Jump to content

scubohuntr

Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About scubohuntr

  • Rank
    Greenhorn
  1. quote: Originally posted by Donald Wardlaw: << It's nice to know that somebody really likes VectorWorks.>> This is really over the top, an extreme, not too rational opinion. Calm down. Exactly what is over the top about this opinion? I am sincerely glad that there are people out there who like VectorWorks, just as I am sincerely glad that there are people out there who like Macintosh's "interface". "Over the top" and "extreme" would be if, say, I had implied that people who use VectorWorks by choice have "learning issues"; i.e. they are just too dim to use anything else. But I wouldn't do that. That would be insulting to people who happen to be in the exact situation that VectorWorks is designed for. As I pointed out, I have used several other CAD programs at a professional level, and this one simply bites. If I were designing theatrical lighting or willing to let my software make all my decisions for me, I would probably have no problems with it. That is not what I do, though. I need flexibility, and VectorWorks just doesn't have it. The IT department here is run by Macintosh disciples, so they don't see a problem, and won't consider changing. They see nothing unusual in adapting the way they do things to fit the constraints of their software. As I said, my only purpose in posting this was to let the powers that be know that not everyone is happy. I hoped I would get some useful tips (thanks, P Retondo!), and expected some insults and some "how dare you criticize the Great and Wonderful VectorWorks" (thanks, Donald!). I am not trying to convert the Faithful to a real CAD package; this is really just a rant. "historically, first issues of new versions have problems." I have been attempting to use this kludge since MiniCAD 5.x. This is hardly a new version problem. I keep hoping there will be less glitz and more substance with each new revision, and have yet to see anything to indicate that the programmers at Nemetschek, or Diehl before them, even care.
  2. DaveHi50- It's nice to know that somebody really likes VectorWorks. I agree, AutoCAD can be frustrating. It has a very non-intuitive interface and extrememly cryptic error codes; but at least it HAS error codes. I've always compared AutoCAD to driving a Lamborghini- you've got all the power you'll ever need, but you give up comfort and gas mileage, and God help you if you ever have mechanical problems. VectorWorks, on the other hand, is an electric car with orthopedic seats custom built for Danny DeVito- it'll probably get you where you need to go, as long as it's not too far, and for a few people it will be comfortable, but there is no extra power, no elegance, and no flexibility. But as long as your situation fits what the designers intended exactly, it will work very well.
  3. P Retondo- Thanks. I'll try that. I wish the documentation would say something about it, instead of just bleating about how you can put different scales on different layers, without saying why a person would want to. [This message has been edited by scubohuntr (edited 06-05-2001).]
  4. I have been using VectorWorks (MiniCAD in the beginning) for three years now. In fifteen years of working on various platforms, I have never encountered a more inscrutable and user-hostile interface. Maybe there is something about it that makes sense to Macintosh users; it certainly leaves me cold. I have tried, really tried to give it a fair chance. Every time I give it another opportunity, it bites me again. I have used several different CAD packages, from shareware to FastCAD to AutoCAD, and I have never encountered one with the crippling limitations of VectorWorks. This morning, I spent four hours trying to figure out how to scale one of the completely useless symbols so it would show up as more than a dot on my drawing (after several hours of figuring out how to access the symbols in the first place). No luck. The help system is entirely useless, as is the documentation (what is the use of having two systems that simply mirror each other? The only discernable difference between the online "help" and the "documentation" is that the online version has no pictures!). Oh, there are paragraphs that prattle on about hybrid symbols and inserting symbols in walls. All I wanted to do was put in a benchmark symbol on a small map. Apparently, that is beyond the capabilities of this program. This is far from the first time I have run up against absolute impossibilities trying to do what would be commonplace no-brainers in any other program. Some patterned fills, for example, send my PostScript print files off into limbo, never to be seen again. There seems to be no way to get a flush line terminal. I understand that the main audience of this package is architects and theater designers. However, must it be entirely unuseable for anyone else? Apparently there is no money in the IT budget for real CAD, so I will have to limp along on this kludge for the foreseeable future. I don't expect that my rant will ever have any impact or generate any useful response, but I hate to have somebody in Marketing thinking that quiet customers are happy customers. I guess I will have to do any actual drafting in ARCView. Although it is nearly as bad at GIS as VectorWorks is at CAD, at least it has some useable symbols and functions. I apologize for the rant; and you can delete it if you wish, but at least it is far more civil than it was in its first three edits.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...