TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: M-dub on July 19, 2007, 12:40:14 PM
-
Hey All,
I've tried for years to get our company to upgrade our software, but the dollar signs scare them away so we end up relying on programs to convert the drawings to previous versions of AutoCAD, enabling us to open and modify them. One thing I'd like to throw at them are the newer functions such as Dynamic Blocks, etc. that our software doesn't have.
I would imagine that if a client sends us a drawing that contains dynamic blocks, some vital information would be lost, thus angering our clients upon the drawing return. It made me wonder... just how much information would be lost if converting a drawing from say... 2007 down to 2000? Does anyone have any ideas or advice?
Thanks a lot,
Mike
-
At some point you're going to have to upgrade.... and by that time, it may not just be the software you'll need to upgrade. If you have to upgrade the hardware to handle the software, well then.... you think they're scared of the dollar signs now??!?
How many seats of ACAD do you have (and why aren't you on the subscription program?)?
As for lost information... it's hard to say just *how* much would be/could be lost; but there is the potential.
How much are you spending (time / money) on software to convert drawings so that you can use them?
-
We now use DWG TrueConvert from Autodesk and it IS a great tool for doing just that, but my only concern is what we're removing from the drawings that our clients obviously put in there for a reason. Time and money is next to nothing. The program is free and it only takes a second to convert.
I don't believe they've EVER been on the subscription program, but I'm pushing it a little stronger now... not that it will do much good. It would cost us about $20,000 to get what we need. I know, because one of our clients is upgrading to 2008 and will be getting back onto the subscription program. After that, they will have to spend roughly $2,000 / yr to stay current. We both have about the same setup. 3 seats of acad and 2 of Raster Design. We'd only need 1 RD, though.
-
We are in a similar position.
We stopped upgrading past 2000. (before there was a suscription).
So far we haven't had any problems with using AutoDesk's True Convert (apart from the copy & paste problem that was rectified in the last version).
I still haven't received any drawings with a complicated table in it. That would be interesting if somebody could post one.
We've saved a fortune in not upgrading. Still not sure if its the right choice but open to suggestion.
We have 25 Full acad and 40 lite
-
Well, the first p!$$ed off client that comes to us ranting and raving about something like this should be enough justification, but I'd like to avoid that situation altogether.
-
I just found this .pdf on the TrueConvert page (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/mform?siteID=123112&id=8318668)...
...
8. What happens to custom objects created by Autodesk or third-party add-on applications when 2007-based DWG files are converted using DWG TrueConvert software?
When you create Autodesk or third-party custom objects in AutoCAD DWG files and save your drawing with proxy graphics turned on, you can convert these drawings and maintain visual fidelity of the custom objects. However, you cannot edit the drawing in other releases. To modify custom objects in other releases, explode the custom objects in the drawing before you convert it.
• If you want to convert drawings created with Autodesk® Architectural Desktop or AutoCAD® Mechanical software, use the Save to AutoCAD DWG feature before you convert the drawing.
• For drawings that contain custom objects, it is recommended that you do not use the DWG TrueConvert software to convert them to a newer release.
• When a drawing that contains custom objects is converted, the custom objects themselves are not converted. Unexpected results might occur if you attempt to open the converted drawing in a custom object application.
-
We've saved a fortune in not upgrading.
you've pobably just postponed the expenditure. BTW, the learning curve from r2000 to r2008 is steep, as is any upgrade of exisiting customization, another cost to consider.
-
We've saved a fortune in not upgrading. Still not sure if its the right choice but open to suggestion.
We have 25 Full acad and 40 lite
You're going to spend a fortune to upgrade...
Let's say a subscription for ACAD is $500 (let's use nice, round numbers). And you stopped upgrading, what..., 6 years ago??
25 x 500 x 6 = 75,000.
Now to upgrade (actually you'd be buying new because I don't think you can upgrade anymore - not from that version to the current)... if ACAD costs 3,500 (just guessing, not quite sure of the actual cost) with a $500 subscription fee....
25 x (3500 + 500) = $100,000. Now how much money did you save??!?
-
Don't forget in the UK that our upgrade costs are twice yours.
Your $500 upgrade was £500 in the UK. ($1000)
So ignoring the lite copies the upgrade costs were £75000 = $150 000.
