Talk:Comparison of computer-aided design editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Comparison of CAD editors)
Jump to: navigation, search

New entries to the comparison of notable CAD packages[edit]

Criteria for inclusion of a program[edit]

Recently some criteria for inclusion af a program in the article were added by User:DuLithgow. As I disagree with some criteria I would like to discuss them here. These are the new criteria for inclusion of an application:

  • it must have achieved notability.
  • it must be out of beta development.
  • it must have been updated in the last two years.
  • it must have had its own page established for some time on Wikipedia.

I'm fine with the firt two requirements, but I don't see why we should have the other two:

Although lack of updates may indicate that some software is becoming less relevant it may still be more relevant than other programs in the list. I think the removal should be decided case by case if an application is not receiving updates anymore.

I think we should try to include all programs that are notable, no matter if they have their seperate Wikipedia page. Otherwise a fair comparison will not be possible because the inclusion of a program depends on whether there is a Wikipedian who is motivated to create a page about that subject.

What do you think? --Marko Knoebl (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marko, good to start this discussion. Basically I'm getting sick of cleaning up the list for junk additions of software products which have limited merit. That's why I've added criteria 4 - in reality 4 is no different from 1. In practise it means we don't have to research how notable a new entry is if it doesn't already have an entry in wikipedia. If it has an article I read that and decide if it's a valid entry or just an advertisement or fanboy entry. So I'm using the existence of an article as a claim to notability. The main reason for criteria 3 is that there were a few (two I think) entries that were out of beta but not updated in years. I simply don't think that software not updated in two years or more is serious about being in the AEC industry and including it on a comparison is just adding noise. This might have something to do with how you and I see the comparison. I see it as a tool for industry players to compare notable software currently in active use - I don't see it as a historical comparison.
So let me know what you think, the best would be if you have a specific example where you think I've made a poor decision. Have a look through the history for 14th June and you'll see the entries I've recently removed. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

i cant seem to add qcad properly to the page, its GPL architecture cad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New entry template[edit]

You can use this template to add new software. You'll need to edit this page to see it.

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown version? Unknown Unknown $

To consider adding[edit]

  • How about Geomagic (formerly Alibre) Design? They are bigger than 90% of the others listed here, and have had a page of their own for quite a long time. Happy to do it if needed. Heyheyjc (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • please just add software you think is missing. If someone disagrees they can say so. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How about adding Aveva PDMS and PDS? (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The CAE Linux distribution has a whole heap of relevant software to investigate. -- (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so convinced. I have used CAElinux a bit (it doesn't play well with my hardware for some reason) and there is a lot of analysis software. Not so much relevant to AEC. The exceptions are FreeCAD and QCad / LibreCAD. I will add FreeCAD. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
done --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing?[edit]

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of them. If they meet the requirements feel free to add them to the comparison --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason SketchUp is not included here?[edit]

SketchUp is listed on the other 3d applications page as having as its primary use "Computer Aided Design". Is there some reason it's excluded here? Hammerquill (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to add it. Feel free to do that! --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding Home Designer by Chief Architect[edit]

Chief Architect has a DIY - Enthusiast product that is in a very different price category, $59 - $495. [[4]] The question I propose is should this be added, should it have it's own row, should it be added onto Chief's row? I think the third option would make for a very tall row as it has 4 of it's own versions. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Considered but not added[edit]

Please add software you have rejected for inclusion here --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Application name Reason not included Signature
Autodesk_Design_Review Is really a markup and viewing program. There is no real vector editor feature. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed and Banned entries[edit]

Entries that have been banned[edit]

The following applications have turned up here at least once and should be quickly removed if they appear again. Reason are as stated

Application name Reason for ban Banned by
Artlantis Studio Rendering software
Artlantis Rendering software
SpaceClaim CAE software
Shark FX Doesn't meet notability criteria --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
ViaCAD Doesn't meet notability criteria --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaints over unfair removal[edit]

