Subject: Re: Autocad Liscenses
From: jeeper@halcyon.com (Dennis Shinn)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:01:54 GMT
Elliot Johnson wrote:
>Dennis
>At the end of a recent post you posed the question?
>>The question I would ask is .... what was anticipated in the conversion
>>from hand drafting to automation and has any of it been realized.
[some stuff snipped]
>Honestly, the anticipation was "hit a button" and it is done. But also,
>there were some realistic goals;
> improve quality,
> make changes more readily,
> improve timeframes and profits,
> create standards,
> etc.
>Today, all three firms are doing record work.
Please don't missunderstand my intentions, Elliot, I mean not to start any kind
of war of words about this subject, I'm genuinely interested in hearing what the
community at large has to say about it. And I'm impressed and encouraged to read
your comments on how the firms with which you've been associated in your area
have indeed profited from the transition from hand to CAD.
What prompted my asking the question is the observation, myopic as it may be
since I don't see drawings from every firm in our area, is that the ones I do
see seem to be nothing more than a translation of hand drafting methods set to
CAD. And of those people who actually do the hands on work at these offices, I
know for a fact that the majority of them know little about menu customization
or AutoLISP. In most cases they do have one person at least who handles the
maintenance of the systems but that's usually one of the regular architects or
engineers who has 'migrated' to the position of systems manager while still
trying to handle the duties of her regular work as drafther or architect. Not
so, Steff?
I get drawings from design firms that have either the Alegro (McNeel) or KETIV
(ArchT) menu in the header so I know they have some third party tools. Yet when
I query any of the blocks used by either of these systems there's no information
in them, the attributes are blank. This is but one of several indications that
to me suggests the full benefit of what they have available is not being
exploited.
Now, were the truth know, this makes little difference to me personally, of
course. How someone else does their work is their business. It's really more a
matter of curiosity than anything.
>I hope I am not off the subject.
I was the one that blew the topic so I'll take the wrath of the netgods. I
appreciate your response.
>One other point, you mentioned
>>Why would a small to medium sized shop bother to spend the mass bucks
>>it takes to run R13 like it should be run when they can get by with
>>rather humble hardware, ....
>I disagree with this. Everyone I have worked with is also concerned
>with strictly production. I think that a number of us in this area
>could not sing Autodesk's praises enough when 12 came out with its
>significant improvements in speed.
That's my point. For the most part, we can run R12 on far less of a machine than
we can R13. And since ...
>However, I do agree with you (or I am not sure if you are saying) that
>there are no significant improvements in release 13 for the production
>draftsperson. In fact they took a step back, i.e. its slower, in
>windows & dos.
I guess I didn't make myself clear since it appears we are of the same mind with
regard to R13 vis-a-vis the AEC industry. As long as we're talking strictly 2D
drafting. Once the universe takes on a third dimesion I would have to admit that
R13 has it hands down, at least over R12 Acad. But here again, who in the
industry is doing that much 3D? Or rather the question might be, who isn't that
should be?
>Autodesk is
>defenitely heading in the wrong direction for the majority of firms
>where production is critical.
I'll play the devil's advocate here by assuring you that if you have the
resources available to run R13, and I admit they're signifcantly greater than
for R12, you can do *so* much more in the way of 3D modeling and visualization.
I would hasten to add that in my humble yet closely held opinion, that is where
the future lies as far as CAD is concerned. How Autodesk and the other CAD
applications will respond to this direction will be interesting to watch.
Dennis Shinn
Seattle AutoCAD User Group
CAD Systems manager/GLY Construction
Part No. ||| ||||| || ||||||
Subject: Re: Need Help making sections
From: jeeper@halcyon.com (Dennis Shinn)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:01:48 GMT
"Gabriel A. Rivero" wrote:
>If anyone could give me any pointers on using "clip" to make a section
>drawing and then hatching or darkening in sectioned walls etc.. please
>email me.
Clipping planes are difficult to predict until you understand that the distances
for both front an back clips are relative to the target location and they are
measured along a line running through the camera location and the target.. These
points can be set using the DVIEW command.
Working with a complex 3D model can make locating the camera and target points
difficult to say the least. I have the best success constructing a line that
represents the line of vision from the actual camera position to the target, at
the elevation of both. Also, for architectural work I find that clipping planes
give the best results when they're vertical or horizontal or at least parallel
to the plane of the the wall or floor you're trying to section.
