October
5, 2004
Issue
401
< Previous Issue Next >
T
H E B U S I N E S S O F C A
D
|
October
5, 2004 < Previous Issue Next >
|
|
|
- - - C
O N T E N T S AutoCAD
2005 for $40 L.A.
Asks: Below
the Radar Write - - - Donate - - - Look for additional,
nearly-daily CAD commentary at our Weblog: (ADVERTISMENT) Updated and Expanded for AutoCAD 2005! Tailoring AutoCAD 2005 is the new e-book for AutoCAD 2005. Download as a 260-page e-book in PDF format (US$26.95) or on CD ($31.95). Covers all areas of customization, from changing the user interface to writing toolbar macros and LISP routines. Click here to sample preview pages and place your order.
|
AutoCAD 2005 for $40 Among the three thousand junk mails we receive each week, a few offer AutoCAD and other software for cheap prices. Clearly, these are illegal copies, but we were curious as to how easily we could obtain them (or not). We decided to follow the trail to see where it lead. The emails we receive are similar in wording: "Hi! Spring special sales - just compare retail prices for most popular software: MS Win XP PRO SP1 + Office System PRO 2003 MS Office 11 - Retail price: 795$ Our price: 50$ AutoCAD 2005 - Retail price: 2000$ Our price: 40$ ... Welcome to our online shop: http://regulating.oemsoftw.biz Wrote down your discount code: 034971" The $ following the price indicates a foreign origin. Interesting that AutoCAD's retail price ($2000) is incorrect. Emails have different but similar Web address: regulating.oemsoftw.biz, breathe.oemsoftw.biz, first.oemsoftw.biz. The return addresses on the emails were faked. Using WhoIs, we found all the Web sites are registered to Vasiliy Nilkolin of Moscow, Russia. (We received other junk mails also offering low-cost software whose Web addresses didn't work and weren't registered, such as wonderment.cddehib.info. We weren't sure what the point was.) We clicked the hyperlink to access the Russian site. The reaction time was very slow, indicating a location with poor Internet access, or perhaps a home computer. [Figure: www.upfrontezine.com/figs/firstoemsoftwbiz.gif] At the first.oemsoftw.biz site, we clicked the Buy Http button for AutoCAD 2005, but the resulting page remained blank as the Web browser attempted to load it for over an hour. We tried to make the purchase through several other routes to the online Shopping Cart, but could not complete the connection. We sent an email to Mr Nilkolin <biz@qdice.com> telling him of the problems. The email bounced back: "User unknown." We then used the Web site's Contact Web form to send the same message. But we are not hopeful for a response, because the page warns, "If you our member (client), please write your question from other our site. If you members you know this site. Because from this site you will don't received answer for a long time." The F.A.Q. section mentions "our other site" www.softhere.com, a suspended domain owned by Evgenity Petroskenko of Kiev, Ukraine. WhoIs indicates the site has been suspended. - - - If the Web sites had worked, we could have obtained the illegally-copied software by two ways:
Checking the list of CAD/CAM softare titles, we counted a total of 342, ranging from AC Calc to Zoom 3D Modeler. Prices ranged from $15 to $70, and bore no relation to the software's retail price. L. A. II -- Readers Answer In his essay, "L.A." asked four questions. Our readers answered: - - - Q1. Do 3D jobs still need to follow the normal route of producing general arrangements, and then 2D details and isometrics? Vornel Walker: These jobs do not have to follow the same route. The best way is to go from studies to 3D input, isometrics and THEN if required (and let me tell you they are always required) more 2D detailed general arrangements, sections and elevations. In the old days you needed to do detailed 2D general arrangements, sections and elevations so that you could produce accurate isometrics and therefore bills of material. As the isometrics and BOMs come direct from the model, the place of the detailed 2D document has shifted from a vital part of the design of the plant to an accurate 2D representation of what is in the model (and hopefully) in the plant. Deon Swanepoel: 3D projects still produce 2D isometrics, but are extracted directly from the 3D model. After a bit of development, we have reached a stage where 90% of all isos are extracted with no 2D annotation required. Mike Hudspeth: There are many valuable uses for 3D models that serve to streamline and enhance the process. Kevin Thickett: Assuming the people manufacturing the product are working off paper prints. Then the paper prints must impart the information they need. So yes, in the sense that a piece of paper is always 2D. But no in the sense that it would be silly to redraw your 3D model as a 2D isometric when you can print a view of the actual model viewed from the required direction.