Well, I have a big complaint over the unilateral judgement and removal that is currently happening. I can understand the removal of products that are not considered to fall under the definition of "computer-aided design editors", but I have a great deal of trouble with products that are removed because one editor here considers that they are not "notable", or (in his opinion) "looks like advert". We are not talking about high notability standards that must apply to WP:BLP, and DuLithgow needs to relax his approach here. I'm also worried about DuLithgow's ability to interpret and apply WP's policies and procedures (as demonstrated by his inability to apply the full and proper AfD process at the Cobalt (CAD program) article)—however perhaps that's commensurate with the experience level that comes from only having about 650 article edits.
Lists such as these offer a service to our readers—the ability to compare features of various products. WP is not recommending software simply because of inclusion in this list, however to remove entries smacks of censorship. Even if an article (such as Cobalt (CAD program)) is considered not notable (not yet achieved by the way), there is a strong argument for inclusion in this list (for Heaven's sake, it's a mature CAD product that has been commercially available for more than 20 years for both the Macintosh and Windows platforms). The removal of such entries with comments like "looks like an advert" is an non-objective and rushed approach by DuLithgow who is now taking on the guise of a one-man judge, jury, and executioner. I will support any local editors here in a bid to re-establish this list to the point where it offers a complete service to our readers. And exactly what is wrong with including actual CAD software in this list so that our readers can make up their minds about what they consider useful, or even "notable" (whatever that may mean to each reader who visits this list—which is currently running at just over 150 visits per day)?
To DuLithgow: As a suggestion, how about you get some content-building under your belt before you risk settling into the world of content-removal? Adding content is much more rewarding, and it will help you to gain experience in understanding the demoralising effect that actions such as yours have on the editors here who are trying their best to build (in this case, non-controversial) articles for our readers.
GFHandel   22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes I have limited experience, though over quite a number of years. I will clarified here my reason for removing Cobalt from this list. I originally set up the list out of interest and a wish to learn more about the products around - but the list is specific to AEC and Cobalt is as far as I can see from their website, for product design and manufacture. Sorry, but I do actually know a bit about the industry I work in, which is AEC. The Cobalt article seems to be establishing notability (not with the help of GregL but others who keep trying to make useful references) but that is not what this list is for. This list is not for CAD in general but CAD for AEC. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, this article is for the "list of computer-aided design editors" (as per the title), because that's what our readers will be expecting when they land here. You now need to back down, not hunt-and-peck for a reason for removal (your only reasons for removal were "looks like advert, one source and questionable notability"), and give other editors here a say in this matter. If you now want to make the list more specific, then feel free to try and split information into another article or to create extra columns to explain distinctions in the various products. (By the way, your "AEC" link is to a disambiguation page.) GFHandel   23:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do me the courtesy of reading the article before telling me what it's about --duncan.lithgow (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Also I believe it was moved in error User_talk:Dwarfpower#comparison_od_CAD_for_AEC which is just making the problem worse. There is no sense in comparing CAD application from different industries - who can use that? I've assked him to move it back so I don't get told off for doing it. Dwarfpower made that change 17:32, 4 October 2011 --duncan.lithgow (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User:GFHandel is clearly correct here. DuLithgow’s coming in and deciding that this CAD editor or that is not notable, as he did here was clearly way off base. User:Ryan Vesey made this uncanny and pithy edit summary when he he deleted the AFD tag: “millions of google search results, take it to AFD if you wish”. Thus, Users Ryan Vesey, Greg L, and GFHandel have views that are in alignment on this subject and which are contrary to those of DuLithgow.

Moreover, Duncan’s 18 unilateral edits to delete entire programs from this list over the last few days to delete all manner of CAD programs from this list is clearly without consensus and needs a clear consensus when the edits aren’t copyediting but are instead massive use of the [delete] key. Editors are all here on en.Wikipedia to build the project. The way things are done here are the product of years of consensus building and an evolution of processes. Moreover, the editors active on the CAD-related articles tend to have extensive experience with the subject matter. It is clear that the evolved intention of the community for this list of CAD programs is to make it an inclusive and comprehensive list that readers can use as an authoritative source for what programs have been developed over the years. Before deleting scores of man-hours of material that other editors have slaved over, there must be a clear consensus here on this talk page for the material’s removal.

Since there is clearly no consensus for these latest edits throughout the project and here on this list, I’ve reverted to the previous consensus view. Please bear in mind that consensus can change. But we can not have editors trying to get their way and slip “consensus” under the door merely by testing the waters as to what content can be deleted from the project. One first comes to this talk page and introduces a proposal and things are discussed. That way, ideas are bandied about, bad ideas are countered with better ones, and a proper consensus can be achieved.

