2005 is looking worse by the week...

I spend my life working with AutoCad, as most of you, and am finding major problems with 2005 and its verticals.
I like Acad a lot but would like to know others thoughts on what I am seeing.
Here is my list:

1) It takes forever to start up in the morning, like a minute or so, without any customization. Longer with.

2) The undo does not work right now that multiple redo has been added. You get crashes with lisps that use (command
"undo" "begin") sometimes. I know because I will run a routine with it, then run some other command like AI_MOLC and I
will get at the command line
Invalid option
Enter an UNDO control option [All/None/One] <All>:
Its a dead giveaway that things got messed up on the undo portion of the routine.
I am getting hard fast crashes from this, its really bad.

3) When dealing with custom objects like points from LDT or nodes WaterCad, there is some reactor that does not work
right. Your xrefs get regened whenever a routine has the (command "undo" "begin") in it. Even core acad commands cause
the regens. Its a defect that Autodesk knows about and hopefully is working on.
You can imagine my field crews dealing with points and regens, after every third command. Its a nightmere and only
popped up after completely migrating about 25 laptops to 2005LDT. It wastes a lot of time.

4) Lisp routines that use the API to LDT are more sensitive to object releasing than ever. Code that always worked will
now cause crashes when other command s are used. Its like if you access the alignments collection through lisp (safely
releasing all objects when done), you get crashes when you use and LDT command that accesses the collection after.
And sure enough, the problems go away if using VB to do the operations. Autodesk does not seem to have the interest to
fix this. Not sure if I can blame them, as most people do not use lisp for LDT interaction. But several top
programmers do, and they learn things the hard way, not a lot of help from Adesk on the subject.

Now the scary part is they are releasing 2006 in a few weeks. There is so much good new stuff in it, but it seems to
take about a year to discover the bad stuff in AutoCad. It used to be that there were large time gaps between releases,
so bugs worked themselves out. Now we are beeing overrun by new ultra-fancy cool features that cause instability.
Anyone out there who deals with more than 50 users disagree?

I personally tend to deal with the issues and live with them without too much frustration, but what do I say to users
who have no clue if dealing with the crashes are worth it? They are too new to realize how things used to be, and why a
crash here and there is worth the new features. They just see crashes.

Has anyone out there explored the acad clone progs? Are any of them reasonable alternatives?
For AutoDesks own good they need to slow down on releases. They are making money on their monopoly (which is fine), but
I think their product is sufferring.

Did most of you skip 2005? People say to wait for 2006 now but that needs a good three month shakedown on its own.
Its like we pay to stay on subscription, then pay when we use what we paid for. This must make Autodesk nervous, only
strong firms can afford a person to do all the support needed.
thx


James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

Why you want to use LDT?....
Because is the one that rules the market?
Because everybody use it?
Because you have done and spent a lot of effort and money doing all the customatizations?
etc,etc, etc....

In one of the office I worked they went from vanilla AutoCAD to ADT 2.0 moving 30 stations, use it for about three months spent [to me a lot of money....... there went the bonus for everyone] ... at the end they move back to vanilla AutoCAD, because of all the problems they got.

Today they are doing another jump into REVIT... I wish them luck.

 

the main reason by far is that many of our project engineers are trained in it and like it.
I can't take it fom them or they very well might quit.
Now Autodesk has helped me though because Civil 3D is breaking the mold.
Now I have a chance to derail the "must have LDT" mindset and choose what I want.
LDT has many good things though, like surface modeling.
Cool thing is Map has that now. So pretty soon I will have a design prog that does not need LDT or Civil 3D.
I'll see what happens.
This is only possible because Adesk did such a nice job with customization options. This is why I can never complain
they have a monopoly. (Ustn only survives because agency's require it, its not even close to competing because its a
pain to customize, in my not humble opinion on that)

Luis Esquivel <>
|>Why you want to use LDT?....
|>Because is the one that rules the market?
|>Because everybody use it?
|>Because you have done and spent a lot of effort and money doing all the customatizations?
|>etc,etc, etc....
|>
|>In one of the office I worked they went from vanilla AutoCAD to ADT 2.0 moving 30 stations, use it for about three months spent [to me a lot of money....... there went the bonus for everyone] ... at the end they move back to vanilla AutoCAD, because of all the problems they got.
|>
|>Today they are doing another jump into REVIT... I wish them luck.

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

I will agree w/ the above comments on AutoDesk and the new release cycle. All these versions and in a bigger company you really do not get to take advantage of the new features alot of the time. Would take too long to work into the process. Yes, now 2006 coming out. We are using 2005 but probably should have skipped.

