f700es
2nd Mar 2004, 02:51 pm
I got an e-mail this morning from AutoDesk about it. It says subscription users will get notification soon about shipping dates so more as soon as I get it.
View Full Version : Well AutoCAD 2005 is coming and coming soon...
CADTutor
3rd Mar 2004, 03:54 pm
They seem to be selling it on the basis of the new "drawing sets" feature. I'd be interested to see if there's more to it than just that.
f700es
3rd Mar 2004, 07:14 pm
They seem to be selling it on the basis of the new "drawing sets" feature. I'd be interested to see if there's more to it than just that.
will be getting the beta either today or tomorrow. Supscription memebers get to download the beta from AutoDesk :D
will be getting the beta either today or tomorrow. Supscription memebers get to download the beta from AutoDesk :D
Hazdaz
10th Mar 2004, 11:43 pm
"Great" ANOTHER useless upgrade! :roll:
AutoCAD2005... now with 10% more crashes!
AutoCAD2005... now with 10% more crashes!
f700es
11th Mar 2004, 12:03 am
"Great" ANOTHER useless upgrade! :roll:
AutoCAD2005... now with 10% more crashes!
well I have the beta on my desktop but still have not had time to install it...from the feature list it seems it should have been a patch instead of a whole upgrade but I'll see when I install.
As for more crashes..??? My crash days left with r13. Release 14 and up have been great (I did skip r2000 though). R2004 has been great, solid as a rock for me.
AutoCAD2005... now with 10% more crashes!
well I have the beta on my desktop but still have not had time to install it...from the feature list it seems it should have been a patch instead of a whole upgrade but I'll see when I install.
As for more crashes..??? My crash days left with r13. Release 14 and up have been great (I did skip r2000 though). R2004 has been great, solid as a rock for me.
Flores
11th Mar 2004, 05:59 am
It is supposed to be released March 22 I think. Crashes? Already seen the beta crash, but hopefully the original won't. Sheet sets look impressive, but it will take some time to use it effectively. Layer states are gone, but you get layer groups where you can group electrical or whatever. You now also have tables that act like Excel, being that you have cells, not just text and lines. You can add fields that update automatically, such as details and there sheet location.
Maximize your viewport on a layout, and it looks like your in model space, but your still in paper space. Mtext has several more standard symbols. Your areas don't have to be closed to hatch. You can specify the hatch gap, such as 4 feet, and it will automatically close any gaps that are 4 feet or smaller when hatching. You can also add commands to your tool palletes such as revcloud or whatever and save them.
Another useless upgrade? I don't know, the sheet sets, and how they are tied into everything, including notes and tables along with the other additions probably means that 2004 was the one you should have skipped.
Why are they moving to yearly releases? The story is that you will save a few hundred dollars by buying the upgrades instead of being on the subscription program. They are trying to entice people to move to the subscription program by having yearly upgrades.
Flores
Maximize your viewport on a layout, and it looks like your in model space, but your still in paper space. Mtext has several more standard symbols. Your areas don't have to be closed to hatch. You can specify the hatch gap, such as 4 feet, and it will automatically close any gaps that are 4 feet or smaller when hatching. You can also add commands to your tool palletes such as revcloud or whatever and save them.
Another useless upgrade? I don't know, the sheet sets, and how they are tied into everything, including notes and tables along with the other additions probably means that 2004 was the one you should have skipped.
Why are they moving to yearly releases? The story is that you will save a few hundred dollars by buying the upgrades instead of being on the subscription program. They are trying to entice people to move to the subscription program by having yearly upgrades.
Flores
hyposmurf
11th Mar 2004, 01:45 pm
Problem is by having even more versions released it becomes impossible to know what the industry standard is when you look for employment.Will a employer be expecting you to be trained using 2000,2002,2004 or 2005 ?Or will they expect you to know many of them?Theres also going to be confusion as to what release DWG you send.Alot of people still send 2000 format but it'll change.Another thing is alot of the colleges and Universities will not be able to keep up with the all the new releases,so alot of courses will be taught on outdated software.
f700es
11th Mar 2004, 03:28 pm
Problem is by having even more versions released it becomes impossible to know what the industry standard is when you look for employment.Will a employer be expecting you to be trained using 2000,2002,2004 or 2005 ?Or will they expect you to know many of them?Theres also going to be confusion as to what release DWG you send.Alot of people still send 2000 format but it'll change.Another thing is alot of the colleges and Universities will not be able to keep up with the all the new releases,so alot of courses will be taught on outdated software.
