03 October 2006
IntelliCAD versions          
I did some very basic testing of several versions of IntelliCAD. Basic testing means that I installed the program and opened various existing r2004 format AutoCAD drawings. Doesn't sound like much, but it gave me a lot of information. Here are the results.

ProductSingle Seat price in USDMultiple discount price in USD (#)Network Licensed price in USDNotes
autodsys149629 (5)N/APerformed well
axCAD199139-179 (depends on # seats)N/ACrashed frequently. Not recommended.
BricsCAD2251010 (5)N/ASeems to have trouble with long path x-refs. Not recommended.
CADopia2491095 (5)N/ACannot test demo due to lack of license. URL given to obtain demo license does not work
progeCAD249N/A399Performed well. Also available, a hardware locked version for 375
zwCAD???Not recommended. No way to get prices without contacting "distributor" via email.

To those anonymous persons leaving comments, it's kind of hard to respond to your comments as long as you are anonymous. Post back with an identity or send me an email if this is troubling you so much.

First of all, I said right up front that this was some "BASIC" testing (see below)

Second of all, not being able to open drawings that open just fine in AutoCAD 2006 is quite a problem, hence the Not recommended. label.

My "testing" consisted of doing what a potential user might do.

  1. Going to the website and downloading the demo
  2. Installing the program (on a clean test machine)
  3. Opening real world drawings, picked at random from the working folders at a real engineering company. Most include several xrefs. All open fine in AutoCAD 2006 with no errors.
  4. Performing various simple drawing and editing tasks.

Lastly, I never claimed that these "tests" were validated by anything more than myself, and if you don't like my results, download them and try them for yourself. My goal here was simply to give potential users a quick heads up.


PermaLink       Posted 10/03/2006 05:45:00 PM     

Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
Date: October 16, 2006 at 8:10:00 PM CDT  

It should be noted that the offering from autodsys is a standard version without advanced rendering, raster to vector, 3D solid modeling, VBA, etc. progeCAD LT is the comparable product from the folks at progeSOFT. progeCAD 2006 Professional contains all these extra features to enable you to do more.

Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
Date: October 19, 2006 at 5:56:00 PM CDT  

i'm glad i'm not a software developer who's spent hundreds or thousands of hours on a plugin, only to have you dismiss it with an HTML table and some red text. "doesn't sound like much..." that's because it isn't. on the other hand, i guess i have a right not to take your results very seriously.

Comment from: Blogger Hsiao
Date: December 14, 2006 at 2:15:00 AM CST  

You wrote BricsCAD seems to have trouble with long path x-refs, how ling is the path limit?

Comment from: Anonymous Anonymous
Date: November 11, 2008 at 10:54:00 PM CST  

this is high biased chart or the author not make a good investigation.

"not recommended" ? why? how? details?

compare oranges with oranges.
i have downloaded progesoft guided by your chart. what a waste of time and money.

also as "hsiao" asks, i also ask you, what is the "safe limit" in bricscad i have make very extreme tests, even with spaces, etc, and was not able to crash the thing.

a comparison chart between these products is a complex task, with i guess at least much more rows and details. there are lots of differences under the cover, at least for me and "my tests".

sadly i have to say they are all brothers from the same parents, but very far from being twins.

Comment from: Blogger R.K. McSwain
Date: November 12, 2008 at 6:34:00 AM CST  

To "anonymous" on 11-11-2008. First off, I clearly defined up front what my testing consisted of. Second, this post is over 2 years old, so take that into consideration. Third, of course it's biased - it's biased towards the applications that installed cleanly and managed to open existing DWG files produced by AutoCAD without crashing.

Post a comment