldn't lighten
AutoCAD in the slightest. The 3D modules are all demand loaded, they don't load
by default, so it's not like Acad is slowed down because it's busily chewing up
3D system resources in your dopey PID.

And, we all know how important LISP is to a lot of folks; combined with the
other features AutoCAD has over LT, it safely ensures that people who need the
high-fidelity features pay for them with the full version, and those that can
get by with LT do not. Differentiation - especially with such a price delta - is
VERY important here.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 64 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

David Allen wrote:

> Now if I was ...

Contact your Autodesk Dealer/Rep.

Terry
--
The Ultimate Productivity Add-On for AutoCAD
ToolPac 9.0 from http://www.dotsoft.com
Message 65 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

If that would have gotten me anywhere I would not have posted here.

--
Dave

"Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message
news:5113661@discussion.autodesk.com...
David Allen wrote:

> Now if I was ...

Contact your Autodesk Dealer/Rep.

Terry
--
The Ultimate Productivity Add-On for AutoCAD
ToolPac 9.0 from http://www.dotsoft.com
Message 66 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

David,

As I said it won't run any faster. There is no 3D overhead (just the 3D
menus) running in AutoCAD until you issue one of the 3D commands. Then it
loads the 3D modeling arx files.

I would have to agree with you on the $2000 LT with Lisp but apparenty
Autodesk's marketing and bean counter's numbers tell them otherwise.

For the independant companies then let them use LT with no customization.
If they are not smart enough to realize the value of full AutoCAD they
probably aren't smart enogh to customize it either. If you tell them LT
with Lisp is going to be $2000 then that is going to be too high for them
also.

Money is tight for everyone but considering that a new seat of AutoCAD is
going to be less than 10% of the total cost of a draftsperson for the first
year it's not hard to justify. Subscription is going to be about 1% per
year after that. Spread both of them out over 3 years and you're looking at
roughly 4% per year. And this is for a software program that is likely
going to be in use over 75% of the employees time.

Good software doesn't cost money, it saves money. Otherwise people would
still be drawing by hand on paper.

--
Rodney McManamy
President
CADzation
-------------------------
rmcmanamy@cadzation.com
-------------------------
518 South Route 31 Suite 200
McHenry, IL 60050
http://www.cadzation.com
Providing Industrial Strength
PDF & DWF Solutions to the
Global CAD Marketplace.

"David Allen" wrote in message
news:5113426@discussion.autodesk.com...
All I am saying is that for me I'd rather have a smaller code that should
run faster.
For the little guy, the one to 2 man shop, most that I deal with could care
less about
3D when they just need to get CD's out the door. Most of these people have
been
doing 2D autocad their entire career. Even when I tell them to go with
revit they don't
want to relearn anything. So any non autocad solution is out. But every
independant
company I deal with thinks the $3000 price for AutoCAD is too much. I think
that is
is for features they will never use. I would pay $2000 for a LT with LiSP
and I think
most small business people would.

--
Dave

"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5111506@discussion.autodesk.com...
Even the cheap AutoCAD clones now have 3D features also so if you don't like
it you are free to switch but your investment in their software is also
going to fund 3D developement.


As a developer I can tell you we all hate that we can't program around LT.
But it's their company and their decision and it's been well thought out by
people far smarter in business than we are. They've ran more numbers than
we could ever imagine. They didn't get to where they are at by not being
smart, that's for sure.


--
Rodney McManamy
President
CADzation
-------------------------
rmcmanamy@cadzation.com
Message 67 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

David,

ADN members cannot use AutoCAD to do actual production work. You get
software
to do developement and testing on only.

ADN members can't drive AutoCAD LT either. Nobody can. And AutoCAD OEM is licensed and priced on a
per application basis and it's not intedend to be used as an AutoCAD
replacement. Also your local reseller won't help you you'll have to contact
the AutoCAD OEM sales from the website.

I'm not 100% positive but I think AutoCAD OEM doesn't allow lisp or VBA once
you compile the program. It's essentially designed for say a Window
manufacturer that wants to deploy a program to their customers that would
design up a custom window and create the DWG of it for the customer to then
load into their standard AutoCAD or any other program that opens the DWG
format.