I understand that but there was little difference between 2000, 2000i and 2002. Almost anyone but a complete begineer should have no trouble between these 3 and I feel that 2004 and 2005 will be similar as well.
Same with the file format; 2000, 2000i and 2002 all had the same file format. 2005 shares the same as 2004. I do agree that 2000i should have been a free upgrade as well as 2005. Pretty much retarded there. Offereing these as updates instead of complete "New" releases would help the schools as well. I agree there. AutoDesk might be shooting themselves in the foot with these constant upgrades. Was 2004 even a year old yet?
I understand that but there was little difference between 2000, 2000i and 2002. Almost anyone but a complete begineer should have no trouble between these 3 and I feel that 2004 and 2005 will be similar as well.
Same with the file format; 2000, 2000i and 2002 all had the same file format. 2005 shares the same as 2004. I do agree that 2000i should have been a free upgrade as well as 2005. Pretty much retarded there. Offereing these as updates instead of complete "New" releases would help the schools as well. I agree there. AutoDesk might be shooting themselves in the foot with these constant upgrades. Was 2004 even a year old yet?
CADTutor
11th Mar 2004, 06:30 pm
AutoDesk might be shooting themselves in the foot with these constant upgrades. Was 2004 even a year old yet?
I think that Autodesk want to encourage users to move to the subscription model because that gives them a constant and reliable income stream. I predict that we'll see AutoCAD 2006 early next year or maybe even 2005.5 in the autumn (fall). Non-subscription users will get fed up with constant and frequent updates and will want to move over to subscription. The flip side of this is that each new "upgrade" will inevitably be less exciting than the big jumps we've seen in functionality in the past. From what I can see, 2005 has one notable new feature and a few minor tweaks. I guess many people won't even notice the difference between 2004 and 2005.
I think that Autodesk want to encourage users to move to the subscription model because that gives them a constant and reliable income stream. I predict that we'll see AutoCAD 2006 early next year or maybe even 2005.5 in the autumn (fall). Non-subscription users will get fed up with constant and frequent updates and will want to move over to subscription. The flip side of this is that each new "upgrade" will inevitably be less exciting than the big jumps we've seen in functionality in the past. From what I can see, 2005 has one notable new feature and a few minor tweaks. I guess many people won't even notice the difference between 2004 and 2005.
f700es
11th Mar 2004, 07:01 pm
AutoDesk might be shooting themselves in the foot with these constant upgrades. Was 2004 even a year old yet?
I think that Autodesk want to encourage users to move to the subscription model because that gives them a constant and reliable income stream. I predict that we'll see AutoCAD 2006 early next year or maybe even 2005.5 in the autumn (fall). Non-subscription users will get fed up with constant and frequent updates and will want to move over to subscription. The flip side of this is that each new "upgrade" will inevitably be less exciting than the big jumps we've seen in functionality in the past. From what I can see, 2005 has one notable new feature and a few minor tweaks. I guess many people won't even notice the difference between 2004 and 2005.
Sounds logical. I just got 2004 and 3 months later here I get 2005 for free (well technically free since I just upgraded and got the subscription). I hope that it doesn't drive away potential users but I believe that the copies floating around on warez sites will keep the user base alive ;)
I think that Autodesk want to encourage users to move to the subscription model because that gives them a constant and reliable income stream. I predict that we'll see AutoCAD 2006 early next year or maybe even 2005.5 in the autumn (fall). Non-subscription users will get fed up with constant and frequent updates and will want to move over to subscription. The flip side of this is that each new "upgrade" will inevitably be less exciting than the big jumps we've seen in functionality in the past. From what I can see, 2005 has one notable new feature and a few minor tweaks. I guess many people won't even notice the difference between 2004 and 2005.
Sounds logical. I just got 2004 and 3 months later here I get 2005 for free (well technically free since I just upgraded and got the subscription). I hope that it doesn't drive away potential users but I believe that the copies floating around on warez sites will keep the user base alive ;)
Mr T
11th Mar 2004, 09:39 pm
RAM RAM RAM
And video ram, 64mb.
I have found that's the way to avoid crashes and XP.