We still have saved the money and we still have a good robust product (judging by the amount of bugs in the new releases). :angel:
I'm not saying that its right but the features were evaluated against autocad 2000. The new features weren't our bag. They didn't suit our industry.
-
The new features weren't our bag. They didn't suit our industry.
It all comes down to what type of work you do and what you currently have in place. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But there will come a time, MARK MY WORDS, that you will have to make the leap. Just don't kill yourself jumping!
-
Thanks,
Its not an easy decision to make.
The justification wasn't there to upgrade. Especially when Autodork provide a free program....
-
The new features weren't our bag. They didn't suit our industry.
It all comes down to what type of work you do and what you currently have in place. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But there will come a time, MARK MY WORDS, that you will have to make the leap. Just don't kill yourself jumping!
I know of two guys back home who still draw on the board, making a comfortable living doing residential house plans for people. It was my first peak into the drafting world, when my dad had him do the plans for his house he built when I was around 4th grade. I remember seeing his office or whatever you want to call it. He worked out of his home, and the side door went into his office, and I remember seeing all his tools, tables, and drawings in the quite large (for a home) room that they both worked in.
This is by no stretch an argument against upgrading... just an interesting side note about a successful exception to the 'rule'.
-
We still have saved the money and ....
Just remember that with every new release the learning curve for the jump gets that much steeper. We held at R2002 and are now making the jump to R2008. The learning curve and customization upgrades are a serious drain on anything we might have saved by not upgrading. That only gets worse.
-
We know an architect who still uses R13. :-o
-
13 stank.
14 was good.
2K is better
-
when grasping the the value of 2000 in the days of 2k8, I use an oft practiced method of comparison.
Autocad 2000 is to CAD
what
Vanilla Ice is to music.
-
2000i FTW!!!11oneoneone
Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve. When plotting changed it changed. Nearly the same learning curve from 2004(I think) to 2005 as from 2000 to 2008. And CUIs? There's no gentle learning curve there just a smack in the face. My thought process is for vanilla CAD. I'm sure your customizations throw another kink in the chain. I'm surprised that you'd rather deal with changes in those yearly rather than one bulk upgrade every few years.
I see nothing wrong with using software as long as you can. Not all subscription 'upgrades' are really upgrades, and sometimes the hassle of upgrading isn't worth the subscription cost.
That said, I'm pleased with 2008, I'm thinking/hoping it's up there with the r14 release as far as long term usability.
-
haha
2000i FTW!!!11oneoneone
hahaa.. I learned on 2000i :\ I got a uhm. How shall I say QUOTE QUOTE "EDUCATIONAL" QUOTE QUOTE... version from...a .... friend... shall I say, a peer? When I started college, and used it for 2 years or so, outside the classroom, until I won a copy via some contest of drafting PROWESS.
-
What about trying out some of the ODA cad vendors such as Intellicad, I have just bought a seat of FastCAD and it imports 2007 drawings just fine using an ODA plugin, some minor things which have more to do with FC than the import but still workable.
If you have to give the drawings back intact, something like Intellicad may do the job better thoguh.
Just a thought...and a lot cheaper!
-
Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve.
gee that's never happened before :wink:
Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head and dozens of existing command have been enhanced/modified such that old habits may not work at all. Learning and becoming skilled at twenty new features a year is a lot easier than attempting to learn and become proficient with one-hundred and forty new features (including a new interface) on a project with a short schedule. Now multiply that by however many users you have and consider those that may not pick it up as fast as others. It is a definite cost that must be considered.
-
polysolid!
There's my justification, I'm upgradin'!
-
Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve.
gee that's never happened before :wink:
Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head and dozens of existing command have been enhanced/modified such that old habits may not work at all. Learning and becoming skilled at twenty new features a year is a lot easier than attempting to learn and become proficient with one-hundred and forty new features (including a new interface) on a project with a short schedule. Now multiply that by however many users you have and consider those that may not pick it up as fast as others. It is a definite cost that must be considered.
I suppose you don't have any supporting data to back that up? :evil:
-
I've been through about 9 or 10 AutoCAD upgrades over the years, and that doesn't include every version ever released of course. Typically it was every about other version.
The cost of the software has never been the lion's share of the expense, even when seats were too "stale" to legally upgrade and/or we had to pay full price for new seats.
