Adt 2005

[Fernando Lino]

It's not a joke

 

first was 3ds max 5 and few months later the new Max 6...today ADT 2004 and the new ADT 2005...is it march 2004 or 2005? they are going too fast or

they want to sell a Service Pack with different name!! what is the deal?...maybe upgrade twice a year

[STRAT]

it's autodesks subscription service. a new release every year, which, if ur subscribing, you really have to update so ur dwg's dont get obsolete. it's all money.

[kingeldar]

considering what i've just read on autodesk website

i do considezr it's da same bunch of crap that

2000 to 2002 sumetin useless to make more & more money

2 or 3 little functions...

but i'm ,not sure for now.... will call my friends to know more...

[Kerry Thompson]

Strat is right, a lot of the upgrade is being driven by the obligation of the subscription service - but that said, it look to be marginal release over 2004, more of a refinement than a major release , - and more of "Revit" is being put in ADT5.

 

 

 

I am on sub so expect my copy at the end of the month.

[garethace]

A very nice digest for software in general was CADENCE magazine, and until very, very recently you could visit all the back issues online.

 

There was a couple of gem articles, like one about using the Bevel modifier in VIZ etc, which I constantly redirected people to.

 

These three Arnie Williams articles were still online last Autumn.

 

Hybrid 2D/3D Environments

 

http://www.cadenceweb.com/2003/0203/vpoint0203.html

 

Hybrid 2D/3D Environments--Part 2

 

http://www.cadenceweb.com/2003/0303/vpoint0303.html

 

3D File Management in Hybrid Environments

 

http://www.cadenceweb.com/2003/0403/vpoint0403.html

 

They were kind of staple things I used pass on to people, to understand concepts of CAD, 3D and file management/proceedures etc, etc, etc.

 

Now you get re-directed over here.

 

http://www.cadalyst.com/cadalyst/

 

Progress?

 

Sometimes I really, really, really wonder. . . .

 

Anyhow, I just filled up some crap application form, to try and get back in.

[Kerry Thompson]

A further link re Acad 2005 http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm

 

 

Kerry

[garethace]

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3826

 

I think AutoCAD is mainly kept going by the skilled people using it as a software everyday - that is all.

 

I am comparing it to a much better piece of software, MicroStation, which has been blighted down through the years, by far too many crack pots, in the front office being allowed to define methods/standards.

 

AutoDesk to their credit, through training and standardisation have kept things much cleaner, and a result have made more money.

[Kerry Thompson]

Microstation and AutoCAD are the same type of animal - I do not see much difference between the two except I am so familiar with AutoCAD it would not be effective for me to use Microstation, and the Microstation user in my office would never use AutoCAD to do his work either. So what, use the tool that you are comfortable with. As an entrenched AutoCAD user, I do think that AutoCAD is an awesome program, and, to my way of thinking, far more applicable and flexible compared to Microstation, which seems more of a niche CAD system.

[garethace]

Funny, I would have said the same about AutoCAD until I learned better! :-)

 

LOL!

 

MicroStation is WYSIWYG.

 

Reference files actually work like they are supposed to in MicroStation. XREFs are a pile of crap, still in version 2004.

 

Polylines are a piece of crap, compared to MicroStation line strings. This has huge implications when you start to make objects in 3D in MicroStation using quite similar editing techniques that you use to edit line strings in 2D microstation.

 

ACCUDRAW is well recognised as being the best tool for coordinating oneself in 3D space quickly, accurately and efficiently in any programme anywhere, expensive high end or otherwise.

 

Now I am singing the praises of MicroStation here, I could also talk about its rubbish shaded perspective model viewports etc, etc. Which quite frankly do not work, in much the same way as XREFs don't work in AutoCAD and perhaps never will.

 

But software like ALLPLAN, is something I haven't ever used, so really, reference files or XREFs are just andy-pandy compared to ALLPLAN reference file organisation.

 

Even MiniCAD/Vectorworks is a really nice tool to draft in, for those who know it.

 

I think ADT may have taken some of the lessons from MicroStation and tried to do them using parametric objects for AutoCAD vertically.

[STRAT]

xrefs dont work in acad? funny, mine do :/

[garethace]

You have never used anything else than AutoCAD then eh?

[Kerry Thompson]

This argument can go on for ever but a few of points:

 

• AutoCAD is WYSIWYG in the same way as Microstation – I see no differences
  
• Microstation line strings do work better that AutoCAD polyline. I achieve the same result using 3D poly, 2D poly and moving the UCS around the drawings and there are more key stroke involved if you do not use command line strings.
  
• Accudraw – similar tool sets in AutoCAD – snapping, preemptive snapping, point filters, multiple ucs etc., the interface is just different. I “drag” command line strings from the tool palettes and with some lisp you can customise your own interface with the system
  
• As far as xrefs are concerned, I see no difference – they work really well in AutoCAD. You can use then flat, nested, attached, overlaid and clipped. They are really flexible BUT in both Microstation and AutoCAD, you have to understand how use them and be careful about becoming to complex in terms of structure. ADT4 has a project manager which controls the management of xrefs. The model is made of constructs and elements (xrefs) which are combined into views (assembled xrefs) and then xrefed into plot sheet files. Same methodology and constructs that I have used in Microstation and Intergraph IGDS and AutoCAD.
  

There is some really nice stuff in the way Microstation works but it all becomes a question of style and what you are used to. Use the system you are most comfortable with and that gets you results you are looking for.

[garethace]

Naw, you are all wrong on this Kerry.....

 

It is like the message board here at CG Architect, just doesn't do some of the things which people wish it could do.

