DraftSight 2D CAD For Linux Beta Available 100
crypton writes "Dassault Systems, (Solidworks) has released their promised Linux version of DraftSight, their free 2D AutoCAD work-alike drafting program (deb and rpm files available). Right now it appears to be 32-bit only but it looks like one of the best Linux CAD alternatives (paid or unpaid) right out of the gate. Also available for PC and Mac."
Cue GIMP-style questions (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
you could draw a pizza box.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps because everything that is made in reality in actuality generally requires plane to be drawn and followed. So a FOSS 2d CAD package can be used by anyone that would also use a spread sheet and word processor, whether it is to draw plane of the future home or changes to their kitchen cupboards.
Re:Cue GIMP-style questions (Score:5, Insightful)
FOSS 2d CAD package
This isn't a FOSS 2d CAD package. It's a proprietary program that you can download at no charge but it requires "activation" within 30 days and once per year thereafter. (I just read the FAQ on their website.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No joke about AutoCad...
Now, I'll pay attention when there is a FOSS program for linux that can do what Dassault Systeme's Catia (Not solid works, Catia.) can do.
Amusingly, Dassault used to release a version of catia for use on Caldera Unix, but they stopped doing so in favor of win32 and win64. A version intended for running on linux should be pretty trivial to cook up then, considering it already has unix-awareness.
*Professional note: I am a professional CAD/CAM draftsman, and use this software every da
Re: (Score:3)
Read the FAQ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already do, and it is one of the leading software packages used in Aerospace.
CATIA [3ds.com]
I know, because I use it daily as a CAD operator, and can attest that BOEING/SPIRIT aerosystems uses it exclusively for their avionics designs, as to Gulfstream, Bell helicopter, and a number of others.
Catia is the SHIT.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!
I still have some extensive drawings that I did while out of work (didn't have hundreds to spend on a commercial package...'cause I was out of work). ProDesktop pulled their license, and I'm left with a bunch of useless random bits. Complicated packages like these take months to learn effectively, and that learning curve has also been wasted.
I still have the drawings, but haven't found a way to convert them to something useful. I won't be touching this package.
Re: (Score:2)
If these are simple 2D drawings, but in some arbitrary format, it might be possible to convert the data...
What extension do the files have?
(Note, I am a professional CAD operator.)
Re: (Score:2)
There are quite a few 3D drawings, some containing quite a few of the others. I literally built the airplane from the plans piece by piece. I also probably did it very poorly; but, then again, I was doing it to learn 3D CAD drawing in my spare time.
Re:Cue GIMP-style questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Game design is not the only reason around for decent CAD software. A lot of real work in the real world is done with it.
Agreed. The D in CAD can stand for design or draughting/drafting. Civil, Structural and HVAC engineers for example will make heavy use of the latter for plans (what most lay-people call "Blue prints").
Re: (Score:2)
slashvertisement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
I downloaded it then realized it's weird installing something in a linux distro that requires activation. Especially knowing no source code is available. It just feels...slimy and scary all at once.
Like taking a shortcut through that dark alleyway with the bum standing in the shadows. He's probably harmless but hey, why take a chance.
But it's their code so it's their perogative. I'll pass.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, that's true and I wish them well. But my post was coming from the "scratch an itch" user perspective rather than "change the world". And since my low risk tolerance doesn't mesh very well with the whole closed source+activation thing, it just won't work in my case. There's plenty of businesses that don't care about that sort of thing so they'll probably do well.
Re: (Score:2)
Question : given that the learning-curve investment in Package X is done and gone and won't come back, how reliable are the non-AutoCAD (ADSK? ; I am not a CAD user) versions of the 2-d file format ".DWG" (or is it ".DXF" ; it's so long since I looked at this product area)? i.e., could you reasonably be aggrieved if a .DWG created on one package opened wrongly on a different company's equivalent product?
The area I work in has 3 or 4 major software conten
Re: (Score:1)
We can't really expect everything to be FOSS.