Q2. Do companies using the 3D concept produce 2Ds from the model, or do they use AutoCAD (or similar) for the drafts? Vornel Walker: Most complex 3D plant design packages use proprietary tools to produce these 2D deliverables. In my 8+ years of using PDMS and PDS systems I always found that this was the worst part of the process. Even so we NEVER used AutoCAD; we stuck with what we were given, because at least we knew that what we produced was EXACTLY what came from the model. Even so, I do understand that some companies do what you have done. I understand that good times may be on the horizon for you. For PDMS users, AVEVA and AutoCAD have come to an agreement to develop 2D generation capabilities for the PDMS product line. What it will give and how close it will come to your ideals I do not know. Deon Swanepoel: We produce 2D layouts or general arrangements mainly as a construction tool; some companies do require these as deliverables. However, we also extract these directly from the model. Orthoview is used in our office as an 'add-on' to the main 3D package. Mike Hudspeth: If you have a 3D model, using it to create views on a drawing is the most efficient use of time. They are inherently more accurate than trying to visualize the orthographic views and draw them yourself. Once you have a 3D representation of your part, the orthogonal views are all but free. Any time you go from one system to another, you loose efficiency. Unfortunately, many 3D systems aren't as good as AutoCAD at drafting. If you prefer to have automatic updates of the drawing upon modeling changes, you need to choose a system that drafts well enough for you. If you want to stay with AutoCAD, you need to learn to use the viewports. Import a solid and use it. (Never go back to strictly 2D.) Create a front viewport, a side viewport, a top viewport, etc. Kevin Thickett: Usually the same package would be used for producing the model, and the shop drawings. In my case, this is AutoCAD. It is never a good idea to draw something twice.
Q3. Has anyone ever produced a good PDMS 2D general arrangement comparable to, say, an AutoCAD drawing? Vornel Walker: The answer is yes. Many years ago I worked for KBR, and we developed a tool to do this automatically; the output was second to none -- better than manual output. Why? It was 100% accurate, and took a fraction of the time to produce these deliverables. On the PDS side (and now PDMS) you also may look at 3DS Net's (www.3ds.net) offerings that produce 2D deliverables automatically. Some AutoCAD plant design users using packages such as my CADWorx or Bentley's AutoPLANT can also enjoy the same automatic capabilities using PlantWave by 9-SQ of Korea. Deon Swanepoel: As per Q2, we use Orthoview with very little or no annotation after the system generates the 2D drawing. Mike Hudspeth: Can't help you there. Kevin Thickett: Pass. What's wrong with a 3D general arrangement? It shows the information much more clearly if you ask me.
Q4. Do 3D modelers have to be multidisciplinary, or does a piper only do piping, and a structural guy only structures? Vornel Walker: The investment in training and resources needed for these systems predicates that the person using the system should be as multi-disciplined as possible. It would not be feasible for a company to train their piping, vessel, and steel users just to input their discipline's components. Also to keep current and knowledgeable it is best to be a constant user of the system. Therefore it is better to have someone who has good modeling knowledge to input components, even if those components are not from their discipline -- than to have the occasional user input components into the model. System knowledge carries more weight than industry knowledge. When I was modeling some PDMS projects, sometimes I was the only one out of 10+ modelers who did piping studies and input my own designs.. While working for companies that use PDMS/PDS systems it was generally the modelers assigned to the piping department that were saddled with the task of making sure that the model was complete with ALL discipline's components. Deon Swanepoel: My background is piping design and I am now in IT [information technology]. I believe designers should mostly be discipline-specific but with a fair knowledge of the other disciplines involved. Depending on the scope of work, a piping designer can model basic 'shapes' for structures or civils but would not do the design for these. Mike Hudspeth: My mother taught me to have a wide range of talents. That way, if one thing doesn't work, I can always fall back on another. 3D modelers should be the same. I am firmly of the opinion that drafters should do drawings. They also need to know how to model. Who better to apply constraints than the person who will detail the drawing? Drafters who know other disciplines are always be handy to have around. Their knowledge can avoid unfortunate mistakes. Kevin Thickett: No. If you can draw a hat, you can draw a pair of shoes. The design principals may be different but the drafting techniques are the same. I would say the best 3D guys are drafties with some IT knowledge. Again, it comes down to understanding your tools. CAD managers, however, need to be about 50/50 in my opinion. Below the Radar A summary of CAD industry news you may not have read elsewhere, or that we found interesting: - - - Autodesk last week shut down its QuickCAD software; it suggests replacing QuickCAD with AutoSketch or AutoCAD LT. myCADsite.com has provided free tutorials for almost five years; now it's updated for AutoCAD 2005. www.myCADsite.com GlobalCAD releases GlobalCAD Schedule 2005, scheduling and BOM [bill of material] add-on for AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT. http://www.globalcad.com UGS says its Solid Edge Voyager Program for third-party developers now has 206 members. www.solidedge.com/voyager NavisWorks NavisWorks3 v3.6 works with Architectural Desktop 2005, VIZ 2005, and Inventor 9. www.navisworks.com CoCreate Software releases OneSpace.net 2005 online project data management and team collaboration software. www.onespace.net MfgQuote launches MfgQuote v5 online marketplace for custom manufacturing services -- with over 100 