To set up for a clipped view of a wall, deterimine the point along the wall
where you want to cut the section. Place a "Node" entity (Point command at the
Command line) at this using xyz point filiters. When asked for the location of
the point, enter .xy and use an osnap to locate it precisely, then enter the Z
height that would be apprpriate to fall within the wall. Do the same for another
node located orthoganlly from this last. You can either copy it or use the same
procedure, but I think for best results you'll find that it works best if the
camera and target are at the same elevation.
Now use the DVIEW command, and at the prompt to "Select objects", merely select
the two node entities you just made. In DVIEW mode, all you'll see are the two
nodes.
Enter PO for Points, one of the options under DVIEW. For TARGET select the node
located at the target location, for camera pick the other. Be sure to use a Node
osnap.
Depending on your settings, the view will switch such that you're looking
straight at both nodes. Now when you use the 'clip/front' option, the clipping
plane will move fore and aft in relation to the target position. Negative values
will move it behind the target, positive values will place it in front of the
target. Same goes for the back plane as well.
Something to keep in mind, and this may be the actual problem you're having - is
that if you cut through an other wise wire frame representation of an object,
even an ACIS solid, at *both* ends, all you'll get for a representation is dots
that represent the lines that dewcribe the edges. Thus if you cut a beam with a
ciplling plane slightly in front of the target and slightly behind, all you'll
see is four dots assuming a square beam. However ..... (hehehe)
If you HIDE the view, you'll see all four sides. This works for solids, wide
plines with thickness and traces with thickness.
To get a hatch pattern to occur at the location of the section, set the UCS
parallel to the section and at the same location as you set the DVIEW target.
Hatches generate through the 0,0 origin of the UCS so you have to locate it
accordingly. The same goes for dimensions and text if you want to place them in
model space in relation to the section point. With the UCS located at the same
location as where the section is cut, hatches, dimensions and text should appear
in that same plane.
Sorry to carry on so, but it's taken me a while to understand how this works, -
I'm not sure I've got it fully under control as it si, but the steps above seem
get the job done.
Dennis Shinn
Seattle AutoCAD User Group
CAD Systems manager/GLY Construction
Part No. ||| ||||| || ||||||
Subject: Re: 21 inch monitor.... which one?
From: novak@nuc.net (novak@nuc.net)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:43:35 GMT
Thanks for the great review. It is Much appreciated.
>Here's my $0.02 impression of the Hitachi Elite CM802U monitor:
>
>1. Resolution - This monitor can truly do 1600x1200 well. I too had heard
>about the 0.22 mm horizontal pitch Hitachi was claiming and was skeptical.
>Using Pythagorean's theorem, the traditional dot pitch calculates to 0.272
>mm. My previous ViewSonic P815 with the 0.25 mm pitch produced very crisp
>text in the center of the screen at 1280x1024 using Nokia's monitor test
>program and the readability feature (I mostly concentrate on the 1 pixel
>wide blank space between the U and the L in the word fullscreen -- if you
>can't see the space, the monitor has significant misfocus). However, the
>P815 had poor focus on the entire left 1/4 of the screen and some on the
>right side. The corners were not particularly sharp either. Surprisingly,
>the coarser dot pitch of the Hitachi has better focus across most of the
>screen
>than the P815. At 1600x1200, I can still distinguish the blank between
>letters with Nokia's test everywhere except in the far corners. On a scale
>of 1 to 10, I'd give the Hitachi an 8.5 for resolution; the ViewSonic would
>get a 7.
At 1280x1024, I can distinguish the blank between letters everywhere
on the screen with the Mitsubishi 91TXM, however, it is not as easily
noticeable at the very edges of the screen, especially in the far
corners where it becomes much more difficult to distinguish.
For others interested, Nokia's test can be found here:
http://www.nokia.com/products/monitors/monitor_test.html
>2. Convergence - The convergence of the Hitachi is pretty good across
>almost every part of the screen. I have, at most, about 1/2 of a pixel of
>horizontal misconvergence, but this happens only in a few locations and
>mostly at the extremes of the screen. Unless you often work with thin
>horizontal and vertical magenta lines, you'd never notice the
>misconvergence. The P815 had much worse miconvergence on many parts of the
>screen. So bad was it than I would have estimated that it exceeded 0.5 mm,
>or a good 1 pixel gap between the blue and the red component lines of a
>magenta line. That's pretty bad and noticeable when working with thin white
>text on a dark background. For convergence, I'd rate the Hitachi an 8 and
>the ViewSonic a 5.
