What does everyone think of NanoCAD vs Draftsight.?
I have had enough of the activation issues with Draftsight and am seeking a new free alternative.
I am thinking about using NanoCAD.
As far as I tested it, Nanocad is a decent alternative. It depends a bit how much you need a 2D programma and for what you want to use it. But for the price (free or very little) it's nice.
The constant nagging of Draftsight, the lack of support for LISP, the nobbling so as to prevent the ability to have settings being imported so as to set it up company wide in the same manner,unless you fork out for the paid version of Draftsight., all where factors that made us look for something different as well.
Not to mention the 'support' for the free version of Draftsight is a joke. You can post questions on it's forum that will take forever for anyone of DS to answer and the few times I tried it the answers I got didn't help or where even beside the point.
The paid version of Draftsight I found wanting because of the lack of decent LISP compatibility. We don't use big complicated routines, almost all have been ones we found free online, but even so it seemed to me that Draftsight could handle less then 50% of them without error.
As I understood it, Draftsight (paid version) support will fix any Lisp routines that don't work, for an additional cost.
Even the entry level Bricscad has far superior LISP out of the box compatibility then the paid Draftsight version.
Because of our want of decent LISP routines support so that without much hassle I could just use the ones I had for Acad I looked at several clones and in the end it was between ZWcad, Nanocad and Bricscad. Seeing as that we still have the need for lots of 2D usage for different disciplines and levels of difficulty on top of the LISP need, as well as the level of support they give we ended up choosing Bricscad.
I even found a post by Nanocad that said that Bricscad was better at LISP then ZWcad.
It's not free and it costs more then the paid version of Draftsight initially but after a few years it actually comes out as being cheaper. Nanocad paid versions are cheaper then Bricscad and their support is better (as I experienced it) then Draftisights but not in the same league as Bricscad.
The other day I had a question for the Bricscad support that not only got a responds within 24 hours (as per their norm) but was even answered by their programmer that created the Bricscad version of a Visual LISP IDE (think Acad's VLIDE but then created completely independently from the ground up).
Our 2D needs are very minimal. Just do the occasional work on old legacy dxf/dwg files. Also prep work on dxf/dwg's received from customers that may need cleaned up for laser or importing into SolidWorks. So a free AutoCAD work-alike is very appealing.
We like free Draftsight. It is a perfect tool for us. It is just not dependable when it comes to its activation issues. It is amazing to me that this can't be fixed after all these years. Seems par for the course for DS (the corporate overlords), they can't seem to get software right. Sigh...
Just to throw it out there, Autocad LT is only around $300... I know, I know, why spend money when you don't have to? But, your time is worth something, too. Think about how much time you wasted trying to get Draftsight to work.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, one doesn't ever own a copy of Acad any more but just rents it. So when you stop paying and you're license period runs out then you don't have a working cad program. It may be the way lots of software companies work but I for one think that sucks.
I'm old fashioned that way. If I don't choose to pay for the latest version I still want to be able to use the old one that I paid good money for.
try it and let us know how it works.
David Matula wrote: try it and let us know how it works.
David Matula wrote:
try it and let us know how it works.
I actually have it downloaded and ready to install. Just have not had a chance to do that yet.
I like Draftsight for simple 2D work. What is the issue you are having with activation? If that was fixed would you stick with Draftsight?
The issues I had, and as I read others as well, with activation are :
- being able to enter the activation requested data (name, address, etc.) but not being able to send it
- not receiving the confirmation email to the usual email address once the above did get send (although for another user in the same network it does work or it did work previously for the same user on the same machine on the same network.)
- not receiving the confirmation email even when using other email addresses (gmail, yahoo, ...), while again for another on the same network behind the same firewall, it does work or it did work previously for the same user on the same machine on the same network.
- failure to start program even after getting the confirmation email (crashing on start)
- and when it does boot up, not being able to import the settings from the previous version so that all settings had to be manually adjusted one by one by one.
- and having to deal with it all again when you have to re-register because.... for some reason or other (time - new version installed -...)
- multiply that by the amount of users I have to keep up and running (+50) and I for one was spending/loosing lots of time dealing with it
Help provided by Draftsight,seeing as that we're using the free version,equals to none. No matter that one spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on Dassaut (Solidworks), for Dassault (Draftsight) we are just a bunch of freeloaders and not a valued customer.
Makes one wonder if the paid version faces the same issues because either it doesn't which means that the problem is purely with the free version and they leave it in there so as to get us to get the paid version. Or it is/was an issue for the paid version as well which means they can't be bothered to tell the free version user how to fix it. Or it is an issue with the paid version too and it doesn't get fixed there either. What ever way you turn it, not a nice way of doing business.
Heck, we got more support in days gone by for the program prior to Draftsight because then you could actually ask your VAR about it.
On top of that is indeed the fact that if one can't open a big file with Draftsight that chances are that others,Nanocad, Bricscad,etc., could.
Even when not wanting to spend money on a program, there's other possibilities such as Nanocad, Librecad, QCad to name just a few. If your 2D needs are more of the light editing and clean up kind then they'll certainly do the trick with far less hassle and even offer support for their product.
If Draftsight works for you, great. Enjoy.
However, there's plenty of us that have given up, or about to give up, on it.
Mike Lee wrote: I like Draftsight for simple 2D work. What is the issue you are having with activation? If that was fixed would you stick with Draftsight?
Mike Lee wrote:
Yes, I would stick with Draftsight. I have tried every trick posted on the forums here to get this latest install to work. My big problem is all the non-geek users in our company that have Draftsight installs. It is a crap shoot if a new Draftsight install or update will activate. Companies should not have to jump through any hoops to get this software to work as advertised.
Anna Wood wrote: ...My big problem is all the non-geek users in our company that have Draftsight installs. It is a crap shoot if a new Draftsight install or update will activate. Companies should not have to jump through any hoops to get this software to work as advertised.
Anna Wood wrote:
The failure of Draftsight to do something about it, because it's been happening now for years, is maddening.
We started using NanoCad, especially because Draftsight doesn't handle large file well. I was hesitant at first to invest some time in learning it but after a an hour using it, I found it very capable and instinctive to use. It's not a full copycat of AutoCad but what is different seems to be an improvement. My use of it is very limited so I'm not the best judge but one of my coworker is a big advocate of NanoCad and made me a fan too.
Retrieving data ...