Re: AutoCad R10 for sale

snipped-for-privacy@fel.u-net.com.invalid wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Thanks alot, John! Now I gotta go get some paper towels! stil LMAO!

  Quoted Text Here  
Here is a good start:
http://www.cadinfo.net/ac2k/400-MDE.htm

Not a good start at all. The article says the same thing over and over. Nothing really significant in any case.
  Quoted Text Here  

Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system isn't significant?
CW wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Sorry, was on vacation for a few days.
  Quoted Text Here  
I could do my plots perfectly well before R2000. IMO linewidth and polar snap were the only reasons to justify the switch from R14 to R2000.
Tom Berger

Car wrecks are also significant. Do I need or want one?
  Quoted Text Here  

You just like silly arguments, don't you? So, it is in fact significant. I didn't say you wanted it.
Knock the chip off your shoulder and READ.
CW wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
A

  Quoted Text Here  
For me a _significant_ improvement in a software update is a function that enables me to do what I couldn't do with the previous version, or that makes my work _much_ faster.
Plotting in R2000 is different from R14, but there is absolutely nothing that I couldn't already do with R14. And I don't see an improvement in the user interface (indeed I have the feeling that now I need much longer to configure my plots).
Maybe that some people like the handling of the new plot dialog better than that of R14, and they may consider an improved user interface as a _significant_ improvement. I had absolutely no problems with the R14 plot dialog, but I know that many people didn't like it. Indeed I still prefer the R14 way of plotting where I didn't need two different unit sytems (in R2000 plot units are fixed to inch or millimeter, and I use 1 meter as a drawing unit).
Tom Berger

Tom Berger wrote: <SNIPPED here and there>
  Quoted Text Here  
My comment was that the plotting change was significant, not that it was a significant improvement. For some it is, for some it isn't.
  Quoted Text Here  
You must not use a wide range of colors, lineweights, etc. in your plots, with a vast range of unpredictable output needs. Many of the plots I do with 2K are virtually impossible using R14, unless you consider constantly changing PC3 files an acceptable method.
Consider a zoning map with most of the background in shades of grey. Each type of zone being a color, with each level being a different shade. How about a site plan where your boss decides 5 minutes before a meeting that he wants just the waterline to be plotted blue, the rest left black? Maybe he wants just the trees plotted green, with some shading in the forest area.
These situations are all very easy to accomplish with A2K, and I can teach my son (7 years old) how to do it in 5 minutes. Not so with R14.
  Quoted Text Here  
For me, the interface isn't the issue. The method of lineweight tied to color was always obsurd. Like most others, I accepted it and learned to live with it, typically getting what I wanted out of the system.
If you think I'm full of it, let me know. I'll dig up my R14 plot standards and you can compare those with the 2k standards. You can tell me which you'd rather explain to someone, or better yet, use yourself.
Yes, our R14 standards worked ok, but A2K is much simpler for users to understand and use as well as providing much more flexibility with the output.

Tom Berger wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You have an open invitation to drop by. I'll be more than happy to demonstrate. Bring a child with you, and I'll demonstrate how they can be taught to use A2K plotting within 10 minutes.
For the record, my first post in this thread was:
"Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system isn't significant?"
CW, are you paying attention this time? Nothing in that question implies usability for a specific purpose, just significance. If the change was insignificant, why use it as partial justification for staying with R14?
  Quoted Text Here  
This seems to go to the inertia reason stated in the article posted by CW. Seems so many are comfortable with the old way that even considering something else is dismissed right off the bat.
I don't doubt that for some companies, sticking with color based styles (or even R14 for that matter) is best. I just cringe when I hear folks telling newbies that color based is "the way" to do things. That's an absurd statement and should be called as such.

  Quoted Text Here  
I doubt this too. At least when you need to plot old drawings, and drawings with new and old parts. Then you'll need to teach the old way of plus the new way. But I certainly would like to see the 10-year-old genius who understands the AutoCAD plot function within 10 minutes :-)
BTW - I used to teach AutoCAD at many different companies and at our local university, and from time to time I still teach it. I never had problems to teach my students how to set up their drawings in paper space.
  Quoted Text Here  
I know many AutoCAD veterans who still don't use paper space, so inertia is a problem. But between R14 and A2K there simply is no significant improvement as far as plotting is concerned. There is nothing in the A2K plot command what I couldn't do in R14 - and in most cases plot setup as faster in R14.
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't talk about color or lineweight based styles. Lineweight is an improvement, and the R14 plot command didn't need to be replaced to support lineweight without color-lineweight translation.
Tom Berger

