IntelliCAD vs. AutoCAD
peng...@penn.com
it stacked up
to AutoCAD. Possibily for an after hours, at home application.
Paul Turvill
> Has anyone tried IntelliCAD 98 from Visio Corp.?
Many thousands by now, I suspect.
> I was wondering how it stacked up
>to AutoCAD. Possibily for an after hours, at home application.
For a program that costs about 5% (competitive upgrade) or 10% (full
version) of AutoCAD's price, it stacks up extremely well. It even has
some nice features that AutoCAD can't (yet) offer, like MDI (so you can
open several drawings at once, without having to have a separate
"session" for each); Drawing Explorer (for managing layers, blocks,
etc.); a Script Recorder; multiple Redo; and other goodies.
What's missing is Solid Modeling, tablet support, associative hatching,
TrueType font support, and a few other things. Architectural dimensioning
is still not very good, and (compared to R14) it can seem somewhat slow
at times. Visio claims they're working on all of these shortcomings, and
I'd look for Version 2 to be even stronger competition for AutoCAD. The
other nice thing about Visio as a company is that, unlike "today's"
Autodesk, they're not to proud or arrogant to offer free maintenance
patches when they become available. We're currently using the "c"
release, and anxiously awaiting "d."
For after hours work? YES. For production work? By version 2, my bet is
YES, as well.
David Gregori
> For after hours work? YES. For production work? By version 2,
> my bet is YES, as well.
I am not quite as thrilled as that ... guess it depends on what you do
(hopefully not very large files) .. i did some speed tests:
http://home.inreach.com/drftnfoo/
--
The DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
Martin Rowland
certainly puts the final word on that issue... (says as he contemplates
selling his $15000 mazda 121 so that he may buy a 70,000 audi)
eventually realises that he could run an office with 10 licenses of
intellicad for about 800 bucks less than he can purchase even one
license of acad. and would rather have 10 people working a bit slower
than one person running a bit faster
D. F. Julien, AIA
LT instead of Intellicad...saying Intellicad is a toy and "underpowered."
I'd say your brain is a bit underpowered. Good luck with your 22MB golf
courses, Fool.
-Doug Julien AIA
David Gregori wrote in message ...
David Gregori
> Pal, your site is dedicated to Autolisp and then tell people to buy Autocad
> LT instead of Intellicad...saying Intellicad is a toy and "underpowered."
yes in my speed review of Intellicad 98 1c I did say that. because I feel
that it is.
> I'd say your brain is a bit underpowered. Good luck with your 22MB golf
> courses, Fool.
>
oh ouch, cant sleep at night now. its not a 22mb golf course, in total
it is a 120mb golf course that Intellicad can not load, Autocad Lt loaded
it. Autocad Lt does not include lisp but you can get Ace-Lt which adds
lisp functions to it. The only reason I offer that alternative instead of
full Autocad is that Lt is $400 and the world is full of cheap ass
architects that would rather pay $149 for toy software rather than just
get Autocad
David Gregori
> eventually realises that he could run an office with 10 licenses of
> intellicad for about 800 bucks less than he can purchase even one
> license of acad. and would rather have 10 people working a bit slower
> than one person running a bit faster
>
10 people x 20,000 a year = $200,000 + 10 intellicads x $300 = $203,000
01 people x 20,000 a year = $20,000 + 1 Autocad x $2500 = $22,500
yeah, you saved money there
i would rather have
09 people x 20,000 = 180,000
09 autocads x 2500 = 22,500
working very fast for 202,500
or
09 people x 20,000 = 180,000
05 autocads x 2500 = 12,500
04 AutocadLt x 400 = 1,600
= 194,100
me on a $8000 vacation
Alexander Medwedew
alternative. My CAD experience has been with a product called Cadvance and
I compared IntelliCad to the 4500 version.. I was extremely disappointed
in IntelliCad's lack of speed and its incomplete VBA. I was using a
Pentium 166 which was fine for my other CAD system. There was a lot of
time wasted waiting for files to load and screen regens. For the price it
seems to be a good alternative to AutoCad LT or as a CAD file viewer. It
does allow you to create macros by writing AutoLisp routines. I don't see
AutoLisp as a really powerful windows application development system and I
would have liked the VBA and the object model to have worked. I still
prefer my Cadvance LiTe over either IntelliCad or AutoCad LT. It just
gives me more to work with for application development, which happens to be
my focus. The lower priced CAD systems are the current trend and
definitely are the way to go. Before buying IntelliCad I would look at the
other systems like TurboCad, Cadvance LiTe and Visual Cadd as alternatives.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
peng...@penn.com wrote in article <3655A74B...@penn.com>...