Nick
And video ram, 64mb.
I have found that's the way to avoid crashes and XP.
Nick
Hazdaz
12th Mar 2004, 12:19 am
You can throw all the RAM you want at AutoCAD, and its not gonna stop it from crashing. I've run it on everything from Xeons with a Gb of RAM, to dual-processor AMD MPs to regular "old" P4s and Athlons - throw any type of hardware at it you want - poor programming is still poor programming. AutoCAD is an ancient (by modern standards) application, and if it was up to me, I would never use it again - which is a shame, because it know it sooooooo well. In my mind it is absolutely inexcusable for a program that has been out for sooo many years, with soo many releases, and yet still is as unstable and down right slow (with complex/large 3D files), as AutoCAD is. You expect that kind of poor performance and instability from a $300 budget CAD package, not from the 'industry-standard', which runs $3000+.
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
f700es
12th Mar 2004, 12:35 am
You can throw all the RAM you want at AutoCAD, and its not gonna stop it from crashing. I've run it on everything from Xeons with a Gb of RAM, to dual-processor AMD MPs to regular "old" P4s and Athlons - throw any type of hardware at it you want - poor programming is still poor programming. AutoCAD is an ancient (by modern standards) application, and if it was up to me, I would never use it again - which is a shame, because it know it sooooooo well. In my mind it is absolutely inexcusable for a program that has been out for sooo many years, with soo many releases, and yet still is as unstable and down right slow (with complex/large 3D files), as AutoCAD is. You expect that kind of poor performance and instability from a $300 budget CAD package, not from the 'industry-standard', which runs $3000+.
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
Well sorry for your trouble but I ran 2000i for almost 3 years on a P3-933 and I can count the crashes from AutoCAD on 1 hand. I have yet to see 2004 crash on either my old system 1.1 AMD or my new 2.66 P4.
Honestly, if you even consider SolidWorks or Inventor then perhaps vanilla AutoCAD really wasn't right for you. Too bad you have had such a rough go of it. :(
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
Well sorry for your trouble but I ran 2000i for almost 3 years on a P3-933 and I can count the crashes from AutoCAD on 1 hand. I have yet to see 2004 crash on either my old system 1.1 AMD or my new 2.66 P4.
Honestly, if you even consider SolidWorks or Inventor then perhaps vanilla AutoCAD really wasn't right for you. Too bad you have had such a rough go of it. :(
Hazdaz
12th Mar 2004, 02:45 am
For regular 'vanilla' 2D CAD, AutoCAD is great. Step up to any kind of advanced 3D solid modelling (espesially after working with good/stable apps like SolidWorks) and its VERY frustrating having to deal with AutoCAD crashing when your doing something as simple as panning or orbitting around your 3D model. I mean COME ON! PANNING for pete's sake - how incompetent can AutoDesk's programmers be that they can't freakin get panning and orbitting right?!
Sorry if I took this thread off-topic, just it bugs me when I see a company rest on it laurels - like AutoDesk - and not improve its software, just because it thinks it "owns" the market.
Sorry if I took this thread off-topic, just it bugs me when I see a company rest on it laurels - like AutoDesk - and not improve its software, just because it thinks it "owns" the market.
f700es
12th Mar 2004, 03:02 am
For regular 'vanilla' 2D CAD, AutoCAD is great. Step up to any kind of advanced 3D solid modelling (espesially after working with good/stable apps like SolidWorks) and its VERY frustrating having to deal with AutoCAD crashing when your doing something as simple as panning or orbitting around your 3D model. I mean COME ON! PANNING for pete's sake - how incompetent can AutoDesk's programmers be that they can't freakin get panning and orbitting right?!
Sorry if I took this thread off-topic, just it bugs me when I see a company rest on it laurels - like AutoDesk - and not improve its software, just because it thinks it "owns" the market.
That's ok Hazdaz, everyone gets to vent every now and then ;)
Like I said sorry you have had trouble with ACAD. I have done solids for quite some time but probably not as intense as yours so I cannot offer any advise. Like I said earlier, perhaps Acad is not the solution for you. Cheers and best of luck :)
Sorry if I took this thread off-topic, just it bugs me when I see a company rest on it laurels - like AutoDesk - and not improve its software, just because it thinks it "owns" the market.
