With the release of Autocad 2007 Autodesk has officially abandoned the .3ds file format export in favor of allowing 3d Studio Max to import the .dwg format directly from Autocad.  Unfortunately if you don't have max or a program that can open the .dwg format this means that Vue will no longer be able to import Autocad generated models (the dxf import has never worked for me at all, probably because there are so many variations on the .dxf format)

At any rate, I thought I would share this disconcerting news, I have posted a query to eon over on their forums to see whether or not there's anything they can/will be able to do on there end, since Autodesk has made it clear (our CAD support department posed the question of what do do on there end and got the response of  "open the dwg in max and save it out" ...not particularly helpful if you don't have max and don't want to spend 5k on a file converter :)  If they're going to force me to buy max I may as well learn it and move all our renderings to max and abandon Vue.

I'm not happy about this news either. Not that I plan to move up to acad2007 anytime soon (I'm still ticked at Autodesk for buying up Lightscape, just to kill it). Eventually, I will have to move up the Acad ladder, tho, so sure hope a solution for Vue is offered by then.

I think at this point the further away from Autodesk I can get the better, I really don't like the way they do business or customer support, and them re-incorporating 3d Studio Max and buying up Maya just rubs me the wrong way.  I'm really looking toward Lightwave at this point, since two of the "Xstream" supported programs are Autodesk and Cinema 4d has you paying for plugins to do some more advanced things that Lightwave already lets you do.

As far as moving up to ACAD 2007, it's our companies decision, and for the most part is just fine since we're a civil engineering firm putting out CAD plan sets, but when it comes to 3d I'm not going to be locked into one suite of programs because they want it to be that way.  I want to be able to pull stuff from one program and drop it into another without batting an eye, it won't stop me from using either program, but I tend to feel that the best toolbox uses MANY different softwares to get what you ultimately want (or in this case what the client wants) rather than having to find a way to make it work because you can't get your model out of your high end package and it won't easily do what a more specilized program like Vue will do with ease.

Oh, and I checked with the makers of polytrans (the 3d format converter) and their response was:  "Autodesk has used entirely new encryption for DWG 2007 so there is no planned shipping date for any translation company to provide DWG 2007 support right now."

As far as a solution for Autocad to Vue, I doubt there will be one, if anything I would worry more about them doing the same thing to 3ds Max and Maya that they're already doing with Autocad, making them more proprietary and limiting exportation.

Yo guys,

I have a solution, at least for my needs.  While AutoCAD 2007 has dropped 3DS support, it has added export for AutoCAD 14 file format.  I've always prefered AutoCAD 14 anyways - it's simple, it works and is not a hard drive hog.

1)  I suggest that you raid your company's old software bin and install AutoCAD 14 alongside of AutoCAD 2007.  The Export path is:  AutoCAD2007=>AutoCAD 14=> 3DS => VUE.

2)  In addition, AMAPI 3D version 6 is a freebie download from POLYLOOP (http://www.eovia3d.net/showthread.php?t=8358&highlight=amapi+download).  AMAPI V6 reads in AutoCAD14 DWG file format AND exports out OBJ format.

So technically, you can assemble your scenes in AutoCAD 2007, export out to AutoCAD 14 file format DWG to AMAPI then to VUE.   The drawing route would be:

AutoCAD 2007 => AMAPI v6 => VUE.

2 ways to export to VUE.  Thoughts & Comments?

 PS - Digreal - pleasure to be able to read you again.  It's been a few years since BIG-I and the AutoCAD newsgroup that only the 2 of us chatted in.  I feel that you set it up only for me... :-D.

Cheers...JoeK

Pffft.  I'm KEEPING my ACAD 2006 copy.  It's backed up in 2 places after this news.

You think Autodesk is bad, nano? Try dealing with BENTLEY...you cant even discuss a feature MicroStation doesn't have or could improve on in their message boards or it gets deleted, keeping MicroStation users from REALLY doing workarounds.

Howdy JoeK !! I didn't think anyone still remembered Big-i, let alone my Acad forum there. Good to see you're still around. And yep, I think I kept  the forum running just for you.

Anyways, does Acad2007 also export to acad2000 dwg? I lost my acad14 disk years ago, but still running (and backed up) acad2000. Keeping 2 versions installed wouldn't be any big deal, and it would certainly solve the problem. Of course, I still hate Autodesk, and hate to give them any more business, but switching to something else for architectural modelling would just be like shooting myself in the foot. After 30 years with that app, can't imagine being able to work as fast with anything else. Besides, I finally developed a really good workflow between acad and Vue, and I'm getting too old to dive into any major new programs.