The majority of the expense was always in upgrading hardware, O/S's, installation, configuration, debugging, training, and dealing with clients who were either ahead or behind us in the upgrade process, fighting to maintain job schedules, etc.
In general I'd say the cost of AutoCAD itself (always plain vanilla in my case) was only 30% to 40% (at most) of the total upgrade costs; but this is certainly just a seat-of-the-pants figure as there were just too many specifics to track.
My feeling has always been that every other upgrade is probably sufficient to keep things from going totally sour. I certainly wish we'd skipped r11 & r13.
We managed pretty well going from r14 to 2000 to 2004 to 2007, but your mileage may vary. For instance we rarely do 3D, and while we work from other people's digital files we rarely do our work on them.
-
It is a definite cost that must be considered.
I suppose you don't have any supporting data to back that up? :evil:
Actually I do.
-
13 stank.
14 was good.
2K is better
Correction:
Initial release of 13 stank... 13C4A (or whatever it was called) was pretty good.
-
We're on a two-year cycle here... We generally skip every other release, simply because by the time you get everything set up, tested, tweaked, etc... the next release is out. Plus, we work with a lot of consultants who don't always keep up with the technology. We're constantly having to save backwards to 2004 or even 2000. If we get too far ahead of everyone else, it just becomes a pain in the dupa. "I can't open your files." "Everytime I open one of your drawings I get an error message that says eNot That Kind of Class". Wah wah wah...
-
Plus, we work with a lot of consultants who don't always keep up with the technology. We're constantly having to save backwards to 2004 or even 2000. If we get too far ahead of everyone else, it just becomes a pain in the dupa. "I can't open your files."
Hence my reason for starting this topic. Just forward them to this page (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/mform?siteID=123112&id=8318668)! :)
...and tell me if you lose info from the drawings they send back to you. :)
-
The cost of the software has never been the lion's share of the expense,
I'll agree with that.
The majority of the expense was always in upgrading hardware, O/S's,
We upgrade hardware all the time anyway.
installation, configuration, debugging, training,
Of the "new" release (whatever that is) yes this is a cost, especially in training.
and dealing with clients who were either ahead or behind us in the upgrade process,
Not a problem for most of what we do, especially with the latest DWGTrueView that comes with TrueConvert built in.
fighting to maintain job schedules, etc.
There's that learning curve cost.
I certainly wish we'd skipped r11 & r13.
Oh no, not R11, we got Paperspace and XREFs with R11.
For instance we rarely do 3D,
But you will.
-
13C4A (or whatever it was called) was pretty good.
Yes it was, though it still had a quirk or two.
-
I just thought of something...
If someone reading this topic (who has 2007 or 2008) is really bored today, could you create a sample drawing with... well, some of these features in it?
Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes (etc...)
I'd like to try converting it using this program, send it back to you and have you take a look to see how much is lost.
Just a thought...
-
I to am having a problem getting my company to upgrade from 2000. I am thinking about offering them a deal...
I will purchase the software, pay for the training, but I get to charge them the same hours I would have worked using 2000. So, any time I save via the upgrade, I get to take off. Paid to go fishin'! what a deal.
-
I certainly wish we'd skipped r11 & r13.
Oh no, not R11, we got Paperspace and XREFs with R11.
Yeah, but r12 was sooooo much better, that at the time we all wished we'd waited and never bothered with r11. :kewl:
-
r12 was fantastic, remember the long stack of floppies.
And there was a windows version!
-
For instance we rarely do 3D,
But you will.
They've been struggling with this problem for 20 years, and I've got about 10 years 'til retirement. I figure they should just have it worked out by then.
Remember that we are only the structural engineers. When we use 3D it is for graphic problem solving of the scratchpaper nature, and never part of the construction docs: some little stick diagrams and that's about it. We don't "detail the snot" out of everything. That's the job of whomever's doing shop drawings.
It doesn't pay us to generate all the data in a 3D model as we simply don't need (nor want) to display every specific situation. Our drawings are highly schematic in nature. We need to group all similar situations under one umbrella that covers them all. The more situations we can cover with generalized details, the less we need to draw to cover our contract requirements and the more coordinated the overall product.
One thing our clients never do is to draw things in their actual size. They send us their 3D drawing all the time, and they are totally worthless because (among other things) they've drawn nominal sizes.
We toss them out and do dimensionally accurate drawings. In 2D.
