CAD Managers

Reply
*Jason Rhymes
Message 51 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-15-2006 07:13 AM in reply to: *David Allen
I bought a car once that had a back seat. I didn't carry any passengers and
didn't plan on ever carrying any in the future. I like the car but don't
think I should be charged for a back seat I'm not going to ever use.

Then I go married and the back seat came in handy. Then I had kids and the
back seat really came in handy and now has a DVD player.
*Allen Jessup
Message 52 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-15-2006 10:40 AM in reply to: *David Allen
Last year I bought a CAD program at the dollar store. It cost $1.00. It had
3D!

Allen

"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.

Everyone would like LT with LiSP (thousands of ADN developers for sure) but
the truth of the matter is that it's likely never going to happen. They've
ran the numbers and they would lose X dollars in lost AutoCAD sales and gain
Y dollars in LT sales and X is far greater than Y so it doesn't make
business sense. They could not include 3D in the base AutoCAD and charge
extra for 3D but it wouldn't make it any cheaper and in this release you
probably still would have the exact same 2D enhancements. They include 3D
in the base AutoCAD so people who want to move to 3D can start getting a
feel for it instead of loosing customers to Solidworks or other products.

If you buy a car you are partially paying for all the fancy upgrades even if
you don't get them. Cars are made today with extra wires in them regarless
of if the options are installed because in the long run it's cheaper for the
majority. The guy buying the base model pays more but the guy buying all
the options pays slightly less than he would have if they do it the other
way. Can they make a car that will last 20 years, not rust, and run a
million miles? Sure they can. But it's not profitable.

Like it or not Autodesk needs to be profitable also. If they didn't inlcude
the 3D into the base AutoCAD the programming would have to be done anyways
for the vertical products. Most of the 3D work is likely funded by ADT,
LDT, MDT, Inventor and the rest of the vertical products. So you really
haven't been paying for the 3D features but more likely getting them for
free.

If you remember the old days (10-2000i) everyone always joked that you never
wanted to upgrade to an odd number release. It was always speculated that
there were 2 different teams working on releases. While Team1 is wrapping
up AutoCAD 10 Team 2 is already developing the features for Release 11. I'm
guessing it's likely no different now. Consider that AutoCAD 2007 is just
nearing release. In 8 months they will probably debut AutoCAD 2008 at AU.
In 10 months it will be in full Beta. So it would make logical sense to
have one team dedicated to 3D features and one to 2D.

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
-------------------------
518 South Route 31 Suite 200
McHenry, IL 60050
http://www.cadzation.com
Providing Industrial Strength
PDF & DWF Solutions to the
Global CAD Marketplace.
*Rodney McManamy - CADzation
Message 53 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 07:18 AM in reply to: *David Allen
And of your $1.00 half of their developement probably went into the 3D
portion on their software no matter if you use it or not. And if you're
doing serious 3D design I'm betting the $1.00 program won't cut it for you
or it will end up taking longer to do your designs.

AutoCAD knows their market and knows that they don't have to play in that
cheap market. You can buy a $10 pair of running shoes at Walmart but if
you're a serious runner or run alot you're going to spend the extra bucks
for the Nike's because it's well worth it to you and you feel and perform
better. Now Walmart makes their money buy selling millions at a small
profit each. Nike makes there's by selling fewere but at a larger profit.
Both companies are successful at what they do because they both fill
different voids in the marketplace and both know their markets.

When I was big into waterskiing I easily spent $600 on a slalom ski. I
couldn't perform well on a $100 one and it was worth every penny of it to
me. But when I taught someone how to slalom ski I would never let them use
mine because they would never be able to learn on it as it wasn't designed
to go straight or to be easy to get up on. With their experience level a
$100 ski was the better option.

You can't please everyone all the time but what Autodesk has done is to
provide different levels for different users without stretching themselve to
thin and to keep themselves in business.
LT - Basic drafting, No Lisp, No 3D
AutoCAD - Advanced drafting, Lisp, basic 3D
MDT - Inventor - Advanced 3D

If you don't like it your free to go to one of the competitors and they will
be more than happy to take your money.

In our market you can create PDF files for free and AutoCAD is including
basic output into 2007 but you probably won't find a single one of our
customers who will opt to use the free drivers or Autodesks. Even if they
buy our AcroPlot Pro at $249 they probably pay for it in the first month or
use and have had some people pay for it the first day. The lines merge,
smaller file sizes, true type text support, bookmarks, and batch publishing
of multiple formats is well worth it to them. So free isn't always the way
to go. It doesn't hurt me if someone doesn't like or use our software
because around the corner is someone who did and just processed 600 drawings
overnight and had the PDF waiting for them to send to the client in the
morning.