Sure looking forward to Vue6-64bit, tho! Imagine all the Xfrog plants and Poser figures in one scene. :-)

Bentley even worse than Autodesk!? Nah, couldn't be. When it comes to evil empires, Autodesk puts em all to shame...  even MS... IMHO.

Yep - 2007 exports out to 2000 format.

I've been "pushing" AutoDESK (through newsgroups & local resellers) to implement FBX file format as an export option.  So far no response, but it would be good if they implemented at least one external file format.

Keeping two versions may solve the short term problem, but over the long term it's definately not the ideal solution.  The problem is only going to get worse the longer you hang onto the older version.  Eventually you'll be passed by by people utilizing the better software and it's new features.  Also, exporting to release 14 or 2000 formats probably isn't going to work for 3d models.  It's been my experience so far when saving back that elements that can't be created in the version you're saving back to either get mangled or deleted.  I can do some testing when we get upgraded to 2007 and see what happens.  I've also noticed that having two versions on a system tends to screw things up, I'm not sure why, I just know that when we had 2002 and 2005 on our systems at the same time it was creating bugs and errors and corrupting files.

Ryan, Oh don't I know it, Bently and Autodesk are insanely proprietary and it's always user error when something goes wrong or doesn't work, the software really can do no wrong according to them.  Around here if something funky happens we just call it a "feature" of the program.  That's all that really happens when you upgrade, they fix the "features" from the last version, change the format just enough so people have to upgrade, and add new bugs...oops...sorry..."features" for the user to worry about.

It's funny because as Microstation advances it's taking on more of Autocad's features, and as Autocad advances it's taking on more of Microstation's features (in program rendering advances and eliminating export options being the ones that affect us the most) pretty soon you'll have AutoStation and MicroCAD :)

One thing I noticed, the polytrans people said that the reason Autocad is dropping the 3ds format is because it's an old out of date DOS format, which I could understand if it wasn't for the fact that Autodesk told our support people that the best way to export files from Autocad was to take them into 3d Studio Max and then export them from there as .3ds.  If they were eliminating the format because it's old then why is it still in 3d Studio Max???

At this point I'm recommending the Lighwave/Xstream/Vue 5 package as our standard, as it seems to be the cheapest and more efficient way as well as getting away from the whole "Autodesk rules the world" complex that you'd have to deal with using 3d Studio or Maya.  I've seen some really good work utilizing this and am finding a few people who are already using this workflow.  It definately sucks that we even have to deal with this stuff, as I too had developed a really nice workflow from Autocad (which I know really really well and can work really fast in) and Vue.  It would be nice if things didn't change but I've discovered the 3d world changes extremely fast and you have to be aggressive  and proactive in order to keep up with it.

Nano,

In some ways I have to dissagree with you regarding the changing file formats.  A file format does not change.  A program may change how it derives the data it uses, but the format to save/store that data stays the same unless the company writting the software changes the file format to its benefit.

Just because 3DS has been around a loooong time doesn't mean that the file format is outdated or useless.  The only time a file format becomes outdated or useless is when no one is using it.  Lets face it, 3D models are composed of X,Y & Z points and 3D faces.  It doesn't get any simpler than that.  Textures, however, are a different story.  No reason I see for 3DS to be "outdated".

I'm running ACAD 14, 2002, 2005 & 2007 on the same system & I have not encountered any issues.  Problem could be in the way the different versions of AutoCAD are installed on your network server.

I took a MicroStation course 4 years back, when I was looking for a job, thinking it would help me.  When I think of the differences in concepts from ACAD, and relate to previous posts that Ryan Spaulding had about it, I find myself reaching (almost instinctively) for the Holy Cross and a ring of garlic.

Maybe I should also mention that Hexagon (by all looks an AMAPI derivative) also has AutoCAD14 DWG import that I have used sucessfully.

I've never encountered any issues either, the "outdated" terminology came from the makers of Polytrans.  I have had no problems whatsoever using the 3ds format, especially since it's the only one that autocad exports to that reliably imports into Vue.  I tried argueing that with the polytrans people (who kept insisting that it was limited, outdated and useless in the future of 3d) and finally gave up.  I use it all the time and if I had my way; Autocad wouldn't get rid of it at all.  As far as textures, I don't need them to translate, I map them in Vue, and I really don't need more than 8 characters to define a layer (which is the limit the .3ds format has).  I really do think ultimately this is a play by Autodesk to force anybody using Autocad for 3d (architects, designers, etc...) into using 3d Studio max as their 3d renderer, not that they really have to, 90% of architectural renderings are already using it from what I can see. 