-
r12 was fantastic, remember the long stack of floppies.
And there was a windows version!
Remember? I still have the stack of floppies. :-D
I was doing R-12 for DOS on a P-200 with 64 MB of ram, and though what we run today does more (MDI being the big thing) it doesn't do it any faster.
OTOH, the WWW is sure faster thanks to DSL.
-
I just thought of something...
If someone reading this topic (who has 2007 or 2008) is really bored today, could you create a sample drawing with... well, some of these features in it?
Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes (etc...)
I'd like to try converting it using this program, send it back to you and have you take a look to see how much is lost.
Just a thought...
Request granted. 2 dynamic blocks with one of them with fields and a table with a sum formula in the right column
-
Request granted. 2 dynamic blocks with one of them with fields and a table with a sum formula in the right column
Thanks, Krush! :)
Attached are what it it's been converted to (2000 & R14). What happened to it?
-
Request granted. 2 dynamic blocks with one of them with fields and a table with a sum formula in the right column
Thanks, Krush! :)
Attached are what it it's been converted to (2000 & R14). What happened to it?
All work as they were originally intended. No issue that I can tell.
I don't think this is what you wanted to hear is it. :?
-
For instance we rarely do 3D,
But you will.
They've been struggling with this problem for 20 years, and I've got about 10 years 'til retirement. I figure they should just have it worked out by then.
ummm... we worked it out nearly a decade ago and have been doing 3D exclusivly for over six years.
Remember that we are only the structural engineers. When we use 3D it is for graphic problem solving of the scratchpaper nature, and never part of the construction docs: some little stick diagrams and that's about it. We don't "detail the snot" out of everything. That's the job of whomever's doing shop drawings.
Even when we're just doing the engineering and not the fabrication, 3D provides a time savings that can not compare with 2D. If we are to do the fabrication and hence the detailing we don't use AutoCAD. Tekla is just way too fast at producing fabrication details to stuggle through trying it in AutoCAD.
It doesn't pay us to generate all the data in a 3D model as we simply don't need (nor want) to display every specific situation.
It has very little at all to do with "display". Employing a cheap little interference checking tool like "Navisworks Clash Detective" can save as much as two percent of the "Total Installed Cost" of a project. Full BOM's can be quickly and easily extracted from 3D models (if properly done). Then there's the time saved on revisions and modifications. We simply can't afford to to 2D drawings any more.
Our drawings are highly schematic in nature. We need to group all similar situations under one umbrella that covers them all. The more situations we can cover with generalized details, the less we need to draw to cover our contract requirements and the more coordinated the overall product.
You can still cover details in a generalized format
One thing our clients never do is to draw things in their actual size. They send us their 3D drawing all the time, and they are totally worthless because (among other things) they've drawn nominal sizes.
We toss them out and do dimensionally accurate drawings. In 2D.
Wait a minute?? Are they "dimensionally accurate drawings" or are they "highly schematic in nature"?? If you mean by "schematic" that they are one-lines, but are accurate drawings, then you would lose nothing at all going to 3D except a lot of time on duplicate efforts.
You work in 3D all the time anyway, its just in your head, not saved in a file.
-
I don't think this is what you wanted to hear is it. :?
No, but hey, what can ya do?! *shrug*
Thanks very much!
I still say it was a valid concern, though.
-
A mo' bettah test might be to have M-Dub convert the files using TrueConvert, open them in AutoCAD, save them, THEN repost them and see what's different about them.
-
A mo' bettah test might be to have M-Dub convert the files using TrueConvert, open them in AutoCAD, save them, THEN repost them and see what's different about them.
This might be worth a try.
-
Well, here goes nothin'
2000, R14 and for good measure, R13 (because someone here still uses it!)
-
Just because I use 2000, it doesn't mean to say I don't do 3d.
-
Just because I use 2000, it doesn't mean to say I don't do 3d.
Oh no doubt, we've been doing 3D since R9. But just as R2000 3D tools were much better than the R12 3D tools, the R2008 3D tools are much much MUCH better than the R2000 tools.
-
Just because I use 2000, it doesn't mean to say I don't do 3d.
Oh no doubt, we've been doing 3D since R9. But just as R2000 3D tools were much better than the R12 3D tools, the R2008 3D tools are much much MUCH better than the R2000 tools.