Actually, we can. Continuing to tolerate personal freedom destroying system of "IP" will only escalate the vicious circle of piracy, guilt, detriment to competition and so on. We need to base economy of information on sound foundations, one that doesn't require tutelage from state authority. Make every software FOSS but not ("free beer") costless and let producers recuperate their expenses at the point of exchange - no valuable information is conveyed from those who have it to those who haven't until equiva
Re: (Score:1)
While I agree, you seem to miss the most important part:
Business just want to get work done. Now, as a business, it is reasonable to finally ditch autoCAD and windows and switch to linux.
Business switch to linux? AMD may start to feel the pressure to get good working drivers for linux...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
None of those links are a year old. One of them is from two weeks ago. If you want an overnight revolution you're in the wrong place; software is hard.
In time, we can probably clean up the half-ass trash that ATI released. I'm not ragging on them -- big props for releasing the stuff at all, and we can, in time, take care of the rest. But it's still half-ass buggy trash *grin* there's a lot of cleaning to do.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no hypocrisy here. It's simply diversity.
ATI drivers have always sucked. It didn't matter who made them. The fact that you can "blame the community" rather than the card vendor really doesn't change anything. Although there is some fleeting hope that some one that doesn't work for ATI can make things better.
People buy nvidia gear because their drivers aren't crap. This is probably true of people that use "that other OS" too.
Mandatory license management is annoying on ANY platform. The fact that it i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ries van Twisk has forked the free version of QCAD to produce librecad.
http://www.librecad.org/ [librecad.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here are a couple more promising-looking 3D CAD programs:
Heekscad: http://code.google.com/p/heekscad/ [google.com]
Freecad: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/free-cad/index.php?title=Main_Page [sourceforge.net]
I think they're both still quite far from being usable though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency in the software is sufficient. All it takes is for one person to find any malware lurking in the code, and at that point (under the FOSS model) anyone can fork it with the offending code removed. It does a remarkably good job of keeping the swimming hole clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Avast is a free antivirus that does the same thing. It's free for personal use (both this and Avast).
Re: (Score:3)
It's Qt, you dumbass!
(same toolkit as QCad).
We need this because...? (Score:1, Insightful)
We already have a 2D cad package for linux: qcad
this would only be of interest if it was 3D
Re: (Score:3)
Check out OpenSCAD
Re: (Score:1)
Re:We need this because...? (Score:4, Informative)
qcad is *very* low-end.
I've done a fair bit of CAD work, and am pretty fluent in AutoCAD. I tried to use qcad for some simple things, but it's *really* lacking in basic functionality. Things like: Create a block. Assign layers to elements of a block. Set certain line colors to specific values, some to bylayer. Give the layer a color. Insert the block into a drawing. Change its color. The elements on a layer within the block inherit the attributes from the BLOCK's layer.
It's so wrong on such a simple bit of functionality that I couldn't take it seriously for anything more than arranging the furniture in my room, and even for that I felt like its limits were sometimes exceeded.
We really need more 2D CAD options in Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
PC and Mac (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My fridge. Why do you ask?
This is so useful. I've always wanted to do a little CAD work while grabbing a snack.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an actual 3D cad for Linux out there... (Score:3)
... for "mere human" price.
VariCAD.
It does do everything. It's not as polished as ProE or SolidWorks, and definitely not UG/NX, but it's something you can use if you're a small one-person shop.
If we're doing slashvertisement for Dassault, we may as well mention alternatives, no?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
There is also OpenSCAD
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're doing slashvertisement for Dassault, we may as well mention alternatives, no?
agreed and while we're at it, there's BRL-CAD (3D modelling) and QCAD (2D Drafting) as well. QCAD has a dual licencing model and has been around for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I downloaded BRL-CAD when it was first released for Linux, but I had no idea what to do with it. It was just an engine. No UI to speak of at all. I would love to see a decent UI for BRL-CAD. BRL-CAD with one would be spectacular.
