Forum dedicated to drawing translation issues.

Moderator: David A. Giesselman

#52636 by Ted B
Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:58 am
Anyone heard anything new on the .Dwg controversy? I saw Mark's e-mail....and it doesn't sound good.

I've already lost-out of work/contracts where the client insisted the actual CAD drawings be Autocad-native format, not .dwg or .dxf conversions. Not having access to .Dwg drawings or their conversions would just make business even tougher to find or do. All the engineers and consultants here typically exchange in .Dwg-format for construction documents, and for shop drawings they're practically universal. Even the manufacturers' catalogs typically only have .Dwg symbols-available....a few offer .Dxf as an alternate.

It's bad-enough that Autodesk/Autocad have a near-defacto monopoly on CAD as it is. Most draftsmen and CAD technicians around here (Princeton NJ) are Autocad-only, making hiring part-timers or freelancers difficult.

Currently the New Jersey DCA requires .Pdf files submitted on a CD for Final Record Drawings for bldg. code plan reviews...even if the originals are hand-drawn. And older paper drawing source-documents have to be scanned into .Pdf too. At-least .Pdf-format relatively-open source and available. I can't afford the expense of "buying" Autocad, nor the time to re-learn Architectural Desktop, just to do Government-work or client-mandated work contractually requiring .Dwg/.Dxf submittals and record copies.

Fending-off the desire for "free" BIM is difficult enough with clients without losing .Dwg-format battle as-well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

About DataCAD Forum

The DataCAD Forum is a FREE online community we provide to enhance your experience with DataCAD.

We hope you'll visit often to get answers, share ideas, and interact with other DataCAD users around the world.


Software for AEC Professionals Since 1984