That's ok Hazdaz, everyone gets to vent every now and then ;)
Like I said sorry you have had trouble with ACAD. I have done solids for quite some time but probably not as intense as yours so I cannot offer any advise. Like I said earlier, perhaps Acad is not the solution for you. Cheers and best of luck :)
Mr T
12th Mar 2004, 09:17 am
You can throw all the RAM you want at AutoCAD, and its not gonna stop it from crashing. I've run it on everything from Xeons with a Gb of RAM, to dual-processor AMD MPs to regular "old" P4s and Athlons - throw any type of hardware at it you want - poor programming is still poor programming. AutoCAD is an ancient (by modern standards) application, and if it was up to me, I would never use it again - which is a shame, because it know it sooooooo well. In my mind it is absolutely inexcusable for a program that has been out for sooo many years, with soo many releases, and yet still is as unstable and down right slow (with complex/large 3D files), as AutoCAD is. You expect that kind of poor performance and instability from a $300 budget CAD package, not from the 'industry-standard', which runs $3000+.
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
My machines have NEVER crashed in Autocad 2004 and Inventor 7 since june.
They have 256 ram and 64 vid ram and XP. We do 2d and 3d with materials on live. 200+ users on 40 machines. I run auotocad 2Ki at home with a Pii and win 95, no crashes.
I think maybe you have a problem with a setup or network.
Good luck.
Nick
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor. (We are acutally looking for a new CAM package, but if I can steer the process into getting a new CAD package - even better).
None of the 'features' you guys mentioned so far seem even remotely close to justifying an entire point-release. Heck, you can add up ALL the new fetures all the way back to 2000i and combine them together, and you'll barely get a 'real' point release.
My machines have NEVER crashed in Autocad 2004 and Inventor 7 since june.
They have 256 ram and 64 vid ram and XP. We do 2d and 3d with materials on live. 200+ users on 40 machines. I run auotocad 2Ki at home with a Pii and win 95, no crashes.
I think maybe you have a problem with a setup or network.
Good luck.
Nick
hyposmurf
12th Mar 2004, 01:45 pm
I'd have to agree with Mr T about the RAM it foes make a big difference.Others things that helped were adding any relevant patches and getting away from Windows 98!That seemed to be the biggest problem for me 98 was contnuinly crashing.It may also be the case that AutoCAD may not run as smoothly with certain software you have Hazdaz could be some conflicts.Alot of the enhancements do seem to be for 2D draughting rather than 3D with2K4 & the new 2K5
Hazdaz
12th Mar 2004, 11:59 pm
I don't wanna take this thread Off-Topic (so thus I am kinda reluctant to reply here since I didn't start this thead), but I WISH it was my Setup. Like I said before, I've run AutoCAD for MANY years from all the way back to DOS days, and now running on Win2K and XP, on a wide variety of configurations and setups (and I NEVER skimp on RAM). I TRY to keep my CAD PC clear of any and all programs that I don't need for work.
Trust me, I know my computers, and I know my CAD - work in any high-end CAD package, thats was actually designed for stability and speed, and you'll hate going back to AutoCAD. AuotCAD is great for simple/2D/less-demanding work. Start manipulating large 3D assemblies and you'll want to pull your hair out.
The only reason I use it now is because my current place uses it (for now), and cuz I know is so darn well.
Trust me, I know my computers, and I know my CAD - work in any high-end CAD package, thats was actually designed for stability and speed, and you'll hate going back to AutoCAD. AuotCAD is great for simple/2D/less-demanding work. Start manipulating large 3D assemblies and you'll want to pull your hair out.
The only reason I use it now is because my current place uses it (for now), and cuz I know is so darn well.
f700es
13th Mar 2004, 12:29 am
I don't wanna take this thread Off-Topic (so thus I am kinda reluctant to reply here since I didn't start this thead), but I WISH it was my Setup. Like I said before, I've run AutoCAD for MANY years from all the way back to DOS days, and now running on Win2K and XP, on a wide variety of configurations and setups (and I NEVER skimp on RAM). I TRY to keep my CAD PC clear of any and all programs that I don't need for work.
Trust me, I know my computers, and I know my CAD - work in any high-end CAD package, thats was actually designed for stability and speed, and you'll hate going back to AutoCAD. AuotCAD is great for simple/2D/less-demanding work. Start manipulating large 3D assemblies and you'll want to pull your hair out.