I've tried QCAD. I really just can't go back to pure 2D CAD anymore. Drawing the part and generating the views from the part makes so much more sense. I remember in school doing a 6 view isometric block rotation on paper (turning it 15 degrees each time). What a pain in the
Re: (Score:1)
I downloaded BRL-CAD when it was first released for Linux, but I had no idea what to do with it. It was just an engine. No UI to speak of at all.
BRL-CAD has *two* guis MGED and Archer. MGED for the pros, Archer for the beginners and extensive documentation.
Re: (Score:1)
Is the MGED part of it not a UI, or was it too sparse?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I had a GUI in CAD back in friggin 1992.
Customizable and everything - the icons were actually drawings that had properties. You could draw them and make your own within the program - gcd.
MGED is like using a pen knife to chop down a tree. Oh sure, you can gang up a lot of pen knives to chop the tree all at once and make lumber, but man, it's a horrible thing to deal with
The manual for MGED is excellent and I wish all documentation was like it, but it's a lot of stuff to slog through.
Too sparse indee
Re: (Score:1)
I've never used it, I was just curious as to what you meant (it is fully possible that someone on the internet would download it and simply not read the documentation; obviously not the case here...).
I personally use Arcad (3D CAD, native Linux) (Score:1)
I'm using Arcad [arcad.de] to plan some buildingdesigns in 3D. Works reasonably well, comes with a paid license (I'm using the small Easy-entry-level license, which fits my needs just fine).
Some nice trivia about the creators:
- They use Linux exclusively to develop all their softwareproducts.
- The Windows build is created mechanically.
- They sell arcad for 98% to Windows clients.
- The English translation still needs some polishing here and there; but the functionality is solid.
Excellent (Score:1)
I'm not a regural user of 2D-cad software but I've used some over the years for work and personal stuff.
Some time ago I needed to fiddle with some 2D on Windows and found DraftSight. Didn't mind registering because this seemed like a great piece of software for free (as in beer). I use mainly Linux so Linux release is excellent news to me. My 2D needs are so sparse that I wouldn't want to spend money on it.
For me DraftSight seemed like AutoCAD was a few years back before it started to get weird GUI changes
Not quite ready for prime time (Score:3)
I have given it a go and compared it to QCad which I have a licensed copy and used heavily of late. Although, it is likely much more feature rich than QCad, it is missing one key feature of having a "Layers Pane" that is always visible. In DraftSight, you must open a modal dialog to manage the layers which IMO is kind of clicky for complex layer management. This is a pretty glaring usability miss for me and I am holding off for them to implement this before I jump on the band wagon.
On the bright side, hopefully this will like the fire under QCad developers to get 3.0 out there which has been "under development" for a couple of years now. QCad itself has some issues too such as poor workflows and some basic usability features and its well due for some improvements.
Good to see some progress in the free / reasonably priced 2D Cad world :)
not seeing the trees (Score:1)
one word for you boys: DWG
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What??
It has two layer selectors -- you only need modal layer manager when you add layers or change layers' parameters.
Its a good thing (Score:1)
Imho AutoCAD is a good product (having used it for years) but Autodesk is becoming more and more Microsoftized with each release, so any competition to keep the Autodesk/Microsoft empire in check is a good thing.
I might also look into VariCAD (thanks BMO)
PS - for anyone that doesn't know what a 2D CAD package is for (1st thread on this page), look at just about anything around you (electronics, buildings, cars, aircraft, etc), chances are there are 2D engineering drawings for its design that are (nowadays a
Re: (Score:2)
Toaster?
PC is short for Personal Motherfucking Computer (Score:2, Offtopic)
PC means: "Personal Computer"! Guess what; macs are PC's! Your mobile phone is a PC nowadays. My fucking calculator is a PC! Your god damn blinking sneakers might be a PC!
When makers of proprietary games say that their game will run on: "PC and mac" it sound just plain stupid. Oh? It will run on every personal computer I own including macs? Oh goody! I'm running the Ubuntu
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of PC as an abbreviation for IBM Personal Computer, or IBM Personal Computer clone, since that was the product that defined this particular use of the term in the first place. Aside from that, desktop computers used to be referred to as microcomputers in that era.