Good to know about Hexagon, you'll have to let us know if it ends up working (the 2007 saved down to 14 and imported into Hexagon path).  It would definately help to know that there's an answer out there other than switching out of Autocad completely.  And Hexagon would make a cheaper file exporter (it does export right??) than 3d Studio Max.

Oh yeah, totally night and day when it comes to Autocad vs Microstation.  The most accurate advice I ever heard was... "think of how you do it in Autocad, and then do it backwards, that's how you do it in Microstation."  I have since forgotten my Microstation training but shudder when I hear of a project that uses it coming down the pipeline.

As far as the network issue, it could very well be.

While I haven't used ACAD2007 for production work yet (company & DOT still standardized on 2006), I've fooled around w/ it at home at it seems OK as far as functionality.  I've ported DWG to DWG14 format & brought that into Hexagon w/o a problem.  However, if you want to do 3D work in ACAD2007, you'll need a pro version of a graphics card - gaming cards won't fly too well.  Certified OpenGL drivers required.

The only bad part in using 2007 is that I loose layer naming.  When I import 3DS into Hexagon, the 3DS layer name becomes the Hexagon object name.  (Hexagon does not use layers, but objects).  ie.  If I have a surface on layer GRAVEL, in Hexagon the gravel surface becomes an object named GRAVEL.

By importing a DWG directly, the object is named "FORM0"(..."FORM1"...and so on).  You have to rename the objects manually.

Hexagon imports: AMAPI (.a3d), Wavefront (.obj), 3DS, DWG14, DXF, Illustrator (*.ai) and generic "all files".

Hexagon exports: Carrara (.car), AMAPI (.a3d), Wavefront (*.obj), STL (?), DWG14 and DXF.  (ACAD2007 imports all forms of DWG.)

FYI - STL file format.  "The .stl or stereolithography format is an ASCII or binary file used in manufacturing. It is a list of the triangular surfaces that describe a computer generated solid model. This is the standard input for most rapid prototyping systems".

As a mention, I've had much better results from DXF2004/2005 than from DXF14/2002.  I think that I surpassed the 3DS limit in one DXF2005 file of 65K faces, but that's something I need to check out further.

The only other downer w/ Hexagon is that you need to move your models from 'project coordinates' to center the model near coords 0,0,0.  I've tried a few models I've had in UTM coordinates and Hexagon (as well as VUE) was very painfull and slow to use, it usable at all.  Once near 0,0,0, it was a snap.  It's a little bit buggy (from what I read in the newsgroups), and support has been transfered to DAZ (from Eovia which sold out) so updates will probably be fewer until DAZ figures out the programming, but I find version 2.1 quite usable for what I do.

Try the demo version, I'm getting kind of addicted to modeling w/ it.  I demoed it to the local AutoDESK reps, and I got a couple of "ACAD2007 does that", but a whole bunch of "ACAD2007 can't do that".

I'm going to have to post back the results of my testing.

I've just played w/ DXF imports.  While they look good in Hexagon, they are 2D, not 3D as I expected.

3DS imports in 3D.

I've tried STL (Acad2004 export) but AutoCAD STL does not recognise a TIN, only 'solids'.  DANG.

I'll post the result of DWG14 when I get a chance to run it.

AAAAAARRGGGHHHH!!!!

"Pilot Error".  DXF does indeed import as 3D.  I made the mistake of exporting my TIN out as 2D only - so it goes when yr system is set up for making 2D plans. 

I'll report on the full AutoCAD2007=>Hexagon=>VUE workflow in a few days - after I get a chance to play with the conversions and test out the results.

Thanks surveyman! Useful information.

Thanks from me, too, surveyman! I'll be watching for your further exploits.

Especially seeing the preview of Vue 6 and all the professional level rendering/shader tools being added (displacements, SSS, painting of ecosystems (my god that's scary to watch) being able to continue to use Vue has suddendly become a very high priority.  I even go my Die hard Viz boss to ask if we should be buying 3-6 licenses when it comes out.

Surveyman: if you could test the dxf export with a large model (is that 65k per layer that it's limited to or 65k overall??) from AC2007 directly to Vue and see which dxf version imports the best into Vue, holding the layers as well, that would be extremely helpful!!  Maybe you've already done this, there was a lot to read in your responses and it wasn't clear whether that was an export to Hexagon or an export to Vue.