The only reason I use it now is because my current place uses it (for now), and cuz I know is so darn well.
Well, ok can you post a sample file somewhere, where we can take a look? How large are these files? I have current versions and I would be glad to look at one to see if I can recreate the crashes. I've worked in 20 mb+ files created in Microstation without crashes (pans, zooms, hatches and so on).
Cheers :)
Trust me, I know my computers, and I know my CAD - work in any high-end CAD package, thats was actually designed for stability and speed, and you'll hate going back to AutoCAD. AuotCAD is great for simple/2D/less-demanding work. Start manipulating large 3D assemblies and you'll want to pull your hair out.
The only reason I use it now is because my current place uses it (for now), and cuz I know is so darn well.
Well, ok can you post a sample file somewhere, where we can take a look? How large are these files? I have current versions and I would be glad to look at one to see if I can recreate the crashes. I've worked in 20 mb+ files created in Microstation without crashes (pans, zooms, hatches and so on).
Cheers :)
Mr T
13th Mar 2004, 09:27 am
[quote="Hazdaz"]AuotCAD is great for simple/2D/less-demanding work. Start manipulating large 3D assemblies and you'll want to pull your hair out.[quote]
Inventor was designed ground up for assemblys
Also don't run any programs except autocad, matbe that will sort it.
Nick
Inventor was designed ground up for assemblys
Also don't run any programs except autocad, matbe that will sort it.
Nick
Flores
13th Mar 2004, 06:38 pm
We just got 2004 less than a month ago, and because the file format incompatibility fiasco, are now looking (hopefully) to dump AutoCAD, and FINALLY step into the 21st century with a TRUE 3D CAD program like SolidWorks or even possible Inventor.
This is one of the first times someone actually compared apples to apples. I am on a few ACAD forums, and the detractors of ACAD ALMOST ALWAYS compare ACAD to Solidworks, which I never understand. If they want to compare MCAD packages, why don't they compare Inventor to Solidworks?
Kinda off the subject, but if any of you spend some time on a Solidworks forum, you will hear many posters complain about Solidworks and it's quirks also. Autodesk doesn't hold the market for software glitches.
Flores
This is one of the first times someone actually compared apples to apples. I am on a few ACAD forums, and the detractors of ACAD ALMOST ALWAYS compare ACAD to Solidworks, which I never understand. If they want to compare MCAD packages, why don't they compare Inventor to Solidworks?
Kinda off the subject, but if any of you spend some time on a Solidworks forum, you will hear many posters complain about Solidworks and it's quirks also. Autodesk doesn't hold the market for software glitches.
Flores
Hazdaz
14th Mar 2004, 03:02 am
FLORES - I THINK the reason that some people would compare AutoCAD to the higher-end 3D solid model CAD systems is PRICE! The all important dollar. For about the same money as AutoCAD, you can get a copy of SolidWorks (and probably Inventor is in the same price range) that can do MUCH more advanced things. I've never used Inventor, but from all the articles I have ever read about it, it is supposed to be a very good piece of software (defintly on par with SolidWorks).
Also, I am not delusional in thinking that SolidWorks (or Inventor, or any other CAD package) is perfect, but like I said before, for its price, and its many many releases, AutoCAD is just not cutting it, in my mind. Ofcourse I have NEVER lost work (or getting work corrupt) in SolidWorks (not saying that it doesn't happen, but its never happened to me) - can't say the same thing about AutoCAD though.
F700 - If I find a particular file that I am having 'issues' with, I might be able to post it, but its "usually" not one specific file really. And if one file is having problems, thats where the Audit command comes into play anways. For test purposes, I'd just say the files I have most problems with are 3D solid models (and almost all my work is in 3D), that has multiple pages layouts and multiple viewports (mostly using the Solview command) per page. Also ofcourse because of the Solview/draw commands, that also creates many lines in Model Space. And the 3D model has lots of fillets and boolean operations done to the solid. And lets not forget a few inserted standard blocks.
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
Also, I am not delusional in thinking that SolidWorks (or Inventor, or any other CAD package) is perfect, but like I said before, for its price, and its many many releases, AutoCAD is just not cutting it, in my mind. Ofcourse I have NEVER lost work (or getting work corrupt) in SolidWorks (not saying that it doesn't happen, but its never happened to me) - can't say the same thing about AutoCAD though.