Ever used AME (Advanced Modeling Extension) for R.11? Once you created a solid, that was it. No way to manipulate it once it was created. Cut alot of teeth on that one.
-
Well, here goes nothin'
2000, R14 and for good measure, R13 (because someone here still uses it!)
Again they worked fine.
Did you open the converted file and do a save as?
What did they look like on you end?
Was the table exploded?
MO is that the upgrade is well worth the money. Heck plot page setups and saving projects to places in the file open dialog promotes consistent plotting and saves time in drilling to files every time. Sometimes the simple bells and whistles are more value the big shinny stuff.
ooohh I forgot being able to hatch separate objects in one dialoge session and end up with separate hatches.
-
Just because I use 2000, it doesn't mean to say I don't do 3d.
Oh no doubt, we've been doing 3D since R9. But just as R2000 3D tools were much better than the R12 3D tools, the R2008 3D tools are much much MUCH better than the R2000 tools.
Ever used AME (Advanced Modeling Extension) for R.11? Once you created a solid, that was it. No way to manipulate it once it was created. Cut alot of teeth on that one.
Didn't use it fro R11, but we used the snot out of for R12. It had several slicing tools that helped a lot.
-
Was the table exploded?
Well, that's one thing... I didn't even SEE the table.
Could you provide a screenshot of what you're looking at?
-
Was the table exploded?
Well, that's one thing... I didn't even SEE the table.
Could you provide a screenshot of what you're looking at?
Enjoy
-
Cadaver, I meant that the software publishers have "almost got it worked out". We're not working on it at all. We do do some CAE in 3D, but for all it's fancy finite element generation and dynamic analysis, we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
As for the "highly schematic" v. "dimensionally accurate" thing you have a point there. Each has it's own place in our work, and for some purposes we do "cheat" so that things will resolve at the chosen scale. On the other hand, plans are drawn with accurate dimensions where other dimensions need to be generated from those plans.
A very typical situation with clients is where they've drawn a wall to nominal thickness, and one side is the exterior face of the building, but on the other end of that building the opposite side becomes exterior. Obviously you cant give an accurate (and associative) dimension to both sides of such a wall if it's thickness is only nominal.
Most of our clients are of the opinion that the "mistake" is too little to worry about, as "they work that stuff out in the field." But it makes it dang hard to do geometrical constructions on a plan if you have that sort of inacuracy.
OTOH There are certain things we never bother to draw to scale. What's important is that the function be clearly displayed once the drawing is plotted. I don't care what size a nail really is, but if it spikes two pieces of lumber together it better look like it does on the plot. If I have to exagerate the thickness of a shim so it shows up, no problem, so long as the function is clear. The location of a ledger is cheated on a plan so it doesn't "blend" with the wall. This doesn't matter since everyone knows a ledger goes directly on the wall. (The location of the wall, however, must be accurate to avoid compounding errors as the drawing geometry is constructed.) In such respects, our drawings are "highly schematic".
-
Well, that's interesting. We don't even get the table after the conversion. I mean, that doesn't really surprise me, but like you said, you'd maybe expect it to come across, albeit exploded.
Anyway, I'm still going to use this for some degree of justification. We'll see what happens... if anything.
-
Was the table exploded?
Well, that's one thing... I didn't even SEE the table.
Could you provide a screenshot of what you're looking at?
Hmmm...
I see the table just fine in r2000. It's a proxy entity which I can't manipulate the values in. I can explode it, but it becomes primatives.
-
Was the table exploded?
Well, that's one thing... I didn't even SEE the table.
Could you provide a screenshot of what you're looking at?
Hmmm...
I see the table just fine in r2000. It's a proxy entity which I can't manipulate the values in. I can explode it, but it becomes primatives.
That just makes it even weirder. :| :?
This is what I see. After converting from 2004 to 2000. This is what it looks like after opening and zooming in a bit.
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
Describing my part in this,
a 2008 file that writes in 2007 language but I am telling it to save to 2004. Then he converted it to whatever?
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
Well, according to TrueConvert, Krush's original dwg was in 2004. Is this not correct?
Never mind...
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
Well, according to TrueConvert, Krush's original dwg was in 2004. Is this not correct?
Try converting it as a 2008 drawing just for its and iggles
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
Well, according to TrueConvert, Krush's original dwg was in 2004. Is this not correct?