Duncan: Please convince the rest of us before any more of the sort of edits you’ve been making on CAD-related articles this week. Greg L (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, by the way, Burt Rutan used Ashlar’s Cobalt program to design SpaceShipOne. That alone is sufficient to establish that the program has sufficient notability for inclusion in this list and to have an article on it on the project. Only someone with extraordinarily limited understanding of CAD programs would think Burt Rutan would be using some sort of backwater CAD program few have heard of to design a space ship. And, since I actually have some well-earned gray hairs on my head and had used a wide variety of CAD programs before the Internet became all the rage, I long-ago read in an actual magazine (think: “Internet made out of a tree”) about how Burt Rutan used Ashlar Vellum (the wireframe 3D predecessor of Cobalt) to design the Voyager plane that flew non-stop around the world. 17:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. By the way Duncan. Your curious use of the word “BANNED” in the above section heading (perma‑link here) doesn’t strike me as appropriate under the circumstances. Please consider retroactively revising the heading since only something springing directly and clearly from Wikipedia’s Five Pillars or ArbCom could “ban” anything on Wikipedia. We certainly need “more talky” before using such language. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A few points. I'm really sad and trying to reflect on the reaction I've got on wikipedia in the last few days. Including being called a time-wasting troll (User_talk:Greg_L#Notice got blocked for that) and a galactic moron (though at least that was creative). I set aside some time my weekend because I thought it was time to clean up the comparison. Cleaning it up takes a lot of time as I have to look at the wikipedia article of each piece of software to see if it is relevant to the AEC industries. But why only AEC? As I've been discussing with User:Dwarfpower at User_talk:DuLithgow#List.2C_comparison.2C_whatever_of_CAR.2C_CAD_for_AEC_or_whatever when I first made this page back in early July 2008 I thought it would be a comparison of CAD software generally. Of course some others (including User:Dwarfpower turned up and started to contribute. That turned out to be too hard as the list got filled up with software for designing layout for walk in closets and unusable beta projects that I couldn't get to work either on Linux or Windows. Or insignificant programs like the 55 hits there are for CAD programs for just windows on this website directory (Cobalt does not fall into that category). For a while I even tried to include CAD viewers but quickly realised that was not feasible at that time. So I started to think of how to split it up. I split off pages for CAM, and CAE
As I think is evident around the talk page, for example at Talk:List_of_computer-aided_design_editors#Criteria_for_inclusion_of_a_program I have tried to involve others in finding some good criteria. In general people drop in, make a few changes and drop out again. That's fine, but it's not enough to make this comparison useful (in my view). So please, instead of just stopping what I'm trying to do engage me in the discussion of criteria for inclusion. User:Greg Ls complaints about me deleting masses of stuff is, in my view just nonsense. I created a section of this talk page specifically to hold those entries in case we changed our minds. And yes, I copied every entry I removed from the main article over to that section.
However I think I can draw some important conclusions:
  1. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith doesn't just mean me complaining about other people stopping what I think is my useful work. It's also about building consensus. If that's not possible with wikipedians like User:Greg L then there are processes for dealing with that.
  2. That no article is _mine_ to decide on, I knew that but thought I had a bit of standing in the CAD field. Clearly I overestimated that. I must build consensus first, and then make the bigger changes - though I hope I have judged things right when I revert GregL big revert for most of the work I did over the weekend.
  3. "Banned" is indeed a stupid thing to call that section - I'll try and find something else.
  4. I should take a break from editing articles on Wikipedia and just contribute to discussion for a while.
If someone could archive this that might be good - I'm not sure how to. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
DuLithgow, I strongly caution you against editing against consensus again, as you just did here. Editing against consensus is disruptive. There must be a consensus for what you are attempting to do.

Please read up on consensus building here: WP:Consensus if you intend on contributing to en.Wikipedia.

First get others to agree with your reasoning here on this page. If there is a clear consensus that is in line with your reasoning, great. But so far, the consensus is not in alignment with your wishes. Greg L (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As I observed above, the basis for DuLithgow's removal edits on (and around) this article is faulty. There is no way of getting around the fact that this article is titled "List of computer-aided design editors", and as such deserves to include products such as Cobalt so that our readers can make informed decisions for themselves. There are over 150 readers visiting this page each day, and within that readership will be the usual range of knowledge and expertise. It's obvious that there will be many of the 150 who have no inkling of the distinction that AEC (and other qualifiers) bring to the subject, and accordingly the list must not be censored on that basis. If such qualifiers are important, then I support introducing more detail into the table to bring such distinctions to the notice of the readers.
Furthermore, I now have a sneaking suspicion that DuLithgow is not experienced enough to be swimming in waters quite this deep (yet). His ill-fated attempt to delete the Cobalt (CAD program) article (both in wanting to delete it, and the technique in trying to delete it) indicates that he has much to learn about the processes and guidelines at WP. I sincerely hope that he now takes the time to read many of those guidelines, and to observe the actions and advice of more experienced editors before continuing to wading into similar maelstroms. A rule of thumb here would be to note that the types of programs in the list have been established for some time, and therefore the desire to make changes (which is DuLithgow's right) should be initiated with talk page discussion (as opposed to article and list removal edits).
I'm convinced that DuLithgow will evolve into a valuable editor to WP provided he learns to take a step back and consider other points-of-view. I thought there was progress in that direction (based on the above), however I'm disheartened to observe that he has elected to attempt to solve this content issue by raising the matter at AN/I.
GFHandel   23:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I generally agree with you. It does look very much like I've waded too deep into this issue. On previous occasions I've similarly removed software I thought was out of place, commented about it on the talk page and there has been very little discussion. The discussion there has been has pettered out without much trouble. So I've been caught off guard by User:Greg L shining a light on what happens here. Anyway, as I've stated I'm not editing articles for a while. User:Dwarfpower has [agreed in principle] to going back to the previous name for the article which was more specific. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Entries that have been removed[edit]

Put them here to preserve the information in case it should go back again soon. Please preserve the formatting of the original entry, remember to add entries for 'Reason Removed' and 'Signature'

Extended content
Reason removed Signature Application and developer Latest release date and version 2D/3D or Specialty fields Runs on Unix-like systems? Runs on Windows? License Academic version? User Interface Language(s) Support for Building Information Modelling? Support for Industry Foundation Classes? Imports Exports Price
Doesn't really meet notability. Their wikipedia entry is almost abandoned Ashlar-Vellum#Argon --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Argon by Ashlar-Vellum 2009, v8 SP2 2D/3D Concept, Detailing, Drafting, Rendering,
Mac OS X XP/Vista/7 Proprietary Yes en, fr, de, it, pt, ru, sl, sv No No CO (native), ACIS SAT, DWG/DXF, IGES (IGES), STP (STEP), Pro/E, Parasolid X_T, CATIA v4, 3DS, Rhino 3DM, Facet, STL, AI, CGM, VRML, BMP, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XPM, XBM, GIF, PICT, Spline, ASCII Text, Grid Surface, Vellum Graphite, Xenon, Argon, Drawing board, CCAD ACIS SAT, PDF, DWG/DXF, IGES (IGES), STP (STEP), Pro/E, Parasolid X_T, CATIA v4, Facet, STL, AI, EPS, CGM, VRML, ShockWave 3D, BMP, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XPM, XBM, GIF, PICT, RAW Triangle, ASCII Text, Vellum Graphite, Xenon, Argon, Drawing board US$1,195
Not AEC. But interesting software. I'd be open for discussion on this one in the future, but as it stand this is not AEC software. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Sweet Home 3D by eTeks 2D placing furniture and 3D preview Mac OS X 10.4 to 10.6, Linux and Solaris Yes GNU GPL Free en, de, ja, sv, fr, zh-Hans, hu, pt, pl, cs, es, it, el, bg, ru, vi Unknown Unknown 3DS (requires Java3DSLoader), OBJ Unknown Free
Xenon is product design software, see Ashlar-Vellum#Xenon --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Xenon by Ashlar-Vellum 2009, v8 SP2 2D/3D Concept, Detailing, Drafting, Rendering,
Mac OS X XP/Vista/7 Proprietary Yes en, fr, de, it, pt, ru, sl, sv No No CO (native), ACIS SAT, DWG/DXF, IGES, STP (STEP), Pro/E, Parasolid X_T, CATIA v4, 3DS, Rhino 3DM, Facet, STL, AI, CGM, VRML, BMP, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XPM, XBM, GIF, PICT, Spline, ASCII Text, Grid Surface, Vellum Graphite, Xenon, Argon, Drawing board, CCAD ACIS SAT, PDF, DWG/DXF, IGES (IGES), STP (STEP), Pro/E, Parasolid X_T, CATIA v4, Facet, STL, AI, EPS, CGM, VRML, ShockWave 3D, BMP, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XPM, XBM, GIF, PICT, RAW Triangle, ASCII Text, Vellum Graphite, Xenon, Argon, Drawing board US$2,495
US$995/yr rental
Never got out of beta, now orphaned --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) freeCAD (Aik-Siong Koh) by Aik-Siong Koh 2007, 9 3D Motion All POSIX (BSD/Linux/Unix like OS) XP, Vista 32bit) GNU GPL Free en Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ?
  • Entries have been restored. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually Greg that's not quite right, you've put most of them back but not all (I note you dropped a few of the least notable ones). Would you mind tidying this table up so it reflects the current situation? Cheers --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I’m doing my best to restore what you’ve done. If you can already see what I’ve overlooked, be a good sport, will ya(?), and take care of it. Greg L (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of usefulness and structure[edit]

I regularly visit this comparison and read it through, and even I find it hard to make use of. I really want to remove some columns to make the most important data more visable. For example I want to remove the 'Academic version?' column. What do other think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thumbs down icon I do not spend sufficient time on this page to know the ins and outs and whys as to how the columns came to be. I do know that they have evolved since I have had to adapt as the table changed from time to time. I seem to recall that I removed the “version” column since it seemed to be in a perpetual state of being out of date. But I see that it’s back. It’s hard to believe, after all these years, that there would be enthusiastic support for wholesale changes entailing the removal of content others labored to put here in the first place. Absent a clear and well-participated community consensus for removal—and only with ample participation by a number of the shepherding editors at articles on the more major, individual CAD programs—deletions of material should not be occurring; that is not how we “build the project”. Greg L (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please address the issue I've raised. I'm asking if there isn't a problem with the usefulness and structure of the list / comparison. I specifically think that the column about an academic license is unnecessary and just adds noise. What do you (and others) think about that specific point? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Re your point about version information, did you build consensus before removing that? (For what it's worth I think I agree with you on that one, it was perpetually out of date - but don't see how else we can see if the info in the table is up to date)--duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I did address the issue. You are displaying a classic hallmark of editors whose arguments don’t gain traction with others but are insistent on getting their way nonetheless. They keep on insisting that there is a failing of others to satisfactorily address the issues raised. You wrote as follows:

I really want to remove some columns to make the most important data more visable.

It’s just this simple: I don’t buy your reasoning. At all. The mere existence of “some” columns does not diminish the “visibility” of “other” columns nearly as much as your “removing” columns, which certainly does diminish the visibility of data (it makes it disappear altogether). This goes beyond copyediting and would amount to judicious use of the [delete] key to make material disappear that other editors devoted scores of man-hours over the years to develop and maintain; such moves do not come lightly. As I wrote above, absent a clear and well-participated community consensus for removal—and only with ample participation by a number of the shepherding editors at articles on the more major, individual CAD programs—deletions of material should not be occurring; that is not how we “build the project”.

Please accept my opinion. Your insistence that my not agreeing with you can only be the product of not addressing your inescapable logic could be considered tendentious editing if you persist, which can be disruptive when taken much further than this. ← (That is offered in the spirit of constructive advise to help you better abide by the principles that keep collaborative writing going smoothly). Now…

If you are anxious for more immediate feedback from some other editor besides myself in hopes they might agree with you, I suggest you contact GFHandel (the only other editor active here over the last few days). Given his above reactions to your latest attempts here, you may not like his opinion either. Notwithstanding that you will likely not like my opinion or his, please don’t repeating the same argument over and over again. Others here might be *wrong*, but this is how “consensus” is established on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The page is close to perfect for its purpose. Shouldn't "Export only" and "2d only" have a yellow background (not green)? ...and a small nit-pick: EUR is standard; GBP is standard; US$ is not standard (the standard is USD). --gewg_

What is useful and relevant content?[edit]

User User:Greg L has reinstated some columns of information which I originally created but recently decided were just clutter (Other OS support and DXF support). One problem with having lots of content and columns is that the existence of more columns directly effects the space for the others. On my 18" laptop screen I now loose the columns for import / export and price until I scroll to the side. Once Ive done that I can choose between missing the price or the name of the software. This is part of my rational for trying to cut down the number of columns. The other part of the rational is that I think it's better with just the most useful information. This is why I asked at the start of this section if we needed the Academic version information. What do others think generally? Should we try to distil the list to the most important information? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User User:Greg L has reinstated the column for DXF support, as I wrote in the comment at the time "Removed the column specific to DXF support, all packages (I think also Salome, but can't find it) have DXF export capability. Therefore that column was just clutter.)" What do others think? Do we want to keep that column or drop it? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User User:Greg L has reinstated the column for Other OS support, as I wrote in the comment at the time "(Removed the 'Other platforms?' column as it was not useful. Only two entries made use of ti and one had misunderstood it's meaning.)" What do others think? Do we want to keep that column or drop it? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Well… don’t go out of your way to personalize things, will ya? All those “Greg L” did this and “Greg L” did that sorta makes it look like you are approaching this whole collaborative writing-thing with a BATTLEGROUND mentality. It was User:GFHandel who first (and voiciferously) objected to unilateral deletions of material; I seconded his motion and reinstated the material you removed. Now…

    Please be advised that the community is not required to debate issues until the heat death of the universe. If you don’t get buy-in on your proposal here, I suggest you go to the individual talk pages of the articles you’ve listed below, post alerts there, and also contact any identifiable shepherding authors of the articles corresponding to entries you are proposing to delete. For those entries where there is no corresponding article, it should only take you 15 minutes to find out which editor entered it into the list.

    You will note that Wikipedia’s Lists, like “Lists of stars” tend to be highly inclusive; that’s one of the hallmarks of good lists: completeness all the way to the minor and obscure stuff. If you think there is a truly worthless entry that serves no value, make a case (as you’ve done in at least one of the below) and let’s see what the shepherding authors and some of the CAD experts that inhabit Wikipedia have to say. I personally do not have the time nor inclination to become a 15-minute expert on these matters. As an engineer and R&D scientist, one of my distinctive competencies seems to be quickly getting up to speed on issues. But, truly… to do a proper job of getting up to speed on something often requires more than 15 minutes of time.

    Please do not make the mistake of assuming that “lack of response equals acceding to your wishes.” It is often the case that those who have already weighed in rapidly lose interest in continuing to engage an editor.

    I’ve weighed in on a couple of items below. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Some small things I noticed[edit]

The page is close to perfect for its purpose. Shouldn't "Export only" and "2d only" have a yellow background (not green)? ...and a small nit-pick: EUR is standard; GBP is standard; US$ is not standard (the standard is USD). --gewg_

Software specific discussion[edit]


User:Greg L has reinstated this program. It has no article on wikipedia so I see no reason why it should be here. Surely the existence of an article must be the very first criteria for inclusion? It's certainly listed up at the start of this talk page. Another reason to remove it is that it doesn't exist any more. According to Parametric_Technology_Corporation#Products it's part of PTCs Creo package. It's frustrating to look through all these packages again because Greg didn't check them before he reinstated them... Can we remove CoCreate? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thumbs up Conditionally support. If it is truly an issue that this program no longer exists (as opposed to having merely been renamed), I can see myself supporting this entry’s removal. However, it is so jolly easy to use the [delete] key and so much work to add material to Wikipedia. We don’t delete the contributions of others lightly. It is incumbent on you, if you are so highly motivated to delete this, to check with the editors who put the material here in the first place so you can understand their reasoning and make sure of the facts. Greg L (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose complete removal. Can a minor table of such software be added after the main table? Such a table will allow readers to land on WP's article (via search engine matches), and such a table can inform our readers about the history of the software (e.g. if it was absorbed into other software). Regarding, "Surely the existence of an article must be the very first criteria for inclusion"—I can't state strongly enough how much I disagree with that suggestion. GFHandel   00:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thumbs down icon Strong Oppose. I agree (and changed my mind). Let’s suppose that the program “doesn’t exist anymore”, as the nom proposed (which doesn’t appear to be the case as far as I can tell). Being able to learn about the history and evolution of products is important and theoretically would have been a valid rationale underlying its inclusion on the list. The U.S. government doesn’t issue Silver Certificates anymore, yet people want to learn about what they were (or are for those still in possession of them). CoCreate occupies a single, one‑thumb high row in the list on my monitor; that’s not a problem, it’s a service. And if some wikipedian wants to step up to the plate and create an article so the list entry doesn’t have a red link (which is one of the reasons why we have red links), even better.

