@jtm2020hyo IFC supports 2D.
@jtm2020hyo IFC supports 2D.
And STEP, probably has more 2d defined than IFC, sadly to my knowledge it is not much used.
Maybe STEP / IFC 2d as translation format is a way forward. Have worked with DXF since early 80's, it is generally nothing more than a 'transport' format, mainly not used directly in Editing. Also it is proprietary.
Spent some time looking at SVG. Initially looks good, but to me it looks to be very geared towards browser interface.
Found this The Limits of Numbers in SVG
"For reliable results cross-browser, use numbers with no more than 2 digits after the decimal and four digits before it."
Also found, InkScape Dimensioning , has anybody tested?
Will try to write some thoughts on need for 2d and integration with 3d on wiki.
Ifc and step should be the standard, but not many software support it, for example in blender is need install add-ons , and there is not way to export import with these formats in Sweet Home 3D.
How can be promote STEP and IFC formats?
Specially in simulation software, according to the link related to saf format, is necessary use solids instead mesh for FEM structural analysis, and related to animations, step and IFC are useful for that?
For a good consensus I think osarch could invite others forums to vote or promote any standard.
The topic of this thread is "DWG/DXF support in FOSS" - please stay on topic and make new threads as needed. Perhaps by copying parts of this discussion.
This is not the place for a discussion about STEP, IFC & SVG excpet as they relate to DWG/DXF
May we conclude that DXF is a dead end waist of time, until the time Autodesk changes its game? Will they?
What do governments need to ask for as datatype for drawings meanwhile? Now only pdf is stored mostly (Civil works NL) so there is a huge loss of data and effort for the next guy who works on designs. As build data only in pdf without natives (cad or 'bim') . Its kind of painful. 2021. Doesn't have to done this way. Could be a lot smarter.
To add to the discussion about 2D IFC,.. be aware the discussion about 'competing DXF' will stay long after. A smart little converter to make dwg /dxf geometry ifc would be nice. Just my cent.
And we still did not mentioned " object enabler" which is need for visualize custom objects created for all AutoCAD verticals (AutoCAD mechanical, AutoCAD architecture, AutoCAD MEP, AutoCAD electrical,AutoCAD AutoCAD map 3D, AutoCAD civil 3D, AutoCAD plan 3D, advanced steel , and custom objects created by users)...
...for visualize these objects maybe will be need others 10 years.
My personal opinion is that DWG is a dead-end in terms of trying to promote an open standard. DXF is the next best thing, and perhaps only thing until the IFC crowd sorts out SVGs which is in progress and will take some time. For now, I'd say we should promote DXF to be specified in contracts in lieu of DWG.
We definitely need a sound 2d interface. Personally do not like the DXF approach. Having said that, agree with @Moult . At this point in time, DXF seems to be the only viable industry accepted approach. There is hardly any FOSS or proprietary 2d software not supporting DXF. Will vote for DXF as immediately available format. Hope the future will provide an open and standards based format.
Bear in mind, it took roughly 50 years to get standards in place for WordProcessing.
My last words are for suggest specific in your contracts than the dxf/DWG to share need to be a version than AutoCAD vanilla can open or at least than do not need "object enablers", because if this DWG/ dxf drawing need it, you will not visualize such custom objects nor matter as good is done the libredwg version (AutoCAD mechanical, AutoCAD architecture, AutoCAD MEP, AutoCAD electrical,AutoCAD AutoCAD map 3D, AutoCAD civil 3D, AutoCAD plan 3D, advanced steel , and custom objects created by users)...
@jtm2020hyo do you have a suggestion for how to formulate this requirement? I'm not sure of the exact terminology but agree with your suggestion and would like to work it into the contracts I deal with.
I did not do this before, but i could suggest just a things, to request a file 100% created in any autodesk software with RealDWG support. If not anyone always will find problems like a file uneditable, file corruption, file with data loss, etc. This happen because when a file is created by any no-Autodesk software , is possible than they have custom object partially compatibles with AutoCAD, an example is when you export a file from SketchUp, there appears a lot of lines and need be re-edited again in AutoCAD and if a file is corrupted or have errors AutoCAD not always detect it, for this is a pain created a workflow with no-Autodesk program.
... But better is export all your files with .STEP format and .IFC format if already support 2D.
PD:
Source:
https://www.autodesk.com/developer-network/platform-technologies/realdwg
RealDWG 2020 and 2021 for 64 bits systems
RealDWG 2019 for 32 bits and 64 bits.
RealDWG is an ObjectARX library and is the base for AutoCAD Vanilla, but until i know a DWG have 3 bases, ARX, DBX and CRX, ARX are the objects, dbx data base and CRX not idea.
PD2: if someone need work with DWG or dxf files exported from a no-Autodesk and private software, for you health, avoid, end, or cancel such project or if you resist the pain, probably you will considerate change your profession, like me.
Re RealDWG, from what I recall from the past, Adsk or their partners will review your application to see if you're eligible to use RealDWG. In the past any cloud usage was forbidden. But I couldn't find anything about this on their current website.
It might well be that longer term more viable solutions need to come from this group. Contrary to e.g BIM/GIS there isn't a lot of academic involvement in CAD. Things you might want to consider for example is a community group on W3C. Cooperate with the Spatial data on the web and Linked building data group. I think there is a vacuum there still in a focus on CAD and geometry. Some easy wins might be a more modern serialization (JSON?) of DXF to increase adoption and build from that towards interoperability with 2D STEP (which I also see as a much more viable long term solution for high fidelity exchange) and identify the pain points with SVG usage in CAD. If you're already in w3c these comments might actually be heard.
Why am I failing so miserably at keeping people on topic. I know there rae serious problems with DWG and DXF. But they are a reality and a huge legacy in our industry. Talking about other solutions is great, but that belongs in other threads. This thread is about supporting all the legacy and current DWG/DXF files out there.
@jtm2020hyo I have to say that the idea that only Autodesk can make useful DWG files is abhorrent and also just plain wrong. All I am looking for in my question is how to specify in a contract that a DWG should be in a format vanilla AutoCAD (and therefore all AutoCAD clones) can open. I don't know anything about ARX, DBX ,CRX etc. Can you explain them a bit more? Do they treat DWG like a container?
@aothms apparently an early requirement for membership of ODA was that you had to deliver everything you knew about the DWG format (their original reason for existence). Now that Autodesk is a member I am very interested to know if that requirement still exists. If it does then DWG may eventually become an openly published standard.
It is at topic hard to stay 'on track' if the focus is Open interopebilty. Autodesk is on board with ODA only for IFC development. ODA brings IFC compatible solutions in on their 'closed' software solutions meanwhile. Autodesk doesn't want us to use dwg in the long run. Too many other parties can read and write dwg. They use it for other dev.
And i think Autodesk doesn't really want to have fullblown ' competing' department for open bim. They are better sellers then developers. They are marketing the same (ODA) IFC efforts in their solutions, starting this year.
DWG will continue to grow for the ODA members, and Autodesk on the other hand is shifting their focus away from dwg (civil3d> infraworks) (mep , concrete detailling, etc etc> revit)
The standstill on OpenCAD will stay. Autodesk is less of a factor. I think It would make much more sense talking to ODA about their claim for being Open. None of it is. As far as academic and public authority interest, the area of 2d cad geometry and archives are fairly untouched grounds if you ask me. A real open and public standard formats for has a highly underestimated focus. We're all staring at bim and miss the boat to bring us there. And the solution of FOSS is dwg to svg?
@magicalcloud_75 I'd been waiting to hear this about Autodesk & ODA, probably good news for the industry. https://adsknews.autodesk.com/news/open-design-alliance-membership
It seems clear that Autodesk will not be revealing their knowledge of DWG: https://www.consiliavektor.com/2020/09/22/autodesk-joins-open-design-alliance-with-a-catch/ however there is no citation for that claim - it does seem very likely true. If I was an ODA member I would be pissed off.
So I guess we can't assume that DWG will not become more open than the documentation LibreDWG is making it https://www.gnu.org/software/libredwg/
@aothms & @magicalcloud_75
Maybe you'd like to contribute your thought son STEP to these pages https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=File_format_comparison https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Open_Data_Standards_Directory
Great overview @duncan.
What about (ACIS) SAT? I think "Autocad' Dwg kernel for 3d solids is mostly based on solids. This kernel is bought in from Dessault Systemes. Other vendors do the same. Sat files describe 'clean geometry' has little trouble on import, and is supported by most 3d cad software solutions.
I miss the mentioning of SAT in the comparison. Could have a reason, don't know. Like DXF the openness is only half baked using SAT exchanges. Yes It is readable like IFC and DXF, but it can't be used as standard to get anyway further because of legal claim. Just like DXF for 2d. Correct?
And one more comment regarding DWG. Dwg is certainly capable store parametric controls. Can get awfully complex..