Try converting it as a 2008 drawing just for its and iggles
...then save as R12 DXF, import into Microstation (AKA, Etch-A-Sketch CAD), save, then I'll import it into C3D and we'll see what we've got!
-
What about the pour stop or the slope indicator. just a dumb block I assume.
Try playing with the slope indicator. With it being dynamic you suppose to grab the upper point and adjust it heights and the text updates accordingly. I don know, it not my block. I create simple dynamic blocks like the pour stop.
-
. . . then save as R12 DXF, import into Microstation (AKA, Etch-A-Sketch CAD), save, then I'll import it into C3D and we'll see what we've got!
possibly the end of the universe as we know it with that route and destination.
if Krush is using ADT, perhaps he needs to do an export operation rather than a save as?
-
So you've converted what started out as a 2007 drawing to 2004 then again down to 2000??
Well, according to TrueConvert, Krush's original dwg was in 2004. Is this not correct?
Try converting it as a 2008 drawing just for its and iggles
...then save as R12 DXF, import into Microstation (AKA, Etch-A-Sketch CAD), save, then I'll import it into C3D and we'll see what we've got!
Then when you are done with it Matt, send it to me and I will open it up in Drawbase (http://www.drawbase.com/wdb.htm)
-
. . . then save as R12 DXF, import into Microstation (AKA, Etch-A-Sketch CAD), save, then I'll import it into C3D and we'll see what we've got!
possibly the end of the universe as we know it with that route and destination.
if Krush is using ADT, perhaps he needs to do an export operation rather than a save as?
As requested by our illustrious Dino
-
Mike,
You are asking a vast range in the CAD industry for their opinions on how to handle this. Gotta remember that each company is different at how they handle upgrades because of their industry. Each company is going to be different because of their size and the resources they put towards keeping software and hardware upgraded.
While there is a learning curve to the upgraded software, it's not 100% new stuff and most posts suggest that it is. Anybody with any CAD background can adapt to either a new CAD package or an upgraded CAD package pretty quickly. A lot is done on the job as well.
Something else to consider is that upgrading is not always financially possible for companies. There are other roads you can take to make sure you receive accurate information. Talking to the company sending you the drawings and having them send PDF's for you to compare to. Having them save down to your system level. Talking with the person doing the drawing.
All these will help get an accurate product and is a lot cheaper to the company as well. It might also build a friendship with the people you are dealing with.
Customer definitely are important, but if you bankrupt the company getting upgrades, then you still won't have the clients.
-
dude who the heck are you and what did you do with Greg?
-
dude who the heck are you and what did you do with Greg?
What? Did I forget to plug Etch-a-Sketch Pro (DataCAD)?
-
dude who the heck are you and what did you do with Greg?
What? Did I forget to plug Etch-a-Sketch Pro (DataCAD)?
I just couldn't find a punchline, or a <sarcasm> tag.
-
You are asking a vast range in the CAD industry for their opinions on how to handle this.
Thanks Greg. I may have made it seem like I'm assuming that just because our clients have upgraded to these new fancy releases of AutoCAD that it also means that they're making use of all of the newer features they have to offer as well. That is definitely not the case. I'm basing all of this on "IF's". I mean, one of our clients just made the enormous leap from Microstation to AutoCAD and are still figuring out that Levels are now called Layers. They only draw on layer 0 and differentiate the components of a drawing by changing the objects' colours! ( :realmad: )
This topic was basically just a simple question to see if anyone was aware of what happens when a drawing containing these new features gets saved down to previous releases of AutoCAD. I will shortly be asking the clients who use the newer versions IF they use any of these new features at all. If they don't, then THIS aspect of justification for upgrading is out the window.
I know what you're saying though... and I don't totally disagree with you. I just thought of the implications the other day, while converting a few new drawings down to R14, that's all.
( Does that clear it up a bit? )
-
As requested by our illustrious Dino
your exported to 2007 drawing survived a dxf trip to r12 and came into r13 as regular acad blocks that exploded into a variety of primitives - dimensions, polylines, lines, text and even 2 blocks that exploded further into polylines. The drawing you saved to r13 lost the table completely, contained 2 blocks that exploded to primitives, no dimensions - text only, and one arced leader that explodes to a polyline.