    And, as if facts matter around here, it literally took me about 20 seconds to google on “CoCreate” to find that CoCreate is now Creo Elements/Direct.” With some other editor spending a whole additional minute or two, they could probably figure out if the most appropriate solution is to change the entry’s name or to create another one if the program changed substantially with the renaming.

    This all speaks to why we just can’t have editors waltzing in and unilaterally pounding the [delete] key with a jackhammer without first truly discussing issues and obtaining buy-in from the well-informed community members active in this area.

    Duncan, you wrote above that I failed to completely revert you and overlooked restoring two programs. They stand a darn good chance of deservedly belonging in the list. Please completely undo what you’ve done to the list. And then drop this; you are wasting far too much of other editors’ time by flogging a dead horse. Greg L (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm happy with removing the red-link for software that is considered unlikely to get an article. GFHandel   02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If the software is orphaned, why not? But if any CAD entry is still being actively sold—no matter how small the developer—I think it best serves the interest of our readership to keep the red links so as to encourage any editor (and I.P. works fine for niche material like CAD) to start at least a stub. Greg L (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


HiCAD User:Greg L has reinstated this program. There is a wikipedia article but it has both a single source and advertisement banner. Also it has no links to any external sources. As such I think we should just remove it until the article either matures and we include it, or it disappears. What say others? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What is this all about? Is there a pressing need to name another editor in multiple posts, possibly to settle a score? All the proposals on this talk page need to be abandoned and resumed in a month if warranted. Due to the excitement of recent days, it is impossible for anyone to approach this issue as a straightforward "let's make this the best list on Wikipedia!". Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I second the motion. His motion to delete ZWCAD from the list is jaw-dropping and I just don’t have the time to continually deal with this tenacity. Greg L (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I know perfectly well where ZWCAD fits into the budget cad software market. Good on them, BricsCAD, ProgeCAD and the mnay other good CAD packages that don't get talked about nearly enough. You hit on something there Greg - it should be on the list. But how do we maintain the list if we don't stand on the shoulders of a specific wikipedia article? It just becomes a free for all doesn't it? How do we avoid that? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • @User:Johnuniq I've just had a look around and can't find any guidelines for what constitutes a good list. Do you have any nominations or ideas? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


RealCADD User:Greg L has reinstated this program. There is no Wikipedia article so I don't see why we should include it. What do others think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


SALOME User:Greg L has reinstated this program. SALOME is not a CAD application, it is a "generic platform for Pre- and Post-Processing for numerical simulation." As such I don't think it should be in this comparison/list. If others agree then please remove it again. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thumbs down icon Oppose deletion. SALOME is more. It can be used as standalone application for generation of CAD models and can Create/modify, import/export (IGES, STEP, BREP), repair/clean CAD models according to its web site. There is reason to be here. -- (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I can see that you're right. Here's a video of someone manually adding coordinates to Salome to make a boxy thing: Part 1 - Salome for Windows (Salome+Netgen+Calculix). I certainly wouldn't use it to create a CAD model or drawing, but as you say, it can! --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


TransMagic User:Greg L has reinstated this program. "TransMagic is a commercial computer program that converts computer-aided design (CAD) files from one native file format to another." It is not a CAD package but a file converter. I don't see why it should be on this list. What do others think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thumbs down icon Oppose deletion. The fact that there are a boat-load of different CAD programs, and there are more file formats than you can shake a stick at makes it germane that there would be a translator to help bring compatibility to the chaos. Greg L (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


ZWCAD User:Greg L has reinstated this program. There is no Wikipedia article so I don't see why we should include it. What do others think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(there are more but let's start with them...

  • Thumbs down icon Strongly oppose. Stop this right now, please. Or do some homework on what you are doing and try better to understand what en.Wikipedia is about. This is a major CAD program by ZWSOFT. Just because there is no article currently on Wikipedia for this program means nothing; it’s inclusion on the list let’s readers interested in CAD know about the product so they can research it elsewhere. Furthermore, the redlink in the list is an invitation for some wikipedian to step up to the plate and create the corresponding article. Greg L (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Greg L. WP needs to be able to inform readers about all types of CAD software so that they can make informed comparisons. The reason certain software is nebulous or minor can be drawn to the readers' attention via comparison information in the table (if required). GFHandel   23:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Old discussions archive[edit]

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)List of computer-aided design editors for architecture, engineering and construction — The article title should start with "list of..." per WP:LISTS, because this is really a list. Secondly, the acronyms should be removed from the title per WP:TITLE. Wizard191 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Focus of this article[edit]

