Why does Auto CAD SUCK so bad?
nate bakeman
Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of examples
out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as "A
New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
miserable disbelief.
I ask simple questions, which only lead to frustration.
Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
escape.
Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
need to fix. And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
right mouse button one too many times.
Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
piece of paper so I don't forget? Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
and efficient feature?
And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
lame implementation of reference files.
My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying questions.
Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been exposed
to better designed software at my previous job.
I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
Stephen Tate
real answer is because if AutoCAD did it as standard, most people wouldn't
bother buying the architectural add ons.
I don't know If you actually want answers to your questions, but many of the
problems you mention can, and already have, been resolved by 3rd party
programmers and Autodesk themselves. Some of them you can modify yourself
with a couple of lines of LISP.
I hope Autodesk don't follow the route of Microsoft, I don't want an
'assistant' cartoon pooping up and trouble shooters that only trouble shoot
the most remedial problems. All too often, the simplification of some
aspects complicate others. An example : in DOS, to rename a directory of
*.JPEG files to *.JPG you type RENAME *.JPEG *.JPG, how do you do this in
windows '95 or NT? I don't know the answer, I just use DOS.
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
David Garrigues
I don't know something about vinegar rings a bell
>Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
>the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of examples
>out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
>most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as "A
>New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
>miserable disbelief.
I have no problems with AutoCAD well some but from what I have read
already they wont ever concern you.
>Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
>keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
>far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
Why is it you don't use the multiple command in front of the command
you want to use? Have you ever heard of a mouse button doing an
enter? I have been running AutoCAD for a while and I wouldn't have it
ran any other way.
>Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
>ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
>will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
>escape.
Open your acad.mns and search for this
***ACCELERATORS
then add this
["ESCAPE"]^c^c^c
>Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
>"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
>Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
>Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
>interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
>transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
>need to fix.
What the heck are you talking about? Is zoom a command or not? And
just off the top of my head I don't think it undoes a cancel.
>And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
>right mouse button one too many times.
Finally you have a legitimate complaint.
>Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
>by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
>into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
>piece of paper so I don't forget?
OK go and visit my web site I have a routine there that will do the
trick.
>Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
>into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
>and efficient feature?
They have it is in their bonus tools called NCOPY Q2?
>And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
>TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
>lame implementation of reference files.
Some people just amaze me open mouth and insert foot!
>My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
>are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying questions.
Why don't you take the time to learn the software before you start
bitching about it.
>Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been exposed
>to better designed software at my previous job.
You have already stated that you were using the best software
available. Maybe the application that you are using it is all wrong.
Maybe you are trying to use this software to play Quake trust me it
doesn't work.
>I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
>really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
I just cant get over the fact that our government actually allows
everyone and anyone to reproduce. But hey you don't see me
complaining.
David at the CADapult
http://home1.gte.net/davidgus
Matt Dillon
>Please help me. All I want to do is understand.
>
<snip>
>
>Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
>keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
>far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
Sounds like you're used to Microstation or some other CAD package. I can't answer
your question, but I can provide you with a different point of view. First time I sat
down to Microstation I asked "Why the hell can't it figure out I'm DONE? And why do I
have to keep telling it which frigging viewport I wanna do something in?"
>Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
>ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
>will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
>escape.
I don't understand the question. How else would you interrupt a command, other than
executing another command, which does the same thing?
>Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
>"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
>Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
>Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
>interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
>transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
>need to fix. And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
>right mouse button one too many times.
Wrong. I frequently find it useful to undo a ZOOM. I frequently get frustrated in
programs (like Word and Excel) that undo everything but what I'm REALLY trying to
UNDO.
>Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
>by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
>into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
>piece of paper so I don't forget? Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
>into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
>and efficient feature?
>
No. A LISP routine could do this rather easily. Granted, it could be in the core
code, however AutoCAD's customizability is arguably it's greatest strength.
>And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
>TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
>lame implementation of reference files.
Sounds like you're more than a little frustrated. It also sounds like you are an
ex-Microstation user (forgive me if the assumption is incorrect, but I've heard these
comments from lots of others). You have to realize that they are two different
programs that do things differently. You learn one, then switch to the other, you're
going to be frustrated. Believe me. Had you learned AutoCAD first and gotten used to
it, then switched to Microstation, you'd be on their discussion group (if there is
one) asking "Why does Microstation Suck".
>My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
>are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying questions.
>Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been exposed
>to better designed software at my previous job.
>
>I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
>really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
>
Get over your bias, hang in there, and you'll get it.
Matt Dillon
The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
michael_gatzke
I've used other CAD packages and have found them to make little or no sense.
I've been using AutoCAD for 10 years and often times find myself amazed at
the clarity of thought the programmers use when writing this program - it
doesn't try to make things too automatic, every step is logical and
understandable.
It just sounds to me like you've come over to AutoCAD from another CAD
package (if any, maybe a draw package) and are getting frustrated in the
learning curve. Relax. I agree with Stephen that I too hope Autodesk doesn't
begin Microsoft practices, programming or otherwise. I also agree with
David, many of the commands you are wishing AutoCAD had are already in there
in one form or another. I also and especially agree with Matt, if you don't
like something that AutoCAD does - change it. Customizability is one of
AutoCAD's strengths, take advantage of it.
Finally, remember that you can't ever hope to please everybody. If Autodesk
programmed AutoCAD to fit you perfectly, other people would complain. I've
found that if you take the time to understand WHY AutoCAD is asking the
questions that it does and why it is asking them in the order it's asking
them - you'll be able to anticipate upcoming questions and find the
interface much more usable and enjoyable. Also, beware, AutoCAD is not for
the faint of heart. It is one of the most complex CAD packages on the market
today. I don't really think that AutoCAD could suck as badly as you claim if
they hold over 70% of the world's CAD market.
Maybe you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Mike
nate bakeman wrote in message <35AD5D78...@aol.com>...
>Please help me. All I want to do is understand.
>
>Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
>the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of examples
>out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
>most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as "A
>New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
>miserable disbelief.
>
>I ask simple questions, which only lead to frustration.
>
>Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
>keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
>far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
>
>Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
>ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
>will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
>escape.
>
>Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
>"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
>Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
>Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
>interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
>transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
>need to fix. And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
>right mouse button one too many times.
>
>Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
>by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
>into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
>piece of paper so I don't forget? Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
>into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
>and efficient feature?
>
>And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
>TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
>lame implementation of reference files.
>
Tony Tanzillo
>
> Nate,
>
> I've used other CAD packages and have found them to
> make little or no sense.
I've found just the opposite. I think that's because I
discount my familiarity with AutoCAD. Most people seem
to allow their perception and judgement to be distorted
by their own familiarity with one product or anther.
To fairly consider the merits of a product, you must
must first disregard your familiarity with all products,
and not allow that to govern the standards that you base
your opinion on. In otherwords, you must have a neutral
point of view to begin with. Most AutoCAD users don't.
The fact is that an overwhelming majority of those who
are not familar with any CAD product, will usually reject
AutoCAD (and Microstation) in favor of other products,
after spending a little time with each of them.
For example, for 2D drawings, I find that Intergraph's
Imagineer Technical makes a lot of sense. It lets me
create and revise drawings about 3-4X faster than I
can with AutoCAD or LT. That's the bottom line.
The fact that I am much more familiar with AutoCAD has
little to do with my opinion.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
nate bakeman
> >Please help me. All I want to do is understand.
>
> I don't know something about vinegar rings a bell
>
> >Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
>
> >the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of
> examples
> >out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
> >most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as
> "A
> >New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
> >miserable disbelief.
>
> I have no problems with AutoCAD well some but from what I have read
> already they wont ever concern you.
>
> >Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software
> to
> >keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
>
> >far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
>
> Why is it you don't use the multiple command in front of the command
> you want to use? Have you ever heard of a mouse button doing an
> enter? I have been running AutoCAD for a while and I wouldn't have it
>
> ran any other way.
I still want to know why I have to TELL it multiple. That is an extra
step. Extra steps waste time. Fractions of seconds add up. Multiple
should be default. Just like the "line" command - works pretty well,
doesn't it. Imagine if you had to hit return before EVERY line you
drew. That's how I feel with all the other non-sticky commands. This is
how all other major, best-of-class software package work. Like
Photoshop, like Quark, like Word, and on and on. And yes, like
Microstation.
>
>
> >Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
>
> >ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
>
> >will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than
> hitting
> >escape.
> Open your acad.mns and search for this
> ***ACCELERATORS
>
> then add this
> ["ESCAPE"]^c^c^c
>
Could you explain what this does? I still resent having to "fix" acad. I
don't want to learn how to write lisp routines. I want to draft
efficiently.
> >Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
> >"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding
> me.
> >Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what
> if
> >Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
> >interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
> >transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
> >need to fix.
>
> What the heck are you talking about? Is zoom a command or not? And
> just off the top of my head I don't think it undoes a cancel.
Exactly my point. Acad is dumb because it can't discriminate between
commands. To acad all commands are equal, even ESC key entries and
non-legal commands (ie - typos). Most good software can DISCRIMINATE the
nature of the command, has a heirarchy, and the commands that do not
need to be in the undo chain are not part of it. Zoom is that type of
command. Imagine trying type a letter in Word and making a mistake, and
instead of it undoing the last text you entered it undid the last SAVE
you did, or the last change you make you your preferences. It would be
intolerable, only because you are used to it NOT doing those things and
that is simply the RIGHT way to do it. Acad does not meet this basic
standard of good software design.
It's primitive.
> >And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
> >right mouse button one too many times.
>
> Finally you have a legitimate complaint.
To me this is actually less serious than the basic interface flaws.
Those, on the aggregate, waste more of my time, force me into more mouse
or key clicks. At least this one I can be cautious about and hopefully
avoid. It's still pretty embarrasing, though.
>
>
> >Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon
> just
> >by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in,
> go
> >into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down
> on a
> >piece of paper so I don't forget?
>
> OK go and visit my web site I have a routine there that will do the
> trick.
Again, my point is that YOU have to friggin program the software to do
stuff it should be able to do out of the box. I appreciate the hard work
and mental energy that goes into getting these things to work. I applaud
you - you have more patientce and interest in that stuff than me. I am
an architect, not a programmer. I need to draft quickly and
effortlessly, like I do with a pencil on paper. If I had to take a day
out of my job to stop and program my pencil to sharpen, that would be
the analogy.