Thanks!

Agree... Vue6I is a definate 'must have'. I started to tear up watching that ecosystem2 demonstration. I love V5I ecos, but they're a real bear for doing designed landscaping. Can't wait til eco2! I'd also like to hear about the dxf to Vue, surveyman. The more options, the less I need worry. Thanks.

OK - I can see I've got some testing 2 do.  The DXF exports were to Hexagon, primarily because I was thinking of assembling the scenes I want to do in Hexagon and exporting to VUE in OBJ format.

VUE has always been a 'bear' to assemble scenes in because I could not position objects accurately enough.  Problem w/ assembling scenes in ACAD has always been the type of export & number of faces to export.

I thought of using Hexagon as a 'watershed' application before porting to VUE.

I'll do the testing over the next few days, as I'm working 7days/week right now to meet an end of month submission deadline.

Will test as requested:

 ACAD2007 => DXF2007 => VUE

ACAD2007=>DWG14=>VUE

ACAD2007=>DWG14=>ACAD14-2005=>3DS=>VUE?

Any others?  Did you want me to use Hexagon in the conversions?

ACAD2007=>DWG14/DXF(or 3DS)=>Hexagon=>OBJ=>VUE?

BTW - Read on a newsgroup somewhere that ACAD2006 implementation of 3DS was crappy - didn't work correctly.  Any experienced feedback?

Appreciate your tests, Joe. No need to rush on my account... it's not like I'mm gonna buy Acad2007 this week, Vue6I comes first. Can't speak for nano, tho.... Thanks again

First off, VUE does not have a DWG14 import (should have looked).

DXF2007 test....

Loaded a 3DS model of a Skoda Octavia into ACAD2006 & saved.  Opended in ACAD2007 and saved as a DXF2007 file.  Imported the DXF2007 file into VUE5i.

Original 3DS rendering...

Looks similar except for the textures.  Both VUE renders done at 'Final' setting.

Thanks for testing Surveyman!!

Does the dxf import into Vue hold the seperate layers of the object or does it merge them all into one (thus ruining re-texturing in Vue) since I never texture using acad anyway.

Expected rollout for us for 2007 is May of next year, but I have to be prepped/trained before then so that the clients don't end up having to bear the brunt of learning new software if it becomes necessary.

Yes - as long as you don't 'weld' the parts together, then each layer becomes its own object.  Exactly what you want to hear, I hope.

I do not use Autocad myself, I use the freebie alternative Progecad LT for manipulating essential dwg-related information. It is a hassle when ACIS models come in the way (as it does not support ACIS solids). The usual procedure is to ask the client to provide me with a 3ds export version of the file. While this is normally ok, there are times when the meshes don't come through thanks to the 64k limit in the 3ds format.
That time I downloaded the Revit trial, imported the dwg file, and exported it as a dxf with polygon faces.
But I need to find a solution for the next time that problem arises...

Ask 'em for a DXF export.  I've noticed that the DXF export (DXF2004-2007) has improved in the last few versions of AutoCAD versus the older versions (DXF14-2002).  Improved in terms of content and size of model limitations.

Thanks Surveyman, that's exactly what I needed to hear!

Exactly what I needed to hear, too. I'm feeling a little more optimistic now. Thanks, surveyman!

Quote - Exactly what I needed to hear, too. I'm feeling a little more optimistic now. Thanks, surveyman!

I wouldn't get too excited. I'm also a AutoCAD/Vue user & have tried DXF quite UNsuccessfuly.
The example above worked well I think because it was a mesh. If you actually draw something in AutoCAD & then try taking that through to Vue, in most cases Vue just crashes. I'm pretty sure this is because Vue only supports faces via DXF. Unfortunately there's no way in AutoCAD to convert all solids to faces, exploding them gives you regions.

Julian

If you draw your model in AutoCAD, I think that you need to generate 3D faces or surfaces.  Linework will not transfer over.  I've never had a problem transfering DTMs (Digital Terrain Models) to VUE as long as the geometry was in 3D faces.

Quote - If you draw your model in AutoCAD, I think that you need to generate 3D faces or surfaces.  Linework will not transfer over.  I've never had a problem transfering DTMs (Digital Terrain Models) to VUE as long as the geometry was in 3D faces.

Yes but there's not many things you could draw using only 3D faces, and as I said there's no way to convert solids to faces.
Basically DXF will only work for terrain as you've said. Anything else & you need to export as 3DS.