> Has anyone tried IntelliCAD 98 from Visio Corp.? I was wondering how
Alexander Medwedew
$20,000 / 52 weeks = $384.62 per week / 35 hours = $10.99 per hour.
Laborers on construction sites do better than that. I would think $30,000
would be a more satisfactory salary for someone with a skill and that is
still low. Here in NYC a college graduate can start at $50,000 a year or
more.
$30,000 / 52 weeks = $576.92 per week / 35 hours = $16.48 per hour.
The low salaried and less skilled employees are also the reason you will
need the faster software.
Even at $2800 per copy minimum, the cost of the AutoCad software is cheap
in comparison to the cost of the labor. I would still opt for less AutoCad
copies and a lot of copies of the cheaper software. The money saved could
be used on rendering software like 3D Studio or more machines. Some of the
cheaper products don't need the heavy hardware AutoCad requires.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
David Gregori <drft...@inreach.com> wrote in article
<MPG.10c0a2ba8...@news.inreach.com>...
William B.
A. 10 people x 20,000 a year = $200,000 + 10 intellicads x $300 = $203,000
B. 01 people x 20,000 a year = $20,000 + 1 Autocad x $2500 = $22,500
These equations are truely comparable ONLY if 'A's revenue = 'B's revenue.
Let's give the makers of IntelliCad some deserved credit. Pound for pound, this
a heck of a first version for its price. I think many Acad users currently have
their fingers crossed in anticipation for future releases - just hope they
don't sell out to Autodesk.
Paul Turvill
of IntelliCAD by Autodesk a couple of years back. It's a matter of
record.
__
William B. wrote in message <36572672...@erols.com>...
jda...@my-dejanews.com
> ... the world is full of cheap ass
> architects that would rather pay $149 for toy software rather than just
> get Autocad
>
> The DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
>
I couldn't agree more. But I would substitute the word 'architects'
with a large number of people in general that claim to be AutoCAD users.
You see, the strange thing is, AutoCAD has the ability to cover a wide
range of people and skill levels ranging from 'beer farts' to 'certified
professionals.' The unfortunate part is that the professionals cover only
a very small grade on the curve. So, as economics goes, only professionals
wouldn't give a second thought to actually paying for something, as the
rest have spent all their $ on beer. :)
Jesse Danes
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Doug White
<Your salaries and your AutoCad prices look a little low.
<
<$20,000 / 52 weeks = $384.62 per week / 35 hours = $10.99 per hour.
<
<Laborers on construction sites do better than that. I would think $30,000
<would be a more satisfactory salary for someone with a skill and that is
<still low. Here in NYC a college graduate can start at $50,000 a year or
<more.
<
<$30,000 / 52 weeks = $576.92 per week / 35 hours = $16.48 per hour.
<
<The low salaried and less skilled employees are also the reason you will
<need the faster software.
<
<Even at $2800 per copy minimum, the cost of the AutoCad software is cheap
<in comparison to the cost of the labor. I would still opt for less AutoCad
<copies and a lot of copies of the cheaper software. The money saved could
<be used on rendering software like 3D Studio or more machines. Some of the
<cheaper products don't need the heavy hardware AutoCad requires.