>
>
> >Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
> >into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly
> useful
> >and efficient feature?
>
> They have it is in their bonus tools called NCOPY Q2?
I love the names they give things in acad. Incredibly intuitive. How do
I turn on GROUPS? Oh, of course, set my PICKMODE to 2.
>
>
> >And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel
> logic.
> >TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
> >lame implementation of reference files.
>
> Some people just amaze me open mouth and insert foot!
Don't speak until you've seen all the options. Now that I have the hang
of the TILEMODE and PAPER/MODEL toggles, I completely understand it.
Why did it have to be so obtuse, though? Yeah, it works, but give me
fully functioning reference files ANY day. I'll get the same work done
more quickly.
>
>
> >My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
>
> >are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying
> questions.
>
> Why don't you take the time to learn the software before you start
> bitching about it.
I've been at it a month. I actually learned how to do CAD on Acad
version 10. That was just out of school almost 8 years ago. That was in
the days when a 386 was hot potatoes, and DOS was king. Then I went
Microstation and never looked back. Now, at a new job, I have to learn
the industry standard. I'm constatly asking my coworkers "how do I..."
and being told "can't do it". Then I get theconvoluted work around.
I will master this bitch of a program. But I wish AutoDesk had more
incentive to improve the product. It's a dinosaur, a holdout from the
days when 16 color monitors were cutting edge technology, and pen
plotters were spitting out plots at blazing speeds (not). Here is my
main point: WHY DOES EVERYONE ACCEPT AND DEFEND WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A
MEDIOCRE PRODUCT AT BEST? There are better ways, people, so why do we
settle for this garbage?
>
>
> >Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been
> exposed
> >to better designed software at my previous job.
>
> You have already stated that you were using the best software
> available. Maybe the application that you are using it is all wrong.
> Maybe you are trying to use this software to play Quake trust me it
> doesn't work.
>
Huh?
> >I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
> >really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
>
> I just cant get over the fact that our government actually allows
> everyone and anyone to reproduce. But hey you don't see me
> complaining.
>
You just did...
Care to time travel back to Nazi Germany my friend? I think you'd fit in
very well.
nate bakeman
frustration is slowly going down as I get the hang of the click pattern
required to use Acad. It's not beeping at me so much (I set that on
purpose so I would learn faster). I AM trying to understand, but my
initial disbelief and outrage at the poor design decisions implemented
in the software got the better of me. I would prefer a reasoned
discussion, so I apologize for my inflammatory words.
Hey, I love my job…to me, the CAD aspect is just something I have to go
through to get my work done. It's a sub-aspect of my overall abilities.
I use all kinds of software in my job, all at a high level of
proficiency. I have a lot of geek-like tendencies, although I do not
consider myself hardcore (yet). I'm a very speedy, efficient user in my
favored package, MicroStation. I can assemble multi-volume construction
document sets for huge buildings, crank out 3D models, manage project
directories, move data between many different formats, etc. . I hope to
be doing the same in AutoCAD. I learned CAD on Acad R10, believe it or
not, and thought it was great back then, but it was all I ever used.
Once I moved to MS I haven't looked back (until now).
I appreciate your offer to help. Here is one for you, which I hope will
clearly explain what I'm trying to understand. I just tried this out to
see if could figure it out for myself I needed to measure the area of
several closed Plines, one after the other. There were about 15 of them,
basic shapes indicating the footprints of lots and buildings.
I enter the AREA command, and it prompts me <first
point>/Object/Add/Subtract. I hit O, because I want to get the area of
an object, right? I click the object and the area flashes in the command
line. I write it down (realizing that my command line history has it if
I nee to look). I then have to do AREA again (unnecessary command
count=1), then hit O again (2), then pick the next object. Write down
next area. Then enter AREA (3)(actually I'm using a palette button , but
same thing), tell it Object again (4), and so on until I'm done.
So, for each object in succession that I want to measure, I have to do
three things: initiate AREA, tell it Object, and pick object in
question. The MULTIPLE command did not seem to affect the AREA command.
Is there a way to get Acad to skip the two unnecessary steps. I don't
count selecting the objects as unnecessary, but each repetition of the
AREA command and Object option is redundant. The way I see it, I've
already indicated that I am interested in checking areas for the time
being. I also told it that I want to deal with Objects for the time
being. But from one object to the next it cannot remember these basic
parameters, or so it seems. .
This is what I mean by sticky commands. What if you had to tell your
word processor, for each word you typed, that, yes, indeed, I want
another BOLD word, just like the last one I typed. Hit BOLD, type a
word. Hit BOLD, type a word. Or, in Pagemaker, that you want yet
another rectangle. What most good software does is assume that the user
will be doing more than ONE of the given operation UNTIL A NEW COMMAND
IS INITIAED, and that options and settings will stay the same UNTIL
CHANGED. AutoCAD does use the last input as th default, but you have to
VERIFY it each time. There is no good reason why CAD software can't
operate the same way as other modern software- in fact, most of Acad's
competitor do so, because it is a fundamentally sound approach.
In fact, it could be argued that AutoDesk realized this in some form,
because they made the LINE command work in this fashion. You can draw
line all day long without having the re-enter the LINE command. Everyone
loves it. OFFSET works this way, too, sort of. Why do they apply this to
some (albeit heavily used) commands, but not most of the others? I'd
love to be able to draw 30 circles with a 6" radius (for example) in a
row on one CIRCLE command enter. If I need to change sizes of circle, I
stop the command, reset my parameters to an 8" radius (for example), and
draw 30 more of 'em. Same applies to almost every other command, like
MOVE and COPY.
If I'm missing something, let me know. In my opinion, LISP routines or
whatever do not count - in fact they weaken your defense of AutoCAD to
me. To tell me, hey, it's in there…you just have to learn how to program
first, well, that's plain ridiculous for an day-to-day, nose to the
grindstone user like me.
Thanks, really.
nate
David Garrigues wrote:
Nate I will not debate with you here in open or closed forum if you
want to complain go right ahead I won't waste my time on this type of
nonsense anymore.
I can see that you are truly frustrated at changing jobs and now being
expected to perform at your normal pace. If I were you I would take
another step back and re-evalute why you came here. Was it because
you needed help or because you thought you were going to make everyone
at AutoDESK just jump up and try and please you?
I would still, even though you come off as rather bold and rude be
willing to help you in any way I can but I can say this you have a
hard edge that you need to sand down a little.
In this forum you are surrounded by most of the major players/gurus.
All of your problems can be quickly solved if posted here with a
little more humbleness in your tone.
AutoCADs greatest strength is in its customization I don't need to
prove this but it is fact. Just because you want to work one way
doesn't mean that is the way everyone else does. Let me encourage
you to buy the book for AutoCAD 14 instant reference by Omura/
Richardson. It should help you in the rough spots.
As far as getting AutoCAD to do something you think it should let me
suggest that you come up with the exact example of what you are trying
to do and post it and maybe we could sway you from thinking this is
not such an archaic program.
Stephen L. Bowen
the things it tells you is the area it encloses. Short, simple, and to the
point.
Stephen L. Bowen
President, PowerLISP Solutions
www.powerlisp.com
nate bakeman
enter LIST command (two keys for LI plus return = 3)
select closed polyline (1)
complete selection (1)
click back in autocad window to hide text window (1)
hit return to get command going again (1)
Pretty inefficient. Could loose that last one if it would just stay in
the last command.
Matt Dillon
Sticky bad. Do bad things.
<G>
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:21:36 -0700, nate bakeman <pream...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> That's how I feel with all the other non-sticky commands.
<snip>
David Garrigues
want to complain go right ahead I won't waste my time on this type of
nonsense anymore.
I can see that you are truly frustrated at changing jobs and now being
expected to perform at your normal pace. If I were you I would take
another step back and re-evalute why you came here. Was it because
you needed help or because you thought you were going to make everyone
at AutoDESK just jump up and try and please you?
I would still, even though you come off as rather bold and rude be
willing to help you in any way I can but I can say this you have a
hard edge that you need to sand down a little.
In this forum you are surrounded by most of the major players/gurus.
All of your problems can be quickly solved if posted here with a
little more humbleness in your tone.
AutoCADs greatest strength is in its customization I don't need to
prove this but it is fact. Just because you want to work one way
doesn't mean that is the way everyone else does. Let me encourage
you to buy the book for AutoCAD 14 instant reference by Omura/
Richardson. It should help you in the rough spots.
As far as getting AutoCAD to do something you think it should let me
suggest that you come up with the exact example of what you are trying
to do and post it and maybe we could sway you from thinking this is
not such an archaic program.
David at the CADapult
http://home1.gte.net/davidgus
Bernd Hoffmann
works for you does not for me. I very seldom repeat commands. That's the
beauty of AutoCAD's open architecture. We can customize it to fit our
needs. I'm sure you'll have your own sticky command tool bar in a few
days. Let us know if you need some help.
nate bakeman wrote:
> I apologize for my tone - I'm definitely outside looking in, here.
Regards, Bernd
Designer
Burris Premium Sports Optics
http://www.burrisoptics.com/
Jon Fleming
familiar is Word. And you are definitely wrong in holding Word up as an
example of a program that repeats commands until told to do otherwise!
Yes, if you select "Bold", what you type is bold until you change. But
"Bold" is not a command. How about "Insert" "Picture" "From file...", for
which there is no keyboard shortcut? Or "Format" "Paragraph..."? In
fact, I think Word cannot repeat its editing commands, because it does not
support verb-noun editing.
As to the extra keystrokes required in non-repeating commands, that
depends on your pattern of command usage. I seldom use the AutoCAD "area"
command, and when I do I want the area of one thing (or set of things) and
that's all. Requiring me to hit a key to end the area command is an extra
keystroke that I will resent.
However, AutoCAD does allow you to repeat the last command by hitting the
<Enter> key. This is pretty quick.
But you appear to want to repeat all commands including all the options
selections. So, for example, the "-layer" "set" command should repeat
until told otherwise? <grin>
Whether or not a particular command should repeat is a design decision. In
the best of all possible worlds, that decision would be based on a
statistical analysis of real-world usage patterns ... but then the usage
patterns might change. Whichever way the decision goes, some users are
going to be dissatisfied.
Although I doubt that many users are dissatisfied with the fact that the
UCS command doesn't repeat. And the ZOOM command.
