Talk:.dwg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] cleanup-spam

I tagged as cleanup-spam due to the list of external links (particularly under Viewers and converters). Few of these links were rmed, but the cleanup tag was. Is there a reason why ALL of these programs are notable enough for inclusion in this article? Most other file format articles don't list a dozen apps which can open said file format. --Karnesky 17:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "Few of these links were rmed" mean? Mispellt? As I've said in a comment on the viewers section (it should have been in here instead) there are lots of problems with reading and editing DWG files and different software supports different parts of the huge DWG spec. Of course we need to make the page conform but I don't see the problem with these links. I've checked all of them, added more info on them and they're all genuine. --DuLithgow 11:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
'Few of these links were removed." I just think the apparent criteria for inclusion in the list (that it can partially read DWG is overly broad. It means that there are a lot of external links to non-notable software (and also suggests there are a lot of omissions to the list (those products whose authors didn't add them to the list). A lot of file formats are difficult to read and edit. We still don't list all programs that try to take a stab at it. --Karnesky 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reads As Advertisement

No it doesn't. This is objective enough, because it talks about the OpenDWG format as well.

[edit] DWG format documentation

I know Autodesk isn't good at releasing documentation on this, but has there been any efforts on documenting this from a third party, at least as for the vector basics, and publicizing what was found online based on reverse engineering the format? -- Northgrove 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, OpenDWG claims compatibility at least up to 2004 at the moment of checking their site. That sounds interesting; I was unsure of its compatibility with late versions. -- Northgrove 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording required

The following doesn't seem to make sense: "Several companies exist that [who?] reverse-engineer the DWG file format, in an attempt to provide DWG read and write capabilities from [for?] other design programs"


The following needs to be amended:

  • “Developed by AutoDesk over 25 years ago”

Is this going to be updated every couple of years? Although from the pure logic aspect “over 25 years ago” shall be true to eternity, I suggest to replace “over 25 years ago”, by a date, even an approximate one, shall make more sense.

  • “DWG usually changes about every few years” -

Is that exactly about every few years, or approximately about every few years? There must be a better way to state this. -

[edit] Removal of section about the opendwg lawsuit

Someone has removed without justification the section about the controversy between Autodesk and Open Design Alliance for having freely distributed a library supporting the DWG format. Reverted. ALoopingIcon 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed this section again claiming it was error ridden. I think being DWG a widely used format, any open information about DWG and available libraries to parse it should be included. Therefore I think that the OpenDWG lawsuit is quite pertinent to this article, all the fact contains the needed factual sources (even scans of the legal papers). If someone thinks that the information here presented is not correct and or misleading, he/she probably should comment here. ALoopingIcon 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to be as correct as possible in the description of the lawsuit. It was about using or simulating Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology. Probably the last statement about the counter lawsuit could be removed, going too much into details that typical of any lawsuit. The fact that Autodesk sued someone about reverse engineering the DWG format is a notable fact (and therefore should be here), but probably not all the gory details. ALoopingIcon 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autodesk Spin

I undid two anonymous spin-job edits from 198.102.112.18, which tracks back to Autodesk, Inc. (see http://cqcounter.com/whois/index.php?query=198.102.112.18).

  • One of these edits removed information on products from companies which are competitive to Autodesk.
  • The other edit, titled "Edited out incorrect, confidential and proprietary Autodesk information," removed verifiable and sourced information, and replaced it with unverifiable marketing spin.

Note that the claim of the information being "confidential" or "proprietary" is essentially meaningless. If Autodesk wishes to claim information as trade secret, then it has explicit rights under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. EvanYares 09:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to .dwg Duja► 12:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The DWG page was moved to AutoCAD DWG last February, based on User:DragonHawk's request, with this reason: "Become consistent with AutoCAD DXF; general Wikipedia guideline of avoiding abbrev's in article titles"

Nice idea, but unfortunate.