Much like the Real DWG that will allow you to modify DWG files but they
aren't going to license Real DWG to anyone converting newer formats to older
formats or anyone trying to use it to display the DWG file or convert it to
another
format. But if you want to say make an attribute editor then they will
allow it.

In other words they aren't going to license their technology in any way that
it's going to reduce their sales.


--
Rodney McManamy
President
CADzation
-------------------------
rmcmanamy@cadzation.com
-------------------------
518 South Route 31 Suite 200
McHenry, IL 60050
http://www.cadzation.com
Providing Industrial Strength
PDF & DWF Solutions to the
Global CAD Marketplace.

"David Allen" wrote in message
news:5113415@discussion.autodesk.com...
Lets say my company needs 50 seats of autocad
Lets say AutoCAD sells for $3000 a pop so thats $150,000 plus tax &
subscription
Now if I was an ADN and deployed 50 seats of autocad with all the 2D
features and LiSP
what would that cost in comparison to the $150,000 for full blown autocad?

--
Dave

"Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message
news:5111185@discussion.autodesk.com...
David Allen wrote:

> I wonder if the 3D features can be taken out of the OEM and what does
> the OEM cost per seat?

OEM is priced based on the features you intend to include. However its
designed for developers who want to produce a closed system with a fixed
target audience. I don't think you could get it, and you wouldn't want
it if you could.

Terry Message was edited by: Discussion Admin
Message 68 of 101
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

Think I'll just post once for several topics here.

First, the release of LT was a marketing nightmare for Adesk (still is), at best it added a few die-hards to their market base, but at worst it diluted their market by competing with themselves. You never want to be your own competition. The same would be true of a "2D" solution(or LT with lisp). For that reason alone I think you'll never see that as an ADESK alternative. As a full-blown cad user that desires a much more robust 3D AutoCAD, I would rather that ADESK NOT dilute their efforts by branching out with yet another "crippled" product. I would prefer that they focus on the core program and give us the future now. For us Revit (or any of the other so-called 3D programs) is no solution for several reasons that include price, user base, available training and the application for which we use the software.

Second, you say you don't need 3D. Right now that may be true. I heard the very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just as we will smirk at the 2D drafter die-hards in a few years. 3D is coming, one can get on board now and shorten the learning curve, or wait it out and make the big jump later.
Message 69 of 101
kochcad
in reply to: Anonymous

I felt the same way till I really dug into what they did with the rez platform. We found they had about 95% of everything we needed. and I have found they will include many of our suggestions into future builds. Also, we did a review of how much time we spent trying to develop our own lisp or vba routines. obviously we don't get paid for that work and I could make more money focusing back on design and drafting then I could generate from our own programming.

have you tried out the rez program yet? If so what features or needs do you feel it is missing that you would need to build yourself (assuming it had Lisp)?

believe me I totally agree with you but I can also understand the situation autodesk is faced with. still I don't understand why they have a $900 product in LT and the next offering is $3,500 and up. IMHO, that is too large of a gap in offerings and misses out on a large market that need a sub. $3K product. Secretly I had hoped adesk would aquire the rez product for mass dist. last year but usually anything they bring on their ship get's jumbled up to be a "generic" build for commercial and residential. a big mistake in my opinion. - Terry
Message 70 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

You know what I would really like, is to have AutoDesk stop releasing software every year that is not fully tested and contains software bugs.

I remember just a few years ago when Microsoft tried releasing a new version of windows too often and also had to release a bunch of patches to fix it.
And the newer windows software required more processr power and memory. The only ones who benefited were MicroSoft and Intel. They almost forced users to upgarde every couple of years. This trend has definitletly slowed down.

We the AutoCAD users need to quit jumping on the bandwagon every time AutoDesk releases a new version.
I would bet most users have less than ten new features they use since rev 13.
Message 71 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:28:44 +0000, OLD-CADaver <> wrote:

>Second, you say you don't need 3D. Right now that may be true. I heard the very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just as we will smirk at the 2D drafter die-hards in a few years. 3D is coming, one can get on board now and shorten the learning curve, or wait it out and make the big jump later.

Call me a luddite, but I believe you are flat out wrong. There is simply no
correlation between moving from hand drafting to CAD, to migrating from 2D CAD
to 3D CAD.

