I’m at my wits end and I need some help. I figured I could find some smart, helpful folks on this board.
I am the CADD Manager in a very small engineering firm and am in charge of updating our programs and keeping them running correctly. The problem is that the custom menus our office uses are cobbled together from old R12-R14 LISP programs (before I get any flack… I did not write them, I inheirited them) that came from who-knows-where over the years. I am able to do basic reprogramming and have sucessfully added symbols, commands, etc. to them over the past couple of years, and they work (mostly) just fine in AutoCAD 2000 (yes, yes, I know, hang with me for a sec).
Last year we purchased AutoCAD 2004 and I was expecting these menus to work just dandily ('cause AutoDesk’s website said they would and all), but noooo, the most important part of the menu doesn’t work at all.
If any of you Dopers out there would like to help, I will gladly post more details upon request. It’s a rather long and complex problem and I’d rather wait until I get a few volunteers for before I take the time to write it all out.
check out the very helpful people in the technical forums:
or use a newserver:
news://discussion.autodesk.com
the “customization” forum is full of Good Samaritans who can solve any problem you ask 'em . Just explain your problem, and see how much good advice you get.
And now may I ask:
[beginning of a somewhat relevant rant:]
What benefits do you get from Acad2004?Will using it increase your profits?
And maybe you can help me solve a top-secret issue: How many people are still using older versions of Acad–R14 and R2000?
I’ve tried to qet some info on this, but nobody is talking.It’s like trying to find out the secret formula for Coca-cola.
Over two-thirds of my clients send me dwg files in R14 format.The other third use R2000.I have only once received a file in R2004 , and had to ask the architect to save it is r2000 for me.
As far as I’m concerned, my office works just fine right now,my clients are satisfied, and we make a profit.So we have no need to "up"grade , now or in the future. Every "up"grade is really a DOWNgrade–because it leaves you TOTALLY helpless and unable to work efficiently for at least a week.And then you waste another 3 or 4 weeks sweating hard trying to fix your lisps and menus , just so you can crawl back to the regular work schedule you had before you "up"graded.
I know of people who missed deadlines, and lost clients because they were busy "up"grading. And nobody has ever told me about the new contracts and larger profits they make by upgrading.
I think it’s perfectly relevent rant. There are two reasons for our upgrade; 1) the software is cheaper for an upgrade and AutoDesk was going to stop letting 2000 users upgrade after the first of the year 2004, we would have had to buy two full seats instead of two upgrade seats. (like I said, we are a small, tiny, company) and 2) because Autodesk was going to stop producing add-on’s for 2000 like the Object Enablers for future Architectural Desktop releases.
I think more people than AutoDesk let on use older versions of their software. I happen to like 2000, but 2004 has some pretty cool abilities. I know at least one of the drafting contractors we work with still uses R14, but I also think he’s an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud.
We work with Architects who use the newest versions of Architectural Desktop (I’m not sure which version is the most current, 6 maybe?) and it is necessary for us to be able to at least see the toilets and stuff even if we can’t manipulate the data associated with them. 2004 is able to open and use drawings with AD enabled objects without me having to do anything to them, which saves me time, frustration and energy.
And trust me, having to open, explode, purge and save-as Arch. Desktop drawings so I can use them in 2000 is a big pain in the rump. Even the Architect we work with most won’t remember to save them as 2000 before they send them to me and they send me drawings 3-4 times a week. But that is a rant for The Pit.
I would much rather be able to use the $4000 worth of software that I convinced my boss we needed instead of f**king with conversions all the time.
I also work in a tiny Engineer’s office and this is exactly why we switched to 2004. I resented having to make the move but self-involved Architects and AutoDesk’s habit of breaking backwards compatability whenever it suits them convinced me it was better not to be caught behind. We only deal with 2 people using R14, one’s a steel fabricator and the other a landscape architect. Most of the rest of our clients/colleagues have settled on R2000 except for the aforementioned architects.
Sorry I can’t help with your LISP problem, we have little need for custom scripts so my scripting skills are only rudimentary. I keep meaning to brush them up but can never find the time :(.
There are two reasons for our upgrade; 1) the software is cheaper for an upgrade and AutoDesk was going to stop letting 2000 users upgrade after the first of the year 2004, we would have had to buy two full seats instead of two upgrade seats. (like I said, we are a small, tiny, company) and 2) because Autodesk was going to stop producing add-on’s for 2000 like the Object Enablers for future Architectural Desktop releases.