Speed - Bricscad V9 vs. Autocad 2002
I have been using Autocad 2002 for a while (since 2002, in fact). I like some of the new features of Bricscad, and from time to time I have downloaded the trial version to check it out. V9 seems much more stable and usable than previous releases, and some day I would like to change over.But for now, amazingly, Autocad 2002 is still a lot faster. Simple things, like the QSAVE command, opening a file (especially one with several XREFs in it, as many of mine are) and running LISP commands (which I use a lot of) are noticeably slower. Also there is just a bit less snappiness in many operations such as panning, moving things, etc.This is not to complain, as I think Bricscad is a great product at a great price. But for me, speed in everyday operations is the most important thing. New features, etc. all take a back seat to that. If I have to wait an extra 10 seconds every time I open a file, it is not worth it to me to switch programs.It makes me wonder -- does Autodesk have some secret in their code that makes saving a file or opening a file so much faster? What accounts for the differences in these basic operations? As much as anything, this is a plea to Bricsys to devote resources to speed as they continue to develop the software. Look at the 10 most used commands and operations, and make those as fast as possible! At least as fast as Autocad, and maybe faster if you can!Thank you...
Comments
-
Not very often we see a real speed comparison. We all love speed, but I would prize stability more highly if that was the tradeoff. I have to admit the odd wait does not add greatly to the time of a job, it sometimes intrudes on train of thought and that's worse.Few of mine take 10 seconds to open, I find some files from Acad users often unnecessarily large - perhaps they don't notice because they run faster in Acad. I also wonder if files run better on the software in which they were created, even though .dwg is the common medium.Lisp routines can be great time savers, but lisp itself is not renouned as a fast medium. For me that speed is not a problem.Autocad has had that partial save thing for a long time. I found it gave files odd/misleading save times, but works well and adds speed.When I adopted Icad (in 98) I thought even if it is not quite as "good" as Acad it has all the basics and will have more chance to improve if I support it. I feel my support has been rewarded and Bricsys especially are a pleasure to support.
0 -
You should determine what suits your needs based on your own criteria and weighting, however, I will add comments from my experience.I have been using Bricscad for the v8 and v9 series. There have been several performance improvements throughout this time. Also, the developers have solved any significant bottleneck I have identified and reported within a short time. I do tend to run with auto save off when working with large files and manually QSAVE frequently at my convenience and I do not open and close many drawings per hour. I tend to have one or three open and work on those for several hours. For my style of working there is a drawing tab DRX addon mentioned in this posting very useful.The speed the development team solves most identified problems is a great feature of the product. When I have encountered problems that were not immediately solved I have been given a general timeline for the solution. So I would list the open style of communication as yet another feature.All in all I am a very happy Bricscad user.Regards.
0 -
I agree with most of what both of these members have said in response to my original post -- stability is the most important of course; support is important and I understand that Bricsys is good at this; performance depends on many factors such as how many files are open, etc.As I said, I wasn't criticizing, just stating my criteria for making a switch -- that after stability, speed is more important to me than new features. And I do still wonder why the speed that Autocad had in 2002 cannot be equalled now in 2009 by a product that has been in continuous development since then. I am not a programmer and it is certainly more complicated than I imagine, but just wondering if there is an answer (perhaps from someone at Bricsys).From a potential user's point of view, the speed difference is the most important thing right now. I understand that marketing concerns for a new release dictate that new features be added (that always sounds better than speed increases) but I still vote for speed.Thanks again!
0 -
I have to admit speed is right up there for me too.ALL software users have learned to take boasts of speed improvements with some scepticism and additional features often make a nice first impression, but offer little more for me at least. You can very often make bigger productivity leaps (or aleady had) using lisp or other customisation.However, such a lot of Intellicad development has been about maintaining compatibility with .dwg and indeed it seems to me much of Acad's "development" and/or ultimate reason for persuading its users to upgrade, has always been about keeping up with the current file format.Acad's upgrade business was a very large part of my choice of Icad - dammit, if I have to upgrade let it be for a real improvement or at least a reasonable cost rather than some elusive file format which changes for little apparent benefit except to shift the goalposts of compatibility, along with a few party tricks.For that I am willing to pay a little speed penalty if that's what it takes, and my business depends on this software.There is already a comment somewhere in the recent history here from Bricsys along the lines of speed being a next priority and again this is one software co which does not make idle promises.
0