I run a small landscape architecture firm and we are debating about whether or not to upgrade to full blown AutoCAD or settle for AutoCAD lt. I am trying to get a straight answer from someone on what the real differences are and cannot seem to get a straight answer from my friendly neighborhood AutoCAD salesman (suprise!) We do a lot of drafting work, use xrefs, and from time to time import raster images into our drawings. If LT does this for $800 per station, then what justification is there for spending $3K per station on AutoCAD? Am I missing something here?
AutoCAD vs. AutoCAD Lt
Feb 20, 2007
6 Replies
No. But take a look a things like slingshot from drcauto if you haven't already.
If you're satisfied with what you've got, you probably don't need to change it - although you could consider upgrading one workstation and seeing what benefit that affords to the practice as a whole.
LT doesn't support working with images. There are work-arounds, you may not like the result. Yes LT honors xrefs, but it does not support the xref commands available in the full version, like x-clip. Since you indicate that you are a landscaping architectural firm, I would recommend the full version. If you were a landscaping contractor I would say go with LT. You may want to split the difference and buy at least one seat of full version and LT for the rest.
just curious - what actually happens when you type _image?
The "Image Manager" window opens; it allows you to work with images that may already be in the drawing, but there's no "import" or "insert" option. ___
ah yes, now I remember - that's where drcauto comes in
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required