--
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.

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5111861@discussion.autodesk.com...
Last year I bought a CAD program at the dollar store. It cost $1.00. It had
3D!

Allen

"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.

Everyone would like LT with LiSP (thousands of ADN developers for sure) but
the truth of the matter is that it's likely never going to happen. They've
ran the numbers and they would lose X dollars in lost AutoCAD sales and gain
Y dollars in LT sales and X is far greater than Y so it doesn't make
business sense. They could not include 3D in the base AutoCAD and charge
extra for 3D but it wouldn't make it any cheaper and in this release you
probably still would have the exact same 2D enhancements. They include 3D
in the base AutoCAD so people who want to move to 3D can start getting a
feel for it instead of loosing customers to Solidworks or other products.

If you buy a car you are partially paying for all the fancy upgrades even if
you don't get them. Cars are made today with extra wires in them regarless
of if the options are installed because in the long run it's cheaper for the
majority. The guy buying the base model pays more but the guy buying all
the options pays slightly less than he would have if they do it the other
way. Can they make a car that will last 20 years, not rust, and run a
million miles? Sure they can. But it's not profitable.

Like it or not Autodesk needs to be profitable also. If they didn't inlcude
the 3D into the base AutoCAD the programming would have to be done anyways
for the vertical products. Most of the 3D work is likely funded by ADT,
LDT, MDT, Inventor and the rest of the vertical products. So you really
haven't been paying for the 3D features but more likely getting them for
free.

If you remember the old days (10-2000i) everyone always joked that you never
wanted to upgrade to an odd number release. It was always speculated that
there were 2 different teams working on releases. While Team1 is wrapping
up AutoCAD 10 Team 2 is already developing the features for Release 11. I'm
guessing it's likely no different now. Consider that AutoCAD 2007 is just
nearing release. In 8 months they will probably debut AutoCAD 2008 at AU.
In 10 months it will be in full Beta. So it would make logical sense to
have one team dedicated to 3D features and one to 2D.

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
-------------------------
518 South Route 31 Suite 200
McHenry, IL 60050
http://www.cadzation.com
Providing Industrial Strength
PDF & DWF Solutions to the
Global CAD Marketplace. Message was edited by: Discussion Admin
*Luis Esquivel
Message 54 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 07:27 AM in reply to: *David Allen
Hi Rodney;

Nice comments my friend... :-)

Have fun!
Luis.
--
http://www.geometricad.com



Rodney McManamy - CADzation

And of your $1.00 half of their developement probably went into the 3D
portion on their software no matter if you use it or not. And if you're
doing serious 3D design I'm betting the $1.00 program won't cut it for you
or it will end up taking longer to do your designs.
*Allen Jessup
Message 55 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 07:41 AM in reply to: *David Allen
Sorry. I think I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I meant to say as you
have that if the autodesk products don't fit you needs there are plenty of
options.

No I couldn't do any meaningful 3D in that $1 program. Turning out a 2D set
of simple plans wouldn't bee difficult. If all you are doing is using the
program as a digital pencil. Then you don't need much. Line, Arc, Offset,
Text and maybe some dimensioning and you could do it.

I'm heavily in 3D work. Just not too much of what will be included in 2007.
But I will be glad to see it for those few times I need it. I work in Land
Desktop and am transitioning to Civil 3D. I do a lot of 3D site design and
need an accurate model to calculate soil quantities and create proposed
elevations. I ran through a least half a dozen grading scenarios on a
proposed condo complex last night. The software is not about drawing plans.
Its about design.

Allen

"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5112777@discussion.autodesk.com...
And of your $1.00 half of their developement probably went into the 3D
portion on their software no matter if you use it or not. And if you're
doing serious 3D design I'm betting the $1.00 program won't cut it for you
or it will end up taking longer to do your designs.

AutoCAD knows their market and knows that they don't have to play in that
cheap market. You can buy a $10 pair of running shoes at Walmart but if
you're a serious runner or run alot you're going to spend the extra bucks
for the Nike's because it's well worth it to you and you feel and perform
better. Now Walmart makes their money buy selling millions at a small
profit each. Nike makes there's by selling fewere but at a larger profit.
Both companies are successful at what they do because they both fill
different voids in the marketplace and both know their markets.

