change autocad icons 2016 with autocad icons 2007

[gibi]

I don't know what version you use of autocad, but maybe this also helps to understand, responding to the latest comments, especially that of tristan.
I use civil 3d and I think that having autocad inside has always been misleading.
It is true that you use it to make support geometries, to import and manipulate cad bases, but the thing immediately showed its limits.
apart from the general heaviness, in fact the controls and its workflow are completely new for c3d. often happens to work for days without using the basic acad commands (part of zoom and little more)
here, adding one or two menus (only) for c3d was not practical: too many commands. The All-In-One Bar came a little later, but it was appropriate to manage the new commands added.

then they even put it on acad base. is an option for new users, put as default (forced, yes) to uniform the interface with other products.

office also suffered the same draw, with the same criticism.
among other things on office saw itself in the advantage of the new interface when using it on tablets (or smartphones for the fears that still see us. . . )

the reasons are various, it is however a choice (from above) that did not only autodesk with his.
And maybe this time, it's not just marketing to show something new.

 

[Cristallo]

Crystal, here you are not talking about interface, or at least not only.

Actually all the treadh was born on the interface.
then if we want to throw up a program with another and mix apples and pears...
in all cases you are right: The problem lies in that. generate the 3d parametric model.

 

[Tristan]

Actually all the treadh was born on the interface.
then if we want to throw up a program with another and mix apples and pears...

You're right. the thread started like this, but then Contaxrts began to talk about drawing lines with autocad compared to other software (citing also solidworks and inventor) and my interventions moved on that theme

 

[gibi]

In fact it would be interesting to understand how you still use acad (and how) in your work.
Every case is different (we say at least by sector), I guess.
It seems to me that many of you are in mechanics and/or manufacturing (speaking sw and inventor).
use it:

1. premium of the solid modeler (magari to make basic geometries, if nothing else because in 2d is like a hand extension for experts)
2. during, i.e. parallel to model 3d
3. al post, that you do everything you need with acad (but you make 3d models or 2d mechanical designs?
4. after (or before and after), you need acad to finish the views created by 3d modeling software, which you manipulate and refine better in acad?

I wonder for pure curiosity.
I touched a little mechanical modeling (only to create geometries to make mesh to feed the fea solutor), but they are mainly one that makes roads (from which civilization 3d).

I mean, the situation is a little fluid, so it's always inside the acad, and something support often runs away.

 

[contaxrts]

when design basically use string lines and circles and is the preponderant part of the work for which those are the main commands... If the line command makes me waste time I don't use that cad... and that's why I keep using autocad instead of rhino. .
different is modeling 3d in which it would be preferable rhino but by now I am drawing with autocad...
we leave the parts of movement and other various simulations that are accessory and not related to the modeling and parameterization of the same...
said this I would never be able to design from scratch with one of the various parametric cads I know (maybe there is someone who would be suitable for my needs I do not know) just because the design starts from white sheet, lines, bows and circles... things are so variable in that phase (discuss one thing then another completely different then another etc...) that the parametric cads (which I continue to consider overrated and often used to unproposed) go immediately into trouble. . .
if you change the sketch of one of the first objects designed this entails cascading effects on everything that came later. . I happened to intervene on the model (solidworks) of an aeromodellistic engine (about thirty parts) in which simply changing from a segment to an arc in the first sketch of the first part (the carter) have piled many of those alarms that the monitor looked like a Christmas tree so that then I had to reshape from scratch... parametric modeling is good when you have to change only of "parameters" but when changes affect "conceptions" many advantages no longer exist...

p.s. I'm not saying that autocad is perfect and the parametric cads are not... only that having tried both, if I have to model, evaluating qualities and defects I prefer to do it with autocad... and not by party taken.. .
p.p.s. when I had difficulties with autocad to shape certain complex forms, indeed, when autocad had difficulty to shape certain complex forms, solidworks and inventor did not get better (rhino did something extra while caia admit I do not know it). . but autocad I know him so much that I can always somehow go even through cross paths. . .

 

[gibi]

when design basically use string lines and circles and is the preponderant part of the work for which those are the main commands... If the line command makes me waste time I don't use that cad... and that's why I keep using autocad instead of rhino. .
different is modeling 3d in which it would be preferable rhino but by now I am drawing with autocad...

... but autocad I know him so much that I can always somehow go through cross paths. . .

even I, if I have to draw something, I start with the lines and arches (and offset etc) on autocad.

but, passing to 3d and complex models (of which they are beginner), assembled more parts, beyond the first 2d geometry of departure, I think acad is a little limiting: I have seen some videos on youtube of some experienced user and, I must say, some things I see difficult to manage with acad.

 

[contaxrts]

It's true. I don't dream of using autocad to design a locomotive or a palace or a carrier for which I would see myself forced despite using software that I don't like, but a tricycle yes, a nightstand yes, a shower yes, a chair yes, a dresser yes... if then I have to make it a thousand then I will take into consideration to make it, then a parametrized project to be able to easily vary a thickness or a diameter... Unfortunately, or fortunately I don't know, I have always worked in small realities, like the vast majority of the activities in Italy, to projects "one shot" (maximum few shots ) where any changes are made in the field, recorded on a leaflet and then, if there is time, reported on dwg but just for the archive...
if you want you can follow the link in signature where among other things there is some example.. .
n.b. autocad I also use it to make graphics

 

[gibi]

[QUOTE="contaxrts, post: 445921, member: 12638"...
se avete voglia potete seguire il link in firma dove fra altre cose c'è qualche esempio...
N.B. Autocad lo uso anche per fare grafica[/QUOTE]I see, good work. .
However, of course, if you have to make changes (annotations) "only" to the drawing boards, acad cannot beat it.
put the 3d model back in place is definitely more challenging and, often, it does not serve anything (if you don't ask it or if you don't have to put your hands back)