F700 - If I find a particular file that I am having 'issues' with, I might be able to post it, but its "usually" not one specific file really. And if one file is having problems, thats where the Audit command comes into play anways. For test purposes, I'd just say the files I have most problems with are 3D solid models (and almost all my work is in 3D), that has multiple pages layouts and multiple viewports (mostly using the Solview command) per page. Also ofcourse because of the Solview/draw commands, that also creates many lines in Model Space. And the 3D model has lots of fillets and boolean operations done to the solid. And lets not forget a few inserted standard blocks.
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
hyposmurf
14th Mar 2004, 12:02 pm
Have you tried updating your video driver?
Mr T
15th Mar 2004, 10:31 am
For test purposes, I'd just say the files I have most problems with are 3D solid models (and almost all my work is in 3D), that has multiple pages layouts and multiple viewports (mostly using the Solview command) per page. Also ofcourse because of the Solview/draw commands, that also creates many lines in Model Space. And the 3D model has lots of fillets and boolean operations done to the solid. And lets not forget a few inserted standard blocks.
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
Yoy need Inventor. I can create sections which are stepped and aux. view in a few seconds from a model. The materials are amazing in Inventor and photo real.
And the 3D orbit does not crash.
I'll record an onscreen video of these to show you.
Nick
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
Yoy need Inventor. I can create sections which are stepped and aux. view in a few seconds from a model. The materials are amazing in Inventor and photo real.
And the 3D orbit does not crash.
I'll record an onscreen video of these to show you.
Nick
cadsultant
16th Mar 2004, 09:37 pm
FLORES - I THINK the reason that some people would compare AutoCAD to the higher-end 3D solid model CAD systems is PRICE! The all important dollar. For about the same money as AutoCAD, you can get a copy of SolidWorks (and probably Inventor is in the same price range) that can do MUCH more advanced things. I've never used Inventor, but from all the articles I have ever read about it, it is supposed to be a very good piece of software (defintly on par with SolidWorks).
Also, I am not delusional in thinking that SolidWorks (or Inventor, or any other CAD package) is perfect, but like I said before, for its price, and its many many releases, AutoCAD is just not cutting it, in my mind. Ofcourse I have NEVER lost work (or getting work corrupt) in SolidWorks (not saying that it doesn't happen, but its never happened to me) - can't say the same thing about AutoCAD though.
F700 - If I find a particular file that I am having 'issues' with, I might be able to post it, but its "usually" not one specific file really. And if one file is having problems, thats where the Audit command comes into play anways. For test purposes, I'd just say the files I have most problems with are 3D solid models (and almost all my work is in 3D), that has multiple pages layouts and multiple viewports (mostly using the Solview command) per page. Also ofcourse because of the Solview/draw commands, that also creates many lines in Model Space. And the 3D model has lots of fillets and boolean operations done to the solid. And lets not forget a few inserted standard blocks.
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
First let me apologize because I know I will sound a little bit politically incorrect and/or harsh. But you can't compare two different things solely based on price. You can't compare a $3k passenger truck (lightweight cargo capable of freeway speeds) to a $3k farm tractor (with massive torque at low speeds), just like you can't compare AutoCAD to Solidworks. AutoCAD does well with 2d and 3d surfaces under a load, but it's not made to do heavy solid modeling, rendering, animation, etc... even though it can. No one product can fulfill everyone's needs. For example, there are home users who swear up and down by Windows Millinium, and those in the work environments who are dependent on NT based systems and cant function without it. "Different strokes for different folks."
As far as AutoCAD crashing, I have been working with it since R9, and have rarely had problems. Usually, crashes are because of hardware defficiencies, OS configuration, updates, user errors/impatience, etc. Even if you are up to speed with the hardware and all that, just consider the platform you are running on... WINDOWS! Put any antivirus program on Windows but guess what? If your OS the antivirus or firewall is running on top of has holes... youre screwed! A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Leave a Windows based computer running idle for a month, then come back and fire up some demanding applications and try to work without rebooting. Not everyone can or should use Linux, and the same goes with ACAD vs. Solidworks or any other 3d application.
