What features would you like to see added to a future version of DataCAD?
#13583 by Steve Baldwin
Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:28 am
joshhuggins wrote:Maybe some of measure tools could be used so they can measure to scale? Being able to view a model in 3D space, especially with Datacad's future plans. Maybe allow for different pen tables to be loaded? GTV/MSP support.

This is what I was thinking about, and how I often use .dwg viewers.
#13586 by joshhuggins
Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:16 am
Nick Pyner wrote:Measuring? GTVs? MSPs? Pen tables?
Sounds suspiciously like a CAD programme to me, and if the recpient hasn't already got one, I assume there is good reason and they aren't going to welcome the likes of this. BTW you forgot the comprehensive training manual. Don't think they won't need one. There are enuff people on this very forum who have strife in these areas, and they're architects who have already got DataCad.

I don't know how you are going to handle the 50Mb+ files. Being a bit more selective about what you send might help but if they really need all your stuff then the project is so big that they should be happy, able, and able to afford, to receive it.

That's because it would be like a CAD program. I mean it is opening a CAD file. Chances are that the person who uses this would already have a CAD program other than Datacad, but the last time I checked Datacad's files don't translate properly especially transferring GTV's & MSP's information. I just know I sure appreciate being able to use Bentley View for free to view / print DWG's the way they were meant to be viewed / printed and not having to plop down more money to Autodesk to do this simple task. There is about 30 buttons in two toolbars in Bentley View, not much of a manual needed there. And for those who are still using pre-11 Datacad, it would help them a bit I'm sure. I could go on and on with how someone could use it daily when working with consultants, but what's the point if someone is set on that they don't need a product? That's fine, but others who find new uses for tools everyday can :wink: And if Datacad doesn't feel it fits within their scope of work that's fine and I can totally understand that. They have enough on their plate as it is. It's just nice to dream a bit.

Image
#13622 by Miguel Palaoro
Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:57 pm
Hello Fellows,

In spite of the apparent misundestanding around the discussion, I don't believe an AEC Viewer should be a 'thin' CAD or whatever low capacity drawing engine.

The lack of an AEC Viewer engine actually 'encourages' our users to translate from our native format into this allien DWG format, which transmutates each new year. You all are aware that DataCAD don't fully converts to DWG format all our drawing features, like inserted Bitmap images or our MSP formats.

By my understanding it would be enough if someone could open an .AEC (& .DC5) drawing without having to translate it into Autocrap format. I can remind some big reasons: In Brazil, and I don't believe it is different in other latitudes, the Municipalities are starting to handle drawings in digital format for approval submissions on building authorizations. There are near 6,000 municipal districts in the whole country, which corresponds roughly to your 'counties'.
Primarily, in this case, the Municipality wouldn't want to create projects, but it do operates over projects developed by someone.
Also the official financial organs which only want to be able to understand the projects, require drawings made in digital format. It is .DWG, of course, from our familiar companion.

How many counties in USA accepts digital drawing for approval? I'd bet it is becoming a huge number.
How many of them do accept DataCAD's .AEC or .DC5 format ? I'd be surprised if any.

Addditionally, the many independent reprographics companies that today requires .DWG format files for making external plotting services, and would never purchase a CAD license for making nothing but do print drawings.

I vote for a Viewer that could have just two basic abilities, along with the default printing feature.
a) a REDLINING feature;
b) could allow SIMPLE MEASUREMENTS, like length/distance, area and volume for predefined points or polylines;

Additionaly, the ability to 'understand' MSP and GTV could add great utility to the Viewer. Remember that the user wouldn't be required to learn an operation manual to handle it, since he wouldn't create anything, but simply choose among some button options.

Thanks,
Miguel
#13633 by Nick Pyner
Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:48 pm
MP, I don't think this is as well thought out as it might be.

Miguel Palaoro wrote:The lack of an AEC Viewer engine actually 'encourages' our users to translate from our native format into this allien DWG format, which transmutates each new year.


This is skating round a presupposed need. It's we who do the translating and the question is how much do we need to translate. The only translating to DWG I do is for DWG users. If there is a need for them to see what I can see, they get a PDF too. The problem here is DWG <> AEC and a viewer doesn't make it easier to use the latter. If the recipient doesn't want to use the DWG then QED, a PDF will do.

