Talk:Comparison of computer-aided design software

Criteria for inclusion of a program

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 accept points 1 & 4. The 4th point seems to be commonly adopted in pages like this, and also disambiguation pages. As pointed out, this is essentially a practical way of 'outsourcing' the resolution of point 1.

I question point 2. FreeCAD is very notable, as prominent free CAD software with a large user base. However, given that the latest version is 0.x, I would argue that this is effectively a beta release. It has certainly been more buggy than established commercial software (see [1] for a taste).

I disagree with point 3. If there is some software that has not needed update for 2 years, good on them. As long as it remains notable. (Personally I'm still on Windows 8.1....) I can even see a merit in retaining a list of notable (or still-notable) defunct CAD software within this article: probably under a separate subheading, and perhaps with less voluminous detail.

—DIV (49.186.109.103 (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

To consider adding

• 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)
  • definately missing
  • please just add software you think is missing. If someone disagrees they can say so. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Also missing is Synergy by Webersystems - small but used by some very large companies.
• Also missing Fusion-360
• How about adding Aveva PDMS and PDS? 211.25.211.35 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• The CAE Linux distribution has a whole heap of relevant software to investigate. --90.185.222.185 (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)

• List_of_CAD_companies needs cleaning up, should we link to it? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

done --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to List of CAx companies is in place within "See also" section. That article may need clean-up again, but can also inspire ideas of what to add. —DIV (49.186.109.103 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

• What should be done with CAD/CAM? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• People need to be able to compare capabilities... How can we help with that? --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• This page Computer-aided_architectural_design is a bit orphaned. --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• This bunch should be able to help: CAADRIA --DuLithgow (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Add all remaining of this category: [2]--Efa2 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Add all remaining of this page: [3]--Efa2 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• port all the list to this page: [4]--Efa2 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing?

Why is any mention regarding Intergraph missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.94.155 (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?

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

Chief Architect has a DIY - Enthusiast product that is in a very different price category, $59 - $495. [[5]] 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)

Talk page clean-up

This Talk page needs a drastic clean-up if it is going to follow the conventions across the rest of WP. In particular, almost the entire set of discussions shown currently is from circa 2012, and should be shifted to an Archive. This will clear the way of meaningful discussion of the present article. It will also reduce/remove the potential for new comments to be added into the so-called Old discussions archive (as has already happened). —DIV (49.186.109.103 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

I have standardized this talk page's unusual heading structure and set up automatic archiving. MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:MrOllie, but in the process some stuff got screwed up.

Specifically:

• My recent edit "<small>'''NOTE:''' per discussion below, the use of the word "banned" here is certainly controversial, ..." seems to have been wiped, and indeed the entire heading "‎Removed and Banned entries" has been obliterated. I assume that was accidental?!?
• The hierarchy is gone now that the L1 section headings (= xxx =) have all been converted to L2 section headings (== xxx ==). What should have happened is that every section heading should have been demoted one level, as that would maintain the hierarchy, while (apparently) no longer interfering with the automatic archiving, among other things.

I was about to revert your changes, but rather than that, could you please fix the above issues?

—DIV (49.186.109.103 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

No. Adding disclaimers to old discussions (and/or modifying headers like that) isn't helpful. I reverted that on purpose. Grouping sections as this talk page formerly did is incompatible with talk page archiving and should not be done. All of my changes were deliberate and working as I expected. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good one: so it's not OK to add a comment, but it's OK to completely delete the ORIGINAL heading? Absolutely not! Please REINSTATE the ORIGINAL section headings! I hadn't realised in my initial comments, but not only did you erase "‎Removed and Banned entries", but also every other one of the original L1 headings: "Software specific discussion", "Old discussions archive", ... (Basically what you've done does not make sense, and makes it very difficult to follow the logic of the old discussions.)

It's OK to disrupt the ORIGINAL hierarchy? Absolutely not! That would not interfere with archiving AFAIK. The problem, I believe, was the presence of L1 headings, and I have described how that should be fixed by demoting ALL headings one level. (Add link to justify if you think that is not technically possible.)

Do it properly, or don't do it at all!

—DIV (49.195.4.130 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

Did you notice that you retained a hierarchy of sub-sections within Talk:Comparison_of_computer-aided_design_software#To_consider_adding. Was that inconsistency all part of your "deliberate" thought process? Why won't that hierarchy prevent archiving in the way you claim would occur from my proposed fix? Why not flatten those subsections — or, 'better' yet just delete more content there too?! —DIV (49.195.4.130 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

This is doing it properly - these L1 headings never should have been there in the first place. They provide no useful context and we lose nothing by omitting them - and we gain a properly formatted talk page and archives going forward. Pushing everything a level lower would be just as broken. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates for addition to this article: CorelCAD, and ARES

• CorelCAD — has a WP article, and a recent release, and is definitely CAD.
• ARES Commander, etc. from Gräbert/Graebert — doesn't have a WP article, but is mentioned at List of CAx companies, it has a recent release, and is definitely CAD. I would suggest evaluating whether it deserves its own WP article.

—DIV (49.186.109.103 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC))