| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 46955 | 2004-07-10 23:36:00 | TurboCad | Thomas01 (317) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 251427 | 2004-07-10 23:36:00 | Does anybody else useTurboCad? I decided I must switch from my old drafting program (DCWIN) which is an excellent program but only 2D and only allows 8 character file names etc. (Yes it's outdated). TurboCad looks good but I do find it is the sort of program where the expert could save the beginner many hours giving advice. Some functions took me days to work out whereas in DCWIN (and its DOS predecessor) the functions all seem pretty well self explanatory - well they do if you have 40 odd years pushing pencils up drawing boards. I would like to hear from other users particularly like me you are retired and do it for fun. |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 251428 | 2004-07-11 00:55:00 | Hi Thomas, I have used Autocad with a fair bit of success, but found turbocad a bit harder. To br fair, I didn't give it a fair go, but now I don't have access to autocad anymore, is this the best of the cheap draughting programmes? | Curious George (3535) | ||
| 251429 | 2004-07-11 03:55:00 | Hi - I bought Turbo-cad after using DC for Dos and DCWIN. I am using DCWIN again - even with all it's limitations, it is not so hampered by the operator's limitations. So, for me the Trius product is much easier. (Autocad USED to be good, but it has got so bloated, it seems unlikely anyone could learn all the tricks before there are 5 more versions out.) Sadly, Turbo-Cad is uninstalled and thrown in the cupboard, Draft Choice rides the range again at this spot. What a waste of money, but it is me, not Turbocad to blame. R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 251430 | 2004-07-11 08:46:00 | Hi Thomas I've used TurboCAD since Version 2 and now have Version 5 on my old Windows 95 system. The latest two versions seem to be getting heavily into photo-quality rendering, which you may or may not want. TurboCAD Designer might be best if, like me, you mainly just want to do line drawings. I've had no experience in conventional drafting but have found TurboCAD brilliant to use, except that recently I've been importing finely-detailed bitmaps and drawing over them, and it really S-L-O-W-S down when I do that, taking up to ten seconds to redraw the screen after every mouse-click when drawing a multi-line. Maybe I just need heaps more memory. I think that the TurboCAD programmers should have stuck with a high-quality line-drawing and fill-in program, and separated the fancy rendering for those who want it. I haven't been there for a long time, but IMSI's TurboCAD forum has usually been a brilliant place to find out more: www.imsisoft.com Somewhere on the IMSI site they used to have the file CompleteGuideToTurboCADv4.pdf, a very useful 1,584,183 byte download that gives lots of basics for using TurboCAD. |
Deebee (1184) | ||
| 251431 | 2004-07-11 10:48:00 | Recently did an investigation of the various cad programs and in the end Turbo cad was as good as any for the price. The program had some very annoying things until you understood it but basicaly they all do because they each have a different way of approaching things. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 251432 | 2004-07-11 20:57:00 | I've used Turbocad for years (I currently have v 6) and find it very useful. I don't have any experience of higher-level pgms like autocad, but certainly find it much better than the cheapies. I've used it for all sorts of things - house design details, furniture design, creating accurate templates, etc etc. You do need to understand it's little quirks, but for the price I think it can't be beat. You can also import and export from/to DXF (autocad) and other formats. Tony Bacon |
tbacon_nz (865) | ||
| 251433 | 2004-07-11 23:49:00 | Intellicad is another relatively low cost yet powerful Cad program. I tried it a few years ago when it allowed me to do a few things that AutoCAD LT couldn't. I now I have an addon for LT which lets it do everything I need. |
neddy (2192) | ||
| 251434 | 2004-07-13 00:58:00 | I couldn't agree more DCWIN is such a magnificent 2D program. I am amazed the way the technical press including PCWorld have completely ignored it. I even wrote an article on it but PCWorld didn't even acknowledge my effort. I am getting used to the quirks of TurboCad but it is a bit of a devil to learn. I am realy glad that my main reason for buying it was to exercise the old brain which after nearly 50 years designing was beginning to go soggy. But anybody who want a GOOD EASY program for 2D should look no further than DCWIN. I wonder why TRIUS refuse to update it. | Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 251435 | 2004-07-13 01:13:00 | >I do find it is the sort of program where the expert could save the beginner many hours giving advice. I don't know about the latest version, but my manual takes what seems to me to be a very good tutorial approach that guides you through the various functions in a clear manner. Tony Bacon |
tbacon_nz (865) | ||
| 251436 | 2004-07-13 01:23:00 | Thomas01 - I don't know why TRIUS stopped DraftChoice in it's tracks so long ago, ther e may have been a mangement change that saw the smart staff leave or ? ? ? Perhaps their efforts at 3D may have left them with egg on their faces, and they just got out of CAD - it appears they have found a small niche and are happy in it. DraftChoice is like another small, clever program that I recall from years ago, Quikmenu - there were some pretty smart people 'round before it became fashionable to put your people onto making programs pretty (And bloated) There doesn't even appear to be an open source alternative to DC of equal ease and power, very strange. Good luck with TurboCad. (But I detest it's registration folderol that IMSI inflicted on us.) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||