AutoCAD OEM provides a CAD engine and software development kit
(SDK) that lets developers create vertical-market, AutoCAD-based applications
unneeded functions, menus, and commands turned off. The product includes
the AutoCAD R14 feature set, ACIS v3.0 solid modeling support, AutoLISP,
ActiveX, VBA, ASE, and ObjectARX. It also includes features not found in
Release 14, such as Content Explorer.
Says the press release, "Because the developer's
software is based on AutoCAD, it also offers interoperability with other
DWG and DXF applications that are common in computer-aided design." In
addition to third- party developers and in-house developers, AutoCAD OEM
is designed to replace homegrown CAD engines with AutoCAD software. The
pricing is variable but includes a license fee of US$10,000.
AutoCAD View 2 displays drawings created by AutoCAD R9 thru R14 in DWG, DXF, ACIS, and DWF formats, plus 225 additional file formats. Views include 3D viewpoint, paper-model space, individual blocks, layers, xrefs, and raster images. Retail price is US$195; upgrade is US$69.
Man and Machine, a supplier of low-cost CAD solutions, has joined the Visio Business Partner program. It shipped Architecture Design Series, its first symbol library (containing 6,000 symbols) for Visio Technical v5.0. Man and Machine plans to offer its block symbol library products -- previously available only for AutoCAD -- for use with IntelliCAD 98, which due to ship by the end of March.
Two new magazines for Visio software products are due to start publishing this Spring. One magazine will be published by Visio Corp's marketing department; the second magazine will be independently produced. Word has it that one or more of the "big" North American computer magazine publishers are also considering Visio magazines.
Ralph Grabowski's book "Learn Visio 5.0" is now shipping from Wordware Publishing. The tutorial-style book cover Visio Standard, Visio Technical, and Visio Professional using module-style learning sections. Wordware publisher Jim Hill says, "We have the best advance orders on 'Learn Visio 5.0' that we have had in some time for one of our books." The book is available from Borders bookstores and http://www.amazon.com
Several years ago, we heard mutterings of a group being formed to open up the DWG format. That effort also seemed to fizzle.
Now we hear the effort might begin anew. The way we hear it, a CAD software vendor will be making available a third-party DWG API library. The cost for this freedom will not come cheap. We hear that the cost to join this "open DWG" foundation might be as much as US$50,000.
Meanwhile, shareware apps for the PalmPilot keep improving. The two coolest apps recently released are Flip! and PocketC. Flip is an animation program, while PocketC is a C compiler that runs on the PalmPilot. We particularly appreciate the looseness of the C implementation: no pointers and loose typing (for example, it converts a char to ASCII on-the-fly). Both products are available from http://www.pilotgear.com
We have included a response from Amar Hanspal <Amar.Hanspal@autodesk.com>, director of AutoCAD product marketing in square brackets.
However, the white paper was flawed in four areas: (1) the test methodology was poorly implemented; (2) the CAD packages tested were out-of-date versions; (3) CAD packages that do claim 100% DWG compatibility were not tested; and (4) no test was performed on AutoCAD's inability to 100% accurately translate a drawing to an older version of DWG.
The white paper's thesis was: "Can CAD professionals be confident that the files they deliver and exchange are identical." From our experience, we know the answer is, "No." The white paper's conclusion was: "The AutoCAD LT line of products is the only one in this group [of low-cost CAD products] that can truthfully make the claim [to read and write AutoCAD DWG files] because the products rely on the same native DWG format as AutoCAD itself."
From our experience, we know that this conclusion is wrong. In fact, elsewhere in the white paper, XXCAL admits to an incompatibility within the AutoCAD family of products -- "text data was the only area of disagreement" -- although Autodesk itself knows the incompatibilities go much further than text. As illustrated by documentation provided with AutoCAD and LT, there is a long list of objects, system variables, and properties that do not survive translation back to earlier versions of DWG.
This white paper was flawed in the same four areas: (1) although the test methodology was improved, there are serious errors of fact and bias; (2) the CAD package tested was an out-of-date version; (3) CAD packages that do claim 100% DWG compatibility were not tested; and (4) no test was performed on AutoCAD's inability to 100% accurately translate a drawing to an older version of DWG.
Below, we clarify some of the misleading information
found in the white paper Autodesk posted at
http://pilot1.autodesk.com/products/acadr14/features/drawexc
h.htm
To help find the references in greater context, we include the page numbers from the printed out Word document, also available for download at the Autodesk Web site.
[Hanspal: On the bias issue -- we do provide XXCAL with drawing files only to ensure that every AutoCAD object type is covered in their tests. We have no intent to bias results.]
The independent testing lab seems to have a predisposed bias when the white paper says, "As expected, there were problems in every category of testing..." [page 3]. Later, the white paper contradicts itself when it reports that "...MicroStation 95 was able to display hatches well" [page 4].
[Hanspal: "As expected" is simply a poor choice of words, and as you point out yourself, the paper later acknowledges the fact that MicroStation handled hatch data rather well, indicating that the testers were not pre-disposed to find faults with everything.]
