I downloaded the demo last night, and am trying it out. I am looking at some of the differences, and there are a few that I have found, but I am just now getting a chance to look at it.
I was able to open up a drawing and save it down that I normally would have had to use TrueView on, and that was pretty nice.
I noticed that the laptop seemed to run a little slower, but it was probably due to this laptop being several years old.
I am going to run the Intellicad version for a few weeks, and then possibly try the embedded Autocad version, and see which one I like better.
My 2008 is running great, but I know some of my clients are using newer versions, and I don't want to get so far behind that I end up having to pay the full upgrade price in another year or so.
I will bet you prefer the Autocad over Intellicad. It really comes down to the cost/value ratio.
Just add an aerial image as a backdrop and try to work.
Does it not play nice with aerial images?
I have not tried the latest release, but last year and the year before I gave it a try and found that I could not work with aerial images loaded. It was painfully slow and there were some display issues.
I called into Carlson support and tinkered with some settings and couldn't ever get it to work to my satisfaction.
It was however very close to being what I would consider ready for "production work". I will check it out again this next winter.
Microsurvey + IntelliCad don't like our geotiffs - 350+ Mb's.
The best way to use them I have found is to freeze the layer they are on.
I imagine Carlson suffers similar fate given the same engine.
I tried the AutoCad version of MsCad and it was like chalk and cheese. As mentioned it comes to $$'s.