I don't think E-On should be able to claim to support DXF.

Julian

Not quite true, Juliand.  As you saw above, I was able to transfer over most of the Skoda Octavia model through the DXF format.  It may not be as pretty as 3DS, and it may be lacking to a certain extent, but it is possible to use the DXF format to transfer models over to VUE if you give it enough of a thought and preparation.

Granted, it will be a lot more work than 3DS, but lacking of a better transfer protocol, it will still work.

Oooh, that could indeed be a problem.  Surveyman, could you test a solid model dxf export out of Autocad and into Vue.  Terrains are fine because like they said they're made up of 3d faces, but I do almost all of my solid modeling within Autocad...

Thanks in Advance!

Surveyman, your model was imported into AutoCAD from a 3DS first. 3DS files come in as meshes in AutoCAD. I'm taking about being able to draw things in AutoCAD, ideally normal Acad solids. We shouldn't be limited to just drawing 3D faces & meshes.

Julian

Good point.  Unfortunately, I do all my modeling in either Amapi or Hexagon.  Even though I've been using ACAD for 16 years, I find that modeling w/ it to be very counter-intuative for me.

Nano - if you'd like me to test out a solid import, e-mail me a solid model and I'll e-mail you back a 2007DXF of it so that you can guage the results yourself.  I'll send you my e-mail through PM.

Modelling is very quick in 2007 now.

We draw up whole power stations here so we need to use a proper cad package.
Getting these through to Vue has always been a bit of a problem. We strike the 65k limit with 3DS the whole time & have to export individual parts outs to get around it.
A think for Vue to become more of a professional business tool, & not just an art program, it needs to support a serious cad program, not to mention real units.

I had hoped to try the free version of Amapi as you suggested, but it seems to have gone.

Julian

You can leave a message for Thomas...he is slowly bringing Polyloop up and one of the things yet to be brought back is the download section, including Amapi 6.

I suggest that you try Hexagon2.  Try the demo...I got hooked on it.  Hexagon will import ACAD14 and export OBJ, so that is one way to bypass the 65K limit.

I tried ACAD2007 in 3D, but found that Hexagon allows me to do much, much more, with greater ease.  I also found the requirement of having a professional graphics card for 3D ACAD a bit too pricey.  My "gaming" card works OK, but the AutoDESK specs on my graphics card say that my card has a problem drawing fine lines. 

Even though Hexagon displays units to 2 decimal places, it apparantly carries accuracy to much greater degree and will accept input to at least 3 decimal places.  This is fine for my modeling, as I rarely go beyond the centimeter range (we're talking metric here for U imperial types).  Any more detailed accuracy needed, I can always pull out AMAPI 6.  FYI - the same development team that developed AMAPI also developed Hexagon, so the two programs seem to share a lot of functionality as well as structure.

Where Hexagon can be a problem is in using real life coordinates.  I imported a number of layered surfaces in UTM coordinates, and Hexagon just 'choked'.  I moved the model to 0,0,0 coordinates and then Hexagon had no problem.  So I've adopted a coordinate conversion where the center of  a scene in real coordinates is converted to 0,0,0 for VUE and Hexagon.  A bit of a pain but not a major problem, as all is "relative" using the translation factor.  Is this what you mean by "lack of real coordinates"?

I should suggest to the VUE development team to join the OpenDWG Alliance.  I think that the DWG14 format is out in the open anyway.  Since ACAD2007 saves to DWG14... it should be a "no-brainer".

Julian D, The easiest way to convert an autocad model for 3ds is to make sure that all of your parts are on seperate layers, as long as no single layer exceeds that limit then you should be just fine.  I've been exporting models up to 30 mb with no problems by splitting the objects up into layers.  The real units thing is annoying but as long as you're always working in the same units (I typically use the architectural units as those seem to be the closest to "real world" as vue gets, then the model should always come in to relative scale to the other objects (provided you have "resize and center objects" unchecked.  Also moving the model to 0,0,0 is needed as well when importing into Vue (as surveyman pointed out)

Thanks Nano, yes I have things on separate layers. I think it's a problem with certain objects. Because exporting it to 3DS converts it to a mesh, things like cylinders cause a massive polygon blowout ie. lots of faces trying to approximate a cylinder. You haven't really got any idea of the polygon count until you try exporting.
The units are fine if you bring everything through from AutoCAD, but if you import extra models directly into Vue you have to be careful.
Last time I drew up some 3D boxes in AutoCAD that were the correct size of a car, bought them into Vue, & then scaled the cars in Vue until they fitted into the boxes.

