 |
|
« Employees Needed: Make Money Spending Money | Main | Houses For Sail »
November 7, 2005
Adobe vs. Autodesk: This Is Getting Really Interesting
Both companies have the expertise and the will to create a universal format for sharing engineering drawings and, apparently, neither is willing to give a scaled inch.
Clearly, Adobe's PDF is the most accepted form of "universal" document (with few exceptions such as much less capable formats, such as MS Word within the HR community -- but that's another story). Being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean you're the best, however, especially in the engineering community.
Within engineering, Autodesk's AutoCAD application is probably the most widely used computer-aided design program. But, for example, have you ever tried to print a complex AutoCAD file, even from within a View & Markup package? As soon as a V&M app opens an AutoCAD file, elements are lost — not only all of the math and dimensions behind the drawings, but also shapes and curves that are specific to the file's originator: the engineer and/or designer. So, what you get from most V&M apps — even the best ones — is often not quite what the designer intended. Sometimes, it's not even close.
So, what's the universal file format for engineering? In an article that I wrote for Desktop Engineering a while back, I said, "While widely credited for enabling file sharing en masse, Adobe's debut in engineering V&M occurred only last year with Acrobat 6 Professional. Pitting a relative newcomer against well-developed V&M applications seems unfair — unless you're a company with the power of Adobe. Add Autodesk to the mix and we might have a brawl in the works." (It's actually a decent article on the subject of Adobe vs. V&M, with some interesting expert opinion.)
It's certainly turned into a brawl since then.
Adobe has moved forward with its PDF for Engineering, or PDF-E format, taking with them the likes of Agile, Bentley Systems, Hewlett Packard, PTC and UGS. To better organize and, hopefully, move PDF-E ahead more quickly, they've also connected with AIIM (The Enterprise Content Management Association, formerly The Association for Information and Image Management). Through that association, those and other vendors have become quite active with their PDF/Engineering Committee. They're shooting for an ISO standard for PDF-E by 2007, according to this article which states, "The goal is that the complex, large-format drawings and renderings these professionals pass among each other — and their clients — will display properly, show multimedia content in a consistent fashion, handle form fields, and maintain the document-level security they require in a competitive field."
While Autodesk, it's been reported, has reverted to blatantly slamming the PDF format, its site as it appears today is diplomatic. "Whether your business is building, infrastructure, mapping, or manufacturing, the DWF(TM) file format is the key to project lifecycle management. Here's why: Design is a collaborative process, and DWF (Design Web Format(TM)) files offer a simple, secure way to share design data. Developed specifically for engineering design data, the DWF format is the best way to share 2D and 3D design information, because the file size is smaller and faster to transmit than either native design file formats or alternatives like PDF. DWF files are print ready and maintain absolute data fidelity."
Adobe is, of course, pushing hard with its DWF format and related free viewer. The plot thickens when one visits Bentley's site and finds, for example, PDFs that include dynamic 3D data — within files that are of very reasonable sizes.
While I'd like to side with Adobe on this one, there's a problem with doing so. I respect what both companies have done for the marketplace — and either could potentially create a unified standard for sharing engineering drawings throughout the enterprise — or with the supplier down the street.
I think it comes down to who's going to be using the documents. Some of those individuals and departments will, of course, be engineering-related. There's no problem there, however, as most of those folks already have the CAD app. The situation gets sticky when you consider, for example, marketing, purchasing and management — just as a start — individuals and departments who need to view and/or print a engineering drawings or models as quickly, cleanly and easily as possible.
What do you think? PDF-E or DWF?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/295
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
37 CommentsPDF-E!!!!!!!!!!!!
One standard is best whenever there is a need for a public and common use. This battle will not be resolved since company prestige and resources are involved. The landscape will turn out more like the many media players and search engines floating around. Both document transfer formats (PDF-E or DWF) can co-exist for a longtime since anyone can simply download either viewing application when needed.
Duplicating effort is generally not efficent a wasteful use of great talents and time from both companies.
We just hope competition will yield the best soon and the public vote with their downloads and use. But then who's counting, and do users really care?
Manufactures are always under pressure to supply native format ACAD drawings to clients. The problem is this opens the door for the client or other vendors (competitors) to copy or modify the manufactures information and take the shortcut of not having to design themselves. It would be nice if there you could submit an ACAD drawing and insert a scaled Adobe "block" into the ACAD drawing where everything inside the Adobe "block" was protected. This way the vendor could give the client a drawing that the client could use to insert into their overall design without giving away the farm.
November 15, 2005 12:05 PMI would prefer to have a standard in PDF-E since it would be much easier to share between all departments in a company where everybody has at least the Acrobat Reader version. And, even for engineering purposes in Acrobat, you can program links to Excel or Word files. For example, one tag number in the drawing can be easily linked to its datasheet in Excel or to the complete spec in Word.