At least it is possible to change how a command behaves in AutoCAD. Of
course you may choose not to do so. But making most command repeat is a
mater of menu macro programming, not LISP programming.
Some of the decisions made in the early days of AutoCAD are poor ones in
today's market, but they are very difficult to change. That's a
disadvantage of a program with a long history. Look at the SolidWorks
interface relative to the Pro Engineer interface ...
jrf
Stephen L. Bowen
fact that AutoCAD's point selection process is much more straightforward
(none of that tenative point selection stuff [that's similar to cycling to
you AutoCAD people]). You pick the point you want and it's done. Also,
what's the need to enter that data point all the time? If I want to zoom
to a window, I should have to pick two points, not three. And on and on
and on... Yes, in some cases you will have more mouse clicks in AutoCAD
than Microstation, but in many other cases you will have fewer.
Stephen L. Bowen
President, PowerLISP Solutions
www.powerlisp.com
Doug K
command and issue the one you really meant?
I find undoing zooms important so that I can track exactly what's goin on.
I might be able to respond further, but your post was way too disorganized
and cluttered with old posts, I lost interest. If your drafting discipline
is equivalent to your posting, I can understand your frustrations.
--
Doug Kochel
Designer/Draftsman, Bohler Engineering, Inc.
"spammers made me do it"
change the stars to dougck (you know why)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
nate bakeman wrote in message <35AE9910...@aol.com>...
Doug K
I have a lisp routine that will give total areas for every selected
polyline. It can total them or list as each is picked. There is also a
routine available called Periscope that runs transparently. You merely
"park" your cursor over an object for a second (you can specify how long)
and it will list the area if it has one(along with other info.). If I were
to search the various shareware web sites, I'm sure I could find dozens of
area routines.
My point is, you don't need to learn lisp (although I would recommend it).
There are literally THOUSANDS of routines out there for the asking. How many
other packages can boast that?
I'm glad your getting the 'hang". See, its good to vent here. Some complain
about the flamers/whiners/etc., but I find these entertaining and
informative (especially with the responses).
--
Doug Kochel
Designer/Draftsman, Bohler Engineering, Inc.
"spammers made me do it"
change the stars to dougck (you know why)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
nate bakeman wrote in message <35AED94B...@aol.com>...
>I apologize for my tone - I'm definitely outside looking in, here. My
>>snip<<
>I would prefer a reasoned
>discussion, so I apologize for my inflammatory words.
>
>I enter the AREA command, and it prompts me <first
Ben Sauvin
software, either. It'd take a few more iterations of AutoCAD improving
by infinitesimals between releases before I'd jump on the "Why does
AutoCAD suck so bad?" bandwagon, partly because (unlike Tanzillo) I
won't ignore my own familiarity with the application, and partly because
some of the other, newer players and even some of the older ones still
have a few lessons to learn from AutoCAD's example.
While AutoCAD's virtually infinite customisability is a definite
asset, along with its virtually 100% accessibility to those
touch-typists like myself who are mouse-challenged, there are some
upsetting problems with the product itself and with the attitude
sometimes evinced by Autodesk personnel. The most recent and irksome
I've experienced was my second attempt at taming paper space for
detailing solid models while maintaining drafting standards - the
conclusion I drew was that, for practical production purposes, you can
have unacceptable (but RAPID) detail drawings of solid models, or you
can have acceptable detail drawings from solids with time and effort -
"rapid" and "acceptable", in other words, are mutually exclusive
adjectives within this context. A realtime conference with an AutoCAD
instructor who is directly employed by Autodesk first tried to suggest
that I didn't know what I was doing, then went through some decidedly
elementary steps (SOLPROF, SOLDRAW and the like) to show me the error of
my ways, and then confessed to being totally lost as to why this
approach is so unsatisfactory in face of experience with packages like
Solid Edge, IDEA and PTC which generate automatically updated views in
their paperspace counterparts, complete with hidden lines on appropriate
linetypes and colours. This instructor, in fact, seemed totally ignorant
of other packages in the field and basically told me "buy some add-ons".
It's for this one problem alone, and for the attitude given me, that
I very nearly stormed into the company president's office to demand
AutoCAD be removed from the premises utterly and replaced with something
more productive.
There's much about AutoCAD to like, though. A great deal of my
engineering calculation is done with circles, tangent and normal lines,
for example, which is possible but awkward in other "home" packages like
Cadkey and virtually impossible in some of the higher end packages.
AutoCAD is unique to my experience in having a command line syntax for
every minute facet of its operation, which is a major boon to anybody
with a programming background. Its menus, fly-outs, pop-ups and other
GUI-ish elements are completely augmentable, deletable or otherwise
re-shuffle-able to suit anybody's requirements. Writing extensions for
it is getting to be absurdly easy, which is a Very Good Thing, since
AutoCAD rightly does not try to specialise.
Roasting AutoCAD for it commands not being "sticky" is almost the
height of pinheadedness and nearsightedness, or bemoaning its interface
while ignoring major deficits in the underlying engine is something akin
to worrying about blemishes on the car's finish while ignoring fried
transmission bands.
Matt Dillon
Give him a solution. He won't like it. Give him another. He won't like it either.
Let him work with it for awhile. He'll adapt or go back to Micro - whatever...
Then we can help.
Matt Dillon
Paul Turvill
on a Tablet and Tablet Menu, is because LIST (for example) is TWO clicks:
(1) pick the LIST command on the Tablet; (2) click on an object. The
third click (your seventh) doesn't really count, 'cause the graphics
screen returns by itself on issuing the next command.
I fully agree that those multi-tiered pulldowns, flyouts, popups and such
are a waste of time; but while AutoCAD is far from perfect, one of its
wonders is its ability to be tailored to each user's needs.
__
nate bakeman wrote in message <35AEF53A...@aol.com>...
Nick Aldrich
Box), AutoCAD only has 7% of the CAD market. Even as a longtime AutoCAD
user I think we all can see major shortcomings in the program. There are
lots of malfunctions etc., but then again there is lots of code.
Nick
Michael Gatzke wrote in article <6okuq1$d4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
> Nate,
Matt Dillon
Sorry, either that's a typo or Cadalyst is majorly wrong. Numbers can be manipulated in lotsa ways,
but that one is WAY off.
Matt Dillon
Matt Stachoni
I agree with Tony completely on this issue. As one who has moved
from AutoCAD to another CAD package, ARRIS (which is about as
different from Acad as you can get) you MUST first divest
yourself of all previous Acad-centric prejudices
But this brings up very essential and relevent points about only
some of AutoCAD's current deficiencies.
>Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
>keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
>far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
Agreed - I've used this in action and it actually makes you much
more productive.
>Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
>ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
>will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
>escape.
Yup. And..why does AutoCAD STILL make you do
every_thing_one_step_at_a_time? 3DS Max has been multithreaded
for years and has a silky-smooth "feel" to it. AutoCAD forces me
to sloooow down and take things one step at a time to do
anything- I end up getting hand cramps from flailing at the mouse
keys so much because I can think faster than the program can
execute (even on the fastest machine).
Multithread this sucker and you'll probably make alot of people
happier.
>Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
>"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
>Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
>Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
>interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
>transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
>need to fix. And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
>right mouse button one too many times.
Correct about this in the sense that Photoshop, Corel, etc don't
undo Zoom commands - they undo the last real editing action. Some
also have undo stack histories that let you pick exactly from
where you want the undo to happen. 3DS Max has this too, where
you can even undo only one thing that may be buried in the stack.
It's part if it's inherent object technology.
And one redo is pretty dumb. The undo stack just needs to be made
more intelligent.
>Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
>by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
>into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
>piece of paper so I don't forget? Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
>into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
>and efficient feature?
Because AutoCAD STILL isn't meant to be a serious workgroup
application, and is very dumb dealing with multiple drawings at
any one time. This was one of the biggest reasons why ADE was so
important, but that development got sidelined by other more
important things (like buying Softdesk, for example).
From what I've seen w/Architectural Desktop some of this
multi-drawing "object" technology is coming our way. I'll have a
copy as soon as it comes out to better evaluate how this works.
>And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
>TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
>lame implementation of reference files.
Yup - paperspace is a kludge no matter how you slice it.
Again, it's because AutoCAD isn't a serious "drawing as data"
product and is still in the "one drawing per person at a time and
that's it" mentality, even though basic PC networks have been
around for 10-15 years.
>I ask only only because I've been exposed
>to better designed software at my previous job.
This is only a small list of the problems I deal with every day -
and it gets to the core of the product. Even w/R14 there are
serious barriers that keep people from really working with it -
they have to rely on stupid kludges like Paperspace and reference
files to get work done.
>I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
>really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
Although, it sucks less than it used to - I guess that's one
thing. And I was quite impressed with Architectural Desktop -
some of the coolest things from 3DS VIS made it into the product.
Cabot Eudaley
>
Same. I zoom in before attempting a complicated series of
edits. Or using one of our lisp routines from Release 9 or 10.
That way, after I make the single mistake and blow up the
lisp routine, I'll know I've undone all of it when I zoom
out again.
BTW, it also 'undo'es your QSAVE (hehe).
Cabot
nate bakeman
I think you make an incredibly important point about judging design from
above, with a neutral attitude. There is a certain amount of actual user
experience required on more than one platform to really be able to
judge.
All I've used is AutoCAD and Microstation. I think Microstation is a
better designed product, but I would switch quickly if I was exposed to
an even better product. I don't usually get to choose the software I
work with, unfortunately, at least in the work environment.
I have found that the "flow" of MS is pretty good - I can achieve a very
efficient rate of drafting with few errors. The tools are very powerful
in general, with multiple abilities that are context sensitive. AutoCAD
seems to fragment operations into many diferent commands, which may or
may not be logically named. All the extra data points and tentative
points in MS used to drive me nuts, but they've become automatic and I
don't notice them anymore. In fact, that tentative snap gives me a
sense of certainty that I lack with AutoCAD. It also is nice because you
can quickly cycle through objects. Anyway...that is more or less
irrelevant at this point.
For the record, I'm getting hang of Acad, at least as far as the click
pattern. I knew that I would have to break the ingrained habits of MS to
begin to get to a reasonable speed in Acad. The lack of sticky commands
and the "step-by-painfully-slow-step" approach to command entry still
sticks in my craw, though. I am going to teach myself how to program my
own accelerator keys to get around this - I resent that I have to spend
my time doing this, but at least I know I'll be able to streamline the
interface at least a little.
nate.