When I was big into waterskiing I easily spent $600 on a slalom ski. I
couldn't perform well on a $100 one and it was worth every penny of it to
me. But when I taught someone how to slalom ski I would never let them use
mine because they would never be able to learn on it as it wasn't designed
to go straight or to be easy to get up on. With their experience level a
$100 ski was the better option.

You can't please everyone all the time but what Autodesk has done is to
provide different levels for different users without stretching themselve to
thin and to keep themselves in business.
LT - Basic drafting, No Lisp, No 3D
AutoCAD - Advanced drafting, Lisp, basic 3D
MDT - Inventor - Advanced 3D

If you're someplace in between any of them there are plenty of companies out
there who have filled the void for you with 3rd party plug-ins for less than
the cost to move up to the next level of Autodesk's products.

If you don't like it your free to go to one of the competitors and they will
be more than happy to take your money.

In our market you can create PDF files for free and AutoCAD is including
basic output into 2007 but you probably won't find a single one of our
customers who will opt to use the free drivers or Autodesks. Even if they
buy our AcroPlot Pro at $249 they probably pay for it in the first month or
use and have had some people pay for it the first day. The lines merge,
smaller file sizes, true type text support, bookmarks, and batch publishing
of multiple formats is well worth it to them. So free isn't always the way
to go. It doesn't hurt me if someone doesn't like or use our software
because around the corner is someone who did and just processed 600 drawings
overnight and had the PDF waiting for them to send to the client in the
morning.

--
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.

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5111861@discussion.autodesk.com...
Last year I bought a CAD program at the dollar store. It cost $1.00. It had
3D!

Allen
*David Allen
Message 56 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 09:06 AM in reply to: *David Allen
Terry

Its not just this year its all lame upgrades
All I'm saying is that I'd rather see a 2D only AutoCAD with LiSP
It should cost less and should run faster

--
Dave

"Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message
news:5111189@discussion.autodesk.com...
David Allen wrote:

> Who would want to work in an enviroment where they could not use the
> lisp routines that they have been using for the last 10 years.

Lets face, your choice is the IWORD or keep on paying the piper. Don't
rule out the possibility that the IWORD won't be able to read modern
drawings in a few years.

So just give it up and write the subscription check. Next year it'll be
useful stuff again. Request one for me while your at it. :0)

Terry
*Rodney McManamy - CADzation
Message 57 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 09:17 AM in reply to: *David Allen
That I agree with. I wans't necessarily responding just to your thread but
to overall threads on the post also.

The long and short of this thread is that no package is ever going to be
perfect and you are always going to end up paying for features you will
never use. But other people pay for features you use and they never will.
Any sofware company has to balance both what is best for their users and
what is best for their profits. It does the users no good if they don't
because then they will be out of business and the users will never have new
software.

If you're on subscription you are basically investing in the future of the
company. Your money helps to fund not only the next release but future
releases years down the road. What nobody has mentioned is that Autodesk
looks like they have added a considerable amount of value into AutoCAD 2007
on top of probably having to dedicate significant resources for porting up
to the next release of Windows. And what you are investing is pennies
compared to the total cost of an employees. The software that they are
using day in and day out for probably the majority of the day is about 1/2
to 1% of the total cost of the employee on the company. Most peoples car
payment and insurance for a month is about equivalent to the cost of an
AutoCAD subscription for a year.

Sure you're not always going to get features you can use but overall for the
cost you pay I think users would have to agree that Autodesk has done a
pretty decent job. If you're not satisfied with them then leave to another
software package, it's that simple.

I was a mechanical engineer before I started into the programming side and
used everything from AutoCAD 2.1 to AutoCAD 2007 to CADKey to a unix based
program called Medusa and even a high end 3D modeling package called SDRC
Ideas that ran on a $30,000 HP Unix Workstation. Not one of them has
everyting I would want in the ideal package. For the work that I did 3D
AutoCAD was some cusomization was probably the closest. But I can tell you
that the company I was working for dumped the SDRC Ideas as I told them they
would and ended up going with Autodesk products. SDRC Ideas was probably a
costly 2 to 3 million dollar mistake on their part but it's probably saved
others of their clients hundreds or millions.

So not getting much from one release of AutoCAD for a $500 subscription
isn't such a bad deal. If you don't get anything for 3 or 4 releases then
either you're not implementing the new advancements or you are on the wrong
software to begin with.

