This content has been marked as final. Show 7 replies
I have found it to be more awkward to use as well as not having the same potency.
Eddie, why use Autocrap at all? Come-on, get out the wip...
We don't use DWG-Editor here very much but when I have it seemed to work for me (printing and plotting).
Sounds like they need to be more specific as to what "can't get their work done" means. That kind of statement covers alot of territory.
We are in a similar situation. We still have a number of users in our manufacturing and maintenance depts. When everything goes to Vista the old Autocad is history. (Or upgrade) But we have more than enough DWGEditor seats to go around.
DWGEditor does not have all the bells and whistles as Autocad. But the basic functionality is there. It just looks different. My big gripe is that the icons all look alike. So it's going to take some setup and a learning curve. Most people just don't want to deal with that. They just are used to their old programs and just plain don't want to change.
I went around to every user and asked them to try it out. None of them are power users or want anything more than basic Autocad. So far I've heard no feed back at all.
It'll probably go like the switch from ProE to Solidworks. Everythings OK until it actually happens, then there is alot of whinning because it's different.
the raster image support in AutoCAD is really difficult to beat-in terms of your ablity to locate, scale and deskew scanned images. that makes it a lot easier to to tackle some of our reverse engeineering projects. AutoCAD also has a much better printing engine than DWGEditor.
When AutoCAD wasn't avaialable I ambled through in DWGEditor but can't say the experience made me a fan. The raster image support is a joke, multi-line text is crudely implmenented. I'd rate AutoCAD as a much more finished application and I think it's worth it to have a seat or two for general consumption.
Eddie, I'm faced with the same dilemma somewhat. We have 30 floating SolidWorks which gives us 90 DWGEditor licenses. Several departments still use AutoCAD a good bit and some use SolidWorks mostly and AutoCAD occasionally.
DWGEditor is quirky and will frustrate a seasoned AutoCAD user but it can get the job done. You just have to get around the quirks and differences. Most casual users don't seem to have a problem with it...but I've had a SolidWorks engineer request AutoCAD LT after trying out DWGEditor for a while. He said it was too awkward though it did work. With the price of AutoCAD LT going up, justifying AutoCAD for light use is harder.
Obviously if there is functionality missing that is needed, you have to go with AutoCAD but I think for most casual use, it will get the job done.
Thank you for the responses.
Sadly, it doesn't seem like the DWGeditor is being used like SolidWorks thought it would be.
...anyway, thanks again to those who did respond.
Solidworks always seems concerned about moving Autocad users to their product. In the 25 years I have with computer software I have never seen a company make so many provision for the "AutoCAD" user.
SW should focus on their drawing product and make it functional!
We didn't use AutoCAD for machine parts before we got SW. Now when we only need a 2D drawing we are told it's best to use the DWGEditor. Why do our machine designers need to learn an AutoCAD like product when we purchased Solidworks thinking it was a complete software?
I agree with Steve Calvert, why use AutoCAD.
But unfortunately Solidworks is weak in drawings.
Solidworks, give up the crutch and improve your "drawing" product.