Gordon Price
>> then add this
>> ["ESCAPE"]^c^c^c
>>
>
>Could you explain what this does? I still resent having to "fix" acad. I
>don't want to learn how to write lisp routines. I want to draft
>efficiently.
EVERYONE drafts efficiently DIFFERENTLY. That's what makes AutoCAD so good.
I don't have to draft like everyone else, I tell AutoCAD to work MY way.
Yes, it is goofy, but it is better than Archicad, where everyone can work
real fast, as long as they all want to do the same mediocre work (IMNSHO).
If you intend to use AutoCAD, you should really look into learning AutoLISP
(and VBA), because it is in the customizability that AutoCAD pulls ahead.
Think of it this way, do you want an automatic that is easy to drive, or a
stick that is harder to drive, but it drives the way you want, because you
DRIVE it.
Regards,
Gordon Price
gor...@albedodesign.com
nate bakeman
I am relieved that at least one other person in this forum sees that my
criticisms have some validity. Thanks for backing me up, Matt, and
making the same points more clearly than I could have. You've given me
some insight into the history of AutoCAD and its design philosophy (or
lack of one?).
I've been reading the replies to my first posting, trying to gain
insight, and most seem to be of the variety of telling me how to do
some rudimentary command, as if I'm some dummy who's never used CAD
software before. Or, I'm told that I'm a looser for not bucking up and
taking it for what it is, for having the temerity to actually criticize
the market leader. Or, I'm told that I don't have the right to criticize
Acad, because I haven't put the time in yet and don't know what I'm
talking about. CAD whizzes, regardless of platform, seem to love
spitting out their knowledge of how to execute things in the software
that they have mastered. They should be deservingly proud of this hard
won knowledge. But they can be defensive when someone comes along and
says in effect that the emperor has no clothes. They've been worshiping
the emperor for a long time, and aren't willing to question authority
yet.
I've tried to stop worrying about it. Unfortunately, I lost my
"beginners mind" a long time ago when it comes to CAD software. I always
jump right in with the hard questions. I want to get to the advanced
stuff right away, get productive as quickly as I can. I expect a basic
level of functionality to be there, that I've been used to relying on,
and suddenly I'm being told at every turn that I can't do something at
all, or that it takes three seperate commands, or I have to program
something in LISP. My expectations are high, I admit, but even the basic
stuff isn't there.
Most of the replies have been defensive of AutoCAD, full of that
arrogance that seems to just drip from the literature, advertising and
web sites put out there by AutoDesk. They act as if they are the only
CAD software that exists. Therefore, when they released v14, they are
basically saving the world. From what? All the bogus problems they
foisted on their users in the first place. And the users just accept it.
That bugs me, too, but more so now that I'm at their mercy like everyone
else.
I know this is rambling, so enough.
At least I know now that I'm not the only skeptic out there.
nate
Tom Momeyer
<giant snip>
>3DS Max has been multithreaded
>for years and has a silky-smooth "feel" to it. AutoCAD forces me
>to sloooow down and take things one step at a time to do
>anything- I end up getting hand cramps from flailing at the mouse
>keys so much because I can think faster than the program can
>execute (even on the fastest machine).
Sounds like you need this new product from Caldomp. Since the failure
of the 96 button duck and dawing bored to integrate with windows, I
think there is a ThinkCord under development. You will be able to run
multiple sessions of your favorite cadd program (this in deference to
the message thread subject) and it is guaranteed to eliminate all
"mouse flailing".
Tom Momeyer, AIA, CCS
Tom Momeyer
Well put! I read the the initial subject and decided to stay out of
it, but couldn't resist.
>I've used other CAD packages and have found them to make little or no sense.
<snip>
>It just sounds to me like you've come over to AutoCAD from another CAD
>package (if any, maybe a draw package) and are getting frustrated in the
>learning curve.
Exactly. I worked on McDonnell Douglas GDS cadd when it was 250k for
a couple workstations. When I learned a second cadd system, it was
very easy to compare each to the other and find fatal flaws with the
second program. Well, the third cadd program was a lot easier. Why?
Well I think Michael put it very succintly:
> Relax.
Take it easy, make the best of it, have a beer and relax.
>Maybe you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Exactly.
Tom Momeyer, AIA, CCS
Peter Farrell
Two points of agreement:
1. Autocad is Customization or Don't Bother - Menus, Being the easy
First Step.
2. Autocad lets each person work the way they want - you want a tablet,
I'd rather type. Pop down menus, Dialog Boxes, Command Line, Plot
Scripts, Whatever. With Autolisp I have the equivalent of the ARRIS
Drag Menu on steroids, I have context sensitive right click menus,
about 20 different custom osnaps that eliminate the need for any
constuction lines, etc. MY POINT IS: I'd rather have the pieces, and
the tools in the tool box... I've used Arris (money hole), I haven't
Used Micro Station (I hear good things), but if I can't improve on my
drafting tool when I see its shortcoming, I don't want it. It is not a
pencil, it is a computer.
A Little More Customization...
There's no file attached here, but it goes like this...
You write a command called A (for Area) which does the following:
You pick a point in any enclosed area and let Boundary create the pline,
then you use area, object, of that pline to get the area, then you erase
that pline. Then you place text middle center justified at the point
you originally picked, using the value which is now stored in the last
area system variable. Add S.F. or some other area unit to the text
before you insert it with current style and height or other settings,
and you make it continue as long as you keep picking a point.
First Use: A, enter, pick, (3) Others following: pick, (1)
You get areas, with text inserted, in roughly one pick.
Scripting, Macros, Toolbars, Batch Processing, AutoLisp, Etc.
Complaining about all the things AutoCAD doesn't do is like complaining
about all the things you can't make with leggos.
Paul Turvill
greatest asset is its ability to be configured to what works for each
user who makes the effort to make it so.
__
Peter Farrell wrote in message <35B035...@bellatlantic.net>...
Matt Dillon
I'm THERE, dude!
<snip>
> have a beer
Matt Stachoni
Check your email - I posted a lengthy followup that would most certainly have gotten zapped by the
Overlords of the newsgroup.
If anyone wants it, I'll forward it to them privately.
Matt Stachoni
>Or even run the AREA command, choose Object, and then lick the closed
>polyline.
How do you "lick a polyline"?
Man, you need a night out with some friends!
Matt
stac...@bellatlantic.net
msta...@architectsde.com
Matt Dillon
Gotta be juicy - hehehehe...
No hurry - I'm gonna be gone for a few days.
Matt Dillon
Matt Dillon
You cracked me up...
On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 23:36:42 GMT, stac...@bellatlantic.net (Matt Stachoni) wrote:
>Ian,
>
>>Or even run the AREA command, choose Object, and then lick the closed
>>polyline.
>
>How do you "lick a polyline"?
>
>Man, you need a night out with some friends!
>
Gary S. Kazio
repeats the command and lists the individual areas as well as listing the
summation.
nate bakeman wrote:
> I apologize for my tone - I'm definitely outside looking in, here. My
> frustration is slowly going down as I get the hang of the click pattern
> required to use Acad. It's not beeping at me so much (I set that on
> purpose so I would learn faster). I AM trying to understand, but my
> initial disbelief and outrage at the poor design decisions implemented
> in the software got the better of me. I would prefer a reasoned
> discussion, so I apologize for my inflammatory words.
>
> Hey, I love my job…to me, the CAD aspect is just something I have to go
> through to get my work done. It's a sub-aspect of my overall abilities.
> I use all kinds of software in my job, all at a high level of
> proficiency. I have a lot of geek-like tendencies, although I do not
> consider myself hardcore (yet). I'm a very speedy, efficient user in my
> favored package, MicroStation. I can assemble multi-volume construction
> document sets for huge buildings, crank out 3D models, manage project
> directories, move data between many different formats, etc. . I hope to
> be doing the same in AutoCAD. I learned CAD on Acad R10, believe it or
> not, and thought it was great back then, but it was all I ever used.
> Once I moved to MS I haven't looked back (until now).
>
> I appreciate your offer to help. Here is one for you, which I hope will
> clearly explain what I'm trying to understand. I just tried this out to
> see if could figure it out for myself I needed to measure the area of
> several closed Plines, one after the other. There were about 15 of them,
> basic shapes indicating the footprints of lots and buildings.
>
> I enter the AREA command, and it prompts me <first
> point>/Object/Add/Subtract. I hit O, because I want to get the area of
> an object, right? I click the object and the area flashes in the command
> line. I write it down (realizing that my command line history has it if
> I nee to look). I then have to do AREA again (unnecessary command
> count=1), then hit O again (2), then pick the next object. Write down
> next area. Then enter AREA (3)(actually I'm using a palette button , but
> same thing), tell it Object again (4), and so on until I'm done.
>
> So, for each object in succession that I want to measure, I have to do
> three things: initiate AREA, tell it Object, and pick object in
> question. The MULTIPLE command did not seem to affect the AREA command.
> Is there a way to get Acad to skip the two unnecessary steps. I don't
> count selecting the objects as unnecessary, but each repetition of the
> AREA command and Object option is redundant. The way I see it, I've
> already indicated that I am interested in checking areas for the time
> being. I also told it that I want to deal with Objects for the time
> being. But from one object to the next it cannot remember these basic
> parameters, or so it seems. .
>
> This is what I mean by sticky commands. What if you had to tell your
> word processor, for each word you typed, that, yes, indeed, I want
> another BOLD word, just like the last one I typed. Hit BOLD, type a
> word. Hit BOLD, type a word. Or, in Pagemaker, that you want yet
> another rectangle. What most good software does is assume that the user
> will be doing more than ONE of the given operation UNTIL A NEW COMMAND
> IS INITIAED, and that options and settings will stay the same UNTIL
> CHANGED. AutoCAD does use the last input as th default, but you have to
> VERIFY it each time. There is no good reason why CAD software can't
> operate the same way as other modern software- in fact, most of Acad's
> competitor do so, because it is a fundamentally sound approach.
>
> In fact, it could be argued that AutoDesk realized this in some form,
> because they made the LINE command work in this fashion. You can draw
> line all day long without having the re-enter the LINE command. Everyone
> loves it. OFFSET works this way, too, sort of. Why do they apply this to
> some (albeit heavily used) commands, but not most of the others? I'd
> love to be able to draw 30 circles with a 6" radius (for example) in a
> row on one CIRCLE command enter. If I need to change sizes of circle, I
> stop the command, reset my parameters to an 8" radius (for example), and
> draw 30 more of 'em. Same applies to almost every other command, like
> MOVE and COPY.
>
> If I'm missing something, let me know. In my opinion, LISP routines or
> whatever do not count - in fact they weaken your defense of AutoCAD to
> me. To tell me, hey, it's in there…you just have to learn how to program
> first, well, that's plain ridiculous for an day-to-day, nose to the
> grindstone user like me.
>
> Thanks, really.
>
> nate
Matt Stachoni
Thanks for the comments. As for the usability of AutoCAD, I find it to very good, but then I was
raised on it's "way of thinking". When I worked on another CAD app, I had to start from ground zero,
telling myself to stop thinking about it in terms of AutoCAD and learn it on it's own merits.
Having said that, I feel that until you learn some basic AutoLISP and create some decent
customization of command/menu structure, you really aren't using it to your fullest potential. For
example, almost every command (or command sequence) in our office has a 1 or 2 key AutoLISP macro.
It's been a boon to productivity, because you save yourself time from reaching for some pulldown
option (which may be buried somewhere..) by executing a quick keyboard macro, and it really adds up.
So much so that you start thinking "ahead" of what you are doing. I always say in my head the three
or four commands that I will immediately need for some editing job. Because the keyboard macros are
under my learned "muscle memory" (and such a thing does exist) I can rattle the commands off without
looking down at the keyboard and concentrate on the drawing actions, not some on-screen menu.
Because I never change my focus from the editing screen, I don't lose any concentration on what I'm
doing. It makes for much smoother operation.
Again, some of the command "quirks" just need to be learned, and best dealt with via the numerous
customization techniques that Acad gives you.
>Quick example - entering a solid, the order in which you pick points
>in order to avoid a "bowtie". Who made this ridiculous decision? Who
>draws squares, etc, by jumping back and forth like you were making
>rows in a table? And, to find out you can't make a triangle this way
>!?!! I guess it can make an isoceles triangle, but what a dumb
>limitation. I'm just not used to so many inane conditions and limits
>placed on me.
The Solid command is sometimes indeed weird, in that you never really want bowties, right? But it
needs a point order to determine how to fill the solid. You CAN create triangles just by picking two
of the same points (I often create triangles by mistake). For Isosoles triangles, create a triangle
via the POLYGON command and fill it with the solid (or do a solid hatch :). Again, the trick is to
learn the complete command structure and all of the sub-options. Easy "continuous" solids are
created by picking the first 4 points in correct order then using the last two points as the first
two of the next solid, so you keep picking 2-point sets for additional solids.
For easy rectangle solids, I use this simple macro:
(defun c:so (/ p1 p2)
(prompt "\nSolid Rectangle")
(setq p1 (getpoint "\nFirst corner: ")
p2 (getcorner p1 "\nOther corner: ")
)
(command "_.SOLID" p1
(list (car p2) (cadr p1))
(list (car p1) (cadr p2))
p2
""
)
(princ)
)
So at the command prompt, I enter SO for solid, pick two points like the RECTANG command and *poof*
there's the solid.
This is a small example of the kind of productivity gains you will get from thoroughly customizing
AutoCAD. I really couldn't think of trying to run it "out of the box" - it would take forever to
get anything done. The same could be said about ARRIS or Microstation. Our ARRIS setup was also
customized with lots of macros that really cut thru the B.S. to do exactly what I needed to do.
Although I still feel AutoCAD is seriously broken in several areas, one of the coolest things is
that the command and customization structures allow YOU to figure out how to be most productive and
give you the freedom to get there.
Matt
stac...@bellatlantic.net
msta...@architectsde.com
Stephen Tate
I've written for 1550 commands for Dragon Dictate so far (about three
tablets full).
Not only can you start commands without looking at the keyboard, you can
have you eyes closed if you like, or more useful while your looking at your
notes and references. Every command is top level, you just say it - superb!
The digitiser is finally going to the tip :) You need to add an extra 128Mb
RAM though :(
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Stephen L. Bowen
John Alderson
*^C^C_area;o;\
The first click starts the command and every click after that is a select
objects click.
Steve Johnson
stuff to change and hitting F4, selecting and hitting F4, etc. If that could
be translated to the AutoCAD interface it would be very handy.
Steve Johnson
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SteveJohnson/
http://www.cadlock.com/
Jon Fleming wrote:
> Or "Format" "Paragraph..."? In
> fact, I think Word cannot repeat its editing commands, because it does not
> support verb-noun editing.
Stephen Tate
space or right mouse click.
I don't think Word is particularly good example of an application. I assume
that the vast majority use Word for the same things, writing letters and
typing faxes or reports. Even after years of development there are still
many aspects of word that could be greatly improved - the same applies to
AutoCAD.
AutoCAD needs a radical rethink of how it's used, from the way data is
stored to the commands it offers. But modelling on existing software, IMO,
would be a mistake. They have already 'shoe horned' it into Windows but,
whilst the convenience of windows is big plus, many of the GUI elements that
came with it are a washout - notably toolbars.
It would seem Autodesk, and other big companies, lack imagination and
originality, preferring to just add the odd command and sell the upgrade. I
believe Autodesk has lost it's way and it's about time they tore up some of
those unimaginative wish lists and gave us something original and new.
Sticky commands - I couldn't care less, it's just semantics - gives us
something that can be used to design instead of draw.
Ben Sauvin
Stephen Tate
Fine for a word processor, where you don't need that many functions, but my
minimum in ACAD would be about 500 commands (and that's conservative).
Tablets are ok but you have to keep looking down. Popup tablet screen are
OK, but I find them very distracting.
How do regular toolbar users access the commands that aren't on their
display? Surely they don't switch toolbars on and off all the time? I'm
always keen to try new methods of accessing commands - toolbars demonstrated
their weaknesses very quickly and now I keep them all off - I'd turn off the
menus too, if it would recover a bit more screen space.
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Ben Sauvin wrote in message <35B3B98A...@osmic.com>...
Ben Sauvin
suggest? I've tinkered with this problem off and on for years (I'm an on again,
off again programmer) and have found no reasonable alternative save learning how
to type and learning the command set.
Gordon Price
Stephen Tate wrote in message <6p0g8m$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
>Because I use too many commands to fit on the screen.
>
>Fine for a word processor, where you don't need that many functions, but my
>minimum in ACAD would be about 500 commands (and that's conservative).
>Tablets are ok but you have to keep looking down. Popup tablet screen are
>OK, but I find them very distracting.
>
>How do regular toolbar users access the commands that aren't on their
>display? Surely they don't switch toolbars on and off all the time? I'm
>always keen to try new methods of accessing commands - toolbars
demonstrated
>their weaknesses very quickly and now I keep them all off - I'd turn off
the
>menus too, if it would recover a bit more screen space.
Stephen,
I have the same problem with toolbars, but I think I have come up with
something that works. I find that, in any one "phase" of work, I use a
fairly limited list of commands, plus a tool bar's worth of general stuff.
Thus I have an "ANNOTATION" toolbar that gives me most everything I need to
annotate a drawing, plus a toolbar of ArchT tools for building the "model"
and another for attaching data to elements in the model. It all breaks down
to Schematic Design, Design Development and Construction Docs. Now I want a
single toolbar that toggles all my other tool bars on and off. It is not the
best approach, but I think it is an improvement. I still use keyboard
shortcuts, but I really think they are best reserved for thing I do ALL the
time (save, open, move, edit, ddmodify, etc.) I would hate to have to
memorize that many keyboard commands.
Regards,
Gordon Price
Gordon Price
Stephen Tate wrote in message <6p0lsg$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
>It sounds like you have it all under control.
I don't know about control, but perhaps "infuence" ;)
>I draught for lots of different companies. I get given a sample and then
>have to draught 'in the style of'. This proves problematic for any kind of
>standardisation. For long term clients I have set procedures and utilities,
>but normally when they're working seamlessly they change their standard
;).
That does pose a problem. I have done some customization for a few people,
and simply set up a profile for each, with unique menus, lisp, etc. Not
eactly the easiest way to do it, and I think I have talked them all into
starting with a single standard, then we will tweak from there, rather than
reinventing the wheel each time. I hope they also don't decide to change
standards just when things are finally working.
>I also found a method similar to yours very productive. I even confess to
>having several custom toolbars for specific tasks or operations.
I am still hoping that Autodesk gets the toolbar issue simplified enough
that the average user can create custom toolbars for themselves, and have
them there when they get back into Acad, while still allowing the Cad Admin
to lock the office standard toolbars.
>I've started using voice control. To prevent myself from raving twice in
one
>thread, I'll instead direct you to my reply to Ben Sauvin.
And the client (species) said "I want it yesterday, for nothing."
And Data said "That would require time travel Captain."
And the Captain said "Make it so."
And the ship's computer made it so.
Please forgive me...I couldn't resist ;)
Gordon Price
Stephen Tate
It sounds like Star Trek, but I've started using voice.
I'm so I'm impressed I'll buy the company - well, I would if I could afford
it.
I won't pretend it's easy to set it up (the acoustics aspect has been a
really learning experience) but after 2 weeks of fine tuning I have finally
got a system together that works better than any method I have ever tried -
how much more intuitive could it be than saying what you want?!?. I was
demonstrating it today and one guy commented "that is the most impressive
thing I've ever seen a computer do".
The problem with AutoCAD is there are so many commands. All the base
commands, sub commands, system variables and custom lisp routines. Add a
couple of complete 3rd party packages (ToolPack has 400 on its own!) and
your faced with thousands of commands which need to be located. With voice
you never have to look at the input device (tablet or keyboard) and you have
the whole screen for drawing.
Sorry to rave, but it's really changed my whole method of working in just
two weeks.
Stephen Tate
It sounds like you have it all under control.
I draught for lots of different companies. I get given a sample and then
have to draught 'in the style of'. This proves problematic for any kind of
standardisation. For long term clients I have set procedures and utilities,
but normally when they're working seamlessly they change their standard ;).
I also found a method similar to yours very productive. I even confess to
having several custom toolbars for specific tasks or operations. In
particular toggling images and XREFs on an off, rendering and solid
modelling. I don't do much rendering or solid modelling and consequently
can't remember the shortcuts so easily.
