> There seem to be a lot of things like it will snap to the endpoint of the cross on a point. I guess you can't use crosses. WTF.
The points in Carlson (both ACAD and ICAD) can be blocks, like they were in Pre-LDD Softdesk. If the "cross" in the block you are using is defined by 2 intersecting lines you would only be able to snap to it using the intersection snap. But if you redefine that block so that the point is defined by an "ACAD style" point, and have your PDMODE variable set to 3, you will get an X you can snap to using the node snap. I think.
> ...I do a ton of construction staking and hoping to get some input on calcs for such. Alignments, profiles points etc. What are your thoughts?
For that kind of work the ICAD version of Carlson is a good choice. The non-CAD parts are identical.
> > ...I do a ton of construction staking and hoping to get some input on calcs for such. Alignments, profiles points etc. What are your thoughts?
> For that kind of work the ICAD version of Carlson is a good choice. The non-CAD parts are identical.
It's absolutely a great choice for that workflow.
I've been reading this debate for years, and really should upgrade to one or the other as well.
BUT, it always amazes me that some say it basically does EVERYTHING while just as many say it's totally WORTHLESS.
weird!
The Intellicad version has come a long way from what it was. Most say the current Icad version, 7.2 (I think), is pretty stable. I first used Carlson on the 2004 Survey embedded version & upgrades through 2009 until recently. I purchased the Civil Suite around 2010, but still didn't completely switch over because of Icad issues that I had mostly read about, and sometimes experiences.
I considered upgrading my Carlson Survey 2009 embedded to the recently current embedded, but it was going to cost me around 2k or so, best I remember. Something about every 3 or 4 years Carlson has to switch Acad engines, and there is a big price jump in upgrades.
What it boils down to, you get what you pay for, mostly. The Icad version is the cheapest, embedded is next, and the full blown Acad with Carlson costs the most. I wound up the end of last year buying Autocad 2014 to run the 2014 Civil Suite in. The last version of Autocad I had was version 14, started with 10.
I had hoped to use the Icad version, but I didn't want to wait until all the problems were ironed out. I was upgrading the Suite every year, and wasn't really even using it. I mean, heck, there's problems with Autocad 2014 and Carlson 2014, but tolerable.
I think any one of them will get the job done. You just have to decide how much you can spend versus what the software will do. You could start out with the Icad version, and then if it's not acceptable, add Acad, Map, or C3D, or upgrade to the Embedded. I got pretty good service out of the embedded, but remember there's that big price jump every 3 years or so, based on what Autodesk charges Carlson for the newest engine. I always liked to stay current, but you probably get more bang per $ if you wait 6 years or so to upgrade.
Intellicad is truly an amazing program for the price.
It does nearly everything AutoCAD does, but with it's shares of glitches and frustrations. If you have the time and patience to work through these issues and don't use it on a daily basis, you will think it is the cats meow.
If you rely on CAD on a daily basis and you expect every routine to work flawlessly, and time = $ for you...you will be disappointed.
It comes free with the stand alone Carlson/stand alone AutoCAD package. I have installed it several times and tried it out...wanting to dump AutoCAD, but always end up having to switch back.
It does not handle imagery very well, which I deal with every day.
I wouldn't say this is true for all by any means, but for some, their opinions of IntelliCAD may be based on experiences for several years ago. It's changed a lot in recent years/months.
> ... it always amazes me that some say it basically does EVERYTHING while just as many say it's totally WORTHLESS.
I think it has to do with how you use it. If you are creating fairly large and complex files the ACAD is worth the money. If you are doing mostly calcs, or smallish sketches, the ICAD will do nicely.
> > ... it always amazes me that some say it basically does EVERYTHING while just as many say it's totally WORTHLESS.
> I think it has to do with how you use it. If you are creating fairly large and complex files the ACAD is worth the money. If you are doing mostly calcs, or smallish sketches, the ICAD will do nicely.
:good: I think that sums it up in a nutshell
To me, it's mostly a money issue. I've used both, and was able to get by with the ICAD version. Given the choice, though, I'd go ACAD embedded, and have. It's what I know, like, and am used to.
Ask any of the ICAD users on here - if it didn't cost more for ACAD, would they stick with ICAD?
> Ask any of the ICAD users on here - if it didn't cost more for ACAD, would they stick with ICAD?
I think that some dislike Autodesk enough to do just that. But your point is well taken.
Dislike of AutoDesk is a bias, and has nothing to do with the product performance.
I think that almost all Carlson users would pick embedded ACAD, based on performance and comfort-level (price and bias aside). That's the overall answer to the original question.
People base ICAD, but I have been using it in a productive way since 1998, first with eaglepoint and now with carlson. Sure, there are a few quirky things about it, especially in teh beginning, but it is pretty darn stable now, and will only get better. I have never cared for softdesk, and the more I read about what they do with their customers on these forums, the happier I am that I have nothing to do with them. You give me a choice of the 2 software, I would take ICAD.
It all goes back to what you know, what you have been trained on, what you have used in the past and where your comfort zone is.
In our office we use Microstation and AutoCad based products. The Anygraph guys think AutoCad sucks and the AutoCad Whizes think Mickeystation is for the birds.
Same goes here. The only real issue I see is stability and being able to insert images for the Power Users.
What I do is fairly simple, but does involve heavy use of inserted images, so Intellicad is on the back burner for now. For the HEAVY DUTY drafters that have GOBS of info that they wish to insert by Field To Finish, like the pipeline guys, I am not sure Intellicad is a good answer either.
If you are doing comps and basic plats, Intellicad is a champ. It does well on the smaller topo jobs too. As file size grows, stability decreases. The same is somewhat true for the AutoCad version too, but I can handle 16 MB topos fairly smoothly, if I am patient.
Use what suits you best. Which ever package seems the most intuative to use. Which one is the easiest for you and you are most comfortable with.
Crashes happen with ALL software. Learn to save often. Very often. Doing that, all will work our well with either choice.
Bottom line is the dollars. Is the extra cost worth the time saved by increased stability of the embedded AutoCad version? I think so, but that is simply my opinion.