You aren't factoring the cost of training. AutoCAD is needlessly complex
and difficult to use. For 2-D work, I can run rings around people who
spent weeks at AutoCAD classes. I'm using Drafix, which I learned in a
day, by myself. It's too bad Autodesk bought them up, they'll probably
kill it soon without having learned a thing about writing a decent user
interface.
Doug White
El Jefe'
to R14, there is none. R14 is a far superior product. However, for after
hours work at home, it sure fits the bill for me. I have to agree that
speed wise its not the greatest. I found the upgrade path (i.e. learning
curve) to LT97 or R14 to be far faster than IntelliCAD. Yes it supports
many AutoCAD commands, but the interface takes some getting used to.
I still think its a great low cost alternative. I like the built in
Drawing Explorer, and MDI. (Autodesk take note.) I have also found it to
be fairly accurate when transferring files between it and R14.
Still needs work though. If you're looking for a cheap CAD alternative to
work on .DWG format files at home, it definitely is worth a look.
peng...@penn.com wrote:
> Has anyone tried IntelliCAD 98 from Visio Corp.? I was wondering how
> it stacked up
> to AutoCAD. Possibily for an after hours, at home application.
--
=======================
Jeffrey A. Garcia, PE
Walnut Creek, CA
Civil Engineer & PC Hobbyist
To reply to this message, remove "X" from my address.
Alexander Medwedew
there require a lot less training than AutoCad to be productive.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
Doug White <gwh...@ll.mit.edu> wrote in article
<73cmub$h...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>...
hmk...@my-dejanews.com
Gentlemen,
I have no experience of IntelliCAD, so I am not really aware of how 'slow' it
is. But, I have some thought about this, after reading these posts.
The machine is getting faster and faster. Yet, how fast is fast? And how fast
is fast enough? When we click enter to a software, does it make any
difference to us if it responds in 0.1 second instead of 0.01 second? Of
course, it does matter if it should take 5 seconds to respond for a routine
job, while we have the choice to use another one that takes only 0.5 second
for the same job.
The point is, what we need of the software to do for us? I live in a crowded
suburban area where car-parking is a big-problem. I would ride my bike to the
nearby store and drive my Honda to downtown. I won't be so silly as to ride my
bike to the downtown that is 10 miles away, nor will I drive my Honda to the
nearby store 5 blocks away, spend times to find a parking lot and pay the
additional parking fee.
When we have the choices, we all have our own private reasons to make that
choice. Just like my choice to ride my bike or to drive my car, apparently
the absolute speed of the vehicle is not the major factor to my decision. It
is the place where I am going to and the cost that would take with that
particular vehicle that I am concerned. I can take taxis, bus, air-plane, or
just go on foot.
Now back to the CAD subject. What I'm saying is that CAD is merely a
production tool. The use of it is not the purpose. The purpose should be to
make us more productive in our area of profession in a cost that we can
afford. In this sense, there can be a lot of tools of choices. Well, a
question often asked is that which tool can make us most productive?
Apparently, using an auto-puncher should work faster than using a hammer.
But, sometimes we would rather use a hammer instead of the auto-puncher. (In
fact, I use a $5 hammer in my house.)
So, that is the reason why, along with R14, we also use another AutoCAD clone
called TwinCAD in our company for the 2D drafting. We have used it since the
beginning of R13. We use it not to replace the AutoCAD. Just like using the
auto-puncher and hammer, we just take it as an alternative CAD tool and use it
as a supplement to the R14.
TwinCAD is not the x'est CAD of the world (where x can be fast, best, cheap,
... etc., any good word you can think of). We knew that very well at the time
we bought it. We just didn't want to constrain ourselves in searching for a
CAD tool of solve-all (again the x'est) and thinking of replacing the
AutoCAD. We just found that it was DWG-compatible and did fill the many gaps
that AutoCAD left for third-party in 2D drafting. Well, that just gave us
enough reason to buy it. And it has proved worthy in our case. It does save
us a lot of money (in buying 3-party SW) and time (in writing lisp, searching
for free lisp or available 3-party SW).
