what are some of the major differences Acad vs Microstation?

The file sizes in Microstation are smaller because it is raster-based VS vector-based like ACAD. A line is made up of pixels in MS, not line segments as in ACAD. In Microstation, lineweights are always "on". In ACAD, most people do not draw in modelspace with the "LWT" button on but do lineweights in their plotter settings. If you have ever opened up a drawing in MS, it looks like a 1st grader with thick magic markers performed the linework. Once you zoom way in, the lines look llike they do in ACAD. Microstation is trying to become more like ACAD, as far as Microstation8, since you can save to .dwg and open .dxf/.dwg. files but some stuff does not look the same in ACAD. One thing I did not like was when you single click on a line or object, Microstation does not show what layer the line/object is on. You can easily draw on the wrong layer and not know it. Drawing chamfers/fillets is harder in Microstation than in ACAD in my opinion. It is a different program to learn but like anything, once you use it for a few days and do the tutorials, it makes some sense. I prefer ACAD/Landdesktop to Microstation/GeoPak myself. In Microstation, the "Esc" was my friend.

Shouldn't that be- vector based file size is smaller than raster based?

I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS THREAD - THANKS.

Now - the answer must be "maybe". Knock me in the head if this is wrong.

Look at the DXF code for a line segment. You need a start point and an end point to define a line. You always need a list of data to define things like type of entity, layer, "stuff".

If a data file is RASTER then the greater your resolution, the more pixles you gotta have to save it.

SO

In Autocad, the length of the line matters not. It's the complexity of each entity.

In Microstation, every entity is saved as pixles, so, it's the number of pixles you used to create it, for which resolution would matter very much....

right?

I have a hard time believing that anyone who has responded to this thread, possibly except you, knows WTF he is talking about.

Happy Trails To You

It's not rocket science. Vector = small file, Raster=large file, in general terms- regardless of the resolution. Yes, the higher the resolution the greater the difference but the magnitude of the difference is so great it's almost pointless to make a comparison at any resolution.

The number of installed seats?

Hello, i 've worked one both Microstation and Autocad for years. DGN files ARE NOT raster based files, they are vector based ! but the Microstation GDI use a kind of raster system, that make design not so beautiful than in Autocad, but make it work faster, even with very large files. With ustation, you never need to regen, and you switch from paperspace to modelspace instantly. before V8, Ustation was very fast because it was single precision based. the problem was that you worspace was proportionnal to the precision you needed. it was a very big problem for me. Now Ustation is double precision based, like autocad. Now it's a little slower than V7, but it is still very much faster than Autocad. Ustation load in a couple of second, my Autocad 2006 takes half a minuts ...

When you are friendly with Ustation, i think it is a good CAD program. It as many many features that Autocad doesn't have, like NURBS, or movies functionality. But it also have some lacks regarding Autocad.

I think that for a newbie, Ustation can be a very good choice, because it can work with many kind of files (DWG DXF DGN IGES etc ...)

But for an old Autocad drawer, it can be difficult to adapt, but it's possible, Ustation now look like Autocad in many aspects.

For the G.I.S, i think Ustation is better than Autocad. It also generate small HPGL/2 files, and have high level plotting option, and possibility of plotting interactivity with VBA program !

Gérald

In your infinite wisdom, please point out my errors since you think no other responses know WTF they are talking about.

That sounds more like it. I couldn't see how it could be raster based and maintain any kind of precision.

Some things i 've forgot about microstation:

- It as always been easier to customize than Autocad, even since Autocad have tools palettes Ustation have automatic cell selector (cell = block), customized style (STG) for all other entity that help you to have a right custom menu, so i used to make cartography with it without programming a line of code. to do the same with Autocad (version 14, 2000) i needed to write thousand of line code ! But ustation have some big problems:

- in autocad, a wblock is a dwg, it's very easy to merge files etc... ustation not

- Autocad is multi drawing complient, ustation is single drawing

- Autocad use window based selection files, ustation use is own interface, W3.11 like ...

now that's all i can say without writing 6 pages ! Gérald

rj a écrit :

I don't now, but what i can say is that in France, some big company as Générale des Eaux (Worldwide water companies, that use to buy universal music, you remember ?) use it and the French Electricity company EDF also use ustation. big company are a bentley specialty, so there is no care the company fall down quickly Gérald

CW knew WTF he was talking about.

Your's was an error of omission. You stayed out on the raster vs. vector tangent rather than challenge the ridiculous suggestion that MS was raster based.

Happy Trails To You

The way I read his post, is that he believes you are about th only one who DOES know what he is talking about. It IS true that raster files are generally many times larger than vector files. (some compression algorithyms can get them somewhat closer, but that's another story)

Those responders that believe that MicroStation is raster based are tatally clueless and should not have been posted in the first place.

I have been using MicroStation constantly for about 15 years and AutoCad very rarely over the last 3 or 4 years. While there are a few things that AutoCad does (did?) better, I think MicroStation is a better program and easier to learn. The newest versions of MicroStation are much closer to Autocad than previous versions (sigh) and will open .dwg files natively. So one big advantage of MicroStation is that you can work on either format - not so with AutoCad.

One of the thing I find totally frustrating in AutoCad is proxy graphics. Third party applications in MicroStation write directly to the file with native graphics, so there is no need for the original application or plugins to see or manipulate those graphics.

Books could (and have been) written on the differences, advantages and disadvantages of the two products.

My $.02 worth Bill

MS raster based? --- I have a bridge to sell you

I admit my cluelessness and go on. Raster based files DID seem too wizardlike. Thanks for the clue.

I did not mention MS because I have never even used it, nor did I every claim to. Where you come up with my "error of omission" and then state that I "don't know WTF I am talking about" makes me think that it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about. Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading exactly what it is that people are saying and less time blowing off your big mouth.