I've started using voice control. To prevent myself from raving twice in one
thread, I'll instead direct you to my reply to Ben Sauvin.
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
>Stephen,
Matt Stachoni
> If the toolbar and menu approach is not suitable, what alternative could you
>suggest? I've tinkered with this problem off and on for years (I'm an on again,
>off again programmer) and have found no reasonable alternative save learning how
>to type and learning the command set.
Keyboard macros, based either in Acad.PGP or (better yet) in AutoLISP. One or two key macros will
take care of a LOT of commands that you repetetively use.
I need only about 4 different toolbars in everyday use that band along the top of the screen. No
screen menu, no pull-downs except for in-house custom stuff. But that's just me.
Matt
stac...@bellatlantic.net
msta...@architectsde.com
Steve Johnson
> I would say this feature exists as matchprop and command recall with return,
> space or right mouse click.
No, I was thinking of something far more thorough than that. I would like
something that applies to more than just properties, and more than just
repeating the basic command. Let's say you just moved a bunch of objects
using a given displacement. You zoom about a bit and notice you've missed
something. You pick the unmoved objects, hit F4 and zap, they've moved. This
would require a lot more thought to see how much could be done, given a
command structure as complex as AutoCAD's, but if it's workable it would be
well worth having in R14+1.
Yes, real design tools would be good and Autodesk has been gradually heading
that way for a while. But they're a lot harder to do, which is why I expect
to see AutoCAD remain a drafting tool for a while yet. So we might as well
make it as good a drafting tool as we can. There's nothing to stop Autodesk
doing another 3DSMAX and making a bold new leap to create new design software,
but I don't expect it to happen.
Steve Johnson
cad nauseam - http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SteveJohnson/
CADLock - http://www.cadlock.com/
Doug K
many for voice command - I'd have to agree there. I'd love to use voice
command, but working in a large office with cubes and thin walls, I'd
probably cause too much of a disturbance by talking to my computer more than
I already do.
Which hardware/software do you use for voice? Can you subvocalize (talk
softly) with it ?
That'd be cool.
As my arthritis/CT/RMD/TOS worsens, I might need this.
--
Doug Kochel
Designer/Draftsman, Bohler Engineering, Inc.
"spammers made me do it"
change the stars to dougck (you know why)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug K <******@voicenet.com> wrote in message
<6p201e$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
>The problem with my hands is there are so many fingers.
>
>Seriously, how can you have too many commands?
>
>--
>Doug Kochel
>Designer/Draftsman, Bohler Engineering, Inc.
>"spammers made me do it"
>change the stars to dougck (you know why)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Stephen Tate wrote in message <6p0kgn$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
Doug K
Stephen Tate
I see what you mean.
There are so many commands because the command structure of ACAD is so
inefficient. Many of the commands groups could be condensed into a single
command. A more context sensitive approach would reduce the command set,
without reducing the functionality.
So, it is possible to have too many commands, when many of them do the same
or similar tasks.
Stephen Tate
Yes, I would agree, there is a lot more work to be done.
The function you have described is a great idea. Unfortunately, because it
is a good idea, if you add it to a wish list very few others would have had
the same idea, this would probably mean Autodesk will pass it by :(
I really want Autodesk to rethink and research new data and command entry
methods.
Stephen Tate
You understood correctly the first time - I meant too many commands for
traditional command entry methods.
Yes, you can talk softly, softer than when you're on the phone. Many
soundcards have low gain or noisy mic preamp stages, which is why I use the
GB-2 listed below.
The hardware I use:
PII 266MHz, 128Mb RAM - I will be adding another 128 though.
Humble SB16 Value soundcard - adequate
MTR GB-2 - Mic to Line studio preamp (not expensive, $60)
Knowles VR-3565 headset and battery box - comfortable
Software:
Dragon Dictate Classic - Command & control
Dragon NaturallySpeaking 2.02 preferred- Continuous speech
It's not a case of plugging it all in and following the instructions though,
it's taken me a long time and assistance from my brother (an Acoustician) to
get it right.
You don't need to say the exact AutoCAD command name, you program a macro in
DDictate to send whatever keys you like when a word is spoken. DDictate
loads a specific vocabulary for the application running in the foreground so
the 1550 commands (words) I've added for Acad apply only to Acad. 1550 is
very small compared to a normal loaded vocabulary of 30-60000 words. There
are common commands for all apps and system control.
I was sceptical of using voice, for all the obvious reasons. But now its
set-up, there is no way I'd go back to hunting icons or thrashing away at
the keyboard. If I had arthritis/CT/RMD/TOS I'd definitely do it before it
worsens.
Ben Sauvin
1) NT compatibility?
2) Software costs?
3) Audible feedback?
The third question is a loaded one for someone who cannot use a telephone
for ordinary voice communications.
Stephen Tate
Not a bother at all!
NT4.0 SP3 is what I use. Dragon warn of NT incompatibilities, but don't give
details on their web page. Their Euro tech support didn't know what they
were, neither did the sales team in the US. I eventually found the details
in the readme.txt file after I had bought the product. They're
insignificant, and I think Dragon should give the details instead of scaring
people off! I'll post them up if you like, but they're not really issues,
just semantics.
I would recommend Dragon Dictate Classic, it offers command & control and
discrete dictation (needing a short pause between words). I can touch type
faster than I can discretely dictate, but with one hand on the mouse the
command and control aspect is many time quicker than normal command methods.
CompUSA advertise Dragon Dictate Classic version 3.0 at $99.95. As an extra
gadget, you could buy Naturally speaking Preferred 3.0 for $169.95. Great
for normal dictation into Word but for AutoCAD I found it's best use is
dictating into MTEXT boxes. It's Dictate that gives the huge productivity
boost though.
The hardware is going to be a bit more expensive. A better headset than the
one supplied, a good (pro quality) mic to line amplifier, cables &
connectors and more RAM. I guess that cost me $200-300. You could do it with
just the software and supplied headset, just to try - but the extra kit is
worth every penny IMO.
I don't really understand the 3rd question. Naturally speaking preferred
will read back text either in your own voice (recorded when you said it) or
in a synthetic voice. I would say voice control could be a great boost for
those with disabilities, depending on what the disability is. You can buy
gadgets that let you answer/use the telephone via the headset. It would not
work too well (if at all) for someone who cannot enunciate/pronounce their
words consistently.
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Ben Sauvin wrote in message <35B4A5BF...@osmic.com>...
John Morris
>display? Surely they don't switch toolbars on and off all the time? I'm
>always keen to try new methods of accessing commands - toolbars demonstrated
Am I correct in assuming you are a command line
interface user only with ACAD R14?
IOW.... you use only command line entry?
If yes.... do you have any tips on how to manage
all of them? IOW..... do you just "remember" them
and type them all in..... or do you have a
"method" to manage them?
Tom DeMita
with a different cad program though. One that was already set up to do voice
commands.
Tom
Stephen Tate
was out performed by 2 yoghurt pots and some taught string :)
The better mics don't really give better results, but they tend to be more
comfortable, easier to position and better noise cancelling.
There are many to choose from, but it's seems strange that many of the mics
(including those from Labtec) have an impedance of 2kohms, and yet
SoundBlaster mic sockets are rated at 600ohms. The bundled mic (the Knowles
VR-3310) isn't too bad, it only lacks effective noise cancelling and is hard
to position. Given the right environment though you can get above average
results with it.
What I do like about the Knowles VR-3565 and TalkMic is the 'ear loop'
design, which means the head set rests on your head, not your ear. This is
important for prolonged use. The ear piece itself is terrible, but I have
the sound off or through ordinary speakers so it's redundant.
Other companies to look at:
AKG - http://www.akg-acoustics.com/headphones.html
Shure - http://www.shure.com/computer.html
Andrea - http://www.andreaelectronics.com/
Talking Technologies
http://voicerecognition.com/1998/products/talking_technologies/
Sennheiser - http://www.sennheiser.com/ (they don't do a specific MM
headsets but they make great mics and headphones)
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Tom DeMita wrote in message <6p2irp$fq...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
Stephen Tate
I run another package on top of AutoCAD which has a different set of
aliases. So my alias are a mixture of ACAD, AEC app and my own. I guess most
of them are derived from three possibilities. Some are just the first letter
of the normal command, others (less used) are the first two letters. Some
are the initials, e.g. VPLAYER=Viewport Layer=VL.
Stephen Tate
More like:
And the draughtsman thinks "I need a line"
So the draughtsman says "line"
And the computer asks "from point?"
And the draughtsman says "one hundred comma one hundred"
And the computer asks "to point?"
And the draughtsman say "at two hundred angle one three five"
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Gordon Price wrote in message <6p0oub$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
>
>Stephen Tate wrote in message <6p0lsg$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
>
>>It sounds like you have it all under control.
>I don't know about control, but perhaps "infuence" ;)
>
>
>>I draught for lots of different companies. I get given a sample and then
>>have to draught 'in the style of'. This proves problematic for any kind of
>>standardisation. For long term clients I have set procedures and
utilities,
>>but normally when they're working seamlessly they change their standard
>;).
>
>That does pose a problem. I have done some customization for a few people,
>and simply set up a profile for each, with unique menus, lisp, etc. Not
>eactly the easiest way to do it, and I think I have talked them all into
>starting with a single standard, then we will tweak from there, rather than
>reinventing the wheel each time. I hope they also don't decide to change
>standards just when things are finally working.
>
>>I also found a method similar to yours very productive. I even confess to
>>having several custom toolbars for specific tasks or operations.
>I am still hoping that Autodesk gets the toolbar issue simplified enough
>that the average user can create custom toolbars for themselves, and have
>them there when they get back into Acad, while still allowing the Cad Admin
>to lock the office standard toolbars.
>
>
>>I've started using voice control. To prevent myself from raving twice in
>one
>>thread, I'll instead direct you to my reply to Ben Sauvin.
>
Tom Brown
please contact me.. I'd like to see some of those :)
Peter Farrell <pfar...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<35B035...@bellatlantic.net>...
> I have no use for a tablet, I wouldn't mind the 16 button puck though.
> Two points of agreement:
> 1. Autocad is Customization or Don't Bother - Menus, Being the easy
> First Step.