I am not saying that one should buy TwinCAD instead of IntelliCAD or any
other CAD softwares. Everyone has his own different viewpoint in making a
choice. I am just trying to point out that we should be more open-minded to
those comming choices, such that we, CAD end-users, can truely benefit in a
free market of competition. Try to think of this, a $149 R14 in future, will
that be thrilling to you?
Tomas Kang
James & Patricia Armstead
damaged AutoCad files that Autocad itself cannot recover. It has saved my butt
severall times on rushed submission jobs. Our office uses Intellicad along side
of Autocad. Each of our AutoCAd stations also has Intellicad.
Wim Roffel
(unreadable) and something about ACE being Autocad Cost Estimating.
Can you tell me more about this tool for running Lisp with Autocad Lt?
Wim Roffel
David Gregori wrote:
. Autocad Lt does not include lisp but you can get Ace-Lt which adds
> lisp functions to it. The only reason I offer that alternative instead of
> full Autocad is that Lt is $400 and the world is full of cheap ass
Dave Gregori
> I never heard of Ace-Lt. I searched on internet
> but I only found a Japanese site
thats the place. luckily they have been working on a
international version of the software.
> Second beta release of ACE-LT97 International (English)
> Version is available at:
> http://www.trialsoftware.com/ace97/acelt97_1.01.02ib.exe (1.02MB)
> This version (1.01.02ib) should work with any
> language version of AutoCAD LT97.
> If not, please let me know.
> I want to hear any comments and suggestions about it.
>
> Nobuhiro Haketa <nobu...@trialsoftware.com>
> Trial Software Laboratories, Japan
I am Not sure if they are working on a LT98 version or not
--
The Drafting Fool, Dave Gregori
Stephen Steinhauer
Dave Gregori wrote in message ...
>
<<snip>>
>
>I am Not sure if they are working on a LT98 version or not
>
>--
>The Drafting Fool, Dave Gregori
I've seen posts saying they are going to release a beta of Ace-LT98
It's in the works.
------------------------------------------------
Stephen Steinhauer
CAD Operator
ste...@creekelectric.com
Creek Electric Inc.
------------------------------------------------
El Jefe'
using IntelliCAD since beta 1. I downloaded the demo of TwinCAD a few weeks back
to check it out. I wasn't too impressed. The GUI was very primitive compared to
IntelliCAD. (Incidentally IntelliCAD is 32-bit, where TwinCAD is only 16-bit.)
Cost wise you get more bang-for-the-buck with IntelliCAD.
hmk...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I have no experience of IntelliCAD, so I am not really aware of how 'slow' it
> is. But, I have some thought about this, after reading these posts.
>
> (snip)
>
> So, that is the reason why, along with R14, we also use another AutoCAD clone
> called TwinCAD in our company for the 2D drafting. We have used it since the
> beginning of R13.
(snip)
hmk...@my-dejanews.com
Yes, you are right. Being a new comer to this market, IntelliCAD is a 32-bits
WinApp. While TwinCAD is ONLY a 16-bits applications, and has been in this
market (asian countries) for years. Its DOS version, having the same
functionalities, has been around here since R11. You can also print WMF, BMP,
TIFF, PCX, IMG, and to dot matrix printer with line weight from this DOS
version. Well, they were really slow in putting it into the international
market. And everything seems too late for them, doesn't it!
I am also looking forward to IntelliCAD. But, unfortunately, I can not use it
a bit at this moment. As I had posted a question to John (an IntelliCAD
developer) and learned that IntelliCAD does not support 2-byte codes in the
drawing, I can not see my Chinese texts from the drawing! It does not matter
how impressive it is to me, 32-bits or 64-bits, 100% DWG compatibility, etc,
I just can not use it.