I'm not really a good judge of convergence since I haven't compared
different monitors in that area. I'd say that the 91TXM would be
comparable to the Hitachi based on what you've said.
>3. Geometry - When I got the ViewSonic, I immediately noticed that the CRT
>had a black coating on the inside such that an image at maximum size would
>not be perfectly rectangular; the corners would be rounded inward. In
>addition, the CRT appear tilted in relation to the bezel, compounding this
>problem. So, the only way I could get a truly rectangular image was to use
>a string, measure the two diagonals, and adjust the sizes, rotation,
>trapazoid, etc, until the corners were square. Real pain in the ass. In
>addition, the top and bottom edges bowed inward -- no controls to fix this
>problem. And I could never completely get rid of the pincushioning on both
>sides. The Hitachi does not suffer from any of these problems. It takes
>very little time at all to get practically a perfectly rectagular image all
>the way to the bezel. The Hitachi gets a 9, the ViewSonic a 5. BTW, both
>monitors give 20.0" diagonal images.
The Mitsubishi's geometry can easily be compared with the perfectly
square end of the display area to help make adjustments by having a
good reference. I'd rate the geometry of my 91TXM about 8.5. I can
get the geometry very close to perfect vertically, but there is a very
slight horizontal bow on the top and bottom that can't be adjusted out
since there is no horizontal pincushion adjustment (does anyone know
why monitors don't support horizontal adjustments? Cost? Design
limitations? Both?). However, overall, I think the geometry is very
good and what flaws it does have are not really noticeable without
looking for them, IMO.
>4. Color Purity - I've had three Hitachis and 1 ViewSonic. My third Hitachi
>has pretty good color purity, with only a very slight hint of yellowing
>towards the left side of the screen and the extreme upper right corner. Not
>very noticeable at all. The first and second Hitachis did have a
>noticeable, slightly lighter strip going down the right side of the screen.
>Only really perceptible with a gray background. The second Hitachi also had
>a noticeable yellow tint on the left half of the screen, particularly
>noticeable with the text of the bootup cycle. The 1 ViewSonic I tried had
>poor color purity, showing sweeping large, blotchy areas around all parts
>of the screen. These were instantly noticeable with any color background,
>but especially with gray and blue screens. A white screen, though not
>really too bad, did have random areas with color biasing. Give the worst
>Hitachi a 7 and the ViewSonic a 5.
The Mitsubishi is excellent as far as color goes in my book. I find
the color of my 91TXM to be consistent across the entire screen as far
as I can tell. It has a purity adjustment, but I leave it set to the
default of 50%.
>5. Color Saturation - I use a Trinitron based HP 4033A 20" screen at work,
>which does provide very bright, rich colors. All of my Hitachis have come
>pretty damn close to the vividness and brilliance of the color produced by
>my HP monitor, perhaps even better. The first thing I noticed different
>between the ViewSonic P815 and the Hitachis was the color saturation. The
>P815 ALWAYS had washed out colors. Adjusting the RGB relations helped, but
>never were any of the colors as vivid as the Hitachi. On Hitachis webpage
>(http://www.nsa-hitachi.com), they explain that this is due to better
>phosphors and larger actual phosphor dots than a standard shadow mask CRT.
>I believe them. Give the Hitachi an 8.5 and the ViewSonic a 6.
IMO, the Mitsubishi has some of the most vivid and bright colors of
any monitor I've seen regardless of size or cost. I'm *very*
satisfied in this area.
>6. Screen Regulation - The biggest and most annoying problem I've had with
>the Hitachi has come from bright objects casting a light shadow on dark or
>black backgrounds. For example, I usually set my Win 95 background to
>black. I have Office Pro 95 and always have the toolbar as a vertical
>toolbar on the right side of the screen. It is normal autohidden, but when
>I move my mouse over it, it displays. To the left of the toolbar, there is
>a 1/2" wide strip where the screen is not black but darker gray. If the
>toolbar has a brightness of 8 (out of 10), the shadowing would have a
>brightness of about 1.5. This "brightness bleeding", as I call it, is not a
>sharp ghost image but more of a cloudy image. The brightness of it varies
>with the brightness of the toolbar. As expected, it is most noticeable at
>night when the room lighting is lower than during the day. The effect
>occurs even with the brightness control set to zero and the contrast set to
>only 50%. Other parts of the screen produce the same effect, but it is
>least perceptible in the center. The ViewSonice, to its credit, did not
>display this problem.