November 15, 2005 12:14 PMWhile I use both companies' software at the present time, I find Adobe good for some items I need, but must often I find it lacking when using it for viewing drawings. I, like most engineers, have a need to access these drawings and work with the drawing sent for review. Adobe does not allow this to happen as of yet?? Maybe the newest Adobe will come around to this... the aritcle does not say. But I hope in the long run we all can benefit from the work being done by both parties.
i think this a great idea. many of our customers have Adobe software programs but not autocad program. The problem is this-- the autodesk viewer that should be a free program that customers need when sending dwf files they think adobe can read them. But that's not so. We must use the mail system so they can see the prints, which puts the dates of coordinations back further...which is another problem. So, with this new system that Adobe is about to create, i am for it. And will support it as well.
November 15, 2005 1:22 PMI vote PDF-E.
Solidworks offers a free download to make PDF files of all Autocad dwg's. That's great.
DWF, size says it all. We have eliminated all kinds of issues by moving from PDF to the DWF standard in our office.
November 15, 2005 1:56 PMAdobe has a sufficient amount of file-converting going on as it is, to make DWF a standard would easy their program and allow a watchful eye to a growing future of new languages and larger programs. DWF should be a standard.
November 15, 2005 2:06 PMThe Solidworks program mentioned above is terrible in my opinion.
I vote AutoDESK DWF.
November 15, 2005 5:01 PMDWF
November 15, 2005 6:04 PMAs a land Surveyor I work with .dwg's exclusively, and the need is to be able to send a drawing to a client or realtor as an attachment they can open, zoom in on and print what they want. Awhile back, Autodesk gave away Volo View Express, which at least allowed viewing. I recommended it to people. Then Autodesk trashed it, at which time I believed it was because it was too useful and generated no direct profit. PDFs have their problems as well, especially when you want to view and maybe print a "zoomed" part of a drawing.
November 16, 2005 12:35 AMAll nice. Since we as a manufacturer of ship propulsion systems have to integrate a lot of parts from sub suppliers into our design, we don't need plots but design files such as dxf/dwg.
November 16, 2005 4:20 AMI still think my pencil and paper work great. What's all the fuss about? Can you lend me a quarter?
November 16, 2005 8:14 AMFor drawings covering large geographical areas, utility mapping, DWF. I tried PDF but it did not do the job
November 16, 2005 2:59 PMDWF for me. I did the PDF route for years but discovered that the DWF is far easier to produce and work with, and it is a fraction of the size of the PDF file.
November 17, 2005 1:36 PMWe have been e-publishing for 6 years and use DWF for vector-only drawings and PDF for drawings with raster images or old scanned maps/drawings.
AutoDesk just came out with TrueView (free download)but it only supports veiwing and plotting to scale of DWG and DXF, not DWF. Maybe AutoDesk it going to abandon DWF?
Last time I checked the AudoDesk website and there was no linux support for DWF. The company claimed to create a unix/linux viewer years ago, yet still no product available, not even an alpha version. Will you call it absurd?
Yet it wants to compete the well-established standard PDF? PDF may be not as accurate as DWF in engineering details (PDF-E will improve in this regards), and may create slightly bigger files in size, but the pdf viewer or browser plugin is available everywhere, for all platforms you can imagine, for years! Many of pdf viewers are not even produced by Adobe only.
Will you call it naive?
Audodesk at least need to show its atitude if they really want to push DWF as a standard.
PS: I do use DWF instead of PDF to share some engineering drawings with friends whenever needed, but whenever acceptable, I always prefer PDF. It is much less hassle to share PDF than DWF.
With some 20 yrs. of designing machines for companies on a contract basis; specifically using a variety of CAD systems as a medium, I am sincerely enthused about my ability to integrate AutoCad and Adobe.
The convergence of Pdf to Dwg, and Dwg to Pdf formats has rejuvinated my creative instincts genuinely.
I long for companies to "grow-up" and respect the advancements being enabled as part of the norm, rather than there being controversial over trivialities.
When will this come to a respectable resolve?
May 24, 2008 9:42 PMdwf 1000 times over. I'm a designer/drafter for over 10 years. dwf files are smaller, navigation within the application is 1000 times better, panning and zooming with the middle mouse button the same as in their design software...i'm serious, i dislike having to look at drawings in pdf, two thumbs down for navigation, maybe good for a reader reading text, but zooming and panning around, checking things out, is substantially better in the dwf environment.
Plus, for all you engineers and architects out there, design review (the dwf reader / redliner) is totally free! Great for marking up, and remote designers or drafters can overlay them right back into autocad and check off their redlines one by one as they do them. Great for creating a paperless design environment. How much is acrobat again? ($300+ btw...)
From experience, i know that the people who don't like dwf are the people who are used to pdf and are not willing to investigate for themselves the benefits to using another (superior, IMHO) solution. My suggestion - Give dwf a try and see for yourself.
Thanks for your time.
January 25, 2010 4:01 PM