People will only adopt 3D wholesale when the software they use thinks in 3D
natively, because that's what it is supposed to do.

In Inventor, you are in 3D because of what you are doing - designing mechanical
parts, using software that works in a true 3D context. The software allows the
designer to take the "virtual part" and create the real thing, or at least a
rapid prototype, using CNC. It can also create 2D mechanical drawings as well.

In Revit, you are designing a building using true AEC components that understand
what they are supposed to do in all dimensions (except maybe time, but that's
coming). Again, allowing you to also create 2D architectural drawings.

With AutoCAD, there's no correlation, and never will be. 3D usage in any company
is entirely industry specific. AutoCAD is not an industry specific tool - it's a
very good drafting tool that also allows you to create 3D forms, but without any
context to what you are designing whatsoever.

As a 3D tool, it's very useful to extrapolate in-progess DWG data into the Z
direction, if for no other reason than to export it to a "real" 3D package for
rendering.

But as an architectural designer, I can create a 3D model of a door, but that's
ALL that it is. It's a bunch of solids or 3DFaces. It doesn't parametrically
allow me to change the width or height, assign it a fire rating, change the
swing, etc. The best I can do with it is take it into VIZ and make it a pretty
picture for my client.

To expect an architectural designer, using AutoCAD, to do everything in 3D is
simply wrongheaded. Many AEC folks can get by just fine doing 2D orthographics
for buildings, because in the end that's what is going to be handed over to the
builder. The better one drafts and organizes the 2D information, the less chance
that there will be conflicts in the construction phase.

Aside from the pue software limitation, there's no reason why you absolutely
NEED to use 3D in ADT, either. It's a great drafting tool for Architects,
because it specifically addresses the common tasks we need to do on a daily
basic (wall cleanup, parametric doors and other objects). But I've done MANY
projects in ADT where 3D just never entered the picture.

However, I do agree that 3D usage will improve and grow over the years; but only
because the design tools we opt to use move from generic (AutoCAD) to industry
specific (Revit, ADT, Inventor) to very industry specific (e.g., Anderson
Windows publishes their catalog as 3D AEC Objects to be imported into ADT or
Revit).

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 72 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

OK, my two cents here. As an Inventor users since day one the hardest thing
to teach an AutoCAD users switching to IV is how to forget everything they
have learned about AutoCAD.

This has been a hurdle to ADSK. Some of the AutoCAD users would try IV and
get discouraged because it was so different from AC.

Let's face it, IV's #1 crop of prospective buyers are AutoCAD users.

In the last few releases of IV there have been "features" added that are
supposed to make it easier for AutoCAD users to begin using IV. Things like
3D grips (think push-pull like sketch up), functional design (think more
sketchup and AutoCAD-3D) were meant to make it "easier" to convert.

So now they are working it from the other angle. Let's put "3D lite" into
AutoCAD to give them a "taste". Once they get hooked, we can sell them
Inventor. (I realize that some of the 3D could be used in a civil or AEC
environment but I'm looking from a mechanical perspective).

The problem with this is that they are giving these users a crutch. They
are babying them along with these silly AC 2.5D tools and then giving them
more crutches in Inventor. Ask any veteran IV users what is the first thing
you should do when you learn IV? The answer will be "Forget everything
about AutoCAD".

Marketing, pure and simple. Too bad it is doing a major disservice to the
new users.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com



"David Allen" wrote in message
news:5108310@discussion.autodesk.com...
After reviewing all the great new 3D features of 2007 I really have to say
who cares.
If I want to do 3D design I'm going to use inventor or revit.
But really I'm thinking how can we get a 2D only AutoCAD?
I wish some company would come out with a 2D only clone of AutoCAD
and sell it for less. Hey autodesk could do it and just concentrate on the
2D
features. I'm sure a 2D only AutoCAD would run faster then the current
bloatware.
My company pays alot of money each year to Autodesk and for that money
Autodesk
is giving us 3D features that we will never use. Maybe 1% of my company
will use any of the 3D
features of AutoCAD. That 1% probably would be better off using Revit
anyways.

I want a 2D only AutoCAD.
We already have 3D CAD software, how about a 2D CAD software for less money
and better features!