 

Code:

(defun Should_I_Upgrade? ( )
(zerop
(rem
(atoi (getvar "acadver"))
2
)
)
)

 

Hi Clark,

Given that the learning time to come to grips with a new technology and
incorporate it into working practices is more or less constant (exclusive of
training) I'm fascinated by your implication that "bigger companies" can't
take advantage of the new AutoCAD features. As a bigger company, surely you
have opportunity to have specialist staff who can devote resources to take
advantage of new features.

It is the smaller company who have almost no chance of keeping up to date.
Try a one man business where the person uses AutoCAD on average one day a
week.

--


Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au

All these versions and in a bigger company you really do not get to take
advantage of the new features alot of the time. Would take too long to work
into the process. Yes, now 2006 coming out. We are using 2005 but probably
should have skipped.

 

that would imply 2004 was a good upgrade, not from what I have heard though.
Maybe it was, given that mredo was not implemented yet.

"Michael Puckett" <>
|>

Code:

|>
|>(defun Should_I_Upgrade? ( )
|>    (zerop
|>        (rem
|>            (atoi (getvar "acadver"))
|>            2
|>        )
|>    )
|>)
|>
|>

|>

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

What I find is that the bigger the company, the harder it is to control things.
The learning seems to depend on each design group because you learn much of what you do while producing and asking
little questions here and there.
You cant generalize either way, you are both wrong!

I'm just playing...but I've sure seen similar size companies behave very differently.
firms that do private development seem to be the loosest, Caltrans design jobs are the tightest.

"Laurie Comerford" <>
|>Hi Clark,
|>
|>Given that the learning time to come to grips with a new technology and
|>incorporate it into working practices is more or less constant (exclusive of
|>training) I'm fascinated by your implication that "bigger companies" can't
|>take advantage of the new AutoCAD features. As a bigger company, surely you
|>have opportunity to have specialist staff who can devote resources to take
|>advantage of new features.
|>
|>It is the smaller company who have almost no chance of keeping up to date.
|>Try a one man business where the person uses AutoCAD on average one day a
|>week.

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

Has anyone out there explored the acad clone progs? Are any of them reasonable alternatives?

I don't know if these programs are still available I use them long time ago... when I was doing Civil work....

EaglePoint
Terramodel

Even the spanish program CivilCAD from arqcom software does a better job than LDT....

 

Laurie,

We do have people to help w/ conversions. However when you have a cline that has a prototype that has 8 to 9 different versions that are possible for site adapt. You have lots of proto/masters for that one client. We have hundreds of clients like this. Can not implement into these over night, but we still are rolling out projects daily. I came from a smaller firm and yes it is hard to find time but simpler because they are not as many clients usually.

 

How can you make this statement, Luis? I thought you had said you've never
used LDT.......

AFAIC, LDD works quite well and sure beats the devil out of hand
calcing/drafting like we used to do. Especially since I can single handedly
(IOW, by myself) produce a complete set of construction drawings, and the
associated maps for recording, of a subdivision in about 1/4 the time it
used to take 1 engineer and 2 - 3 draftsmen.

The only other similar product I've used in the last 18 years is EaglePoint,
which we tried and discarded in favor of DCA (which mutated to Softdesk,
which mutated to LDD) a looooong time ago. Now I'm sure that EP has changed,
too, but at the time they offered nothing to compel me to use it over DCA

I know there are others out there that claim it's junk or lacking or
whatever. But that is one of the things that makes it so good, you can write
your own functions to work exactly how you do or even write totally new
functions that work BETTER than what comes in the package. I know James
already does this, and that is one of his gripes, while it's also one of his
praises. But he's also been advised to steer away from the lisp methods for
quite some time which would help to curtail some of his issues. However, it
sounds as though he also has some extremely valid points, too.

Jeff

 

How can you make this statement, Luis? I thought you had said you've never
used LDT.......

That is base on more than 50,000 users they have and a lot them are coming from softdesk era... or the latest LDT....

I am putting this just a reference.... nothing else.

 

Just use Autocad out of the box, and customize it...

Revit, ADT, Ketiv, just doesn't cut it...

If you want to be a model builder then go with mentioned...

I haven't really found a lot of flaws with 2005...only more powerful, and
we're going to 2006 within the coming months...?

I think it's the software you're using...

But I do agree that Autodesk is going to hang themselves with bring out a
new version every year... and the one that made call is just plain stu*id...

They've got to understand that companies are just not going to be doing that
sort of investment...

Slow down Autodesk...

Smell the roses, and deal with it James...

I knew a company that didn't upgrade until after 4 versions, and only
because the clients were saying they were behind times...why? they were
being productive just the way they were. Now they're none productive and
it's going to cost them thousands...

It comes down to one thing CA-SHING $$$....