Miguel Palaoro wrote:By my understanding it would be enough if someone could open an .AEC (& .DC5) drawing without having to translate it into Autocrap format. I can remind some big reasons: In Brazil, the Municipalities are starting to handle drawings in digital format for approval submissions on building authorizations. Also the official financial organs which only want to be able to understand the projects, require drawings made in digital format. It is .DWG, of course, from our familiar companion.


No it isn't. All local government needs to do is reduce the paper storage problem. They are getting you to do their microfilming. One reason why they ask for DWG is that some alleged tech head thinks that is what they need and doesn't know that CADs can plot to PDF. IF your authorities ask for paper too, and I don't know any here that demand digital exclusively, you might ask yourself why this is. I think you will find that the reason why the ask for paper, is that that is all they read - and stamp. They aren't going to print anything. That's your job. The digitals merely go into archive along with one stamped paper copy, probably, and hopefully, never to be seen again.

Miguel Palaoro wrote:How many of them do accept DataCAD's .AEC or .DC5 format ? I'd be surprised if any.


So would I, for the reasons above, and one more. The last thing the local authorities want is another format they aren't going to use , that merely makes a bad situation worse. And yes, I bet they don't want a free AEC viewer either, I've tried that with o2c. Give 'em a video - fine - but expecting them to actually use a viewer is just fanciful, even if it's free.

All they want to do is look at the plans, and what they quite rightly expect to see digitally, is just what they would see if you gave it them on paper.

Consequently they accept PDF, they already have the viewer, if they need it. I believe the next local council up the coast from here now accepts nothing but PDF, or is about to, which might rattle the Autocrap cage a little but, in view of Autodesk constantly moving the goalposts, makes sense.

The same can be said for the finance authorties you allude to. The idea of an accountant twiddling with a CAD viewer is just dumb and giving them a CAD file is irresponsible, as it is likely to cost your client, and don't even think of giving his lawyer one, your career path is likely to be very short if you do.

Miguel Palaoro wrote:Addditionally, the many independent reprographics companies that today requires .DWG format files for making external plotting services


Really? Why would they do that if there was any chance of avoiding it? All DWGs mean is hassle and potential trouble. The three biggest outfits here, OfficeWorks, Quick, and I believe Kinko's, won't accept anything other than PDF, and I think the right philosophy here is that if a repro demands DWG only, it is definitely time to look for some other outfit that is a bit more up-to-date. You will probably save a lot of money.

Miguel Palaoro wrote:Additionaly, the ability to 'understand' MSP and GTV could add great utility to the Viewer.


The end result of understanding GTVs and MSP is the ability to plot. When they do eventually understand, they can then create PDFs - and wonder why the hell the architect didn't give them those in the first place.

I think Blanchard's question above needs re-reading..........

2c of stir from
#13647 by Miguel Palaoro
Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:49 pm
Argghh!! Nick Pyner. We will not fix all misfunctions on our professional system, and, BTW, certainly some additional efforts could open up our minds.

Nick Pyner wrote:[The lack of an AEC Viewer engine actually 'encourages' our users to translate from our native format into this allien DWG format, which transmutates each new year.]
...This is skating round a presupposed need. It's we who do the translating and the question is how much do we need to translate. The only translating to DWG I do is for DWG users. If there is a need for them to see what I can see, they get a PDF too. The problem here is DWG <> AEC and a viewer doesn't make it easier to use the latter. If the recipient doesn't want to use the DWG then QED, a PDF will do.

I suspect you have not all the experience in the visualization area, Nick. I'll give you an example: our local municipal office for building and urbanistic authorizations, uses a viewer called AutoVue that can 'see' DWG or DXF format, but don't recognizes DC5 or AEC format. And more, it can compare among two drawings, and measure areas for authorization purposes if the drawing is in DWG format. So, It's not only a matter of wish to convert or not. We are demanded to make it, unless we have no interest to require faster examination for the building projects.
But this is a situation on a big city, which has funds to afford a half million dollar investment on a process like this. What to say about small towns ? They barely can have a license of AutoCAD LT, and certainly will make easier the life of the Autocad pirates. DataCAD's not included, of course. With a DataCAD Viewer we can make available to every Municipal Organ who deals with drawings, and make better figure to our customers.