Am I alone in this opinion?

--
Dave
Message 73 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Oh I agree that 3D is coming
I think the days of AutoCAD are over
But I think that just a hand drafting stuck around for a long time
so will 2D AutoCAD

--
Dave

wrote in message news:5114774@discussion.autodesk.com...
Think I'll just post once for several topics here.

First, the release of LT was a marketing nightmare for Adesk (still is), at
best it added a few die-hards to their market base, but at worst it diluted
their market by competing with themselves. You never want to be your own
competition. The same would be true of a "2D" solution(or LT with lisp).
For that reason alone I think you'll never see that as an ADESK alternative.
As a full-blown cad user that desires a much more robust 3D AutoCAD, I would
rather that ADESK NOT dilute their efforts by branching out with yet another
"crippled" product. I would prefer that they focus on the core program and
give us the future now. For us Revit (or any of the other so-called 3D
programs) is no solution for several reasons that include price, user base,
available training and the application for which we use the software.

Second, you say you don't need 3D. Right now that may be true. I heard the
very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use
for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just
as we will smirk at the 2D drafter die-hards in a few years. 3D is coming,
one can get on board now and shorten the learning curve, or wait it out and
make the big jump later.
Message 74 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

yup, well said
Keep AutoCAD 2D and when its time to move to 3D use a real 3D product

--
Dave

"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:5116015@discussion.autodesk.com...
OK, my two cents here. As an Inventor users since day one the hardest thing
to teach an AutoCAD users switching to IV is how to forget everything they
have learned about AutoCAD.

This has been a hurdle to ADSK. Some of the AutoCAD users would try IV and
get discouraged because it was so different from AC.

Let's face it, IV's #1 crop of prospective buyers are AutoCAD users.

In the last few releases of IV there have been "features" added that are
supposed to make it easier for AutoCAD users to begin using IV. Things like
3D grips (think push-pull like sketch up), functional design (think more
sketchup and AutoCAD-3D) were meant to make it "easier" to convert.

So now they are working it from the other angle. Let's put "3D lite" into
AutoCAD to give them a "taste". Once they get hooked, we can sell them
Inventor. (I realize that some of the 3D could be used in a civil or AEC
environment but I'm looking from a mechanical perspective).

The problem with this is that they are giving these users a crutch. They
are babying them along with these silly AC 2.5D tools and then giving them
more crutches in Inventor. Ask any veteran IV users what is the first thing
you should do when you learn IV? The answer will be "Forget everything
about AutoCAD".

Marketing, pure and simple. Too bad it is doing a major disservice to the
new users.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com



"David Allen" wrote in message
news:5108310@discussion.autodesk.com...
After reviewing all the great new 3D features of 2007 I really have to say
who cares.
If I want to do 3D design I'm going to use inventor or revit.
But really I'm thinking how can we get a 2D only AutoCAD?
I wish some company would come out with a 2D only clone of AutoCAD
and sell it for less. Hey autodesk could do it and just concentrate on the
2D
features. I'm sure a 2D only AutoCAD would run faster then the current
bloatware.
My company pays alot of money each year to Autodesk and for that money
Autodesk
is giving us 3D features that we will never use. Maybe 1% of my company
will use any of the 3D
features of AutoCAD. That 1% probably would be better off using Revit
anyways.

I want a 2D only AutoCAD.
We already have 3D CAD software, how about a 2D CAD software for less money
and better features!

Am I alone in this opinion?

--
Dave
Message 75 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:57:01 +0000, David Allen wrote:

>I think the days of AutoCAD are over

I wouldn't bet on that...I think AutoCAD wil be around longer than you or I - or
anyone currently at Autodesk 🙂

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 76 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I think it will be around just like hand drafting is still around.
Its a generic platform and will continue to be used because people are too
lazy to switch or don't know better.
What I mean by that statement is that the height of AutoCAD usage or the
best times are over.
There are better solutions available and AutoCAD is no longer cutting edge.


