>Alex Fraser wrote: > If you decide on a common file format (and it works), then you don't need >to use the same software to create those files. This file sharing would be >easier of course in 2D which is a shame as 3D is sooooo powerful, but better >2D CAD than 0D CAD.
Having been on many engineering projects with various "file formats" I can tell you from experience that such an approach is overly fraught with "gotcha's". Even with well established industry standard formats an apple is not an apple. In the low end of CAD/CAM Autocad's DXF format seems to rule but ... even that changes from version to version. Only AutoCad truly reads the format other tools interpret the results but do not always maintain the original information. I use TurboCad 7.0 and have imported AutoCad files with limited success. Going to AutoCad has it's own quirks. >From experience: Settle on a specific program for small teams and only use that program. The format approach is OK when you need to send data to next phase (ie. CAD->CNC conversion) not to another designer to modify (Review is usually tolerable). In general a format forces you into a compromise to a lower level of commonality. The tools that "support" the format almost always have some other "feature" that gets down converted so that other tools can access the information and most of this "down conversions" tend to be a compromise on data integrity and accuracy. _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
