CompuServe Thread

Cliff: No, I haven't seen it yet. What would I have to do to be able to see it? I haven't seen any fliers, etc. either, although I think I recall seeing something on the Forum about a release date. Is this going to be a free update or is there $ involved, and if so, how much? (just curious, I am sure I will get it.). I got my first look at ARRIS on Friday. I am formulating a number of questions for them to see what it can really do. This is sold by a dealer who ALSO sells ACAD and CV, by the way. I don't think I'm impressed enough to make any changes. I do think it is impressive to non ACAD owners at a first look see, though. I want to see if there are some good ideas for any lisp routines I want to write, and I want to pass on everything I am impressed with that I think AEC should address. As far as overview goes, I will pass on the following… They have substituted the cost of Autolisp for a greater number of provided drawing libraries and more powerfull macros. They sell their programming language as a separate module. Probably a good idea when selling to Architects. The single database concept has about as many good points as bad points. I fear for data damage wiping out an entire project. On the other hand, making a change once, and defining an attribute once that is in effect for the entire project is nice. Job filing is clean. Original setup of a job is much more involved, requiring more high powered people getting involved. If you wish to adapt a layering standard of about 160 standard layers on a CSI format, then a 10 drawing job would require 1600 layers, if all layers were to be used. (elevations, for example, don't need all of the layers.). Being able to display and reference to a layer without being able to edit it IS a big deal, and a great plus for ARRIS. Blocking and unblocking backgrounds, and the time to accesss a point on a block is rather clumbsy. They don't have an OOPS command and undo only undos once. More next message. .

.All of the work can be done from screen menus. Great for a 19" monitor, probably not useable on a 12". Some menus were hard to read even on the 19". . .3d package left ACAD in the dust. It is impressive to Architects, until they try to get a client to pay for it, and the time it takes to work and design in 3d is not worth it, unless the user can't visualize what he is doing in 2d. Automatic elevation creation from the 3d element plan was most impressive. ARRIS is definitely more slanted toward the designer rather than the production user. It is interesting to note that designers are the guys doing the buying in the Architecture business. . Total package integration (i.e. work from within the drawing for any and all tasks within or without) and switching between modules was VERY well done. No acad comment required, I think. . .ARRIS is not a production package, as far as I can see. The number of command options would require total recall memory or the use of their multitude of menus. Nice, but time consuming. . .Variety of window shapes was nice. Due to non edit but visible layers, other ACAD edit tools, like crossing, weren't required. . .All commands worked transparently, from any viewpoint! . .Their dimensioning methodology was focused to the Architect, but had other problems. The perfect solution would be a combination of yours and theirs. . .No dragging for moves and copies. BAD feature. No highlighting and selection set capability, with add or remove. BAD feature. Blocks could be dragged in, however. . .Hardware lock included. Definitely a bad feature. No site licensing, just like you guys. A shared BAD feature. I have always felt that the lack of site licensing promotes pirating. I think one of today's social axioms is "I don't mind being legal, if it doesn't cost too much!" I'm not saying I agree, just addressing reality. . .ALL programming code is accessible. WOW, I could fix the dimensioning myself. All I have to do is become a programmer!. . .Enough said for now. Could I be one of those guys who previews new releases for comment? I'd love it. . .Craig. . ..

Dave: . .I viewed the ARRIS package on a 386 pc. Nothing special about it. The Xenix is SCO Xenix and costs $695 retail. I understand what you are saying about product support. If it weren't for this forum, the capabilities of the local ACAD dealers would have left me floundering on MANY occasions. Dealers, from my point of view in MY location, are just a necessary evil. The development of ACAD beyond its current capability will be spread among all of its users. I am trying to get ADESK to place more importance on AEC because that is the package that will sell ACAD to Architects, not ACAD itself. ACAD by itself is nearly useless to Architects when compared to the competition that focuses on Architects. The most recent figures that I have seen state that 22% of the Architectural and Engineering firms in this country use CAD. Of those firms, from my own experience, only 1/2 of them use 50% of ACAD/AEC's ability. Now I would say, on a conservative basis, that the balance of the firms not yet on CAD represents at least $90,000,000 retail for the software package only. In addition, if the rest of the firms already on CAD understood its full capability, and more importantly, could implement it, the aftermarket to those firms would represent another $10,000,000. I seriously doubt that anyone is not going to take $100,000,000 in potential sales lighlty. ARRIS definitely does not. . .My point of view, from the information that I have heard, is that AEC was a third party package picked up by ADESK. Its development has not, in any way, shape or form, made the advances that ACAD has. I have therefore referred to it as their stepchild. I would presume that MEC is next. . .I also understand that ACAD is limited by DOS. That does not mean, however, that I should become a DBASE II programmer, a Lotus programmer, a LISP programmer, a C programmer, and a BASIC programmer to get it to do what it can do. Few, if any, Architects and Engineers, want to become computer experts. They just want to design and draw. Some of them have learned more because they had no choice or had the interest, as I did, as a hobby. Others can buy 3rd party software, which is less supported than the alternative CAD programs. . .Craig. . ..

Dave: P.S. The 386 did have 2M of extra memory without 3d and 4M for the 3d modeling. It also had a 40M hard disk. But then, mine has those things to make ACAD do what I want it to do also. If anyone wants to network ACAD, I don't think their task would be any easier than using XENIX. Ask Dave Baldwin. Craig. .