CompuServe Messages

JKJ- My sweeping remark (which I'm glad garnered several responses) was specifically aimed at the use of AME and Architectural models – it simply was not designed for the purpose. It's akin to purchasing a Mack truck to pull a toy wagon. Your uses for the product to produce Industrial/Component Design elements is exactly what it was designed for and what it IS great for. When I need to create an intricate door handle I use AME. But for architecture (which is often thousands of simple forms) I find it cumbersome, time consuming and overkill – now maybe if I was modeling a corinthean column <g>. Maybe I'm too use to customized LISP and knowing the many modeling chortcuts available with the DXF to 3DS conversion. AME tends to be fairly pat with few customizing abilities – I guess that I'm a "little" prejudice against anything in AutoCAD that I can not rip into the code and tweak to my likeing and aplication needs. Superior drawing tools and precision>> EXACTLY – this is 3DS's weakness and ACAD can and does make up for it. For architectural work I usually do between 60%-98% of the actual modeling in AutoCAD rather than 3DS. I guess I came a cross a "little" too strong <g>. Yes AME has it's rightful place as a valuable modeling tool. One just needs to know the most apropriate tool for the particular job/aplication at hand. – Phil