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
1819 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 81 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:58:52 +0000, Randy Culp <> wrote:

>"" 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.

Well, ya got me there. Ouch.

Dummy me would rather spend half a second of billable time inserting an ADT door
and modifying its properties, rather than the *slightly* more time it would take
to build one in ObjectARX to do the same thing.

Call me nuts. But hey, that's just me. And, come to think of it, probably every
other sane architectural designer out there.

Luckily, there are PLENTY of apps out there that do what I need it to, even if
it does involve a decent degree of customization.

But, if that's not the case with you, and you want to put forth the effort to
bend AutoCAD into the supertool that does what you want, then more power to ya.

As long as we all get paid enough to make a profit, I don't think the tool of
choice really matters, right?

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 82 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

"" Dummy me would rather spend half a second of billable time inserting an ADT door and modifying its properties, rather than the *slightly* more time it would take to build one in ObjectARX to do the same thing ""

Once built and properly constrained, it'll take about the same amount of time to do either. So spend a few minutes to do it or a few hundred dollars per seat to have someone else tell you how and what to draw. Your choice, but if you choose the later don't gripe because the former didn't happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"' Call me nuts.""

Okay, you're nuts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" As long as we all get paid enough to make a profit, I don't think the tool of choice really matters, right? ""

My thoughts as well. I'm just commenting on the naysayers and complainers that will spend half a week getting the shade color just right on the conference room carpet but won't spend a minute to make the tool fit their use. If they spent as much time customizing their tools as they do complaining about them on these boards there'd be nothing to complain about. But then that's the real issue, isn't it?
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)
Message 83 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.


"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 84 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Here's 5 reasons why.

1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need all
of the technology for the vertical products anyways.

2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who have
not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it means
more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.

3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes

4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
and 2D.

5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that can
be viewed from Explorer.

--
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.

"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.


"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 85 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'll totally agree with 5. At least as far as dynamic blocks go. I've
replace my TB attributes & RText with fields.

Everyone says if you do 3D use Inventor. While I have never used it. From
what I have seen it if a great product if you are designing machine parts. I
work in Civil and do Site Design. I don't know how Inventor would work into
that discipline. However I am eagerly awaiting how the new 3D tools in
Autocad will tie into Civil 3D.

Allen
"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5122629@discussion.autodesk.com...
Here's 5 reasons why.

1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need all
of the technology for the vertical products anyways.

2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who have
not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it means
more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.

3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes

4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
and 2D.

5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that can
be viewed from Explorer.

--
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.

"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.


"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 86 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Randy,

1. Do you produce detailed drawings based on these models?
2. If so how long does it take to change the detail when the part changes?
3. Do you ever have to make changes to the direction or routings of these
parts?
4. If so how many other parts do you need to change if one pipe changes
direction of location?

In Inventor (or SWX or MDT or any other PARAMETRIC program) all of these are
moot questions because the modeler changes all parts based on the position
of other parts. So in answer to question #4 using Iv the answer would be
none (if the model is set up correctly).

Also the answer to #2 would be no time at all because details automatically
change with the models.

To my knowledge AutoCAD 3D does not do this.

You owe it to yourself to look at Inventor Pro Tubing & Piping.

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



wrote in message news:5118422@discussion.autodesk.com...
" 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.
Message 87 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

1. It's not free. There was a LOT of work that went into getting 3D in
base AutoCAD.
3. You just said you could design your conveyors in 2D faster. Fine. Then
there is no need for 3D in AutoCAD...
4. Inventor produces 2D drawings in multiple formats. Also they are
*associative* to the model.


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



"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5122629@discussion.autodesk.com...
Here's 5 reasons why.

1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need all
of the technology for the vertical products anyways.

2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who have
not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it means
more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.

3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes

4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
and 2D.

5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that can
be viewed from Explorer.

--
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.

"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.


"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 88 of 101
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

1. Yes
2. Very little minor annotation only, details are of the model.
3. Often
4. Most, not all

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" Also the answer to #2 would be no time at all because details automatically
change with the models.

To my knowledge AutoCAD 3D does not do this. ""

Then you need to spend more time with AutoCAD.

"" You owe it to yourself to look at Inventor Pro Tubing & Piping.""

We have, currently it does not meet our needs.
Message 89 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Sean,

Inventor and other parametric modeling programs are great but they are not
the end all solution for all 3D design. Each company should weigh all the
options first and do an intense trial before making a decision. Anybody who
thinks they are the solution for all 3D design is obviously a salesman and
not an engineer. I've sat through a half hour long display by a Solidworks
to show how a they could wrap the jpg image of a label on an oil filter just
to have to explain to them that the customer simply wanted to drop a jpg on
the 2D drawing. We tried to tell him that 3 times but it was a cool wow
factor that this customer has probably never ended up using.

1.) My point is that most of the 3D cpability had to be built into the core
for all of the various vertical products and AutoCAD is the core. ADT, MDT,
Civil 3D, all their core 3D has to be built into the base AutoCAD anyways.
There's this thing called Object Enablers that without then ADT and the rest
would be a really hard sell if the clients had to have ADT instead of the
base AutoCAD and the Object Enablers to view the files.

