The new version has plenty of "new stuff"... Tables, Fields, Sheet Set Manager, MText improvements, etc. It doesn't sound to me like you have really read what is new.
It is to new to Google much about it. Give it time. Read the news releases on the following website... What's new in Autocad 2005...
formatting link
This is just the first day of being able to talk about it... There is not much information to make the leap you have... At least keep an open mind about it before downing it, if you still feel this way in a couple of months, then, so be it... at least you would have seen, read and heard more about it.
All I can say is, as a beta tester, I was really wowed by the program. I will certainly be upgrading as soon as I can.
Ted
This is me voicing an opinion, if you don't want to hear it just don't read
> it, although I think a lot of you will agree with me (hopefully).
You are, basically, an Autodesk insider if you are a beta tester. None of the 'new stuff' you mention is of any interest to me. Just me you say? Take an honest indepth survey of non-connected in any way Autodesk customers and I'll bet they will say that Autodesk is hosing their customers again, one more time. There should be a solid rendering capability, and more for upgrades. Not the so called 'new' features. Make me puke! Autodesk is basically screwing end users and holding them hostage to a real unfair forced upgrade policy schedule. I hope there is a class action lawsuit against Autodesk as I'd be one of the first to sign on. Maybe I won't get anything out of it but it would be worth putting the screws to Autodesk just as they have done to us. And I did read the pdf of what is new w.
"AutoCAD 2005 is btw, faster, both for open/saves and for plotting/printing." How in the hell do you know that? Have you used it? If not, please don't make stupid statements like this.
the speed and quality remark was for 2004 anyway which I own, I also own r14, that was the comparison. and why shouldn't AutoCAD be all things to all cad users, its a CAD program!!
the major changes you remark on are yet more ways of doing the same damn thing that was available in 2000, 2002 and yes 2004 - who the hell needs more ways of plotting? the existing method is fine. who the hell needs more ways of adding mtext? the existing method is fine. I could go on for your benefit but the majority of people got what I was talking about from the first post. The fact is there are NO major changes just a bunch of minor changes and yet more ways of doing the same things.
Don't get me wrong I love AutoCAD and have used it for years but as I was saying previously they got the 2d technical side of AutoCAD right since at least 2002 if not as far back as r14, why not improve the 3d side of things, they do it anyway, why not do it properly?
How long you have used the package don't mean a thing, there is only so much you can learn about a package before you know everything, Just because your old doesn't mean you know better. remember that.
so, let me get this straight...you know "everything" about AutoCAD?? Well, when you've seen AutoCAD 2005 in person and have tried the new Sheet Set Manager, the ability to link views to fields in callout or detail reference number blocks, the new Publish features, the built in Tables, the ability to trim hatches, hatches which btw no longer need a closed boundry to be created, and a long long list of other new and improved features, then come on back and we'll talk some more. None of these features were available in past Acad releases.
And, btw, I'm not "old", I'm just weathered... Dave
doesn't matter what I say does it?. Lets just agree to disagree, I think they need to improve on the 3d asspect, you think the other improvements are enough to warrant the release, nuff said.
I would vote for R13, but then everybody (including me myself) would argue that there wasn't a R13 at all - just a big black hole between R12 and R14 :-)
I'll tackle your comments on the 3d aspects of AutoCad:
AutoCad is a CAD program, not a rendering program. While it does include some rendering ability it's somewhat rudimentary. I'm glad they don't add to it or "improve" it. (let it be known, I do my modelling with ADT and then render with Viz). There was talk a while back about dropping Viz (at least as a stand-alone product) in favor of Max. Problem is, I don't need the additional Max features so why should I have to pay $1000s more for features I'll not use? That's the tightrope AutoCad treads, if you add features to it that some people won't use then they'll of course feel like they're overpaying.
ADT (and in the future Revit) now includes VizRender. This is why I won't be upgrading to any future releases of Viz, I'll just use VizRender, since it's "free", why should I pay $500/year to upgrade? AutoCad is a "basic" platform that is (IMHO) supposed to be "most everything, to most everyone", Autodesk than makes other products for specific fields (i.e. Mechanical Desktop, Architectural Desktop, Inventor, etc). I know a ton of people using Autocad products, only a couple do any 3D rendering. Why should all of them pay for 3D features they'll never use? It's far better to have an add-on or additional product that will give that functionality to those that need it.
IMO Autodesk has made some good strides in the 3D realm. Viz now includes Radiosity, which is leaps and bounds beyond the old ScanLine renderer. They then included VizRender "free" with the latest release of ADT. So before now it took ADT3.0i (or ADT3.3) + Viz to get "photorealistic" renderings. Now it just takes ADT4. IF you want high quality rendering with AutoCad you should look into ADT(w/ VizRender) to see if it meets your needs.
Granted, I'd love to see some improvements to AutoCads solids and modelling capabilities. But, I also realize the majority of AutoCad users shouldn't have to pay for functionality they won't use.
If I had to guess, I'd say they feel it would hurt the sales of Inventor. Then again, I'm sticking to my believe that the 'vertical market' was the WORST thing they could have ever done.
Why keep upgrading, then? I make my decisions to upgrade based on functionality and cost. If it's not worth it, I don't do it.
Am I really the ONLY person that liked 13 after the c4 patch? I don't want to go back to it, don't get me wrong, but I liked it. If there is anyone else out there, please post!!!!!
Your argument wasn't very convincing, that's all. It's not a matter of agree/disagree. I hope you haven't upgraded lately and explained to your dealer why you haven't. You will get farther that way than you will venting here.
I have to say I admire you for doing modelling with Acad. I play with a bit here and there, but usually for my own little projects, not for work. Do you have alot of custom routines, etc?
you're probably one of the few that didn't go back to R12 after trying R13. I worked through R13 problems and each patch made it a little better. I can't say that I "liked" it but I didn't retreat :) And, it sure was nice when R14 arrived! Dave
My real favorite was R12 on a SUN using the OpenLook environment - this was some time before R12 came for MS Windows. I had R10 and R11 on SunView before, and the new GUI really was something.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.