  • It is not "AutoCAD" DWG. DWG didn't even originate with AutoCAD. It is the native file format for a number of CAD programs (other than AutoCAD), and it is supported by several hundred other applications. Autodesk claims no intellectual property rights to the DWG file format. (Some misguided Autodesk employee wrote, in an earlier revision of the DWG page: "Autodesk owns, develops, and iterates the DWG file format." This was "Fact" flagged in June. The writer might want to check with Autodesk's law firm , which has been very careful to claim ownership of the technology (software) used in AutoCAD to access DWG files, but not the DWG file format itself. (Consider that Adobe never claims to "own" PDF. They have a copyright on *their* PDF file format specification document, they have a copyright on the program code they use to read and write PDF format files, and they may have some patents on algorithms they use in their code to generate certain data that they write to PDF files... but none of this implies that they have any ownership over the PDF file format itself. Heck, even Microsoft isn't so stupid as to claim that they "own" any of the file formats supported by their software.)
  • The consistency with "AutoCAD DXF" is misplaced. Consider consistency with DWF, PDF and DOC (computing).
  • DWG is supported by applications as diverse as Visio and Corel Draw.

The AutoCAD DWG page should be moved back to DWG, and the AutoCAD DXF page should be moved to DXF. EvanYares 08:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support a move. But personally I feel it should be to .dwg which is even listed in the infobox. Vegaswikian 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Checking the article on filename exensions, the dot before the DWG is not actually a part of the filename extension. It's just plain old "DWG" -- no dot. EvanYares 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It has been common usage for years (early 1980s) to include the dot and keep the extension name in lower case. In the encyclopedia, it avoids dab issues. Vegaswikian 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Also the first 2 external links in filename extension use the dot in the name. Vegaswikian 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You have a point. It does (still) seem to be common to include the dot when referring specifically to the filename extension. In any event, Standard WP practice is to reserve the dot/lower-case form of title for articles about top level domains. Articles about file formats or file types use the no-dot/upper-case style (unless it is an acronym, then it is spelled out. e.g., Portable Document Format, for PDF.) The filename extension (e.g. .dwg) is included in the Template:infobox_file_format for that page. There seem to be redirect pages for all filename extensions (including .dwg), so it's possible that they're created automatically from the infobox extension entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanYares (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] When was the turn from 2D to 3D, with Autocad and the DWG & DXF formats ?

Double entry of questions, both for "DWG" and "Autocad" Wikipedia entries, which I would like to get answered: Autocad was a just-2D CAD software in the 1980th and in the 1990th ( Autocad R13 is still just-2D) a) So which was the first release of Autocad supporting 3D ? b) So which was the first time, that Autocad stored 3D information in its DWG ( and DXF ) output files ? c) Did 3D-CAD products of other companies store 3D informations in DWG ( and DXF ) files earlier than Autocad ? If so, please supply name of the product&manufacturer & date of release c) Was there a change necessary in the formats, for the turn from 2D to 3D ? d) Which was the first free/commercial DWG / DXF "viewer" applications with 3D support, and when ? It would be also interesting to document the story of DWG/DXF viewers, which slighly differs from the story of the real CAD products. hemmerling (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

a) 2.1 first, but 10 was said to have full support, what ever that meant. But since Autocad was meant to be the cheapest CAD software, first for under $1000, not the best was it not very suitable for 3D-modelling, and is still not the best choice for most 3D-modelling.

b and c) Dwg is older than Autocad, it was the format of Interact CAD, but the format hs changed there is not one dwg, Autcad call all of its different, new but similair formats dwg. Dxf haseen supported since 1.0, but the format changed with 2.0 and later a binary dxf was introduces

c) Maybe in the early dxf format. But that depends on waht you mean by 3D, lines in 3D has been supported for very long, but solids not that long etc. The dwg of autocad 2000 seems to be able to handle all now excisting objects.

Here can muc of Autocads history be found: http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/autoframe.html

Grotte (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)