I don't have any such problem with my 91TXM, but on a dark screen, it
becomes noticeable that the screen is brighter at the edges than it is
in the center; however, since the colors can be adjusted to be very
bright, I can leave the brightness set to only 10% and not notice that
effect much at all. Although I can notice the screen being brighter
around the edges with the brightness set higher, I generally leave it
around 20% since the effect isn't very noticeable at that setting and
it allows dark games or images (such as Quake or screen shots from
Quake for example) to be seen clearly without gamma correction.
>7. Controls - I won't bash the controls of the ViewSonic too much other
>than to say I was annoyed by having to scroll through the digital controls
>using a 1 and a 2 button. The Hitachi has a total of 12 buttons, which give
>direct access to each feature. For example, if I want to adjust the height,
>I press one button to go directly to the horizontal size and positioning
>controls and use a plus and minus button to actually make the adjustments.
>Some controls require pressing two buttons simultaneously to get to, but
>the buttons are clearly marked. The following digital controls are
>provided:
I had to use similar controls to the Viewsonic with my previous
Panasonic 1791E which has an almost identical OSD with less
adjustments. I am very_happy to have gotten away from that. I'm much
happier with the controls of the Mitsubishi.
> a. Horizontal Size
> b. Horizontal Positioning
> c. Vertical Size
> d. Vertical Positioning
> e. Pincushioning
> f. Right Side Pincushioning - allows you to get the left and right side
>perfectly parallel!
> g. Trapazoid
> h. Right Trapazoid - also allows getting left/right sides parallel.
> i. Rotation
I like that it has right side pincushion and trapezoidal controls.
Those sound like great features.
> j. Color Temperature Select - 5000 K, 6500 K, 9300 K built in
> k. Separate Red, Green, Blue Controls - values can be set precisely
>between 0 and 255 for each.
The Mitsubishi only adjusts from 1-100 so the Hitachi sounds like it
can be adjusted a little more in detail. How many user defined color
modes does it have? The Mitsubishi has three, and I find that
particularly convenient since I can set different color modes for
different applications.
> l. Horizontal Moire Adjust
> m. Horizontal Moire On
> n. Vertical Moire Adjust
> o. Vertical Moire On
The Mitsubishi only has one Moire adjustment. I don't know if it is
horizontal or vertical or both. There is a brief look at the 91TXM in
the latest Computer Shopper (there is also a review of different 21"
monitors elsewhere in the issue with the 21TX being tested there).
They mention they were unable to adjust out Moire at 1280x1024 and
only that resolution with the 91TXM. They say that "According to
Mitsubishi, the problem at 1280x1024 is a predictable result of the
interaction between the resolution and the .28mm strip pitch". I
tested for Moire using Nokia's test patterns and found it visible at
1280x1024@75hz, but I had no problem whatsoever adjusting it out. I
haven't noticed Moire at any other resolutions. I'd never really
observed Moire patterns too much before, and I thought it was rather
kewl watching them appear and reappear using the Moire adjustment.
Around 64-69% was the range were it was much less noticeable being
completely unnoticeable around 66-67%.
> p. Brightness - can be adjusted on the fly using brightness + and -
>buttons
> q. Contrast - can be adjusted on the fly using contrast + and - buttons
Any adjustment can be made on the fly with the Mitsubishi since it's
OSD defaults to the last adjustment made when pressing the + and -
buttons. It also has a separate analog contrast adjustment on the
front as well.
> r. Manual Degauss
> s. Store Button - most changes made to the image are not automatically
>stored; You have to manually store them
> after programming settings for each
>resolution.
>
> NOTE: When you change screen resolutions, the monitor will briefly
>display the horizontal and vertical frequencies.
> But you can't manually display these.
Hmmm. Bummer. I don't like that much. I don't want to look at the
OSD unless I evoke it. In fact, I don't like that it comes up on the
Mitsubishi when there is no signal to the monitor which happens when I
boot my machine. I also find it very convenient to be able to display
the refresh rate through the OSD whenever I want with the Mitsubishi.
>Controls not included but would be cool:
>
> a. Horizontal Convergence
> b. Vertical Convergence
> c. Focus
> d. Vertical Pincushioning
> e. D-Sub/BNC Switch - see below
> f. Signal Level - I've never needed it, but being able to adjust the
>input level for the signal might be nice for some.