> 2. Autocad lets each person work the way they want - you want a tablet,
> I'd rather type. Pop down menus, Dialog Boxes, Command Line, Plot
> Scripts, Whatever. With Autolisp I have the equivalent of the ARRIS
> Drag Menu on steroids, I have context sensitive right click menus,
> about 20 different custom osnaps that eliminate the need for any
> constuction lines, etc. MY POINT IS: I'd rather have the pieces, and
> the tools in the tool box... I've used Arris (money hole), I haven't
> Used Micro Station (I hear good things), but if I can't improve on my
> drafting tool when I see its shortcoming, I don't want it. It is not a
> pencil, it is a computer.
>
Tom Brown
wish I had an 11x18
back when I was in Spring Hill, FL, I customized one of those bad boys for
about 250 additional commands... Taking my tablet away would be like
cutting off my hands..
Tom
Paul Turvill <n...@spam.me> wrote in article
<6oqj5s$dv...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
> ...and we couldn't manage without. As (you and) I said, AutoCAD's
> greatest asset is its ability to be configured to what works for each
> user who makes the effort to make it so.
> __
> Peter Farrell wrote in message <35B035...@bellatlantic.net>...
Tom Brown
AutoCAD.. he just wants to draft efficiently.
John Alderson <j...@powerup.com.au> wrote in article
<35B2C742...@powerup.com.au>...
> Nate - try adding this as the command for a tool button
>
> *^C^C_area;o;\
>
> The first click starts the command and every click after that is a select
> objects click.
>
> nate bakeman wrote:
>
> > Just tried it. Click count = 7
> >
> >
>
>
Tom Brown
remember it because I spent weeks trying to hunt it down. If I remember
right it was a Cadence lisp. it would be nice if one of their reps read
this and responded by e-mailing it out to us... This is one I'd like to
post on our Internet Chat based users group and AUGI SIG for everybody to
have. That was one cool lisp.
T. Brown
Stephen Tate <auto_...@stcad.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<6p21v4$f4...@adesknews2.autodesk.com>...
> Steve
>
> Yes, I would agree, there is a lot more work to be done.
>
> The function you have described is a great idea. Unfortunately, because
it
> is a good idea, if you add it to a wish list very few others would have
had
> the same idea, this would probably mean Autodesk will pass it by :(
>
> I really want Autodesk to rethink and research new data and command entry
> methods.
>
Bernd Hoffmann
>3K and forever growing.
Tom Brown wrote:
> Oh no John... remember.. Nate is the one that doesn't want to configure his
> AutoCAD.. he just wants to draft efficiently.
>
--
Regards, Bernd
Designer
Burris Premium Sports Optics
http://www.burrisoptics.com/
John Alderson
Tom Brown wrote:
> Oh no John... remember.. Nate is the one that doesn't want to configure his
> AutoCAD.. he just wants to draft efficiently.
Don't we all !
While a good living can be made from customizing acad, for me it's a tool to
use and I know how he feels.
I changed jobs from a company with a thoroughly customized acad setup to a mob
using it out of the box, boy did I have some trouble living up to my interview
claims for a while, I learned autocad customization real quick.
Anyway after the hammering he copped from his initial post he seemed open to
learning a little more about the flexibility of ACAD.
Considering it costs around $5000aus retail for Autocad it takes a lot to get
rid of the out-of-the-box clunkiness.
Regards John
Ben Sauvin
Stephen Tate wrote:
> >And the Captain said "Make it so."
>
> More like:
>
> And the draughtsman thinks "I need a line"
> So the draughtsman says "line"
> And the computer asks "from point?"
> And the draughtsman says "one hundred comma one hundred"
> And the computer asks "to point?"
> And the draughtsman say "at two hundred angle one three five"
>
> --
> Stephen Tate
> Stephen Tate CAD, UK
> Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
> stephe...@dial.pipex.com
>
Stephen Tate
I don't see why it wouldn't work for a deaf user.
As long as the words are enunciated and pronounced consistently it wouldn't
be a problem. The prompts are still returned to the command line as normal.
The computer doesn't audibly ask "to point" it uses the normal prompt.
Setup can be performed using the visual level meters, but a deaf user may
need advice from co-workers on what is an acceptable level for them to talk.
But I would suggest everyone did that, deaf or not.
Because the words are trained, it wouldn't matter if the pronunciation was
different, just as long as it is consistent. I'm sure it would work well
even with certain types of speech impediment or strong accents. I would
expect it to help those with dyslexia too, it never makes a spelling or
typing error (although it may use the wrong word e.g. two, too or to).
--
Stephen Tate
Stephen Tate CAD, UK
Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
stephe...@dial.pipex.com
Ben Sauvin wrote in message <35B5E52E...@osmic.com>...
Ralph & Laura Rostas
Ralph Rostas
Emerson Motor Co
Matt Stachoni wrote:
> Ian,
>
> >Or even run the AREA command, choose Object, and then lick the closed
> >polyline.
>
> How do you "lick a polyline"?
>
> Man, you need a night out with some friends!
>
> Matt
> stac...@bellatlantic.net
> msta...@architectsde.com
Ralph & Laura Rostas
is is an advanced PGP type setup. I use the Two letter type commands on the
keybord, for example: "zp" zoom prev., "le" line from end. "mp" move prev.
and so on. this can help speed up alot of things. you can get real fancy in how
you set it up.
Ralph
Stephen Tate wrote:
> Because I use too many commands to fit on the screen.
>
> Fine for a word processor, where you don't need that many functions, but my
> minimum in ACAD would be about 500 commands (and that's conservative).
> Tablets are ok but you have to keep looking down. Popup tablet screen are
> OK, but I find them very distracting.
>
> How do regular toolbar users access the commands that aren't on their
> display? Surely they don't switch toolbars on and off all the time? I'm
> always keen to try new methods of accessing commands - toolbars demonstrated
> their weaknesses very quickly and now I keep them all off - I'd turn off the
> menus too, if it would recover a bit more screen space.
>
> --
> Stephen Tate
> Stephen Tate CAD, UK
> Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
> stephe...@dial.pipex.com
>
> Ben Sauvin wrote in message <35B3B98A...@osmic.com>...
> > Why do you claim the toolbars are a washout?
Matt Dillon
Matt Dillon
The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
T. Randy Jones
>
> Please help me. All I want to do is understand.
>
> Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
> the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of examples
> out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
> most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as "A
> New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
> miserable disbelief.
>
> I ask simple questions, which only lead to frustration.
>
> Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software to
> keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
> far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
>
> Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
> ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
> will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than hitting
> escape.
>
> Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
> "undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding me.
> Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what if
> Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
> interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
> transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
> need to fix. And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
> right mouse button one too many times.
>
> Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon just
> by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in, go
> into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down on a
> piece of paper so I don't forget? Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
> into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly useful
> and efficient feature?
>
> And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel logic.
> TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
> lame implementation of reference files.
>
> My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
> are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying questions.
> Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been exposed
> to better designed software at my previous job.
>
> I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
> really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
So why don't you simply go back to your "old" job?
josh....@gmail.com
william...@gmail.com
>
> > >Please help me. All I want to do is understand.
> >
> > >Why can't the leading publisher of CAD software on the planet improve
> >
> > >the most basic elements of it's interface? There are plenty of
> > examples
> > >out there to copy that do a far better job. Why can't AutoCAD do the
> > >most basic things correctly? Do they care? They tout their product as
> > "A
> > >New Standard in Productivity", but I am left shaking my head in
> > >miserable disbelief.
> >
> > already they wont ever concern you.
> > >Why aren't commands "sticky"? Why should I have to tell the software
> > to
> > >keep entering repetitive commands dozens of times in a row, when it's
> >
> > >far more efficient to tell it when your DONE with a command?
> >
> > you want to use? Have you ever heard of a mouse button doing an
> > enter? I have been running AutoCAD for a while and I wouldn't have it
> >
> > ran any other way.
>
> I still want to know why I have to TELL it multiple. That is an extra
> step. Extra steps waste time. Fractions of seconds add up. Multiple
> should be default. Just like the "line" command - works pretty well,
> doesn't it. Imagine if you had to hit return before EVERY line you
> drew. That's how I feel with all the other non-sticky commands. This is
> how all other major, best-of-class software package work. Like
> Photoshop, like Quark, like Word, and on and on. And yes, like
> Microstation.
> >
> >
> > >Why can't you interrupt a command in mid-flow without having to enter
> >
> > >ESC one or twice first? So simple, so liberating. The palette buttons
> >
> > >will hit ESC for you, but reaching for a palette is slower than
> > hitting
> > >escape.
> > ***ACCELERATORS
> >
> > then add this
> > ["ESCAPE"]^c^c^c
> >
>
> Could you explain what this does? I still resent having to "fix" acad. I
> don't want to learn how to write lisp routines. I want to draft
> efficiently.
> > >Why is the UNDO functions so unintelligent? Why would I ever want to
> > >"undo" a zoom command? Or an ESC key hit? Huh? You gotta be kidding
> > me.
> > >Compare this to almost any other "industry leading" software...what
> > if
> > >Microsoft Word or Excel behaved this way. Come on, this is basic
> > >interface stuff. It should filter out the actions that should be
> > >transparent to undo that just happens to be between the mistakes you
> > >need to fix.
> >
> > just off the top of my head I don't think it undoes a cancel.
>
> Exactly my point. Acad is dumb because it can't discriminate between
> commands. To acad all commands are equal, even ESC key entries and
> non-legal commands (ie - typos). Most good software can DISCRIMINATE the
> nature of the command, has a heirarchy, and the commands that do not
> need to be in the undo chain are not part of it. Zoom is that type of
> command. Imagine trying type a letter in Word and making a mistake, and
> instead of it undoing the last text you entered it undid the last SAVE
> you did, or the last change you make you your preferences. It would be
> intolerable, only because you are used to it NOT doing those things and
> that is simply the RIGHT way to do it. Acad does not meet this basic
> standard of good software design.
>
> It's primitive.
> > >And only ONE (1) redo!?! Yikes! Don't accidentally hit that
> > >right mouse button one too many times.
> >
>
> To me this is actually less serious than the basic interface flaws.
> Those, on the aggregate, waste more of my time, force me into more mouse
> or key clicks. At least this one I can be cautious about and hopefully
> avoid. It's still pretty embarrasing, though.