AutoCAD has dominated at least 80% of the local market here. We also have
local dealers for MicorStation, Pro/E, DesignCAD, IntelliCAD, Drawbase, etc.,
And Win98 is shipping, but some people around here still use the DOS version
of TwinCAD under Win95. The reason? I don't know. Personal taste? perhaps.
I won't buy a software just because it impressed me with its look. I would
buy a software that really can solve my problems. Of course, My problems
aren't your problems. Everybody has different problems to take care in their
business. I would use a DOS executable that is 10 years old already to solve
one of my problems in Win95, and would not be so insistent to wait for a
32-bits WinApp counter-part to come to solve it.
Well, as I have pointed out in the earlier post, we should be more
open-minded to these softwares. If you find IntelliCAD fit, just buy it and
use it. It will grow eventually, if you buy it. And since you buy it, you
will benifit yourself from it (if not, why should you buy it). That is the
point I were telling you, don't be so insistent to pursiut the x'est of the
world (where x can be cheap, fast, impressive, etc.).
As for me, I already have a solution from TwinCAD, and IntelliCAD does not
prove to me to have any additional add-on benifi (except the 32-bits over
16-bits issue), then why should I change for it? Nevertheless, we would
consider it when we need to add new seats, and when it does solve the 2-bytes
problems and prove to be stable.
People spend months and years to write the softwares for us to solve our
daily problems. We all lives on it. Of source, we should always take serious
look to them with some respects.
Nick Birchall
>For those if you who didn't already know, Intellicad has the ability to recover
>damaged AutoCad files that Autocad itself cannot recover. It has saved my butt
>severall times on rushed submission jobs. Our office uses Intellicad along side
>of Autocad. Each of our AutoCAd stations also has Intellicad.
So Intellicad's file format is fully compatible with Acad's?
------------------------------------------------
Nick Birchall
n...@birchall.u-net.com
http://www.birchall.u-net.com
------------------------------------------------
Nick Birchall
>I've been using IntelliCAD since beta 1
So what's the difference then between IntelliCAD & Acad LT '97?
Skipster
(civil, arch, etc.), and LSP support (with some minor mods).
--
"Happiness is an expense account AND a company credit card."
--Anonymous Road Warrior
--
Skipster
(change the "DOT" to a "." to e-mail me)
--
Paul Turvill
without any visible loss of data. IntelliCAD can also translate any
version of *.dwg to any other from R2.62 thru R14.01 -- try that with
AutoCAD!
__
Nick Birchall wrote in message <366c691c...@news.u-net.com>...
Nick Birchall
>Yes. Or at least close enough that you can do two-way transportation
>without any visible loss of data. IntelliCAD can also translate any
>version of *.dwg to any other from R2.62 thru R14.01 -- try that with
>AutoCAD!
Sounds good...thanks :)
Schoon
<arms...@warwick.net> wrote:
>For those if you who didn't already know, Intellicad has the ability to recover
>damaged AutoCad files that Autocad itself cannot recover. It has saved my butt
>severall times on rushed submission jobs.
I can vouch for that. I had a fellow engineer somehow foul up an R14
drawing (bad XREF/block definition?). As ususal, the R14 recovery
options were not succesful, and the backups that we had available were
also screwed up (afterward I re-emphasized the importance of Auto and
manual saves).
IntelliCAD opened the drawing on the first shot, allowed me to delete
the offending XREF definition, re-insert it, and return it to the
engineer as if nothing had happened. Not only did I have to waste time
getting the backup off of tape, the engineer would have potentially
lost about 4 hours of work. One more save like that, and one of our
IntelliCAD packages has paid for itself.
The main things preventing us from actually using IntelliCAD full-time
are its less-than-perfect XREF, and hatch support and it's inability
to utilize XCLIP's. Allegedly, the development team knows these are
important items and are working on them.