User:Greg L has narrowed (I meant to say widened --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)) this articled focus by removing the reference to AEC. Since four days after I started this article it has specified something similar to "This page only looks at CAD applications. Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and Computer Aided Machining (CAM) are not covered in this comparison, although those types of software are often very similar and usually can also be used for CAD trying to compare all CAx software would be unworkable on one page." as I wrote in that poorly constructed intro I don't think it's feasible or useful to compare all types CAD application for all purposed and all file converters and so on. What do people think should be in the intro? Clearly User:Greg L thinks the focus was too narrow - I disagree. There are separate pages for Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_CAE and there was one for CAM I think, but I can't find it anymore. I suggest that given the controversy around content on this page User:Greg L should stop making these changes without discussing them first here - which is what he told me to do. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have said that he has widened the focus (by removing a constriction), however that's a moot point. What Greg L has done is restore the lede text to be precisely appropriate with what our readers (averaging 150 per day) will expect when they go to a Wikipedia article called "List of computer-aided design editors".
Of course, I am prepared to admit that the table may be out of date (and probably always will be to at least some extent), however that's the price we pay for the chosen title. There are many choices open now:
  • Editors roll up their sleeves and get the table up-to-date.
  • The article is reduced to becoming a switchboard to other list articles.
  • One large table is broken up into smaller tables (based on some of the suggestions above).
  • More columns and information are inserted into the table to differentiate the various products and product types.
  • The article is renamed to better fit the table it contains.
and of course these choices are not necessarily all mutually exclusive. I support the change in the lede text as a step in the right direction (whatever that ends up being).
GFHandel   05:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Quoting Duncan: I suggest that given the controversy around content on this page User:Greg L should stop making these changes without discussing them first here - which is what he told me to do. Duncan, what I want you to do is stop acting like a one-man wrecking crew where you were deleting entries. You were doing that all on your own without discussion. Then, when you did discuss and proposed individual entries for deletion, it turned out you wanted to axe major CAD programs just because they have the misfortune of having no article on Wikipedia or had a name change. Now…

    If you want to actually role up your sleeves and copy edit; which is to say, research and update and expand and improve the list’s entries, be my guest. And if you want to actually create an article for one of those red‑link entries, be my guest. But no more of your waltzing in and deleting entries; your reasoning for having done so betrays a galactic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. And your pronouncements here on this talk page—after the fact—that those entries you unilaterally deleted were henceforth “Banned” betrayed a lack of understanding of the collaborative writing processes that make things work smoothly around here.

    And please also desist for a month or two with your coming here to this talk page with your nominations to delete entries. While your doing so was truly “discussion” and was a welcome advancement in how you were going about things, there is clearly no enthusiasm in the community to support your endeavors at this time. As Johnuniq wrote above: All the proposals on this talk page need to be abandoned and resumed in a month if warranted. Due to the excitement of recent days, it is impossible for anyone to approach this issue as a straightforward "let's make this the best list on Wikipedia!". After you’ve worked for a month adding and copy editing and improving entries and creating articles for red links, then you will probably have a better understanding of what is in the list and why they are there. Then, any further nominations from you might be buttressed with sound reasoning and might more easily gain traction with the community. Greg L (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

    • User:Greg L Please stop lecturing me, links to wikipedias guidelines are welcome but I don't appreciate your patronising tone. Still better than being called whatever-it-was-you-called-me (I genuinely liked the galactic moron one though). If several of you decide it's best just to archive this whole discussion I'll not oppose, and I'll stay away from commenting for a month or so. I can start looking at some similar comparisons/lists for how they deal with spam entries, notability and so on. And there are plenty of other CAD/BIM/AEC articles that need attention. Hey, I've just convinced myself! Thanks for the memories. See you in a month or so guys. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Currently the top of this page claims that "CAD refers to a specific type of drawing and modeling software application that... Uses the accuracy inherent in a floating point, as opposed to fixed-point drawing database".

Is there any good reason reason this article uses a definition of CAD software that is *different* from the definition on the CAD software page? --DavidCary (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi David. I guess the real answer to your question (as usual on wikipedia) is because no-one has compared their definitions before. I'm pretty sure I added the bit about fixed-point geometri. I was looking for a way to distinguish between graphics software like 3dstudio and Blender from CAD packages like SolidWorks, Revit and 2d CAD packages. But I'll be up front and admit that I'm no expert on the distinction. I've understood that the inherent accuracy of fixed-point geometri is what sets them apart from general purpose graphics software. I can see that I am (at the very least) partly wrong. Accordting to this thread Revit uses Double-precision_floating-point_format and is clearly CAD software. I would welcome suggestions for other ways to stop this list being 'polluted' with generel purpose CAD packages. (Have I seen you on LinkedIn Revit groups?) --duncan.lithgow (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear duncan.lithgow and other readers,
I agree that it's becoming difficult to draw a clear distinction between a modeling program and a computer-aided design editor. New software seems to straddle every previous line I've ever seen drawn between them.
So are we going to make one huge list that includes both, even though it may cause some apples-to-oranges comparisons?
Or should we pick some division line between them, keep them in 2 separate lists, and put the few packages that straddle the line in both lists? --DavidCary (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there User:DavidCary. As you can see from the discussion above this one I got slammed for trying to find a way of excluding general purpose CAD modelling software from this list to make it more usable. I don't know if User:Greg_L or User:GFHandel have any interest in this article any more, I'm actually interested in working on it again. But only if we can find a meaningful focus for it. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── DuLithgow: Many members of the wikipedian community saw fit to labor over the years to add content to Wikipedia. Please don't delete anyone’s hard work. The title of this article is “Comparison of computer-aided design editors”; “general purpose modeling” software falls solidly within the scope of the article. The addition of “general purpose editors” in the table doesn’t make the article any less “usable.” One reason many users come to this article is precisely because they are contemplating buying general purpose modeling software and they want to compare the program’s features to other programs. Greg L (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Greg L. It's been a while. The reason this article broadened its focus has nothing to do with me. When I made the page I started with that broad focus and decided it was a waste of effort making such a big table. If there are enough people putting in an effort to make the list useful even with such a spread of software that's fine. As it is now, it's too wide for my screen and so high that I've long forgotten what the different columns mean by the time I scroll down to an interesting entry. So how do we make the table as it is more usable? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; quite a while. I was off getting acid stomach in the real world (re)designing medical equipment. I’m back to something far more interesting, much more rewarding, and infinitely less stressful.