> >
> >
> > >Why can't I find out what layer an object in an Xref resides upon
> > just
> > >by clicking on it? You mean I actually have to exit the file I'm in,
> > go
> > >into the xreffed file, check the element manually and write it down
> > on a
> > >piece of paper so I don't forget?
> >
> > trick.
>
> Again, my point is that YOU have to friggin program the software to do
> stuff it should be able to do out of the box. I appreciate the hard work
> and mental energy that goes into getting these things to work. I applaud
> you - you have more patientce and interest in that stuff than me. I am
> an architect, not a programmer. I need to draft quickly and
> effortlessly, like I do with a pencil on paper. If I had to take a day
> out of my job to stop and program my pencil to sharpen, that would be
> the analogy.
> >
> >
> > >Why can't I copy elements from an Xref
> > >into my active file? Is it THAT hard to program this incredibly
> > useful
> > >and efficient feature?
> >
>
> I love the names they give things in acad. Incredibly intuitive. How do
> I turn on GROUPS? Oh, of course, set my PICKMODE to 2.
> >
> >
> > >And whoever thought up Paper/Model space was a master of pretzel
> > logic.
> > >TILEMODE, enough said. I guess they had to somehow make up for their
> > >lame implementation of reference files.
> >
>
> Don't speak until you've seen all the options. Now that I have the hang
> of the TILEMODE and PAPER/MODEL toggles, I completely understand it.
> Why did it have to be so obtuse, though? Yeah, it works, but give me
> fully functioning reference files ANY day. I'll get the same work done
> more quickly.
> >
> >
> > >My list is a lot longer than this, but I'll spare y'all because your
> >
> > >are probably already upset with me for asking these annoying
> > questions.
> >
> > bitching about it.
>
> I've been at it a month. I actually learned how to do CAD on Acad
> version 10. That was just out of school almost 8 years ago. That was in
> the days when a 386 was hot potatoes, and DOS was king. Then I went
> Microstation and never looked back. Now, at a new job, I have to learn
> the industry standard. I'm constatly asking my coworkers "how do I..."
> and being told "can't do it". Then I get theconvoluted work around.
>
> I will master this bitch of a program. But I wish AutoDesk had more
> incentive to improve the product. It's a dinosaur, a holdout from the
> days when 16 color monitors were cutting edge technology, and pen
> plotters were spitting out plots at blazing speeds (not). Here is my
> main point: WHY DOES EVERYONE ACCEPT AND DEFEND WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A
> MEDIOCRE PRODUCT AT BEST? There are better ways, people, so why do we
> settle for this garbage?
> >
> >
> > >Believe me, they annoy me too. I ask only only because I've been
> > exposed
> > >to better designed software at my previous job.
> >
> > available. Maybe the application that you are using it is all wrong.
> > Maybe you are trying to use this software to play Quake trust me it
> > doesn't work.
> >
>
> Huh?
> > >I'm really trying to get it. Everyone is so excited about R14, but I
> > >really can't seem to get past the fact that it sucks.
> >
> > everyone and anyone to reproduce. But hey you don't see me
> > complaining.
> >
>
> You just did...
>
> Care to time travel back to Nazi Germany my friend? I think you'd fit in
> very well.
>
>
>
> > David at the CADapult
> > http://home1.gte.net/davidgus
I have been using AutoCAD since 1989 and I can tell you the program got better up until 2000i. After that the program has gotten progressively worse. I think AutoDesk is a very big company and most of the employees do little if anything. I don't give a crap about bells and whistles if the program lags.
William Mann
tiki...@gmail.com
wiley...@gmail.com
I honestly don't understand why a 2D drafting program can be so unintuitive that the interface can be so complicated, from the layer panel, to the styles, to the units.
And seriously, why on earth does autocad need a thousand commands? All I want to do is to draft on a 2d space.
Look at how good the interface of Rhino 5 is.
Last but not least, Autocad sucks.
If it were not for the work, I wouldn't use it.
split...@gmail.com
I fully agree AutoCAD is unbelievably archaic. I have been using it for almost 20 years--and the Hatch command is still incredibly unstable when using the pick points options. 20 years without fixing this basic, and serious, problem. There is no excuse.
cnyf...@gmail.com
> Nate:
>
> I fully agree AutoCAD is unbelievably archaic. I have been using it for almost 20 years--and the Hatch command is still incredibly unstable when using the pick points options. 20 years without fixing this basic, and serious, problem. There is no excuse.
shaun....@gmail.com
wan...@gmail.com
raymonv...@gmail.com
> An architect once asked me why AutoCAD can't even draw a door symbol. The
> real answer is because if AutoCAD did it as standard, most people wouldn't
> bother buying the architectural add ons.
>
> I don't know If you actually want answers to your questions, but many of the
> problems you mention can, and already have, been resolved by 3rd party
> programmers and Autodesk themselves. Some of them you can modify yourself
> with a couple of lines of LISP.
>
> I hope Autodesk don't follow the route of Microsoft, I don't want an
> 'assistant' cartoon pooping up and trouble shooters that only trouble shoot
> the most remedial problems. All too often, the simplification of some
> aspects complicate others. An example : in DOS, to rename a directory of
> *.JPEG files to *.JPG you type RENAME *.JPEG *.JPG, how do you do this in
> windows '95 or NT? I don't know the answer, I just use DOS.
>
> --
> Stephen Tate
> Stephen Tate CAD, UK
> Anti-SPAM - For E-mail please use:
> stephe...@dial.pipex.com
problems you mention can, and already have, been resolved by 3rd party
programmers and Autodesk themselves. Some of them you can modify yourself
with a couple of lines of LISP."
So Autodesk was to lazy/ignorant to solve those programs themselves?
ky...@hsuoffice.com
dawns...@googlemail.com
PowerCADD is much cheaper, quicker and more flexible, as is Vector Works, and both are a much better bet for anyone doing a creative job.
Oh yes, and the winner of the worst interface...drum roll please...Revit.
Don't even get me started...
dogfaceso...@gmail.com
horsem...@hotmail.com
m.b.w...@gmail.com
inter...@gmail.com
The superheros of the past may fall out of the journey like Kodak if can't understand and embrace smarter demand of the market...
I think, I better learn other competitor programs rather than wasting time on memorizing click numbers and learning Ctrl + Z for undoing Zoom!!!!.. ho ho ... ha ha ... hi hi...
Quest A: Zoom is command, but does it mean a "change" to the document? why should I undo it by Ctrl + Z while my index finger is doing it every second already?
Quest B: why I have to 1) move the index finger from left-clicking 2) select Pan tool 3) write a command --- in order to pan ?!!!! Can't I activate it for very short periods by pressing "spacebar" or any other key...
Come on AutoDesk! this is 2018. Wake up and try to follow any of the leading softwares e.g.: Adobe
This century is to save time and increase productivity, that is called efficiency. This world has little time to stick with sluggish stuff.... Lol...
vc.lag...@gmail.com
100% get where you’re coming from!
arquite...@gmail.com
>
I ABSOLUTELLY HATE ANY AND EVERY VERSION OF AUTOCAD AFTER 2004.
I now am facing the doubt if I keep my old pc that supports windows 7 to use autocad 2004, or keep this piece of shit called RADEON, this gargabe that there is not even drivers to use in windows 7. Its all horrible, they stop producing old chips and components to force u to use new versions that are so but sooo bad..... this is awful.
j...@malbroconstruction.com
gonzalez.r...@gmail.com
>
ndr...@web.de
o.risc...@yahoo.fr
> Still the worst pile of s h i t i was ever forced to work with. I hate this software with a passion. Only moronic boomers who don´t know anything else will defend this pathetic excuse for a CAD software.
Arnel Arboleda
Imagine you made a mistake then you review your work, panning here and there, zooming in and out a hundred times then you realized your mistake, you have to go through each scroll and zoom to UNDO that mistake. So sucks! and you dont even have zoom & pan undo animation makes it confusing how much you have undo.
Adam Staniszewski
I really just hope you all are happy and healthy 🥰 I am also quite badly impressed by the amount of the culture of hate and cancelation represented here 🤢
Back to the topic: I have >10 years of continuous CAD experience and I again find using it incredibly tedious.
I totally get the philosophy on which it is based, that it is meant to be bare and customizable. My biggest complaint is that the work you are mentioning above that needed to be done for ACad to be efficient or even usable for the individual user is terrifyingly redundant.
The community is quite exclusive, often unfriendly, boastful, and hard to reach. Solutions are poorly documented, being rather hard to understand. Even if you find something in some far strange corner of the Web, it needs much of your awareness and often some additional work to implement.
First of all, I totally get the attitude of the one that has spent hours or days on customization and next naturally holding off from sharing it. If you do so you often brag about that, being proud of it. You often try to make money on it. It is reasonable and understandable. Even when you have pure intentions and share it selflessly, like here above in some instances, why don't you see that it is still unfair and cumbersome? Hundreds or even thousands have probably already done or tried to do it before you. Why do we all need to suffer, and each must have its own cruel way to go through? It is counterproductive, species-wide Sisyphean work and it has been going on for almost 40 years 😫
It is all about the closeness of any CAD/CAE/BIM industry-graded solution. All being super far from being open source for instance. In the case of ACad, you practically expect that the user needs to also be a programmer, at least to some extent. But you don't give the user any robust, well-documented framework to become the one. You don't provide open space for the community. No common, system-agnostic repository to share proven, well-documented solutions for wide, free, or fairly affordable usage. All commercial attempts (i.e., BIM libraries) are isolated, unstandardized, and messy. Hard to imagine what would our World look like if technologies like the Internet itself and World Wide Web have been as hermetic and closed as the AEC industry software.
If your work is broad in possible scope, it is a waste when you buy some add-on or spend hours writing a script yourself and all for using it once or once every few months.
It is sad we've all been through it. And I'm angry with that. I can relate to this thread's original complaint (hope you're well, Nate).
That being said, I hope for the development of emerging open standards in the industry, for the common good. For instance, I am looking forward to the introduction of IFC5. I hope it will be easy to use, modern open API to be used commonly by anyone. Both by individuals as well as old big industry players. It's not impossible since big players already support the open-source software world, form alliances for cooperation (Open Design Alliance), and introduce openBIM standards (BuildingSMART org.).
The change is tangible, yet rather slow since the matter we deal with is vast and complex.
Cheers for that!