What Version of AutoCAD are you running?

[srsherrill]

There is a reason I call myself The Dinosaur. Actually, I have no complaints using r13. We have 2005 in office now and though I like it better than 2000, if I could find a way to make r13 and its design software talk to our new plotter, I could annotate a subdivision plat in half the time it takes with LDD 2k5. I have it running on both Windows 2000 pro and XP corp systems and find it quite fast. The network printing even kind of works - the only thing I can't get it to do is plot screened lines from our Design Jet 500. Its days are numbered for us as we finish out the last few old projects, but as long as there is still a copy around, I will still probably take some layouts down to r13 for annotation until someone comes up with a drafting package that really works.

The Dinosaur

[michael.12445]

We "upgraded" from R14 to R2002, in response to Autodesk's announcement that R14 would be orphaned in January 2002, and also because many of our consultants were using R2000 format versions. However, we are overall disappointed. Our experience is:

- Plotting was completely rewritten as of R2000, yet it is still much more of a black art than it should be. Many of our users are totally flummoxed by plotting. "Intuitive" is not in Autodesk's vocabulary.

- Dimensioning is, if anything, even more byzantine than it was in R14. We finally had to write OUR OWN Lisp file to set every single dimension variable in order to get anything resembling consistent behavior.

- The worst aspect is that 2002 is less stable and more prone to corrupt files than R14 was, by a wide margin. This has easily negated any productivity gains that might be claimed for the new features. In their support "knowledgebase," Autodesk offers only the most vague suggestions that such instabilties are caused when drawings "become corrupted," language whose passive voice seems to suggest that this is just some unavoidable act of God.

Well, our experience is that we use AutoCAD 2002 to create and edit DWG files, and it chokes on them with distressing frequency. The DWG files didn't just "become corrupted;" AutoCAD corrupted them, since no other program was used to manipulate them. Pointing fingers at Windows, network systems, etc., doesn't wash. If that's truly the case, then Autodesk should be offering real workarounds to either make its software work reliably with these systems, or design it to be used with more reliable systems (i.e., Linux). Besides, we use other software (PhotoShop, for example) that works on the same network/workstations, handles huge amounts of graphic data, and yet does so much more consistently and reliably.

Because of this, and because of the compatibility headaches noted by other posters here, our bosses will NOT spend any more money on AutoCAD products until there is one that is demonstrably reliable and stable, and doesn't make us waste hours trying to figure out what happened to make it crash. It seems our consultants are in the same position. Most are using R2000-format versions, some are using R14, and NONE are using R2004-format AutoCAD.

Michael Evans

[JASONM30395]

I find it funny that out of 193 views we only get 40 votes.

[Wanderer]

I find it funny that out of 193 views we only get 40 votes.

Well, I would find that interesting if it was annotated to be 193 unique views. I, as the poster, have checked back on many occasions to see how many replies have been made.

Also, keep in mind the reviteers and desktop using type people with the vertical products who would have looked but not voted. uffy:

(I don't really know what puffy is for, but, he seems to be a happy chap, so I decided to include him.)

[BrenBren]

[QUOTE=mes0945]
Also, keep in mind the reviteers and desktop using type people with the vertical products who would have looked but not voted.
QUOTE]

Is that anything like Mouseketeers

(Nothing personal Revit folks )


Signed,

A desktop using type person

[jcude70463]

I'm running architectural desktop 2005