enhancements. www.MfgQuote.com The LightWorks HDRI Starter Collection is a set of High Dynamic Range Image files for use with the LightWorks rendering engine. www.lightworks-user.com/hdri_starter_collection.htm AVEVA ships VANTAGE Project Resource Management v9.5 for material engineers. www.aveva.com And Dassault Systèmes releases Version 5 Release 14 of their software: CATIA, ENOVIA, SMARTEAM, and DELMIA. plm.3ds.com/V5R14 Seminars & Conferences The 6th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design (CAID&CD'2005) is 29-31 May 2005 at TU Delft, The Netherlands. www.io.tudelft.nl/caidcd2005 People/Companies on the Move Autodesk executive vp of business operations Mike Sutton resigns after 18 years, but remains a part-timer for another year. Kubotek USA appoints James Gordon as principal engineer. Mr Gordon is the former vp and chief architect of ACIS at Spatial. Avatech Solutions promotes Melody Craigmyle to vp of marketing. IDELIX Software announces that James Frey, former president of Northrop Grumman TASC, has joined the visualization software company's board of advisors. Redo The PDMS software mentioned last week in upFront.eZine is not from Intergraph. Our fact checker checked a faulty source. Computer News Summaries Articles posted recently at our WorldCAD Access Weblog <worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog>:
Market News ValueAct Capital Partners wants to take MSC.Software private at US$9 per share. The share price rose to $8.90 on the news. The firms also holds 22% in Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, with CEO Jeffrey Ubben taking over the role of chairman at Stewart's firm. The upFront.eZine stock index is at www.cadwire.net/to?upfrontezine/stocks Brand New CAD Books/eBooks "MicroStation 2D in Practice"
"Tailoring AutoCAD 2005" WorthWhile Web http://autodeskinformer.blogs.com
http://www.ch-somerville.com/shipdrafy.htm
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092104G.html
Letters to the Editor "I am the CAD manager for an engineering
firm. We have recently purchased about 21 seats of Autodesk Building
Systems. I was wondering how to sell the BIM [building information
technology] technology to our clients?" - - - Re: What is the most exciting thing you've seen in CAD over the last six months? "It can be said that, from a certain perspective, exciting isn't what we users of CAD software need very often from our tools of the trade. Sure, new advances can generate excitement and buzz. AutoCAD R13 was a new advance and very exciting -- but for many of the wrong reasons. We need stability, reliability, interoperability, fair prices, and easy access to support. "The marketers with whom you spoke may
not have really been launching a press tour with a difference --
they wanted you to help spin their product in terms of their marketing
philosophy, within the box they know. 'Exciting' is not what we
need as users, it's what they need as marketers. Thanks for all
the great info."
"The only 'exciting thing you've seen
in CAD' recently has been SketchUp. Every time they do an upgrade,
it is exciting. OK, we are in architecture, and SketchUp may not
be 'real' CAD, but it is fun." - - - Re: IntelliCAD World Conference "Do you think that it would be possible to run the main features of IntelliCAD inside another application? I'm thinking of Rhinoceros 3D by McNeel. They are in alpha testing of version 4 which seems very promising. Outside of the main program there's a lot going on: an animation-plugin is available now (Bongo), and soon there will be a version of the fabulous rendering engine Brazil <www.splutterfish.com> which will run inside Rhino. There's also a third-party page layout plugin called Lino <www.voidoid.com>. "This one, however, is quite limited in its capabilities. And as most of the traditional Rhino-customers just use it purely as a modeling application (and do molding and all sorts of CAM in other packages), the native page-layout and dimensioning features of Rhino are not going to be improved by McNeel. In Germany I see a lot of young designers work with Rhino, because of its great surfacing abilities, its ease-of-use, and its low price. Small studios simply can't afford Alias Studio Tools. This number will surely increase, as soon as the new rendering-engine is on the market. Then there is no more reason to purchase a second program like 3DS Max, solely for rendering purposes. "So designers can do their precise freeform modeling, they can render the results, can do simple animations, and can use a bunch of other useful plug-ins all inside of Rhino, only making 'serious' 2D plans would also in future mean to export to programs like AutoCAD or IntelliCAD. Why not close the gap? "As I read, IntelliCAD will improve its
layout features -- I'd really love to see layout tabs inside Rhino
as well! For me, as non-programmer this seems possible. Kind regards
from Berlin, and please excuse my English!" - - - Re: 400th Issue of upFront.eZine "Congrats on number #400. 1.5 million
words - wow!"
"Hey! thanks for a great Ezine. Even
if it is from an AutoCAD guy ;-)"
"I look forward each week to receiving
your news letter." Spin Doctor of the Moment ""There was no particular reason
behind it." Notable Quotable "I've never believed that media bias
is a conspiracy. It's more like background radiation, a certain
set of unquestioned assumptions that tend to irradiate everything
-- the food, the water, the verbs, the nouns of mainstream news
coverage." |
|
Return to www.upfrontezine.com. Entire contents copyright ©2004 by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide. Article reprint fee $500. All trademarks belong to their respective holders. "upFront.eZine," "Talking About CAD," and "On your desktop every Tuesday morning" are trademarks of upFront.eZinePublishing, Ltd. Letters to the editor may be reproduced in an edited form for clarity and brevity. Opinions expressed in letters are not necessarily shared by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. |
This e-newsletter is shareware. You may read this free. If you would like to support the author in his work, we suggest a donation of US$25.00 to PayPal in the account of grabowski @ telus.net. Click here to make payment.
Reprint fee: US$500 |
.
