3d digitizing

You would have to say what it is you are trying to do for anybody to give you any advice. AutoCAD is a poor choice for serious 3D work.

AutoCAD is a great choice for serious 3D work! Depend on the type project.
The following 3D models and terrain were created in AutoCAD. The textures and colorization of original 1940's German WWII aerial photos was done with Adobe Photoshop and rendered in 3D Studio Max.



Russ

ACs small 3D functionality is surely not a good choice for doing complex 3D models e.g. with freeform faces but uses an old, very limited ACIS kernel which is maybe good for nice boxes or extrusions but not capable for doing much more...
...even AD is claiming AC as a 2D product and thus selling 3D CAx systems *huh*
N.

Never used a good program, eh?

You don't need a 3D digitizer when you have the splendid 3D program AutoCAD.
Use the "viewport" command make 4 viewports go to the top left. Type "Vpoint" type 1,0,0. Go to the top right type "Vpoint", type 0,1,0. Go to the low left type "Vpoint", type 0,0,0.
Now save the bottom right untill you find out how to make a perspective, or type Vpoint 1,1,1.
Now you don't have a 3D digitixer but something that allow you to go from plane to plane and acturly draw 3D ----- Try it it is easier learned by trying than reading.
P.C.

Hi
"ACs small 3D functionality is surely not a good choice for doing complex 3D models e.g. with freeform faces but uses an old, very limited ACIS kernel which is maybe good for nice boxes or extrusions but not capable for doing much more...
...even AD is claiming AC as a 2D product and thus selling 3D CAx systems *huh* "
Then what, being small is just a Plus , if this is all you need -- and btw -- AutoCAD save the 3D points in the drawing database ; it can perform calculations based on these 3D points and you still claim AutoCAD is just 2D wrong. The question about if AutoCAD are just 2D is off-topic, when you can't even master these 2D, how would you handle real 3D ???
3D allway's was something that could acturly produce, the thing you design, that is 3D as I see 3D , instead of rejecting any new perception even 3D must carry a direct link from projecting to producing ; That is the 3' Dimension to do 2D things make a 3D structure. Do it cheap involve new jobs and creativity. Listen with 3D-H you can , you can make 2D frames make a 3D structure, 3D-H do it all just anything ;))

As can every other 3D cad program on the market.
No one claimed that AutoCAD wasn't 3D capable. It was simply stated (and rightly so) that AutoCAD is primarily a 2D program. It's 3D functionality is limited. Autodesk came out with Inventor to take up where AutoCAD leaves off. You don't think AutoCAD is 3D limited? Funny, Autodesk thinks so.
You can't support your position so you launch into baseless atacks. Nice.

I have used AutoCAD for over 20 years (since release 2.6, running on an IBM 8086!). And I have used Pro-E, SolidWorks, SDRC's I-DEAS, and several other 3D modelers for 5 to 12 years. AutoCAD's 3D sucks, no other way to say it. AutoCAD's 3D module (ACIS) is merely an after thought to a pretty good 2D drafting program, but not a serious 3D package. In fact it is terribly user UN-friendly. Even the newest AutoCAD 2006 3D sucks. HOWEVER, Autodesk's Inventor Series is a quitedecent parametric 3D modeler, and a good value compared to the others out there. It is as robust, user friendly and capable as Pro-E for a fraction of the cost. A great parametric 3D modeler should transparantly give the designer a powerful visualization tool to spend his time exploring his ideas, rather than limiting him to figuring out how to draw something in 3D! Inventor does that, better and cheaper than Pro-E or Solidworks. I woud take a serious look at Inventor if you are looking for a good 3D package..
bzbygrand

Bullcrap!

I agree that Inventor is a very good program and far, far ahead of AutoCAD. As to the ACIS modeling engine, it is actually quite good. The problem is, in AutoCAD, the programmers didn't even come close to taking full advantage of it's capabilities. In addition, they use outdated versions. I have not checked the newer releases of AutoCAD but, as of version 2002, they were using ACIS 4. The then current version of ACIS was 10. This was, I would guess, a cost cutting decision. After all, when you sell a $500.00 program for $3500.00, you have to cut corners somehow. As they were not going to use the full capabilities of it in any case, why spend the money on a newer version? Even the ACIS 4 modeling engine was far more capable than even current AutoCAD. I used, at one time, a parametric solid modeler that was based on ACIS 4. It was quite capable.
functionality

I suppose you know this guy personally and know his work history, right?

You can mine coal with a garden spade too but there are far better ways.

It all depends on what you're using AutoCAD for. If you're constructing 3D models of buildings, it works just fine thank you very much. AutoCAD minimizes the functionality of 3D modeling in AutoCAD because they want you to blow another three or four grand on 3D Studio. However, if you're familiar with 2D AutoCAD, it's not such a leap to use it for 3D work; as opposed to learning 3DS, which is a totally different program with an even steeper learning curve.
I use Accurender to render my 3D AutoCAD models. It's very simple to use and works as an add-on within an AutoCAD session. Accurender does about 80% of what 3DS does, about three times more slowly. On the other hand, it's one seventh the price and is about 50,000,000 times easier to use. I've made a reasonable living using these two programs and none of my clients have complained so far. See LOTS of examples at
Marc

Hi
CW ; "> The question about if AutoCAD are just 2D is You can't support your position so you launch into baseless atacks. Nice. "
No not at all, but I seen it so often that someone complain about AutoCAD is "just 2D" where fact is that 3D is not just about 3D rendering. --------- ontop I will say that if "3D" is supposed _just_ and only to be about rendering , then realy someone misunderstand 3D. Fact is that much of what is considered as 3D is infact 2D --- I will say that even when you input 3D points you do that in a 2D restricted way ;so no "CW" if you think this guy is oldfasion bound in the 2D thinking you rather look at what I make ; you see my expertations to 3D is not just about doing 2D images of pseudo 3D things no, I see 3D as The CAD programs ability to produce the things in real ,see _that's_ 3D , the real things projected with CAD --- try compare a paper rendering with a 3D thing also made with CAD and tell me what is "most" 3D please.
So for my sake just forget about the cramped discussion 2D versus 3D, fact is that a lot of what is thought to be "3D" is just 2D handled from plane to plane to add the third dimension but displayed 2D --- now is that 3D -- is that 3D compared the thing that start as a 3D drawing ,that is then broken into a number of "2D" building compoments , and finaly out in realality put together ,to form a real 3D thing ; now if anything is 3D it is that.

??? 3DS and Cinema 4D and TrueSpace and Blender and Accurender and... are no CAD systems but mesh based render- and raytracing programs and do of course not replace a mainly for 2D useable CAD system as AC nor the 3D modeling CAD solutions as the AD Desktop series or Inventor.
Nobody denies that AC has some limited 3D modeling functionality, actually neither AD is promoting AC as a 3D CAD nor anybody professional besides some students and one-man-show bureaus which cannot afford something more capable are using AC for doing advanced and productuve 3D modeling.
In fact, if 3D modeling is needed, other programs as Inventor or SolidWorks or SolidEdge or Pro/E or Catia etc. for engineering and design or ArchiCad or Allplan or VectorWorks etc. for civil engineering are used.
This is just the truth, any verbose defense of AC as a 3D modeler is just stupid.
Nobbi