#CAD Camera history
10 messages in this thread
Duff – can you fill me in on a few details about CAD Camera, please? Mainly,
what was it — an overlay program like CAD Overlay, or an automatic
vectorizer, like Draftsman?
How much did it cost, what kind of hardware did it require, and when as it
on the market?
Thanks!!
Dave
Dave,
CAD/camera was released in UK June 1985 with CAD/camera 2 in August 1986.
It cost UKL 3,000 but CAD/camera 2 was issued free to registered users.
CAD/camera was a software only product designed to take a bit mapped raster
image as input and generate AutoCAD compatible vector data.
It ran on either the WANG PIC tm or IBM XT/AT with Datacopy scanner. 512
Kb memory was required.
I can send you photocopies of Autodesk UK press releases if you want them,
eithe fax or snail mail.
Andrew
Andrew – thanks for the info! It's for an article that I have to have done
the day before yesterday <g>. I found a very old CADalyst (Nov '86) that has
a review of version 2 by the inimitable Ralph G. It listed for US $3,000
(man, they really zing you guys, don't they!?) and sounded like it had some
good features; e.g., text and solids recognition, conversion of plines of any
width to zero-width and (in version 1, dropped in version 2), an eraser that
let you clean up the rasters before you converted.
It also ran on the NEC APC III and the dear old TI Professional (ah,
memories…)
Do you know why it was dropped? Ralph was not really impressed — he gave it
a limited recommendation and likened it to a text editor without word wrap.
One of his closing comments was:
"When low cost scanners and storage devices, high-speed microprocessors and
intelligent software achieve this goal [of creating usable digital drawing
files with acceptable levels of both detail and waste at a reasonable
speed and cost], there's no reason CAD/camera should not be part of the
solution."
Dave
PS – I received the latest newsletter as I was moving my office — it's here
somewhere, I know it is <g>… How about a contribution on a) drawing
conversion processes or b) "What IS an AutoCAD Text Editor"?
Dave,
Our newsletter review of CAD/camera at the time was brief:
"Not likely to have us rushing for our cheque books"
and yes, pricing structure in the UK is very different, although the bad
old days of software prices being converted at the rate of 1 US$ = 1 UKL
seem to have passed.
R11 386 is currently priced at UKL 2500 and UKL 2900 with AME.
What is the current exchange rate? I think we pay more here in the UK. Oh,
the joys of a large domestic market keeping prices down! With 40% of
AutoCAD sales in Europe, and a large EEC market just around the corner,
maybe we will eventually be paying *LESS* than you.
Andrew
Dave,
Based on today's exchange rate UKL 1 =US$ 1.7979
AutoCAD costs in the UK are:
ACAD R11 386 US$ 4495 ACAD R11 with AME 5214
Andrew
Andrew, Dave, Ralph,
two cents from Germany:
Listprice R11 386 DM 11.300 = US$ 6848
R11 w. AME DM 13.350 = US$ 8090
Don't ask me why.
Dietmar
My gawd… that's terrible! And it looks like it's even worse in Germany!!
Dave
Interesting…the price in US was only $3,000. CAD/camera was released in
1986 as Autodesk's second software release after AutoCAD. It attempted to
do intelligent conversions. CAD/camera 2 would place raster groupings of 40
pixels or smaller on their own layer; these were considered text or small
blocks. CAD/camera was responsible for the DXB format, which is still
refered to in the Printer Plotter ADI driver! It was pulled off the market
in Christmas 1987 (I think) after disappointing sales. One figure I heard
was only 1,000 copies.
Regards, Ralph G.
Ralph – unfortunately, that seems to be a typical markup between the US and
the UK… one dollar equals one pound sterling! Happens with compact discs
too.
I wonder what happened to the technology/code in CAD/camera 2… judging from
your review, it could do stuff that the better ones currently available still
can't pull off!
Break a leg tomorrow!
Dave
Ralph – Disappointing sales aside, removal of CAD/camera from the market
reflected our recognition that to be truly useful it'd need quite a bit of
further development, using more of our resources than we were able to pour
into it at the time. So, rather than continue to sell a product that users
found less than satisfactory, we decided to shelve it.