 

and anyway's.... this product is only available in spanish... so, no problem to considered as competition....

 

Ha, now I've got him going!
I only have one thing to say, the fact that the undo does not work right shoud be an ultra hot issue with Autodesk.
I would expect to see a hotfix for such a hot bug. Maybe its just getting hot in here.

I can never blame Autodesk for cashing in on a great product. I just wish they would fix the problems on an ongoing
basis more than one service pack per release.
I don't know how they expect to keep quality with the rate versions are coming out. I don't know why they are willing
to put us through continual bug fixing. They are not going to be putting out fixes for 2005 once 2006 is out.
So we always have to deal with the new bugs to get fixes on old problems.
This must drive the programmers at Autodesk nuts. Too many issues at once, like a cluttered kitchen.

I do smell the roses, I pay yearly for them

"Rudy Tovar" <Rudyatcadentitydotcom>
|>Just use Autocad out of the box, and customize it...
|>
|>Revit, ADT, Ketiv, just doesn't cut it...
|>
|>If you want to be a model builder then go with mentioned...
|>
|>I haven't really found a lot of flaws with 2005...only more powerful, and
|>we're going to 2006 within the coming months...?
|>
|>I think it's the software you're using...
|>
|>But I do agree that Autodesk is going to hang themselves with bring out a
|>new version every year... and the one that made call is just plain stu*id...
|>
|>They've got to understand that companies are just not going to be doing that
|>sort of investment...
|>
|>Slow down Autodesk...
|>
|>Smell the roses, and deal with it James...
|>
|>I knew a company that didn't upgrade until after 4 versions, and only
|>because the clients were saying they were behind times...why? they were
|>being productive just the way they were. Now they're none productive and
|>it's going to cost them thousands...
|>
|>It comes down to one thing CA-SHING $$$....


James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

I'm a one person office and I keep up just fine thanks I've made every
upgrade available since starting to use Acad at R11. I've never had a
problem implementing new features. Some new features I try and don't like or
don't have a use for, but I know that they're there. I think someone who
owns their own business that makes a living directly from the resources
available in Acad is more likely to be "on top" of keeping up, than say,
someone who is paid hourly working for a large firm...There are other ways
to be ready when the lastest version is released too

just $0.02 from a small guy,
Dave
DDP

 

I tend to agree. Its the person that feels he is saving time by not keeping up that acually loses.
I sure hate how universities instill this attitude. They would do a lot better to be honest and tell their students
their salary will be based on their Cad skills for a couple years out of school.
An ok cad operator will get many times more job offers than the green people I see regularly.
Very modest of you to call yourself a "small guy"....

"Dave Jones" <>
|>|>> Hi Clark,
|>>
|>> Given that the learning time to come to grips with a new technology and
|>> incorporate it into working practices is more or less constant (exclusive
|>of
|>> training) I'm fascinated by your implication that "bigger companies" can't
|>> take advantage of the new AutoCAD features. As a bigger company, surely
|>you
|>> have opportunity to have specialist staff who can devote resources to take
|>> advantage of new features.
|>>
|>> It is the smaller company who have almost no chance of keeping up to date.
|>> Try a one man business where the person uses AutoCAD on average one day a
|>> week.
|>>
|>> --
|>>
|>>
|>> Laurie Comerford
|>> CADApps
|>> www.cadapps.com.au
|>>
|>
|>I'm a one person office and I keep up just fine thanks I've made every
|>upgrade available since starting to use Acad at R11. I've never had a
|>problem implementing new features. Some new features I try and don't like or
|>don't have a use for, but I know that they're there. I think someone who
|>owns their own business that makes a living directly from the resources
|>available in Acad is more likely to be "on top" of keeping up, than say,
|>someone who is paid hourly working for a large firm...There are other ways
|>to be ready when the lastest version is released too
|>
|>just $0.02 from a small guy,
|>Dave
|>DDP
|>

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

better to be honest and tell their students

actually it was a stretch, as I'm 6'-3" tall and 275# bulky

 

Hi James

(...)

(...)
Work wonders:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/item?siteID=123112&id=4366058&linkID=2475323

Cheers

 

James,

As I mentioned in your thread of 2/25/2005 regarding undo begin and end, 2004 has the
same problem. It's not a new problem. It just hasn't been widely noticed.

Did you see the demo code I posted? "Demo" might stand for "demolition" in this case.

As Tony said, it's clearly a bug. But it can be avoided if you have a handle on the
code structure which triggers it. For me the solution was fairly simple. Make sure a
function which uses (vla-StartUndoMark doc) also contains (vla-EndUndoMark doc) in an
error handler. I appreciate the solution may not be that easy on your end.

Joe Burke