Until about two months ago, I never knew that. Way back in Dec 2007, at CompUSA, I bought a ~$90 version of TurboCAD Deluxe (I think) and a ~$90 PunchViaCAD (I think v 6 back then). I gave TC about 2 weeks of play time, and I utterly could not get it to do the 3D shown on the panel. Tech Support tried to help me, and there was one bizarre time it worked. Then, as if having mind of its own, the 3D tool Surface stopped working. Off the phone, I was screaming, angry, freeling that it was a hidden "stub" not removed but maybe was meant to be in the more expensive version. At times, I felt like TC or the company was toying with me.
So, IIRC, I bought an upgrade (or perhaps I did a trial of DesignCAD in 2008), and it failed me, later, too. I then uninstalled it (not for shortage of space, either), and installed VC 6. I was hesitant at the install size, but figured I'd better give it a whirl.
I haven't looked back, despite the noticably weaker layer management system. (I'm on SFX 9.0.13 Build (1217).
Please, be honest (unless you're under some agreement to not answer): Is there some contractual reason VC and Shark layers cannot be moved outide their own level? Or, why there are single-letter shortcuts. (With multiple letters, I could use mnemonics.) Or why the Inspector Attributes tab is non-stretchable? (Or why the standing figure symbols have no meat on their bones?)
It just seems to be these are completely within your abilities resolve.
For me, that limitation is the single-most-devastating disadvantage (beside single-letter shortcuts). I don't seem to experience the bugs people report, though I have some spurious crashes, long save times, etc. But, butting up against having to move geometry and relable layers after recreating hundreds, and having no automation leaves me at times feeling ADD/OCD-drun staring at my screen or just giving up for months at a time.
The UI is vastly non-stressful compared to TC, AC, DesignCAD, and others. (In or around 1994, I spent over $800 on DesignCAD 2D/3D (IIRC, it was named that), getting the software, the puck, the user guides, and a digitizer. I couldn't even begin to use it. I just wanted to move my ships from paper to CAD, and after that, I largely skipped CAD until playing around with Carene or something in 2005, again giving up. Around 2006, I revisited my 1994 purchased, quickly giving up.
I was for a number of years very, very bitter toward Turbo CAD, and perhaps without much valid reason. Now, I find out it was one of your babies, and I'm more disappointed with myself because I feel that if I'd known it was yours, even though I settled for VC, VCP, SLT, and SFX, I would have been less bitter. It's illogical.
Anyway, I spent some 2 hours typing a pain doc about issues I'm having with SFX (layers mostly, and some CE/SM, filtering, etc), and lack of macro automation to save me 3-4 hours every time I start a new hull and have to frame-stiffen it, and now this bit of history makes me hesitate to share what I wrote. (The above is vastly shorter than the other tome I drafted, if that's any consolation...)
I'm torn/confused as hell. Why, if TC has so much layer power, VC/Shark don't? It feels grossly unfair, and for me it's eviscerating and heartbreaking because I lose hours over layer management issues.
Edited by user Monday, November 5, 2018 12:11:47 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