The Mitsubishi has horizontal but not vertical convergence, vertical
pincushion, D-Sub/BNC switch, and signal level. You didn't mention
parallelogram either; does it have that? The Mitsubishi also has
these functions as well:
Parallelogram
Color Purity
Pincushion Balance - that is like pincushion only it bows both sides
in the same direction instead of opposite directions.
Center, Corner, and Bottom Pincushion - that together with regular
pincushion provide four different pincushion adjustments.
Top Balance - that bends both the left and right top corners in the
same direction.
Sine - that is difficult to describe. It can make the screen look
like a woman's figure... either heavy on top or heavy on the bottom.
>All in all, the controls are well designed to make easy adjustments and to
>correct most image details. Only annoying thing is having to press the
>store button to lock changes made. Give the Hitachi an 8 for controls, the
>ViewSonic a 7.
I wouldn't like to have to press the store button either, but I guess
it could be an advantage if you constantly made changes for whatever
reason (like using different computers or video hardware etc.) and
wanted only certain ones to remain set in memory. How many user
definable modes does the Hitachi have? The Mitsubishi has twelve.
I'd give the 91TXM a rating of 9 for controls, possibly even 9.5 if
the windows adjustment utility works really well when I get it.
>8. Inputs - I was a little hesitant to get the Hitachi 802 because it DOES
>NOT have BNC inputs. However, the supplied D-Sub cable is excellent. I
>suspect that the image may clear up even more at 1600x1200 if a BNC cable
>were used. The ViewSonic does have both D-Sub and BNC connectors. I only
>used the BNC connectors with the ViewSonic. Give the Hitachi a7 and the
>ViewSonic an 8.
With the advent of 3D add-on boards such as the Voodoo, "Win97"
supporting multiple video cards at once, people saying that a BNC
cable can provide better image quality, and the advantage of being
able to use two different computers with the same monitor (talk about
better multi-tasking and internet bandwidth ;), I would not have
bought a monitor unless it had BNC connectors. Multiple monitor
inputs were a must have in my decision on what to buy.
>9. Pixel Addressibilities - I won't go too much into what resolutions the
>monitors were theoretically capable of. I can tell you that the Hitachi 802
>can do 75 Hz at 1600x1280, which is overkill for most people. The Hitachi
>803 can do 86 Hz at this frequency and even 76 Hz at 1800x1440! The P815 is
>a close match to the 803 and beats the 802. But, in my opinion, more than
>80 Hz at 1600x1200 is just wasted money. No current monitor, not even the
>Hitachi 803, is likely to give a truly sharp image at 1800x1440.
I agree. I've displayed 1600x1200 in interlaced mode on the 91TXM
(that's all the card was capable of), and I think 1600x1200 is about
as small as I could imagine using. BTW, the focus looked pretty good
at that resolution taking into account I was displaying it in
interlaced mode, and I could make out the space between the U and L
over most of the screen.
>10. Miscellaneous - The Hitachi is a good looking monitor with a
>surprisingly small bezel. The ViewSonic's was much bulkier. It weighs about
>10+ pounds more than the P815. The screen is decently flat and I believe
>flatter than the P815's CRT. I've had no problems using the Hitachi with
>two different graphics cards - a #9 2 meg 3D virge card and a Matrox 4 meg
>Millenium. I only tested the P815 with the #9 card, but about every other
>time I booted up the computer, I got beeps indicator a video RAM failure.
>Doesn't happen with the Hitachi and didn't happen with my previous Iiyama
>MF8617. I could have somehow been related to using the BNC connectors.
I like the Viewsonic being lighter in case I would decide to take it
somewhere, but I think it is much wiser that I keep it on my desk and
take my old 17" monitor when my computer goes somewhere with me (the
horror of dropping $1600 on the asphalt =0). I think the Mitsubishi
is a very handsome monitor. In fact, I think it is one of the best
looking around, IMO. I'd prefer not to have all the buttons adorn the
front of the monitor as it does on the Hitachi.
>Overall Impression of the Hitachi Elite 802 - This is a very good monitor,
>providing bright, vivid, sharp images up to 1600x1200. Though it has a
>0.272 mm dot pitch, I think it is as sharp or sharper than the ViewSonic
>P815. However, there were some distinguishible differences between each of
>the three 802s I've had. And all had the problem with "brightness
>bleeding". I would certainly recommend the 802 over the ViewSonic P815 most
>any day.