--
Dave

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:5116479@discussion.autodesk.com...
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:57:01 +0000, David Allen wrote:

>I think the days of AutoCAD are over

I wouldn't bet on that...I think AutoCAD wil be around longer than you or
I - or
anyone currently at Autodesk 🙂

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 77 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

"" But as an architectural designer, I can create a 3D model of a door, but that's ALL that it is. It's a bunch of solids or 3DFaces. It doesn't parametrically allow me to change the width or height, assign it a fire rating, change the swing, etc. The best I can do with it is take it into VIZ and make it a pretty picture for my client.""

Could that be because you have failed to implement the several dozen tools available to the AutoCAD user that will allow you to do much more than that?

Sorry,guy, but I've been using plain ol' AutoCAD 3D in the industrial world for several years, not only for the 3D model, but for interference checking, iso-generation, material control and facilities management. But then I didn't take the hammer out of the box and whine that it only drove nails, I flipped it over and found out you could pull 'em too.
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)
Message 78 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

" when its time to move to 3D use a real 3D product "

hmmm... in the last half dozen years, I've found the only "real" 3D product that has the flexibility I desire, the user base we require, and power to do what we do day-in day-out is AutoCAD. ALL the others have either priced themselves out of range, or are not compatible with the software dozens of our clients use, or haven't an acceptable user pool from which to draw users, or just aren't as fast and powerful as we are with plain ol' AutoCAD.

The attached is a slide of a plain ol' AutoCAD 3D model from a project we completed a little over a year ago. If that's not "REAL" 3D then neither is any other software.
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)
Message 79 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:39:16 +0000, Randy Culp <> wrote:

>"" But as an architectural designer, I can create a 3D model of a door, but that's ALL that it is. It's a bunch of solids or 3DFaces. It doesn't parametrically allow me to change the width or height, assign it a fire rating, change the swing, etc. The best I can do with it is take it into VIZ and make it a pretty picture for my client.""
>
>Could that be because you have failed to implement the several dozen tools available to the AutoCAD user that will allow you to do much more than that?

Well, obviously.

Please, do show me the "half a dozen tools available" in AutoCAD that would
allow me to build parametric doors, that include all of the information above.

Preferably the ones that don't require me to first take a year of night classes
in database programming, C++ and .Net to create new object types in ObjectARX.

Cobbling together a complex and tenuous "solution" using software that requires
such gymnastics to get it to work this way is simply not acceptable in this day
and age, given the numberous apps that were formed to do these things out of the
box.

By the time you are "done" you could have bought and learned ADT or Revit.

>Sorry,guy, but I've been using plain ol' AutoCAD 3D in the industrial world for several years, not only for the 3D model, but for interference checking, iso-generation, material control and facilities management.

>But then I didn't take the hammer out of the box and whine that it only drove nails, I flipped it over and found out you could pull 'em too.

That's great - please expound on your techniques, so that us lesser life forms
may learn in your shadow. Just telling us you are phenominal at creating fine
china using just a hammer isn't going to play.

Now, a hammer is a wonderful tool - I've found that mine can also break a board
in half, drive screws, put the dog out all night, and keep the neigbors kids in
their own dang yard.

Hell, it'll even make French fries (but I swear you have to hit that sucker
_just_ right).

But is it the optimized tool to do those things? THAT is the crux of the
argument.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 80 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

"" Please, do show me the "half a dozen tools available" in AutoCAD that would allow me to build parametric doors, that include all of the information above.""

LISP
VBA
ATTRIBUTES and extraction
Extended Entity Data
C++
ObjectARX

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" Preferably the ones that don't require me to first take a year of night classes in database programming, C++ and .Net to create new object types in ObjectARX.""

Well there ya' are. Wanna curse the dark cuz' the light switch is waaayyy over there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"' Cobbling together a complex and tenuous "solution" using software that requires such gymnastics to get it to work this way is simply not acceptable in this day and age""

Sorry, for most of the folks I deal with, it's not all that complex and tenuous and no gymnastics are involved. And a little customization is quite acceptable for those of us who wish to use the software instead of ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" By the time you are "done" you could have bought and learned ADT or Revit.""

Neither of those programs provide a solution for what we do, they are merely more expensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" please expound on your techniques""

I would, but for some reason you've discounted customization. I can only assume you draw all you 2D stuff with OOTB functions, correct? No? You'll customize for 2D but not 3D? why is that?
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report