-
As requested by our illustrious Dino
your exported to 2007 drawing survived a dxf trip to r12 and came into r13 as regular acad blocks that exploded into a variety of primitives - dimensions, polylines, lines, text and even 2 blocks that exploded further into polylines. The drawing you saved to r13 lost the table completely, contained 2 blocks that exploded to primitives, no dimensions - text only, and one arced leader that explodes to a polyline.
So that tells me right there, that if these guys were picky about their drawings, they'd likely be pretty ticked off the next time one of them went to modify the drawing. I can just picture it now...
"What the bleep is this horsebleep!?! Who the Bleep is M bleeping W?! Gary! Come over here and look at this bleeping mess!"
Does anyone agree with me or see my point, at least?
-
An export to 2004 format MAY be acceptable, but I would not expect the same to 2000 or lower. DXF appears to be hopeless perhaps even to 2004. I have tried dxf from 2006 and 2007 Civil 3D in the past and received results similar to these.
-
Does anyone agree with me or see my point, at least?
Oh, yes.
it's like having your drawings run through DataCad & getting them back all hashed.
:-P
-
As requested by our illustrious Dino
your exported to 2007 drawing survived a dxf trip to r12 and came into r13 as regular acad blocks that exploded into a variety of primitives - dimensions, polylines, lines, text and even 2 blocks that exploded further into polylines. The drawing you saved to r13 lost the table completely, contained 2 blocks that exploded to primitives, no dimensions - text only, and one arced leader that explodes to a polyline.
So that tells me right there, that if these guys were picky about their drawings, they'd likely be pretty ticked off the next time one of them went to modify the drawing. I can just picture it now...
"What the bleep is this horsebleep!?! Who the Bleep is M bleeping W?! Gary! Come over here and look at this bleeping mess!"
Does anyone agree with me or see my point, at least?
Oh I see your point and raise you a circle , and it’s valid for anyone that may be using software that is FIFTEEN years old. But then again, those guys have other issues that a CAD application can't fix. We solve it by a disclaimer along the lines of: “Saving this file down to versions prior to (whatever we used to make the file) or opening this file with applications other than (whatever application we used) may have advrese effects on the elements, data and/or graphics of the original file. To maintain the integrity of said elements, data and/or graphics it is strongly recommended that the file be opened only with (application whatever) (version whatever) or later.” There’s a load of other legalese that basically says if you use something else, the file is yours, don’t call me with issues.
[WARNING: THREAD JACKING IN PROGRESS:] Feel free to stop reading here<
You’ve just outlined my primary problem with the entire government mandated open format issue. What ever they land on as a “STANDARD” will be the R12 of the next decade (or next year). We can not know what the next advancement will be, not only for the applications we’re using, but the “STANDARD” format either. Application advancement will stagnate unless the advancement can be translated down to lowest denominator for which ever “STANDARD” is selected by whoever. I personally think that is a “bad thing” for the advancement of CAD applications.
[/THREAD JACKING]
-
Oh I see your point, and it’s valid for anyone that may be using software that is FIFTEEN years old.
Hey! I resemble that remark! :x
But then again, those guys have other issues that a CAD application can't fix.
Oooooo....More than I knew! :-o
-
Oh I see your point and raise you a circle , and it’s valid for anyone that may be using software that is FIFTEEN years old. But then again, those guys have other issues that a CAD application can't fix. We solve it by a disclaimer along the lines of: “Saving this file down to versions prior to (whatever we used to make the file) or opening this file with applications other than (whatever application we used) may have advrese effects on the elements, data and/or graphics of the original file. To maintain the integrity of said elements, data and/or graphics it is strongly recommended that the file be opened only with (application whatever) (version whatever) or later.” There’s a load of other legalese that basically says if you use something else, the file is yours, don’t call me with issues.
darn it CADaver.
You are getting me to thinking again. We are getting more and more request from contractors for our files and we are wrestling with this. If know them well (meaning they have been on alot our projects and have a good track record then we share. But most of the time we don't but we are considering this. We (meaning my principals ) have drafted up and used a few times for projects that i have not worked on. I will lay odds on there is no language for the above items you mention. I will have to look into that.