[Also the official financial organs which only want to be able to understand the projects, require drawings made in digital format. It is .DWG, of course, from our familiar companion.]
...No it isn't. All local government needs to do is reduce the paper storage problem. They are getting you to do their microfilming.

Microfilming is been made around here for the last 30 years, Nick. And it is done from blueprints. No one requires digital files to make microfilming. The digital drawing are to make additional interventions that can't be made with microfilmed drawing sheets.
Want another example ? Georreferencing. Everybody is paying attention into this area, and vectorial information must be introduced into the general area database. When this is decided we are demanded to convert into DXF or DWG format to be introduced into the whole database.

[How many of them do accept DataCAD's .AEC or .DC5 format ? I'd be surprised if any.]
...So would I, for the reasons above, and one more. The last thing the local authorities want is another format they aren't going to use , that merely makes a bad situation worse.

Not agreed at all. You are considering that DWG format will survive above the times ?
Definitely Not. Ask Autodesk or read their inbetween lines. They do changes all the time and will be doing until the end. Not everybody accepts to be dependant from a single company which don't respects the user needs.

And yes, I bet they don't want a free AEC viewer either, I've tried that with o2c. Give 'em a video - fine - but expecting them to actually use a viewer is just fanciful, even if it's free.

Sorry Nick. I can't get your point. o2c will never replace AEC. It a natural impossibility. Each one has its unique destinations and utility.

All they want to do is look at the plans, and what they quite rightly expect to see digitally, is just what they would see if you gave it them on paper.

Good old times Nick Pyner! Worthed nothing the above discussed ?

The same can be said for the finance authorties you allude to. The idea of an accountant twiddling with a CAD viewer is just dumb and giving them a CAD file is irresponsible, as it is likely to cost your client, and don't even think of giving his lawyer one, your career path is likely to be very short if you do.

I can't know how does it works in Australia, but in Brazil the bigger official finance authority has a legion of more then 1,000 engineers and architects to fully examinate any project submitted. They are very very far from 'dummy' accountants.

[Addditionally, the many independent reprographics companies that today requires .DWG format files for making external plotting services]
...Really? Why would they do that if there was any chance of avoiding it? All DWGs mean is hassle and potential trouble. The three biggest outfits here, OfficeWorks, Quick, and I believe Kinko's, won't accept anything other than PDF, and I think the right philosophy here is that if a repro demands DWG only, it is definitely time to look for some other outfit that is a bit more up-to-date. You will probably save a lot of money.

I suspect to be not wrong if I state that 80% or more of Autocadders never made a Plot File, nor they have available a PDF printing exit.
In our town there are near 60 reprographics shops. Almost no architect or engineer has it own plotter. He needs the external service, and depends on it.

I think Blanchard's question above needs re-reading..........

I am sure that Neil is reading this as well!

Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstanding.
Miguel
#14733 by DBrennfoerder
Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:34 pm
I agree with others that PDF is a great format to use to communicate with associates and clients. It is a natural output of DataCAD and users need little computer savvy and no CAD. But I also see the need to write on those pdf's with some sort of editibility so comments can be made and returned to sender for evaluation and/or changes. I also agree that it is not smart to send cad files just so people on the other end can see our work and add notes, like some have said here, they'd need to buy DataCAD and learn it. Even the light version at $300 isn't quite "free". I did a Google search to "redline pdf" and came across Bluebeam PDF Revu at www.bluebeam.com. You can download a fully functional program that will work for 30 days. The standard edition is only $150, and has a wide variety of markup tools. I downloaded the 30 Meg program in minutes, it asked to download a 22 meg program (.net something) and was up and running in less than 10 minutes. In a few more seconds I had added a sticky note, and had written a note directly on the drawing, and had added a balloon, with my choice of line width, color, opacity and fill color and opacity. Pretty nice. This could be the program we've all been wanting. If you click on the link, you can download a nice big image showing those markups in a screenshot of the program window.


http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id1012983490

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

About DataCAD Forum

The DataCAD Forum is a FREE online community we provide to enhance your experience with DataCAD.

We hope you'll visit often to get answers, share ideas, and interact with other DataCAD users around the world.

DataCAD

Software for Architects Since 1984