Instability In Extensive Xref Use & AutoCAD limitations

[ChrisJR]

Is anyone else experiencing repeated crashes, drawing recovery problems, instability, associative hatch problems etc etc when using xrefs extensively? because it appears to us that AutoCAD is just not upto the task of working in a team environment where sharing upto date constantly updated drawing information via xrefs is of paramount importance, using MASTER model files, components added as xrefs so a lot of small drawing files to load( have to use xrefs because of the limitations of blocks not updating across a series of drawings as xrefs do. The company is seriously considering moving to Microstation, which we've always rated far lower than AutoCAD until, but due to a few £30m projects landing on our desks suddenly a team working environment is required and we find AutoCAD just can't handle team working. Our conclusion is that AutoCAD is OK for small jobs, one man jobs,or if your going to work in a team but drawing isolated, inefficiently handling project information by manually updating drawing file after drawing file because using Xrefs is so unstable and blocks are so limited. We also consider that Autodesk have spent too long and too many resources chasing the 'Internet Enabled' red herring at the expense of solid stable performance. Just look down any AutoCAD forum to see the number of crashes, unhandled exceptions etc etc, you can't pin them all on the OS or unstable drivers. Our network is managed by an external company who's prime concern is maintaining a stable platform, AutoCAD's the unstable element each of our 50 workstations crashing out at least 10, 15 times a day. A large company might find the Intranet / Internet working useful but if they've run into the same problems we have I can't see it swaying their judgement over stability and solid file sharing that is attributed to Microstation. And Idrop, nice idea but hardly that useful, just internet enabled blocks, as the files aren't xrefs what happens when you've used idropped elements through your drawings and in the meantime your manufacturers update their designs, redefine the blocks in all the hundreds of drawings produced or re-idrop them all. Hatching is another Autodesk faliure, they just can't get it right, right down to the inability to permanently set associative hatch off because it causes so many problems, especially hatching against xrefs. Those who have tried will know what I mean, you know the tick box in Tools, Options, etc Associative Hatch, you untick it and it still hatches associative. Or what about the tick box for no docking of the Design Center, then what does it do it docks!!. If your wondering which AutoCAD, it's 2002, if anyone's still on R14 or 2000 then you've lost your upgrade path, you know lock in, upgrade when AutoDesk say or pay through the nose. What else? the list is endless. What about chasing the 3d model idea and extracting 2d construction drawings from it, with AutoCAD? what a crock! ADT absolutely no good for construction drawings because without extensive 3rd party add ons the 3d objects just ain't there, like roof facias and gutters. Did anyone else get sucked into buying that totally unusable combination of ADT & Viz 2.1, the drawing link manager fiasco. What a waste of time. Any Comments (Not about the 3d, thats a total red herring, everyone seems pre-occupied with 3d functionality when its the data sharing and stability thats important in a team environment), what I'd really like to know is anyone who is or has experienced the same problems and their solutions and just how they use AutoCAD in a team environment where you've got to share constantly changing design information, which if you didn't use Xrefs then a great deal of unnecessary drawing work takes place and continuity of information is impossible.

 

[mjgroup]

ChrisJR

Its good to hear some well deserved criticism of AutoCAD and its never-ending 'upgrades' which are usually only to incorporate features that only a small percentage of users need. I have occasionally seen 'wish lists' on the Autodesk website and am amazed that the fundamental failings arent mentioned, so the list is obviously tailored to suit whats in the pipeline (or am I too cynical?).
When I first moved to AutoCAD about 4 years ago from GDS (classic), MicroGDS and HP ME10(!), I soon realised that a lot was missing (example: a simple intersect command) and started a list of deficiencies which I called 'AutoCRAP.
It soon filled a page. Trouble is that after 4 years I've customised the toolbars and got used to its limitations. Perhaps that is the problem with a lot of the AutoCAD fans.
Reviewers tend to be a bit like car magazine testers and rarely get down to real world requirements.(Why do so many highly praised cars have nowhere to safely put my sunglasses when I enter a multi storey car park?,....etc.etc.)
MikeN