Quote - > Quote - Exactly what I needed to hear, too. I'm feeling a little more optimistic now. Thanks, surveyman!

 Unfortunately there's no way in AutoCAD to convert all solids to faces, exploding them gives you regions.

Julian

I don't know about "ALL" solids but you might try exporting to 3ds and then importing back to acad or.... importing the 3ds file into VUE.  Works for me.... so far.

Good luck.

William, Autodesk has dropped 3DS out in 2007 so you can't do that anymore.

Julian

Surveyman, I downloaded a demo of Amapi 7.16 & it won't bring in AutoCAD solids. Only the polylines with thickness came through.

Have you had this working have you?

Julian

I've just installed AutoCAD 2007 Building Systems today.  We've tried exporting 2007-format .dwg files to 2000 format -- and while it works, there are 'interesting' glitches in the 2000 file.  Among other things, copyclip from one drawing to another doesn't work.  I have to do a direct insert to get around the problem.  And 2007 objects don't seem to translate well into 2000.  Blocks come in wonky.

It's not a picnic taking 2007 drawings back down to 2000.  At least not from what we've seen so far.

As far as using Vue and AutoCAD together -- that's not an issue for me.  AutoCAD is used for my engineering dayjob.  Vue I use nights/weekends for "art" and for fun.

{Edit} I highly recommend Lightwave.  I've owned LW for a few months now - and I've just downloaded my LW9 upgrade from Newtek.  I have NOT been disappointed.

Good to hear ZENOPHONZ (about LW), as I too have the LW9 upgrade sitting at home waiting to be installed, I just have to find time to learn the program.

Thanks for the info too on 2007 translation down to 2000, something to tell my Cad manager at our next meeting.

Julian,

I do not have a problem with AutoCAD solids because I do not use them.  I use AutoCAD for 2D plan presentation, for which data is sourced from a 3D engineering software package.   I export the 3D surfaces to 3D ACAD for minor tweaking & layer creation (from solitary surface exports), then I export to Hexagon/AMAPI for formating & scene layout.  I export out of Hexagon/AMAPI as OBJ for import into VUE.

The models I export from AutoCAD are composed of 3D triangles(TINs), or 3D faces, which are probably the most common denominator between various 3D applications.

Any additional models I need to create, like signs or lamp standards, I create in Hexagon/AMAPI where it is very intuitive for me as opposed to struggling w/ AutoCAD 3D functionality.  It's whatever you get used to.

I realise that my workflow is different from the other people here who rely on AutoCAD for 3D modeling.  I probably did not realize just how differently AutoCAD solids are handled as opposed to TINs/meshes & 3D faces.

Have you tried creating a 3D object in AMAPI and exporting to AutoCAD to see how that comes across?  Maybe AutoDESK Support needs to be notified of the translation problems in 3D(if they care).

OK -- I took the time to do a little research on AutoDesk's website today -- it appears that there is a fix out for the the copy/paste problem with drawings which are translated down from 2007 to 2000.  I haven't tried it yet, but supposedly it works:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=7450124&linkID=2475161

Here are a couple of threads which deal with the issue:

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5179895

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5179894

Hope that this helps.  But this still doesn't address the funky problems with blocks.  I'll need to do some more looking when I have the time.  But I've got a feeling that certain 2007 items simply never will translate smoothly back down to 2000.

Welcome to the autocad mafia.  Since they have Max & Viz, Autocad wants to strong arm everybody to use their family of programs.

AutoCAD is to the CAD world what Coke & Pepsi combined are to softdrinks.  Sure, there are other choices out there -- smaller bottling companies, "gourmet" brands & such -- but Coke & Pepsi pretty much dominate the market.  Likewise, AutoCAD does the same in it's world.  Microstation is now something of a second-fiddle player in the game.  AutoCAD isn't quite as dominant in CAD as Microsoft is in operating systems: but it's got everyone else beat.

If AutoDesk has gobbled up Maya -- then it's beginning to look like AutoDesk is aiming towards a similar domination of the 3D market......

Newtek has always been something of a maverick company.  Perhaps AutoDesk won't be able to buy them.  I certainly hope not -- because if they ever did, then Lightwave would probably cost $6000.

Julian,

Thomas has put up the link to the free version of AMAPI 6.  Here is the link for the download & info on the serial number.

http://forums.polyloop.net/showthread.php?t=8428