2.) I was doing the design in 3D and the related 2D drawing all at once. At
the time there was no 3D system out of the box that could even come close to
what I could do with AutoCAD 2000 3D and Lisp. Today I still doubt that
there is for this application. There are just too many combinations of how
the hoods could be made and even though the 3D systems will update the 2D
drawings they still normally don't take into account if the dimension
locations.
I don't have a sample handy with the 3D model still but here's a sample 2D
drawing that was created from it.
http://www.cadzation.com/downloads/hoodsample.dwg
Just a few of the variations that the program could handle and from start to
finish it was under 2 minutes and that included firing the program up and
picking your options.
A.) The bottom angle Pc#1 may be an angle as this one is or if the hood is
not a full dome then it would have to be a piece of plate that is formed at
the specific angle.
B.) The bottom angles may be the same if hole locations are even or you may
have to have a Pc#2 which would be the opposite side. In some cases because
of clearance you may even have to have different hole locations on each
side.
C.) The skins Pc#3 and Pc#4 may sometimes be the same depending on intake
and exhaust spouts and access door options.
D.) The skins Pc#3 and Pc#4 may also sometimes just be a single Pc#3
depending on length and width and limitations or the shops rolling ability.
E.) You may or may not have a center support Pc#6 depending on length and
speed of the conveyor.
F.) Depending on if there is high humidity expected in the conveyor the
skins may have to come into the inside of the bottom angle Pc#1. This
completely changes how Pc#5 and Pc#6 have to be modeled because they now
have to be coped also.
G.) Then you have about 8 different types of intake and exhaust spouts along
with the fact that some may come out the top and some off the side.
H.) Add in about 6 different types of access doors

As you can see it doesn't take long in a case like this to have to generate
too many base models for it to work.

3.) I've seen plenty of associative 2D drawings that unless the parts are
really restrictive it's still going to take some touchup of the dimensions
by the engineer before it goes to the shop. Some cases it works, but not
always.


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.

"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:5128934@discussion.autodesk.com...
1. It's not free. There was a LOT of work that went into getting 3D in
base AutoCAD.
3. You just said you could design your conveyors in 2D faster. Fine. Then
there is no need for 3D in AutoCAD...
4. Inventor produces 2D drawings in multiple formats. Also they are
*associative* to the model.


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



"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5122629@discussion.autodesk.com...
Here's 5 reasons why.

1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need all
of the technology for the vertical products anyways.

2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who have
not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it means
more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.

3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes

4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
and 2D.

5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that can
be viewed from Explorer.

--
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.

"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.


"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 90 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

"" 1. It's not free. There was a LOT of work that went into getting 3D in base AutoCAD. ""

1.) They were ported up from other Adesk products, so the major programming effort was already complete.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
""3... Then there is no need for 3D in AutoCAD... ""

3.) We use AutoCAD 3D exclusively

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"" 4. Inventor produces 2D drawings in multiple formats. Also they are *associative* to the model ""

We do the same in AutoCAD.
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)
Message 91 of 101
Daniel Membry
in reply to: Anonymous

Randy,
How do you get your layout dimensions to update when you change your model?
Message 92 of 101
rculp
in reply to: Anonymous

DIMASSOC=2
But hey, that's just me.

Randall Culp
Civil-Structural Design Technician
(aka CADaver)
Message 93 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

>Then you need to spend more time with AutoCAD.

Why would I trade in my care for a horse and buggy 😉

--
Sean Dotson, PE
UF Gators - National Champions!!!
RND Automation & Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com


.
Message 94 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Dave, just saw this thread.

Its funny because Microstation has the 2d file concept going.
Having dealt with it, I didn't like it.
Keep in mind, in the game of Monopoly, you land on Boardwalk, and the owner wants full rent.
There is no business reason for Adesk to do what you ask. People that need lisp are too happy to pay what we do. I am
amazed they dont raise prices more.

Rather than have a lesser product available, I would prefer a checklist of features I could enable/disable.
The overhead should follow what I have checked.
If I dont want sheet set manager, I can uncheck it.
It would be per profile.
The goal would be:
1) make acad start and run faster
2) ability to strip down acad to troubleshoot things
3) increase acad stability by cutting out things we dont use.

I know we can do this some right now, by removing arx and other files, but its dangerous and confusing.
I could sure go for a "feature" dialog somewhere that had a list I could check and uncheck, and it would actually cut
out the features from loading, not just disable them.



David Allen
|>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?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
Message 95 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

what the heck, my NG reader (Agent) shows this thread just got cut by 30 messages.
It was 50, now like 10.
Is this right or is my reader whacking out?

Rodney McManamy - CADzation
|>Here's 5 reasons why.
|>
|>1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need all
|>of the technology for the vertical products anyways.
|>
|>2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who have
|>not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
|>competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it means
|>more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
|>ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
|>does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.
|>
|>3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
|>solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
|>could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
|>any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
|>justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes
|>
|>4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
|>drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
|>and 2D.
|>
|>5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
|>Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
|>actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
|>what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that can
|>be viewed from Explorer.
|>
|>--
|>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.
|>
|>"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
|>news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
|>I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007, I
|>was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
|>Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.
|>
|>
|>"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?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
Message 96 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

50-30 =10 ?