 

LENGTHEN is woeful crap in AutoCAd, only today I found it impossible to lengthen any polylines in AutoCAD 2004! I mean, where you just break the polyline and then insert a manhole, and tidy up the pipe touching the manhole edges again, without changing the orientation of the pipe run at all ..... even that, you have to struggle with AutoCAD to make it work, and think of 'work arounds'.

 

I know you can use extend/trim but that is not fun, if you just want to do things quick.... especially with big thick polys and XREFs attached at the same time.

 

This proceedure in MicroStation is just so intuitive, compared to AUtoCAD is it just shameful what AutoDesk expect people to put up with.

 

However, don't get me wrong, I like some things about AutoCAD.

 

I think that the paperspace in AutoCAd had definite benefits, in that in MicroStation I normally mess up my 'modelling/drafting area' with far too make referenced, or inserted title block and pages etc....... to constantly refer and see 'am I going outside the sheet'.

 

At least in AutoCAd, that is simply a matter of checking your Layout tab, and then going back into model space again. I liked this tip from the AutoDesk web site though:

 

Paper Space Footprint in Model Space

 

Published date: 2003-03-13

ID: TP00052

 

Applies to:

AutoCAD® 2002

 

 

If you want to see where the outside perimeter of a paper space viewport is in relation to model space, do the following:

 

Using a pline, trace over the perimeter of a viewport boundary (make sure you snap to each endpoint). Then, using the Express tool CHSPACE, select the polyline you just drew, and send it through the corresponding viewport. The next time you go into model space (TILEMODE 1) you will have the exact size, shape, and position of the paper space viewport. This comes in handy knowing exactly where the limit of the viewport is. Another trick is to then put this pline on layer DEFPOINTS or a separate layer so that it doesn't plot.

 

That is normally the way I would work in MicroStation, having some indication of a paper space viewport extents active while I draft.

 

The biggest problem with paper space for me, is having to waste time regenerating the paperspace/modelspace tabs..... meaning that I notice people 'watch' a lot less what will print in AutoCAD, rather than make the journey into paperspace every so often. Instead they wait until a full plot is done to fix a 2mm high text, or something stupid like that.

 

AutoCAd is not WYSIWYG..... sometimes you have to go into paperspace, and even generate a full plot preview to check BASIC edits etc before sending out to plot. Time wasted, that would have been used for drafting in MicroStation. In MicroStation it is like you are drawing in plot preview!

 

And guys..... wake up..... XREFs don't work.... period! Because you cannot depend on the fact, even though YOU may use them properly that 12 other people who you work with, are going to go to the same trouble as you did. MicroStation reference files are more fool proof - they don't allow the guy beside you who cannot draft to muck up your world.

 

I am trying hard here to convince guys to import XREFs on an X- or Z- prefix layer..... someday.... or never more than likely. Never had this problem with Microstation... and the people who were using MicroStation with me were morons completely too.

[garethace]

This roads and infrastructure sort of thing is an example of where MicroStation seems to breeze right through the process of designing and editing, but AutoCAD is just getting 'outside' its familiar territory. I have worked on tonnes of these kinds of projects, on map scale practically, where MicroStation just makes up the time, which AutoCAD wastes wholesale.

 

Although what I like about the Linetypes listed down below, related to doing big roads projects using AutoCAD, is someone actually took the time and the effort to set out these standards in hard coding, which rarely if ever happened in MicroStation, where people just followed their own nose to a large extent. This means in AutoCAD, standards and sharing of methods etc, are probably just easier - if you REALLY need to maintain a standard, between a large number of different people. There is very little room left for ambiguity. This is exceptionally important here in Ireland for instance, where a lot of heavily serviced buildings, are a product in terms of design, of native based firms, british and america ones - all using different measurement systems even!

 

The fact that you can and will share these standards over the web, is what really makes me think AutoCad is a great piece of software, despite all its obvious warts. The fact that databasing is hard coded into ADT, has meant it was chosen to develop the new Heathrow extension in London and loads of other high profile construction projects. But I think it is hard to ignore MicroStations track record and pedigree involved in engineering projects which will long outlive either you or me.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

Some UK Road Linetypes for Your ACAD.LIN File

 

Published date: 2003-08-04

ID: TP00007

 

Applies to:

AutoCAD® 2002

AutoCAD LT® 2004

AutoCAD LT® 2002

 

 

To draw scale, single-line marking for roads according to 'Traffic sign regulations and general directions 1994', paste the following lines into your acad.lin file.

 

Note: If the linetypes are OK for long straights, but they seem to lose their scale when too short or joined with other polylines, check your PLINETYPE setting. Your LTSCALE needs to be set to 1 and check that your polyline linetype generation is on.

 

*D1003 600-300,D1003 ______ ______ ______

 

A,600,-300

 

*D1003.1 1000-1000,D1003.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

A,1000,-1000

 

*D1003.2 500-250,D1003.2 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

 

A,500,-250

 

*D1003.3 700-300,D1003.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

 

A,700,-300

 

*D1004 4000-2000,D1004 ____ ____ ____ ____ __

 

A,4000,-2000

 

*D1004.1 6000-300,D1004.1 ______ ______ _____

 

A,6000,-3000

 

*D1005 1000-5000,D1005 - - - - -

 

A,1000,-5000

 

*D1005.1 2000-7000,D1005.1 __ __ __

 

A,2000,-7000,2000,-7000

 

*D1008 3000-4000,D1008 ___ ___ ___ ___

 

A,3000,-4000

 

*D1008.1 3000-6000,D1008.1 ___ ___ ___

 

A,3000,-6000

 

*D1009 600-300,D1009 ______ ______ ______ _

 

A,600,-300

 

*D1010 1000-1000,D1010 - - - - - - - - - - -

 

A,1000,-1000

 

Tip submitted by:

 

Glenn Fernie

White Young Green/Stockton Borough Council