[WARNING: THREAD JACKING IN PROGRESS:] Feel free to stop reading here<
You’ve just outlined my primary problem with the entire government mandated open format issue. What ever they land on as a “STANDARD” will be the R12 of the next decade (or next year). We can not know what the next advancement will be, not only for the applications we’re using, but the “STANDARD” format either. Application advancement will stagnate unless the advancement can be translated down to lowest denominator for which ever “STANDARD” is selected by whoever. I personally think that is a “bad thing” for the advancement of CAD applications.
[/THREAD JACKING]
I haven't been following this issue but as usual you make good points.
-
Cadaver, I meant that the software publishers have "almost got it worked out".
I guess thats the part that has me confused. We've been using 3D since R12 (actually some of us since R9) and we've been exclusively 3D since R14. Where's the "almost" part??
we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
Compromises?? such as??
-
we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
Compromises?? such as??
Well, for instance (mostly I'm talking about modules of the RAM software here)...
In some cases there are restrictions on where you can locate a member in the model. Usually it's a matter of a member being located where no structural logic would require one. Still people have to do such things, and just because it might be redundant, or slightly off a panel point, or connect floor 3 and 5 without ever intersecting floor 4, is no reason for the program to refuse to analyse (or even allow construction of) the model.
In some cases the geometry we need to model simply cannot be modeled at all, and we must jump through hoops to approximate a situation. One common issue is the creation of a circular hole or pad on a mat foundation. We paid a good bit of money for this software and it's got everyone pissed that modeling a circle isn't a matter of two or three clicks as it is in AutoCAD.
It's a pain to find the program you bought because it will do dynamic analysis on a 100 story building cannot deal with a column that is cantilevered from a floor and does not reach another unless you have placed a node on every possible floor where it "might" intersect, if only it was longer.
So we "compromise" our models in some manner that simulates the situation--yet is not the actual situation--so that the analysis will run. It takes time to figure out acceptable workarounds. It takes effort and time to justify their use to the people checking our work. It causes a lot of premature baldness, if you know what I mean. :ugly:
-
we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
Compromises?? such as??
Well, for instance (mostly I'm talking about modules of the RAM software here)...
Apples and oranges!! Or apples and hand grenades. You can't compare AutoCAD, a modeling program, with RAM, an analysis program. Completely different design problem in terms of "what makes a good program".
That said, I agree -- RAM is messed up. :-) Maybe it'll get better...someday...<sigh>
-
Kate beat me to it. Your issue is not with AutoCAD or 3D but with the RAM software. Might I suggest choosing applications not so lame?
-
we find that the programs are cumbersome and demand compromises to make their use economical. (Or in some cases even possible.)
Compromises?? such as??
Well, for instance (mostly I'm talking about modules of the RAM software here)...
Apples and oranges!! Or apples and hand grenades. You can't compare AutoCAD, a modeling program, with RAM, an analysis program. Completely different design problem in terms of "what makes a good program".
That said, I agree -- RAM is messed up. :-) Maybe it'll get better...someday...<sigh>
I didn't think I was comparing the two specifically. I was simply saying that the 3D modeling we are doing (and all RAM's analysis is based on it's modeling, for better or worse) is cumbersome.
Anyhow, we are only doing this 3D for structural analysis, and not for the generation of construction documents. I just don't see that changing in the immediate future. (Like before I retire :wink: )
-
Kate beat me to it. Your issue is not with AutoCAD or 3D but with the RAM software. Might I suggest choosing applications not so lame?
You can suggest it, but I don't get to chose the CAE software. Actually, I don't get to chose the CAD software either. 95%+ of our work is state & federal, and AutoCAD is the mandated format.
-
OK, that being said, I've been studiously avoiding 3D as long as AutoCAD has offered it. I've tried it from time to time, but have never found it fast or easy enough to make it worth while.
Perhaps my reasons for avoiding 3D modeling are finally untenable and archaic.
Perhaps in AutoCAD 2007 (our current mode) it is more available and effective, and economical.
I'm willing to at least investigate the matter further, and if it turns out to be finally feasible I don't see a reason not to adopt it.
But please remember that we are consultants, working from the drawings of others to generate out CD's. Nobody is sending me 3D worth beans right now, and it means I'll be generating our structural models from scratch. I just don't have a good feeling about the efficacy of that as yet.
-
... Nobody is sending me 3D worth beans right now, and it means I'll be generating our structural models from scratch. I just don't have a good feeling about the efficacy of that as yet.
As always, you'll get out of it exactly what you put in.