But i think this is merely the case for what is referred to use of vertcal (more 'intelligent') dwg products. The problems that @jtm2020hyo describe sound to me like that order. The more (parametric) complex your dwg data becomes, the less you are able to work 'vendor free'. I personally experience very little problems with the same dwg models using different sofware. But i don't use civil3d or others.
DXF is not Open. Legal wise..
@duncan sorry, maybe I was not very clear.
"(is requested ) before share a file open drawing(s) in AutoCAD Vanilla then copy the drawing to a new AutoCAD dwg file and test all objects with AutoCAD basic modification tool over all documents to verify correct compatibility (Copy, Paste, Move, Rotation), if appears a change compared to the original shared drawing then needs to share the .ARX .DBX .CRX files formats where was create the file to load and open correctly the shared file"
maybe this term is what you need.
@magicalcloud_75 said:
And one more comment regarding DWG. Dwg is certainly capable store parametric controls. Can get awfully complex..
But i think this is merely the case for what is referred to use of vertcal (more 'intelligent') dwg products. The problems that @jtm2020hyo describe sound to me like that order. The more (parametric) complex your dwg data becomes, the less you are able to work 'vendor free'. I personally experience very little problems with the same dwg models using different sofware. But i don't use civil3d or others.
exactly this and the sad part is that any no-autodesk needed an ARX library,
if we need to open any Custom Library we need to add such capacity to LibreDWG to open AutoCAD Variants such as CIVIL 3D, and not just that, we need our default software capacity to visualize it. because, for example, in CIVIL 3D you can have different representation for an object, for example, you can visualize a signal when you are working in the Top View in your CAD CAE CAM software, but when you change to the model view (Front, Bottom, Left, Right, Back) such object is a post with a signal.... and this is not supported for all our open-source software.
@duncan said:
@jtm2020hyo I have to say that the idea that only Autodesk can make useful DWG files is abhorrent and also just plain wrong. All I am looking for in my question is how to specify in a contract that a DWG should be in a format vanilla AutoCAD (and therefore all AutoCAD clones) can open. I don't know anything about ARX, DBX ,CRX etc. Can you explain them a bit more? Do they treat DWG like a container?
sadly this is our reality, what really we call Dxf and DWG is the default AutoCAD Vanilla library, and other programs use privative and custom ARX libraries to translate their format to AutoCAD Vanilla, for this motive exist a lot of errors, maybe not a 100% errors, but an 1% errors, bug, and corruption is already very frustrating.
PD: I am not sure about LibreDWG export import capacity, I just exported since AutoCAD.
@Moult any idea how one finds out who is actively using libdxfrw ? Does one need to write to and ask every fork?
https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=libdxfrw&s=updated&type=Repositories
Wouldn't it make sense for codelibs, solvespace, librecad and the others to share one repository? How does this sort of fracturing occur? Is it just what happens when a project has no maintainer?
@duncan on github you have to fork before you can create a pull request, so all these repositories don't necessarily represent anything other than somebody working on the code
@brunopostle said:
@duncan on github you have to fork before you can create a pull request, so all these repositories don't necessarily represent anything other than somebody working on the code
Right, but since the project they forked from is not maintained there's no way to see if they're cooperating - is that right?
As creating a github fork only require a single click, would avoid to rely on this as metric for activity. For such project like an import / exporte lib many forks are expected to allow simple modifications in order to implement into a target.
This however does not mean any level of cooperation, and it is also the beauty of the things. Development barely never happen at same time between 2 or more applications, so communication is not required beside bugfixes.
When a lib is publicly available and implemented into many projects, any futher change may also have impact on other projects, so creating a fork is a way to prevent unwanted changes while allowing further development on both sides.
@duncan said:
Right, but since the project they forked from is not maintained there's no way to see if they're cooperating - is that right?
They could be merging each other's changes, but there is no reason to assume everybody needs a modified library. There may be some awesome CAD tool using the library as a dependency without forking it or doing anything other than telling their users to install it.
So how does anyone share and find improvements to the code if everyone makes a copy so they can tweak it and then can't push their changes back because the original project is dormant?
I'm hearing people tell me how simple and useful it is to be able to fork. But how does the original project improve when people do it this way rather than collaborating to improve the original project?
In principle, forks can pull changes from other forks, eventually people will stop using the abandoned original.
It is confusing, and sometimes this can get out of hand - the tendency to never publish numbered releases is part of the same problem. But then working with git is so much better than svn or cvs.
Login or Register to reply.