Not 'Open' by definition, but in practice open. CAD DWG.
This video demonstrates copy/paste of data between different programms.
Just to show you DWG is a 'semi open' CAD alternative. The word AutoCAD get a whole different meaning.
That word stands for DWG.
(subtitles available)
Comments
Nothing about DWG is open. The file format and the name are highly protected. Bear in mind that Autodesk started putting encrypted signatures in their files to prove they are from Autodesk applications some years ago and they protect the name aggressively. Although some firms have good support for DWG usually by using the libraries from the OpenDesignAlliance. But they are also not open in any way other than licensing alternatives to DWG and RVT/RFA. Try reading the wikipedia article for more background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dwg
Why is DWG not open? Our industry and governement are in need of Open Dwg. In NL they are obligated to ask for open standards. There is nothing there that fills the need for dwg.
DWG is not "open" because there is no publicly available documentation of how it works. It is a secret box where some software knows how to put your project data in and some software knows how to get your project data out again. You have no insight, no control and arguable no genuine ownership. Have some firms made good progress in being able to open DWGs without permission from Autodesk? Yes. But that does not mean it is open.
Maybe you mean DWG is a de-facto standard and is ubiquitous. There is would agree.
If we want open DWG we need to support the libreDWG project https://www.gnu.org/software/libredwg/
There're some attempts to kill most of these file formats, in Silicon Valley
I'm aware of a movement out of the built environment industry, in the additive manufacturing industry, which they are working on a new file format that I think would be an alternative for many current file formats, which has different layers, and supports heterogeneous computing in both CPU (C++) and GPU (CUDA GPU + OpenGL)
Two observations or thoughts from my side..
-The open source movement (for opendwg) is no match for ODA
-I thing ODA can work good in conjunction with Bsi to make both IFC and DWG better. I am aware the ODA is not fully Open allthough the name suggest that. Software developers need to make money which is reasonable.
Why on earth would Bsi work with ODA? Both organisations are NOT OPEN.
I think it's not all black or white, open or closed .. the good or bad. The world of BIM and CAD as i see it is more like 50 shades of grey. DWG certainly is one BIG grey hole missing in OS. DWG is on the move. Closed or open.
https://www.buildingsmart.org/buildingsmart-international-bsi-and-open-design-alliance-oda-sign-letter-of-cooperation/
I don't know anything about ODA, but if ODA be something like bSI, I don't think they be able to come up with a good ending
For me, bSI is just a business firm with some people who just think about business than technical aspects and always purposefully want IFC to be nothing more than a storage file format that mostly used in some countries in Europe and related to Europe like Australia
IFC is outdated, then you think DWG is good?
It's not efficient, has security issues, is too small, and doesn't cover the whole built environment industry, has developed for desktop solutions, is static, ...
No i personally don't thing any of that @ReD_CoDE disagree.
ODA is a technology consortium providing interoperability libraries to industry. Just like intellicad provides functionality to CAD packages.
There is no intrinsic reason why libreDWG can't be successful. Autodesk has shown little interest in developing the format for some time now and other firms are using it in much more creative ways. One firm (BricsCAD?) even has version control and use it for their BIM offering. Google can open (but not edit) DWGs in Drive. Eventually I think it will be supported very well by libre software just like microsoft office formats are. https://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/upfrontezine/ has lots of interesting articles about how DWG is being used outside Autodesk.
here's the latest on progress with libreDWG https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=9791
Nice to see more activity there after that flurry at the beginning of the year and then nothing for a while I was afraid it was going back into hibernation. I have heard that because it is GPLV3 there are licence compatibility issues for some projects is that true?
License thing was an issue of OpenDWG, "The OpenDWG’s license does not allow the usage in free software projects."
This new DWG feature was released today. The idea is not bad. Not so Open, but welcome
@magicalcloud_75 yes that has been a problem you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreDWG and here is the whole story http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning also added to https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_articles
Thanks Duncan Looks like there was an updated article and an interview with the new developer. http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-revived-starts-getting-regular-releases
The key question was: why doesn't any of the end-user applications use the existing code in LibreDWG to gain support for DWG files?Sorry but i done understand this either. We have DXF so why would we want OpenDWG? Just use DXF on export if you want to be open. Your choice, right? Or are there things OpenDWG supports that DXF doesn't have? Does ODA provide more? Can of worms..