>
>I may still temporarily buy a Mitsubushi 91TXM, compare it side by side
>with the Hitachi, and send the lesser monitor back. For $1600+ dollars of
>MY money, I demand perfection from my monitors!
>
>I hope this helps out others looking for a good 21" monitor.
I only wish more people would write reviews like you have. Thanks.
Sounds like the Hitachi may be the best shadow mask monitor on the
market. If you do buy a 91TXM or see one, I'd be interested in
knowing your impressions.
_ __ __
/ | / / ____ _ __ ____ _ / /__
/ |/ / / __ \ | / // __ `/ / //_/
/ /| / / /_/ / |/ // /_/ / / ,<
/_/ |_/ \____/|___/ \__,_/ /_/|_|
Subject: Re: Promises, promises (was Autocad Liscenses)
From: ddp@awwwsome.com (Dave Jones)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:50:19 GMT
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:01:37 GMT, jeeper@halcyon.com (Dennis Shinn)
wrote:
>Changed the subject line, Lu. I'm off chasing another windmill.
>
>Lu wrote:
>
>>Background: Ok, I have owned a license for using AutoCAD since rel 9.
>>I have purchased a license for all upgrades up to and including r13_c4.
>>This also includes a platform change required to go from my r10 286 to
>>r12 386. I have spent quite a few bucks over the years for a single
>>individual. I even borrowed the money to purchase my initial copy at
>>20% intrest.
>
>The issue I had intended to raise but lost track of was ... here you sit after
>spending several tens of thousands of dollars on your software, hardware and the
>time it's taken you to reach the level of expertise you now have. In one case
>with a close friend here locally, he mentioned that since 1985 his accountant
>tells him he's spent $US75,000 dollars on office "stuff", probably $60,000 of
>which has been computer related, mainly his AutoCAD system. Now I ask you, or at
>least I asked him, could he have accomplished the work he's done in that time
>without CAD at all? Given that CAD weren't even available, could he have done
>all the work he's done over that period of time?
>
>His answer was "probably". So where does that leave my friend? - $60,000 of
>potential income diverted to ... CAD and it's peripheral necessities.
>
>Then one has to ask, how much *more* did my friend, or you, or I for that matter
>do since we became automated? Have we actually gotten more productive in the
>long haul?
>
>Now before we all jump up and down and shout "Oh Yeah", let's take into
>account...
>
>Installation and configuration time
>Drawing recovery time when systems crash (not *if*)
>Re-do of work lost when systems crash right before autosave
>Time spent looking for answers to problems
>Training
>.....
>
>In short, there was this legendary CAD promise - increased productivity,
>'automated' drafting and all. To what extend do we find tis promise being kept?
>
>It's beginning to sound like comments related to the riches waiting to be found
>on the Internet - the only people getting wealthy are those promoting it in the
>first place.
>
>
>Dennis Shinn
>Seattle AutoCAD User Group
>CAD Systems manager/GLY Construction
>Part No. ||| ||||| || ||||||
>
Yeah, but.........
hummmm, can't seem to find any argument with the above.
I have been self employed using AutoCAD for only 4 1/2 years and
started with R12 DOS, so I am relatively "new" at this. However, I
look around my office with 2 Pentium workstations, HP plotter, HP
LaserJet printer, UPS, engineering copier, fax machines, telephone
system, etc, etc, and realize that I have spent well over $100k to be
here, with here defined as using AutoCAD every day. I have two legal
copies of AutoCAD R13c4a, one of which was upgraded from R12 and one
of which was purchased as R13. As you have probably read over the last
few weeks I decided to sell my second copy of AutoCAD which isn't used
here anymore, as a matter of fact I had a buyer who I had negotiated a
deal with that would have made me $2,000.00, only to find out that
Autodesk will not transfer the license. $2,000.00 down the drain. I
don't know about you but $2000.00 is a lot of money around here. After
spending much money getting "here" I of course cannot go back to hand
drafting, productivity gains or losses aside. What I can do is
investigate Microstation and Imagineer. I don't appreciate being
screwed by a software developer, especially after I feel that I did my
part by not copying my first copy to a second work station for use by
an employee (which I personally see happen all of the time). I'm mad
and I'm not going to take it anymore!!
best regards,
Dave Jones ddp@awwwsome.com
from lovely downtown Burney, CA