The white paper states that "XXCAL asked Bentley Systems about the best way to read AutoCAD DWG files in MicroStation." The white paper fails to mention the many switches and settings available in MicroStation to improve the quality of translation. XXCAL failed to test how well Autodesk's own DGN translator (found in Map) coverts drawings to DWG [page 3].
[Hanspal: With regard to the many settings available in MicroStation, I think the testing lab's intent was to mimic an end-users' experience. I do agree that we could make mention of the translation control settings.]
The testing lab is wrong when it states that "...both programs [AutoCAD and MicroStation] presently use the ACIS engine." MicroStation has never contained ACIS and was never able to deal with solids modeling [page 5].
[Hanspal: You're right about ACIS -- I don't think it's included in base MicroStation, only in MicroStation Modeler but the entire issue of solids turning into surfaces during the round-trip is a serious data integrity issue and one that is introduced by the MicroStation translation process.]
Since MicroStation does not have ACIS, it converts AutoCAD ACIS 3D solid objects into 3D surface models. When the MicroStation drawing returns to AutoCAD, the 3D objects remain surface objects because AutoCAD R14 is unable to convert surface models to solid models. XXCAL did not understand this process. The white paper erroneously states that "so many tessellations were added that the shapes appeared solid." In fact, AutoCAD's own SurfU and SurfV system variables affect the "tessellation" density [page 5].
[Hanspal: There is no way for us to magically convert surfaces into solids, since both are valid entities for us and a surface in a drawing file could be intended to be just that -- a surface, and not an inferred solid.]
XXCAL reports the DWG file size increased after translation by MicroStation but fails to mention that R12 DWG file size increases by 40% when read into and saved by AutoCAD R13/R14. The white paper states that, "MicroStation has to translate the entity into geometry it understands, and thus changes the intent." No mention is made that Release 14 performs the same action to polylines, hatch patterns, and ACIS objects created in earlier versions of AutoCAD [page 6].
[Hanspal: I disagree with you that R14's translation of old style hatches, polylines and solids into newer representations changes the "intent." A lightweight polyline is still a polyline, a new hatch is still a hatch -- they behave just like the old way, except that they are stored more efficiently.]
There are many other inaccurate statements in the white paper; too many to list here.
On a positive note, we were pleased to see that XXCAL took our advice and improved one of their testing procedures. For example, in the LT DWG tests, XXCAL only performed a visual inspection of whole drawings as a test for accuracy. For this white paper, XXCAL employed our technique of creating a matrix of objects, then examining each one with the List command after translation.
[Hanspal: XXCAL did not have access to MicroStation SE at the time they carried out the tests. We can ask them to re- run their tests against the newer version.]
However, our own testing, which is more accurate than XXCAL's, shows that MicroStation SE has a disappointing level of support for R14. While it reads R14 files, it discards many objects unique to R13 and R14, such as multilines and the R14 hatch pattern format.
Just as with the earlier LT white paper, XXCAL carefully avoids testing the ability of AutoCAD R12 and R13 to read and write R14 DWG files, which would have shown loss of data and accuracy. The problem is serious. According to figures released by Autodesk, approximately 15% of AutoCAD users have Release 14. The percentage of R14 users falls to under 10% when Autodesk's "family of CAD products" is added in: over 500,000 LT users and 600,000 AutoSketch users. We estimate that 90% of Autodesk customers are using a non R14- compatible Autodesk CAD product.
[Hanspal: XXCAL was not asked to test older versions of AutoCAD because round-trip testing is something that we do carry out in-house and document in our product. I'm not sure what shortcomings exist between R13 and R14 or LT95/97 and R14 since data can be successfully round tripped between these products without any real "translation" or mapping to a different set of objects. When we save to R12 or LT 2.0 format, we have to translate or map to an older object set, and then there is less-than-perfect data transfer.]
CompuServe
America Online has completed its acquisition of CompuServe,
which will be run as a separate brand by former Century 21 (a real
estate firm) CEO Mayo Struntz. AOL plans that CompuServe retain its own
network, services, and content. The "C" service will be cut and 500 CompuServe
employees have been laid off.
In unrelated news, AOL says it will raise
its monthly rate by $2 to US$21.95. The average user spends 23 hours per
month logged onto AOL.
Eagle Point Software
The Eagle Point BBS (bulletin board system) has been discontinued,
replaced by the Internet. Eagle Point says that email and FTP are now the
electronic alternatives for sending and receiving data to Eagle Point:
ftp://ftp.eaglepoint.com
Microsoft
Almost as an afterthought, Microsoft is combining the formerly
separate divisions that produce its Web browser and operating systems.
Meanwhile, the American Department of Justice is now investigating
Microsoft's relationship with ActiveChannel partners who provide content
for Microsoft's Web browser.
In unrelated news, Bill Gates has coined a
scary new term: "digital nervous system." Could this be the next stepping
stone for eventual worldwide domination? In an apparent coincidence, Mr
Gates announced the perspicacious- sounding term the same week he was hit
by a cream pie during a visit to Belgium.
Netscape
More than 3,000 computer product makers, Internet service providers,
Web content providers, and others have committed to distributing over 36
million copies of Netscape client software this year. Meanwhile, Netscape
shares jumped at the news the company might allow itself to be bought by
Oracle, Sun Microsystems, IBM, or America Online.