Maybe some day you'll be able to set FACETRES above 10, or export your NURBS to something other than ACIS.
The future of AutoCAD
11–20 of 81 posts
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that like people wishing for a more lightweight Excel not realizing the "80% of people only 20% of the features" is true but it's not the same 20%? Could you even come up with a financially viable lightweight enough Autocad competitor?
It would be a long shot. But until something changes, Autodesk is just going to keep layering tools, buttons, and menus on top of each other. It's such a rubber band ball now, they would have to start over to make something efficient. But there's no real competition, because even though it's incredibly cludgy, it will work if you learn it's labyrinth.
[deleted]
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#13The owner of this website (through-the-interface.typepad.com) has banned your IP address Whelp, I guess I didn't care that much.
Gdpr-shield?
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#14AutoCAD is vast, recursive, and bloated. I really hope someone comes out with a lightweight version that does less, better.
The road to Sausalito is littered with the corpses of AutoCAD challengers.
Generic CADD was pretty good. Bought and shut down.
I also remember Visual CAD (which I don't think is the same Visual CAD a quick google search is turning up). I forget who bought them.
There's a zillion others I no longer remember.
Unbelievably, as bad as AutoCAD is/was, Bentley Systems' MicroStation was a hellspawn of turrible.
I've never really understood how AutoCAD and Office maintained their dominance. Conventional wisdom is control the file format. There were so many efforts to open up DWG/DXF. But I don't know that interop ever mattered.
I think it's just been inertia. Nothing since Generic CADD has been enough better to warrant the switchover costs.
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#15AutoCAD is vast, recursive, and bloated. I really hope someone comes out with a lightweight version that does less, better.
Don't they have AutoCAD LT?
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#16AutoCAD is vast, recursive, and bloated. I really hope someone comes out with a lightweight version that does less, better.
What about SketchUp? I'm very new to 3d modeling, but I've been modeling my house over the last week or so in SketchUp and it seems pretty nice. Are 2d CAD and 3d modeling different kettles of fish?
AutoCAD and Sketchup are very different. AutoCAD is vector based for starters. Zoom into a curve in Sketchup and you find that it is segmented. Solids in Sketchup are made up of triangles. In AutoCAD they can be actual solids.
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#17AutoCAD "Web" is Chrome-only:
"Unsupported Browser. The AutoCAD web app is currently only supported by an up-to-date version of 64-bit Google Chrome on Windows or Mac."
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#18Re: The future of AutoCAD
#19The owner of this website (through-the-interface.typepad.com) has banned your IP address Whelp, I guess I didn't care that much.
Common codebase for Mac and Windows via an abstraction layer. Same code also transpiles to JavaScript.
Re: The future of AutoCAD
#20AutoCAD is vast, recursive, and bloated. I really hope someone comes out with a lightweight version that does less, better.
What about SketchUp? I'm very new to 3d modeling, but I've been modeling my house over the last week or so in SketchUp and it seems pretty nice. Are 2d CAD and 3d modeling different kettles of fish?
If you're making 2D things, like blueprints for a human to make something, SketchUp isn't as useful. I admit, I haven't tried it in a few years, but when I did before its fundamental purpose was almost polar opposite to my needs.