I agree that the table leaves much to be desired to be truly useful. Drawing comparisons between CAD programs is double-tough. All we can have in the table is a bland list of objective facts such as whether it is 2D or 3D, opens and saves certain file formats, and its price.

What would really be helpful is to include more subjective attributes such as ease-of-use or the general philosophy of the operator interface. “Subjective” and “Wikipedia” do not mix well. Subjective topics, such as our articles on movies, can be afforded proper treatment on Wikipedia but only because anything related to pop culture provides ample RSs to reference. Notwithstanding the copious RSs to quote for movies, you will occasionally see an assertion such as “…was well received by critics” followed with a dozen citations (legacy residue of a past edit war).

Finding RSs for CAD programs to buttress a statement, for instance, about the general nature of the operator interface or its ease of use is simply not possible for CAD programs. Why?

For instance, Solidworks is far different from Cobalt—and for many purposes—could be considered as more “powerful.” In Solidworks, you near-literally “drill a hole” (selecting diameters, chamfer angles and depths) whereas in Cobalt, you “subtract two solids.” Solidworks is linear and exceedingly rule based, which is good in an important way because it keeps track of the transformations (machining operations) in a manner that allows it to do what I call a “data ralph” wherein it automatically dimension a print for you. Data ralphs are pleasant things for young engineers where “machine shops” and “real life” are abstract concepts and it is seemingly easy for the outside world to make all features a near-perfect ±0.005 inch—just like the young engineer’s little fingers and his CAD program say it ought to be.

Cobalt is entirely freeform—you can do anything you want at any time, including fusing two entirely different solids together in a freeform orientation. Even though Cobalt allows you do make fully rule-based parametric relationships (in the Solidworks-style where you hand-edit the dimension of a feature and everything reflows), it's freeform way of creating solids is far better suited for conceptualizing and “inventing,” where the designer doesn’t have a clear picture of what the endpoint is and is trying to brainstorm.

Not surprisingly, Solidworks is far more difficult to learn. And if you’re off it for a few years, you’re hosed; I watched a program manager give up after a few days. Solidworks is driving the engineering world back to the days where engineers engineer and rely on CADmen for their drawings. Moreover…

As wikipedians, we live & die by our RSs. But because all the powerful CAD programs are so complex, most users require years to fully master them. Accordingly, there is no RS who can speak authoritatively on more than two or three of them when trying to compare and contrast. It would be impossible to even begin an even-handed treatment on subjective criteria across the entire list.

What all this means is that most users quickly glance at the price column at the far right (which should really be the second column). Price is about the only good hint at how powerful (or “good”) a CAD program is.

You see all that verbiage in the two above green {{xt|}} paragraphs wherein I described the general nature of the difference between just two programs? Distilling those two paragraphs into pithy little things suitable for inclusion in the table, such as highly rule based for parametric vs. modestly rule based for parametric output but quite freeform too would be worthless without expansive footnotes below the table explaining what those terms mean. Developing clear verbiage that would be accessible to a general-interest readership would be a herculean task. Trying to even settle on a set of attributes (new columns for the table) that would be applicable across a majority of CAD programs is effectively impossible.

What you desire (make this article well and truly useful), strikes me as desiring world peace and eradication of hunger: Indeed, such pleasant things. But how? I’m at a loss here as to how one might radically improve the usefulness of this article. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Runs on Mac OS X but not Unix-like?[edit]

How is this possible? If it runs on Mac OS X, a Unix-like OS, doesn't that necessitate that it runs on a Unix-like OS?There are a few entries where one is marked but not the other and I don't see how that is possible. And some are the opposite where it says it'll run on Mac OS X in the Unix-like column but will be marked no for the the "Other Platforms?" column which doesn't makes sense either.

Removal of Price column[edit]

It is nearly impossible to keep the Price column up to date and it is more "marketing" than anything. I suggest changing it to "Free"/"Pay" or something non-specific as to the actual $ amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of computer-aided design editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)