Interoperability Vectorworks (mac) - Autocad (pc, of course...)

[Jod]

Hi, I'm new here.

I'll be getting rid of my Windows pc desktop and laptop some time next year, so I'm looking at working with Autocad on either Boot Camp or VM Ware Fusion/Parallells, OR or I'll have to find a native CAD program that can work with dwg files back- and forward: from Autocad (on pc) to ... on Mac and from ... on Mac to Autocad on pc.

The thing is: I do work of my own and work in an office. Now I have Autocad at home, which is the same at work, so no problems there. It's just that when I go to Mac, it would be nice to still be able to work with the 2D and 3D files from work (Autocad) on a native Cad program on my Mac...

So, Vectorworks caught my eye.

Is there anyone who is in a similar situation, or anyone who has experience with this ?

Thanks in advance!

Jo D.

architect,

Belgium

[brudgers]

In my opinion, translating a file from acad to vectorworks back to acad on a regular basis will most likely be a disappointing experience.

Autocad files imported into Vectorworks are not particularly pleasant to work with.

Likewise for Vectorworks files imported into autocad.

Autocad can provide a servicable background to Vectorworks and Vectorworks can provide one for Autocad.

But trying to work on the same drawing in both is likely to be frustrating.

If you use acad on a daily basis, you need acad.

[mike m oz]

I concur with brudgers. Converting back and forward is not a good idea. Choose one program and use it throughout.

[VincentCuclair]

If you only work with 2D it is possible but kind of frustating after a while. If you work with any kind of intelligent 3D elements in either program most, if not all, 3D info will disappear in the conversion either way. This counts for all Apps available at present.

I don't know how you work and in what way but if you can split a project up into different parts and work with each respective part in its respective program (till the end) you can reference the files from one progam into the other and use them as a trace which updates accordingly.....but this requires good planning and management.

At my office some work with AutoCAD some with ArchiCAD and one with VW, this is not an effective way to work! Fortunately the people working with AutoCAD work only in 2D so it makes it a little easier.......

Edited September 14, 2009 by Vincent C

[mike mcneil]

I agree with mike_m_oz and brudgers on this. Although you can easily import and easily export, at least when the capabilities of export are fully understood, it would be easiest if you were to stick with one program rather than switching back and forth.

I come from a background of using Acad for about 10 years and recently switched to a Mac and Vectorworks about a year and half ago. While using VW can be a bit frustrating at first, it becomes easier and much more enjoyable than Acad, IMHO. I have been using Acad through VM Ware Fusion and it runs rather well. Although I do have to say there are some regeneration/screen refresh issues while doing so. This may due to the fact that I only run it on a MacBook Pro and the graphics cards just aren't as powerful as in a Mac Pro. And, I don't use Boot Camp. It is just not as snappy as running it natively in Windows. I really only use Acad in Fusion for checking drawings prior to sending them to consultants.

My biggest complaint with using VW though are the regeneration in 2D and the 3D openGL refresh times. Using say rhino or Sketchup openGL screen refreshes are quite fast, even for quite large amounts geometry. I like to see similar speeds with in VW. With the incorporation of Parasolids hopefully that will happen. Secondly, I find it annoying to visually search for classes (layers in Acad) in class management dialogs. Something similar to Acad's layer filtering would be great but, that is my personal preference.

[Kool Aid]

Another vote from the North Pole.

The core issue here is called ?the lexical problem?: each program has its own lexicon, into which, somewhat incorrectly, but in a relevant fashion, yours truly includes handling of alphanumeric data.

Syntactic issues are solvable, lexical aren't. IFC is an attempt to provide a uniform lexical system, in which each program can use its own syntax.

However, this approach must operate at the Lowest Common Denominator principle. If, say, OmnibusCAD can't handle NURBS and ScalarWorks has an ingenious, but proprietary, NURBS system, the programs can only communicate with 3D-triangles.

So, a NURBS-surface is deconstructed into 3D-triangles ? but there's no way to reconstruct a NURBS from those. It just fell off the wall and all King's men and all King's horses? Be it IFC, DWG or any of the fancy, unintelligent 3D-formats.

Each conversion loses any high-level data created by the ?better? program. Conversions become mumbling conversations and hand-gesturing?

(For the IFC-experts out there: yes, I know there are budding features? Going to keep breathing, though.)

[brudgers]

Neutral Document formats are always going to be lowest common denominator.

If you want to incorporate the best features of multiple documents from diverse sources, then you need a compound document model which allows data to remain in its native form.

Of course that's against club rules.

Most definately.

[IanH]

360ing between versions is risky enough, let alone between applications and vendors.

[brudgers]

OLE is arguably a successful implementation of compound document technology.

The key is in allowing the application which created the data (server) to manage it within the host application (client).

There's no logical reason that a compound document cannot have three dimensions rather than two.

That's ultimately where building modeling needs to go.

[Kool Aid]

OLE is arguably a successful implementation of compound document technology.

Maybe, but most definitaly you haven't got a clue about the issue at hand. Your Sweet Lord, Sri Bill Gates, has dafidantly not resolved the lexical issues about 3D CAD and BIM translations. Difadyntla not.

[brudgers]

I don't think I said or even suggested that Microsoft had solved 3d Cad and BIM.

What I believe is that a system using compound documents based on an application client server model (and not an LCD neutral format) is the way to build a robust and flexible BIM.

Within an application the contents of every container need not be in the applications native format.

Most definitely.

[_c_]

most definitaly .... dafidantly not resolved the.... Difadyntla not.

ROFL

No. Is really a pain to switch applications. We are running MicroStation and Vectorworks in the office, which is something I'd so gladly do without. Vectorworks is highly graphical, while Mst is not. There is no way to exchange files well. This might apply to ACAD as well, as far as I know, which never stroke me as particularly imposing in the layout and graphic area.

orso

Edited September 16, 2009 by _c_