--
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.

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5112853@discussion.autodesk.com...
Sorry. I think I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I meant to say as you
have that if the autodesk products don't fit you needs there are plenty of
options.

No I couldn't do any meaningful 3D in that $1 program. Turning out a 2D set
of simple plans wouldn't bee difficult. If all you are doing is using the
program as a digital pencil. Then you don't need much. Line, Arc, Offset,
Text and maybe some dimensioning and you could do it.

I'm heavily in 3D work. Just not too much of what will be included in 2007.
But I will be glad to see it for those few times I need it. I work in Land
Desktop and am transitioning to Civil 3D. I do a lot of 3D site design and
need an accurate model to calculate soil quantities and create proposed
elevations. I ran through a least half a dozen grading scenarios on a
proposed condo complex last night. The software is not about drawing plans.
Its about design.

Allen

"Rodney McManamy - CADzation" wrote in message
news:5112777@discussion.autodesk.com...
And of your $1.00 half of their developement probably went into the 3D
portion on their software no matter if you use it or not. And if you're
doing serious 3D design I'm betting the $1.00 program won't cut it for you
or it will end up taking longer to do your designs.

AutoCAD knows their market and knows that they don't have to play in that
cheap market. You can buy a $10 pair of running shoes at Walmart but if
you're a serious runner or run alot you're going to spend the extra bucks
for the Nike's because it's well worth it to you and you feel and perform
better. Now Walmart makes their money buy selling millions at a small
profit each. Nike makes there's by selling fewere but at a larger profit.
Both companies are successful at what they do because they both fill
different voids in the marketplace and both know their markets.

When I was big into waterskiing I easily spent $600 on a slalom ski. I
couldn't perform well on a $100 one and it was worth every penny of it to
me. But when I taught someone how to slalom ski I would never let them use
mine because they would never be able to learn on it as it wasn't designed
to go straight or to be easy to get up on. With their experience level a
$100 ski was the better option.

You can't please everyone all the time but what Autodesk has done is to
provide different levels for different users without stretching themselve to
thin and to keep themselves in business.
LT - Basic drafting, No Lisp, No 3D
AutoCAD - Advanced drafting, Lisp, basic 3D
MDT - Inventor - Advanced 3D

If you're someplace in between any of them there are plenty of companies out
there who have filled the void for you with 3rd party plug-ins for less than
the cost to move up to the next level of Autodesk's products.

If you don't like it your free to go to one of the competitors and they will
be more than happy to take your money.

In our market you can create PDF files for free and AutoCAD is including
basic output into 2007 but you probably won't find a single one of our
customers who will opt to use the free drivers or Autodesks. Even if they
buy our AcroPlot Pro at $249 they probably pay for it in the first month or
use and have had some people pay for it the first day. The lines merge,
smaller file sizes, true type text support, bookmarks, and batch publishing
of multiple formats is well worth it to them. So free isn't always the way
to go. It doesn't hurt me if someone doesn't like or use our software
because around the corner is someone who did and just processed 600 drawings
overnight and had the PDF waiting for them to send to the client in the
morning.

--
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.

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:5111861@discussion.autodesk.com...
Last year I bought a CAD program at the dollar store. It cost $1.00. It had
3D!

Allen
*Terry W. Dotson
Message 58 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 09:30 AM in reply to: *David Allen
David Allen wrote:

> Its not just this year its all lame upgrades All I'm saying is that
> I'd rather see a 2D only AutoCAD with LiSP

You'll see it when people stop buying the 4k+ product or a middleweight
contender gives them some competition. I don't see either happening.

Terry
--
The Ultimate Productivity Add-On for AutoCAD
ToolPac 9.0 from http://www.dotsoft.com
*Allen Jessup
Message 59 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 01:08 PM in reply to: *David Allen
No arguments here. We were on Subscription for Land Desktop among other
things. We have gotten the freshly written Civil 3D program to replace it
for no extra charge. Not just the same old program with a few new features.
But a totaly new program. Admitedly those who have been using it are realy a
pool of beta testers so far. But that is good too. It means the finished
software will work the way the users want it.

Allen
*David Allen
Message 60 of 101 (350 Views)

Re: 2D Autocad vs AutoCAD 2007

03-16-2006 01:16 PM in reply to: *David Allen
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
Announcements
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.
Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions or visit the Installation and Licensing Forum to get help installing your software.