  Quoted Text Here  
Thanks. When you book the flight for me, then please choose Frankfurt as the origin :-)
I am sure that your seven year old kid already knows that 1/100 equals to 0.01. So how do you explain your kid, that in A2K when it uses meters as drawing units in model space, it needs to zoom viewports 10xp for a 1/100 plot scale? A few years ago you could have helped me a lot with a good tip, since when I gave update seminars I usually had to do with people who used to scale 0.01xp for 1/100.
  Quoted Text Here  
No, I didn't say that. Lineweight by color has worked for over 20 years. But now, where everybody owns a color printer/plotter and where some people want to plot the same color to different lineweights, the addition of a true lineweight property of objects was necessary (and was introduced quite late, if you ask me).
And I don't know why you ask what I am saying. Which of the following words don't you understand:
"the R14 plot command didn't need to be replaced to support lineweight without color-lineweight translation"
Tom Berger

Tom Berger wrote: <SNIPPED>
  Quoted Text Here  
I said you have an open invitation, not that I'd pay for the trip! ;)
  Quoted Text Here  
The viewport scaling is simply a ratio, or am I not understanding your comment?
I made the reference to kids regarding lineweights, colors, etc. The explanation would go something like this:
To set lineweight, set the lineweight property. To set color, set the color property. Etc., etc.
Much simpler than:
For an 0.021" lineweight, plotted black, use color 120. For an 0.021" lineweight, plotted green...oh, sorry, our standard doesn't account for that.
  Quoted Text Here  
LOL........ok, now we're back to why we were having a discussion. I was pounced on because I expressed my belief that the plotting in A2K was a significant change to the plotting in R14.
IMO, the plotting in 2K is big improvement. Necessary? Well, I suppose nothing is necessary. Did they drop the ball? Absolutely. IMO, the way devices and sheets are handled is absolutely hideous. They got it all right until they started actually connecting to output devices.
From one of your earlier posts:
"For me a _significant_ improvement in a software update is a function that enables me to do what I couldn't do with the previous version, or that makes my work _much_ faster."
This is why we disagree on so much of this issue. For me, R14 simply cannot handle (in an acceptable manner) things I do easily with plotting from 2K, so from my perspective, it was not only a significant change, but a significant improvement.
By the way, what in 2K+ versions can't you do that was possible in R14? (That's a serious question, I'm not being a wise-ass.)

  Quoted Text Here  
- VisualLISP - especially reactors make a HUGE difference (I had VitalLISP for R14, and it would have been better if Autodesk wouldn't have bought it - the original maker would have continued development of VitalLISP - Autodesk stopped it)
- polar snap (they should have introduced it 10 years earlier - most other CAD software had something like this long, long before) and trace
- Lineweight is nice to have, but not a must
- Multi document interface is nice, but you could start R14 twice to have the same effect
- Design Center - sometimes helpful
Did I forget something? I must have, because Autodesk charged some thousand $$$ for updates from R14 to R2002 :-)
Tom Berger

Tom Berger wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I've never used it. Has A2K's VLisp eliminated some functionality, or is it the IDE that you miss? I've tried using Acad's lisp IDE and can't stand it. Reminds me of trying to put my jeans on after I've put my shoes on.
Brings an interesting question to my simple mind, though: Why no frustration expressed at it's creators for selling out? For every buyer, someone must have sold, no?
The rest weren't answers to my question, so I snipped 'em.

  Quoted Text Here  
No, they just renamed some functions. The problem is, that Autodesk stopped further development of VLISP
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't complain about the fact that Adesk bought it, I complain about the fact that they stopped further development - despite the fact that after the aquisition they publicly promised strong support, costm entities, CommonLISP functionality and much more
And if they would offer me a million for my applications, I sure would sell :-)
It's quite obvious that Adesk had to buy the software because otherwise we would find VitalLISP in Micrsostation (remember the time when Bentley announced an AutoLISP compatible LISP interpreter for Microstation?) and IntelliCAD today.
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, how did you do polar snapping before A2K?
Tom Berger

Tom Berger wrote: <SNIPPED>
  Quoted Text Here  
I know you're not the only one unhappy about that situation. I don't know the full story, so I'm going to plead ignorance. When I started fiddling around with VBA I quit learning the new VL functions, so I couldn't even speak well to it's capabilities.
If what you're saying is true (and I'm certainly not disputing it), then shame on them. I'm still mad at Adesk for going into the so called vertical market. I keep dreaming of what Acad might be if their focus remained with developing a good, solid, fast, flexible drafting platform. .........sigh.......lol
  Quoted Text Here  
I didn't doubt it for a second. ;) And I'd congratulate you for a job well done.
  Quoted Text Here  
I asked what you did in R14 that you couldn't do in A2K. From some of your posts, I was getting the impression that A2K took out some functionality that you had previously. I may have extrapolated a bit too far. :o

I read just fine and, apparently, so do you. Your comprehension could use a little work though.
  Quoted Text Here  

No. The old system plotted just fine.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
I agree. In fact I got so frustrated with the new way of plotting that I still use R14 to plot with.
RMM