The Resurrection of the Digitizing Tablet
Yes, I know that the 36" x 48" Summagrid IV digitizing tablet I use is remarkably old technology. I was reminded of that fact the other day when I fired it up to digitize a few features on a map and ... no workee. Checked the status light on the board. It was getting power but not recognizing the cordless cursor. Okay, maybe the batteries are dead, right? So I stick three new AAA cells in it. Nada.
It's looking as if the tablet or cursor is down for the count. A quick scan of the internet for anyone who still sells this old stuff turns up a guy who lists a used Summagrid IV, same size, for $900. That's a bit rich for my taste, but he's in Austin, Texas just 15 minutes away from me.
I drag all the parts over to his shop to see what is on the fritz. Fifteen minutes later, I was out of there with a working tablet again. The punchline? I'd forgotten that the cursor takes lithium batteries and that alkaline cells won't work in it. Doh!
I'd make some snide comment about getting into the 21st century, but work with too many folks still using DOS machines, 48GX collectors, V.12 cad and other such antiques that turn out good work daily to think there is anything wrong with utilizing older technology.
One of my favorite comments overheard was when a newly hired C.E. told the boss he needed to shell out for LDD back when everybody else in the office was running Autocad 14. He assured her she could screw up fast enough with what she already had.
I guess I'm getting a bit fossilized myself, as my robot is 12 year old technology. No worries, would rather get 100% out of 10 year old equipment than 10% out of brand new stuff. While everyone else is in the learning curve we can be out working.
Yes, definitely old technology
> I'd make some snide comment about getting into the 21st century, but work with too many folks still using DOS machines, 48GX collectors, V.12 cad and other such antiques that turn out good work daily to think there is anything wrong with utilizing older technology.
Yes, it's definitely old technology, but one of my career goals is to never use LDD and to spend as little time as possible learning and relearning software. That has been one of the best features of Star*Net, for example: the common functionality of successive releases meant that the relearning curve wasn't much at all.
I have to think that part of the reason why the actual quality of some of the land surveying work I see is relatively low is that so much time and mental energy gets spent on just figuring out how to operate complicated systems that not that much is left over for the real work that matters. Naturally, this view could change. :>
Yes, definitely old technology
I have an embarrassment of riches in the persons of two local computer guys who can perform miracles with old hardware, as well as newer stuff. They put a new screen on a TDS Ranger 133 (on the understanding I was paying for the parts and labor if it didn't work afterward, which it did) as well as a Recon for another friend. They have NOS parts for 386 and 486 machines, and even can work on ancient Grid computers, some still in use by a few diehard government folks.
I walk into their shop and the work area is packed to the rafters with tubs full of parts, with masking tape labels describing the contents. I wish I could get that organized in my workshop, as it looks like a music store exploded.
Yes, definitely old technology
YES, I HAVE STILL TO SEE A SYSTEM AS EASY AND FAST AS ACAD 13 WITH TABLET-I USED TO ROCK WITH THAT SUCKER--TDD
Yes, definitely old technology
> > I'd make some snide comment about getting into the 21st century, but work with too many folks still using DOS machines, 48GX collectors, V.12 cad and other such antiques that turn out good work daily to think there is anything wrong with utilizing older technology.
>
> Yes, it's definitely old technology, but one of my career goals is to never use LDD and to spend as little time as possible learning and relearning software. That has been one of the best features of Star*Net, for example: the common functionality of successive releases meant that the relearning curve wasn't much at all.
>
> I have to think that part of the reason why the actual quality of some of the land surveying work I see is relatively low is that so much time and mental energy gets spent on just figuring out how to operate complicated systems that not that much is left over for the real work that matters. Naturally, this view could change. :>
I wish I had that option. Unfortunately, the IT guy "updated" AutoCAD to the 2007 version a few months ago because the license expired. There is a definite learning curve between the 2004 and 2007 versions. Besides productivity going way down, my work computer has a hard time with it as far as performance goes. It's a P4 3.2 and AutoCAD 2007 is bloated and too much for it.
I spent many an hour tracing contours off paper copy on a large digitizer table.
You may want to give "heads up digitizing" a try someday. Scan the drawing to an image file and insert the image into the drawing. Once you index the image you simply trace it on screen.
Peter Lazio
> You may want to give "heads up digitizing" a try someday. Scan the drawing to an image file and insert the image into the drawing. Once you index the image you simply trace it on screen.
Well, for my small office, I'm skeptical that I'll ever have a large-format scanner, but I'll keep that thought in mind. At the local reprographics place, I think I pay about $12 for a scan of a 24" x 36" original, which itself isn't that much, but the time needed to send drawing over and retrieve CD is.
Well
We have an old sumasketch that collects dust. Once I got my copier/printer/scanner, I simply scan the image of the map, I scale if need be, then digitize with carlson 2008 with the acad oem engine. It's high tech with low tech costs.
Kris
The price tag?
>Once I got my copier/printer/scanner, I simply scan the image of the map, I scale if need be, then digitize with carlson 2008 with the acad oem engine.
Just out of curiosity, how much did a scanner with the other functions that would handle 24" x 36" documents (or larger) cost?