So, while "PC" is defined as personal computer, it mostly stands for IBM Personal Computer.
Also, while I wrote the above before looking, here is the Wikipedia Article saying the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Compu [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
IBM PC was an x86 machine running DOS. When you buy "PC" software today, it will not run on an IBM PC, because it is written for Windows. Why is it so hard to call it "Windows" software?
As the GP said, personal computers are everywhere, and they run many different architectures and operating systems, so we need to be more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why is it so hard to call it "Windows" software?
What's the fun in that? The Windows hegemony is a direct result of the MS-DOS monopoly. Effectively, Windows 7 is just another version of MS-DOS and it's useful to link Windows 7 back to it's original IBM/Microsoft roots.
Those roots rear their ugly head on occasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Riiiiiight. So when those Apple commercials come on and the dude says he's a PC, he's really not speaking about Microsoft Windows specifically, he's saying he could also be Linux or BSD or Solaris?
I don't think so.
We need to take the term 'PC' away from Microsoft. We should start by complaining to Apple about their commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In conclusion: Don't say stupid things like: "I have a PC".
You could do what my wife does and call the MS-Windows computers "IBMs". This is even after I explained to her that IBM no longer makes personal computers.
I guess you have a couple of choices. You can learn to let it slide or you can seek therapy.
cad systems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also about the only relevant architectural design/3D software ADSK couldn't buy out with the change in its couc
Re: (Score:1)
Have you reviewed/tried Arcad [arcad.de]? It has (in the full version) architectural computations.
Solidworks (Score:2)
If only they ported Solidworks, at least 80% of engineers would be able to abandon Windows (the rest are a fraction of Electrical Engineers who still need Altium, but being a ridiculously expensive piece of shit with minimal functionality, it will be replaced by free software no matter what). AutoCAD... Autodesk can go eat a dick for all I care -- they have locked themselves to Windows and will die with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Autodesk released AutoCAD for the Mac a few months ago. It's not inconceivable that a Linux version is in the pipeline.
"AutoCAD" base product is worthless without the rest of the suite, and from what I can tell, only that was ported to Mac. AutoCAD was more and more tied to Windows-specific interfaces over time -- it was available on Unix but once Autodesk started adding Microsoft crap without creating a clear cross-platform interface, it became unportable. Mac version of AutoCAD does not support Windows-specific interfaces, so unless Autodesk will port the rest of their AutoCAD-based products, it will be merely one of many
A good small first step (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I am a Mechanical Engineer by trade however my current job does not require 3D capability from my CAD program.
While I agree with everyone that this program is not for the big boys of 3D modelling (although it would be the cat's meow a decade ago for 2D work) and that there are many free alternatives out there which will better this program, I think many people are missing the point. Solidworks actually released something for Linux - this is not to be underestimated. This is the 800 pound gorilla of CAD systems at the moment and when (not if) they throw their weight behind Linux and release something which handles 3D FEA modelling and such that will make a huge difference. They should be 100% applauded for doing this.
As an aside, I'm not sure why people would complain about it only being 2D. How much great design was done using a drawing board and a T-square? Not everything requires the high end equipment that car manufacturers use. A straight forward 2D drafting program is sufficient for most any hobbiest and small operation.
This is an OEM'd version of ARES (Score:3)
Just so you guys know, Draftsight is actually actually an OEM'd version of ARES (http://www.graebert.com/en/cad/ares) from Graebert. So it could be available as long as Dasault continues to pay Grabert. Autodesk has been trying to move into Dasault's teritory (3D solids modeling and simulation), and has been in several lawsuits with Dasault's Soldworks group. I suspect this is a way for Dasault to stick it to Autodesk's cash cow AutoCAD. Cut their cash flow by giving away a program for a market (2D drafting) that Dasault has little interest in.
It's not a bad package. I'm an AutoCAD Certified Expert and I find it pretty usable. Does OK on older DWG files, but has issues with the latest versions.