Mothership might of cleaned house or something. I still show more than 10
messages.

Murph--
http://mappingitout.blogspot.com/
"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5153818@discussion.autodesk.com...
what the heck, my NG reader (Agent) shows this thread just got cut by 30
messages.
It was 50, now like 10.
Is this right or is my reader whacking out?
Message 97 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

yep, I was doing the math too... 🙂

And who cares? It is a meaningless rant anywho...

--
Craig
_______________
Dreamers don't have strategic grill locations...


"Murph" wrote in message
news:5153835@discussion.autodesk.com...
50-30 =10 ?

Mothership might of cleaned house or something. I still show more than 10
messages.

Murph--
http://mappingitout.blogspot.com/
"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5153818@discussion.autodesk.com...
what the heck, my NG reader (Agent) shows this thread just got cut by 30
messages.
It was 50, now like 10.
Is this right or is my reader whacking out?
Message 98 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I agreed in that it would be nice if you could turn off features that you
don't want to use to make acad more stable / fast

--
Dave

"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5153748@discussion.autodesk.com...
Dave, just saw this thread.

Its funny because Microstation has the 2d file concept going.
Having dealt with it, I didn't like it.
Keep in mind, in the game of Monopoly, you land on Boardwalk, and the owner
wants full rent.
There is no business reason for Adesk to do what you ask. People that need
lisp are too happy to pay what we do. I am
amazed they dont raise prices more.

Rather than have a lesser product available, I would prefer a checklist of
features I could enable/disable.
The overhead should follow what I have checked.
If I dont want sheet set manager, I can uncheck it.
It would be per profile.
The goal would be:
1) make acad start and run faster
2) ability to strip down acad to troubleshoot things
3) increase acad stability by cutting out things we dont use.

I know we can do this some right now, by removing arx and other files, but
its dangerous and confusing.
I could sure go for a "feature" dialog somewhere that had a list I could
check and uncheck, and it would actually cut
out the features from loading, not just disable them.



David Allen
|>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?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
Message 99 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I just set my OE to show all messages and see 92 in this thread...

John

"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5153818@discussion.autodesk.com...
what the heck, my NG reader (Agent) shows this thread just got cut by 30
messages.
It was 50, now like 10.
Is this right or is my reader whacking out?

Rodney McManamy - CADzation
|>Here's 5 reasons why.
|>
|>1.) The 3D stuff in the base AutoCAD is basically free because they need
all
|>of the technology for the vertical products anyways.
|>
|>2.) There are very good marketing reasons for it like giving users who
have
|>not done 3D enough ability to toy with it without leaving and going to the
|>competition to learn 3D. For every customer that doesn't jump ship it
means
|>more potential revenu. I don't think any 2D customers are going to jump
|>ship because AutoCAD doesn't have or add a feature that the competition
|>does. 2D users are likely to leave only because of price.
|>
|>3.) Inventor and other types of Parametic Modeling are not always the best
|>solution for 3D either. For the vibrating conveyors I used to design I
|>could take base AutoCAD and some customization and design far faster than
|>any other system out there. The cost of the customization could easily be
|>justified by the time savings for the rest of the employes
|>
|>4.) In some industries the final design is still going to have to be 2D
|>drawings for the shop. Base AutoCAD gives you the best balance between 3D
|>and 2D.
|>
|>5.) I bet only 25% of the AutoCAD users would use any new feature anyways.
|>Fields and Dynamic Blocks have a ton of potential but I bet very few users
|>actually know how to use them. We still deal with people who don't know
|>what a titleblock attribute is or that there are drawing properties that
can
|>be viewed from Explorer.
|>
|>--
|>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.
|>
|>"Jim Shipley" wrote in message
|>news:5121067@discussion.autodesk.com...
|>I agree completely, when I first heard about the 3D features in ACAD2007,
I
|>was like "What???", why would they invest in 3D in ACAD? Use Inventor for
|>Pete's sake. Get the 3D stuff out and concentrate on other things.
|>
|>
|>"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?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
Message 100 of 101
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

microstation 2d?? its all 3d now

"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5153748@discussion.autodesk.com...
Dave, just saw this thread.

Its funny because Microstation has the 2d file concept going.
Having dealt with it, I didn't like it.
Keep in mind, in the game of Monopoly, you land on Boardwalk, and the owner
wants full rent.
There is no business reason for Adesk to do what you ask. People that need
lisp are too happy to pay what we do. I am
amazed they dont raise prices more.

Rather than have a lesser product available, I would prefer a checklist of
features I could enable/disable.
The overhead should follow what I have checked.
If I dont want sheet set manager, I can uncheck it.
It would be per profile.
The goal would be:
1) make acad start and run faster
2) ability to strip down acad to troubleshoot things
3) increase acad stability by cutting out things we dont use.

I know we can do this some right now, by removing arx and other files, but
its dangerous and confusing.
I could sure go for a "feature" dialog somewhere that had a list I could
check and uncheck, and it would actually cut
out the features from loading, not just disable them.



David Allen
|>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?
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

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

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report