Please elaborate on what the hell you are talking about. You used the word
performance. I guess I'm not sure what your connotation is because a plain
jane PIII 700 can regen the most complex 2D AutoCAD drawings in seconds.
Now you use the word "ability" of the software. Ignoring the
personification of software, what "abilities" does TurboCAD or whatever
you're pushing have that AutoCAD doesn't?
The guy was just trying to say that whatever made AutoCAD top of the line,
does not anymore. You can get pretty cheap products that do the same
You don't need to get all defensive about it. Just keep using AutoCAD if
you so please...
There was a time when AutoCAD was top of the line in CAD technology. As with
any technology, success breeds competition. There are enough choices of good
products now that what is "best" is a subjective thing. It depends on what
you want to do. 2D only? Your choices are many. Have specific tasks for this
package that will require customization? AutoCAD shines here and, in the
lite version, is a good value for the money. Think 3D will be more your
thing? AutoCAD starts looking worse. There are far more capable programs.
There are a lot of choices and things to consider when putting what could
potentially be a lot of money into something like a CAD package. A lot of it
is personal preference. There is no point in having something technically
superior if you hate using it.
What I use: Turbocad Pro. Very good 3D/2D package with the emphasis on 3D.
Intellicad. So much like AutoCAD, if you can run one, you can run the other.
Are either of these the best? Yes, no, maybe, it depends.
BTW, of the programs mentioned, the only one that fits the original criteria
of about $100.00 is intellicad in its lite version.
Do you prefer the old irony to the newer sort?
I've been told that the old irony was allowed to sit around and season
for a good bit before being cleaned up and put into the game whilst
the newer stuff is thrown into the game full of unresolved stresses
that can result in severe deformation and pockets of brittleness.
Of course, when dropped from a twenty story building, both will have
approximately the same impact and to one so impacted, they would
appear to be very nearly indistinguishable.
That is, if they have any impact at all.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
I'm still out with the new, in with the old which is usually
new to me.
Yahbut, they tell us that with all the new teknologee that
the new irony is, well, I've never seen the werds superior
used, just that it's "just as good". I think they were
specifically citing the amount of time it takes to rust
That one is called the "falls on foot/foot hurts like hell"
test. From shorter heights there's no discernable
Oh! It has impact though what happens is, and this from an
arm chair injineering background mind you, as it falls some
of the Chiwanese cheese sheds itself. This is called the
"Chiwanese Cheese Shed Factor" (CCSF). It'll lighten up by
a pound or two dependent upon the height of fall/wind
speed/barometric pressures and let us not forget, the all
important wind chill (side of licked finger that freezes
In all seriousness, there's a kewl write up on the subject
of Duck Tile Irony in the most recent Lee Valley
Catalogette. I got mine yesterday along with the newest
issue of the Dumbed Down Fine Wooddorking and a whole 10%
coupon (not worth pulling on socks for) from Woodcraft.
Try not to top post as it makes it difficult to quote you in context.
Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.
As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket and I think he'd get most of the function from
TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.
Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this? Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The
only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is
done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the
full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the
least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then
have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want? For half that cost,
modelling software is availble that make Autocad's 3D capabilities look like
NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.
I thought you said that people only bought the best?
In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The
majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
quality CAD programs.
If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of
the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
costomize, go with Pro.
and I think he'd get most of the function from
There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you
want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user
groups I have ever seen.
Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having to
scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.
Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following what your
See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to
mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would warrant
this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no one
should have to guess.
Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.
Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW wrote
parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very poor
(normally I would remove all the following text)
I'm smart enough to figure your too lazy to post properly. That is, by convention.
Or is there some other excuse you chose to use? Other than blaming others for
your lack of initiative. ?
Sorry, Bud, can't blame me.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.