My limited understanding is that DXF is optimized for exchange not use so it is inefficient and it requires a proprietary program to convert DWG to DXF. If a firm has been using a cad product for years and stops all of their projects are locked in to the file format and are unusable to them so the ability to read DWG's is key. I use ODA file converter https://www.opendesign.com/guestfiles/oda_file_converter which I believe is free but not open. The ability to write as well as read DWG's allows for an easier mixed software environment as many have expressed on in this forum the ideal is a format that can be manipulated by many different kinds of software creating seamless communication and collaboration between collaborators in different disciplines and offices. I don't think DWG is ideal but inertia is a powerful force.
The abiility to read dwg in open softare is important to ease transition / communication.
The de-facto standard for decades has been DWG. Ignoring DWG would mean effectively signal that only new projects deserve free software. That is of course not what we want. Transitioning to libre spoftware will require good DWG support. In the article @baswein linked to they report that ACIS (SAB) support for importing 3d geometry ... I'm still tring to understand the significance of this. I think ACIS is how many 'embedded' 3d objects are stored inside DWG files - but I didn't realise this had anything to do with SAT files , so I'm a bit confused.
In an ideal world, yes, we should support DWGs. However, here is the reality is that DWG support is kinda crappy. Here are the questions I think people'll ask, that I don't know the answers to - hopefully having a stance on these first and documenting the current state of affairs is a good start:
As a stopgap measure, maybe we should start recommending people export DXFs? It is an easy switch for most people who don't use DWG as a native (e.g. those who use Revit / ArchiCAD / Tekla as native, but then export a DWG), with no apparent loss in information. For those who do use DWG as a native format, they can continue doing so. Providing a DXF allows us to support it a lot better as it solves 2 of the 3 problems above. The ODA converter may be used as a lesser evil to convert from DWG if DXFs aren't provided.
LibreDWG is GPLv3, so i'm realy curious about what's the issue in "GPL2 or later" context as blender ?
@stephen_l maybe it is possible as an add-on, but not bundled with Blender?
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=39827
Freecad topic about libre DWG support
Personally I am more of a supporter of DXF, probably cause there were no free/open-source parsers for DWG a few years back when I started working on importing CAD geometry in Code_Aster.
By the way, I have always worked with ezdxf for DXF input/output and has always worked like a charm
By the way where "ezdxf" would be better listed in the
Free Software Directory? InGeometry scanning and processing?Looks like blender's dxf import/export still rely on outdated dxfgrabber (from same author)
Blender DXF support is actually getting worse, some of my workflows rely on quad meshes, but the blender 2.8 DXF export triangulates everything. So I find myself exporting to Collada, importing in 2.79 and re-exporting to DXF. Having looked at the code I can see why this was done, but it is still a pain.
BTW number one on my wishlist for blender would be some kind of constraint mode where it was impossible to draw non-planar quads (or any other kind of face, I guess).
Instead of export import, you should try to copy / paste between blender 2.8 and 2.79 sessions !
For planar constraint, temporary set the Z scale to 0, and once modelling done, apply transforms.
Wow, I wouldn't have thought this was possible, but it works perfectly! Thanks, this removes nearly all the hassle from this workflow (also shows that grumbling about features in the wrong forum isn't always a bad idea).
I'm looking for arbitrary planes, not just z=0. i.e. if I have four co-planar points in any orientation, I want the grab tool to constrain moving a single point to that plane. If the point is shared between two planar quads, then I want the grab tool to only move along the line of intersection of the two planes (using gg instead of g sort-of does this, but only in one direction).
@brunopostle I've had to deal with this before, the techniques I used was:
Thanks, I can align the z-axis of the cursor to any line or normal, but there genuinely doesn't seem to be any way to align the other axes, they just point in a random direction.