I'm not saying people at AutoCAD are anymore saints than Microcrap. But hey let's face it, their products make people a lot of money and they know it. I have worked in Architectural, Civil and Electrical industries, and AutoCAD is not only the most widely recognized standard, but also does quite well. Companies would buy it if it cost twice as much. No doubt about it.
Personally, I have seen some great improvements in AutoCAD through the years. With 2004, I really like the xref enhancements. In earlier versions, in one drawing, I would have drawings from architects, landscape architects, civil, electrical engineers, security, etc all xrefed in. Try changing one thing in one of the xrefs. You'd have to close down the drawing, open the xref, edit it, then open back the parent drawing and wait for it to regen. Now you can just edit xrefs/blocks in place. 2004 also has great standards checking capabilities which can be very productive for drawings which change hands through 40 or 50 people. Time is money, and that's a lot of wasted money. There are many other updates, but if you just add these couple, the time saved for specially larger companies can be substantial. I say love it or leave it. Just my two cents.
Also, I am not delusional in thinking that SolidWorks (or Inventor, or any other CAD package) is perfect, but like I said before, for its price, and its many many releases, AutoCAD is just not cutting it, in my mind. Ofcourse I have NEVER lost work (or getting work corrupt) in SolidWorks (not saying that it doesn't happen, but its never happened to me) - can't say the same thing about AutoCAD though.
F700 - If I find a particular file that I am having 'issues' with, I might be able to post it, but its "usually" not one specific file really. And if one file is having problems, thats where the Audit command comes into play anways. For test purposes, I'd just say the files I have most problems with are 3D solid models (and almost all my work is in 3D), that has multiple pages layouts and multiple viewports (mostly using the Solview command) per page. Also ofcourse because of the Solview/draw commands, that also creates many lines in Model Space. And the 3D model has lots of fillets and boolean operations done to the solid. And lets not forget a few inserted standard blocks.
One of the instances when I get a realitively large amount of crashes is when I try to Orbit, then (still in Orbit command) middle click and pan around while in a Gouraud shaded with Edges on view. Its not exactly something that I can reproduce everytime, but it happens enough to get VERY aggrivating after a while. Crashes usually just happen, so its always tough to pinpoint where/why so you can avoid it.
First let me apologize because I know I will sound a little bit politically incorrect and/or harsh. But you can't compare two different things solely based on price. You can't compare a $3k passenger truck (lightweight cargo capable of freeway speeds) to a $3k farm tractor (with massive torque at low speeds), just like you can't compare AutoCAD to Solidworks. AutoCAD does well with 2d and 3d surfaces under a load, but it's not made to do heavy solid modeling, rendering, animation, etc... even though it can. No one product can fulfill everyone's needs. For example, there are home users who swear up and down by Windows Millinium, and those in the work environments who are dependent on NT based systems and cant function without it. "Different strokes for different folks."
As far as AutoCAD crashing, I have been working with it since R9, and have rarely had problems. Usually, crashes are because of hardware defficiencies, OS configuration, updates, user errors/impatience, etc. Even if you are up to speed with the hardware and all that, just consider the platform you are running on... WINDOWS! Put any antivirus program on Windows but guess what? If your OS the antivirus or firewall is running on top of has holes... youre screwed! A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Leave a Windows based computer running idle for a month, then come back and fire up some demanding applications and try to work without rebooting. Not everyone can or should use Linux, and the same goes with ACAD vs. Solidworks or any other 3d application.
I'm not saying people at AutoCAD are anymore saints than Microcrap. But hey let's face it, their products make people a lot of money and they know it. I have worked in Architectural, Civil and Electrical industries, and AutoCAD is not only the most widely recognized standard, but also does quite well. Companies would buy it if it cost twice as much. No doubt about it.
Personally, I have seen some great improvements in AutoCAD through the years. With 2004, I really like the xref enhancements. In earlier versions, in one drawing, I would have drawings from architects, landscape architects, civil, electrical engineers, security, etc all xrefed in. Try changing one thing in one of the xrefs. You'd have to close down the drawing, open the xref, edit it, then open back the parent drawing and wait for it to regen. Now you can just edit xrefs/blocks in place. 2004 also has great standards checking capabilities which can be very productive for drawings which change hands through 40 or 50 people. Time is money, and that's a lot of wasted money. There are many other updates, but if you just add these couple, the time saved for specially larger companies can be substantial. I say love it or leave it. Just my two cents.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.2 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.