Maxwell Render | Official public forum

...does a fucking stupid program like autocad still exist? i gave it a try and i'm in shock how stupid and inefficient it is! holy fuck! is it still the 80's?

seriously, i want an autocad user to tell me what the benefits of this pile of shit are. i can't see any. please enlighten me!

amen.

I guess you are not really making a question, just complaining a bit but here goes my answer: you can draw anything you've got in mind without opening a configuration panel. It's the most versatil drawing software for 2D; it's fast and straight to the point.
It's not BIM but that's why many people like it.

btw. VectorWorks may suit you more. it has a more 'graphical' nature.

fernando, thanx for the reply. with draftsight being a free clone to autocad i truly wondered why it was still around. and mostly, why it still works like it's the 80's. yes, you can draw stuff perpendicular to a line, from a midpoint, tangent to a circle etc, but you have to tell the program all these things. sketching in solidworks does it all for you: you approach a line almost perpendicular, it shows you the preview of this perp. point, it automatically chooses parallel lines or tangent constraints as soon as you approach these things. it all does it for you, yet you can ignore it if you want.

and it's not like it's a cheap software. even autocad LT is as expensive as rhino, while rhino's osnap center is so much more convenient - and rhino isn't just a silly 2d program like LT

i'm really baffled - always thought FormZ was the sissiest of all programs, i found a new contender

yolk wrote:sketching in solidworks does it all for you: you approach a line almost perpendicular, it shows you the preview of this perp. point, it automatically chooses parallel lines or tangent constraints as soon as you approach these things. it all does it for you, yet you can ignore it if you want.

Never used solidworks so I can't tell if its better or worse, but Autocad does that too if you have those snaps active.

I've got draftsight installed too. It's a very nice software but I don't think is well-known yet at least here in Spain or in architectural field. I find it just a tad dumber than Autocad, but very usable and it's great if you take price into consideration. Also Autodesk never treated their customers very well.

There are many simple reasons why Autocad is still here.

The user base is still gigantic.
Many companies don't yet need to change to parametric 3D drafting.
They've been using it for many years and have every process and standard streamlined.
They have massive custom libraries, functions/buttons, etc. They would have to start from scratch if they chose a new software.

Well established methods are hard to change, and people are resistant to it until they are forced to do so.

yolk wrote:...does a fucking stupid program like autocad still exist? i gave it a try and i'm in shock how stupid and inefficient it is! holy fuck! is it still the 80's?
seriously, i want an autocad user to tell me what the benefits of this pile of shit are. i can't see any. please enlighten me!

I agree, I don´t and can´t understand why people use that still...

deadalvs wrote:btw. VectorWorks may suit you more. it has a more 'graphical' nature.

I second that, is my main cad software and then if I have to do something with acad I use draftsight instead.

Cheers
JC

Bubbaloo wrote:There are many simple reasons why Autocad is still here.

The user base is still gigantic.
Many companies don't yet need to change to parametric 3D drafting.
They've been using it for many years and have every process and standard streamlined.
They have massive custom libraries, functions/buttons, etc. They would have to start from scratch if they chose a new software.

Well established methods are hard to change, and people are resistant to it until they are forced to do so.

So AutoCAD is the Internet Explorer of 3D software?

i had to use vectorworks for a few months and it was horrible... very unprecise and slow (osnap, response time and drawing speed) and lacking many basic drawing features that autocad has for "decades". Ok, this was vv 2008 so maybe they have improved now, but i couldn't believe it...

The architectural and graphical features in vv are quite nice, yes... but this is nothing you can compare with acad - this would be Autocad Architecture, or now Revit.

I would like to see some workflow and graphical improvements like a block management as in sketchup (double click to edit in place and with realtime update of the instances), better drawing order and selection management, better customizable shortcuts, etc.
But the drawing engine is still great i think (for me). Where in other programs i have to zoom in to snap a point precisely, in acad i can point and click from far away and i will get the right result. In vv (2008) this was more a trial and error most of the time and i had to slow down my drawing speed to get it right...
(you have to disable some of these anoying highlighting features in acad they added a few years ago to get the best response time)

So yes, acad could be improved but has still its right to exist...

Like Bubbaloo said, it's about the efficiency of a company's operations. Telling your people to switch from IE to Chrome causes little financial impact on a company, if any. Switching to any other CAD program after decades of AutoCAD use would cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for many companies, buying new licenses, re-training staff, money lost to the inefficiency of n00b staff, time spent rebuilding libraries, on and on. Cost/benefit and all that.

But yeah SW is far superior...

Probably some of you are industrial designers cause I've never seen an architect working with SW.

I think the main difference is that you work in 3d and 2d at the same time, but the main focus of design is in 3d. The 2d part is just a... cartography of your 3d design, just the data needed for better understanding when you are not near a computer.
In architecture the workflow is different. We are taught to work and think in 2D (at least I was) while the 3d part is just a nice complement to check the design and to show to the client. Usually different people do 2d and 3d stuff in parallel.

Autocad gets less practical when it gets to 3D (they improved that part quite a lot recently but still...). It's main field is 2d and really excels if you stay in 2D. Solidworks is thought the other way around: first 3D then 2D (if I'm not wrong). Revit tryes to put 3d before 2D and that's why it has not been very warm welcomed between architects yet; besides it's much more complicated to learn that Autocad.

Depending on the kind of job you are doing there are programs that perform better than others. Architects only need a "sophisticated pencil".

SW works as a 2D-then-3D workflow as well; the fundamental 3D features are defined by their 2D sketches.

However the interface is different in that it's not as much of a separated-out flow. More of a back-and-forth interaction between 2D sketching and 3D features.

One thing yolk mentioned that I agree with is that even if you disregard the 3D functions of Solidworks, it still seems like a superior 2D drafting application.

In architecture the workflow is different. We are taught to work and think in 2D (at least I was)

I think the only reason for that is computers weren't powerful enough back then. I can't think of any professions more suitable to work in 3D than architecture and industrial design. They have adapted, architects not. Why? I think several reasons:

-certain amount of snobbism in this profession. What the older generation doesn't understand is classified as a gimmick.

- architecture software HAS to be overly complicated and silly, otherwise it's not "pro" (tied to first reason)

- cost of construction. Use the most inefficient, crap materials that make you sick and consume lots of power to keep warm/cool, even though there are plenty of better alternatives, which aren't much more expensive. So then as Brian says, any change that will cost them anything, is out the window. Usually.

I think the only reason for that is computers weren't powerful enough back then. I can't think of any professions more suitable to work in 3D than architecture and industrial design.

I don't agree.
Yeah, certainly for ID, I guess noone doubts the latter.
Architectural work, especially detailing work in my perception differs nearly diametrical from ID.

While I love 3D I can hardly imagine industries where 2D makes equally much sense as in architecture.
Laying out of of circuit-boards maybe - dedicated software also still is in 2D...

2D to me seems the most adequate choice to draw cables and pipes for water and gas and details of that sort.
I would not see the slightest benefit of having that stuff in 3D, it even was a pain for readability.