Jump to content

Talk:.dwg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developer/owner of DWG

[edit]

This has been touched on before, but I am unhappy having Autodesk listed in the infobox as the developer (the actual tect in the macro is 'owner') of DWG. They have no exclusive right to develop DWG and clearly don't own it, as has been covered before. If I don't hear clear evidence to the contrary I will hide the 'owner' field in the macro which will leave the 'Developer' field hidden. I'll wait at least until 2008-09-18 --DuLithgow (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've removed the link to http://www.dwggateway.com/index.html DWG Gateway v3 by SolidWorks, because it depends on AutoCAD being installed, which natively reads DWG files itself, so I don't know what the point of that app is! --DuLithgow (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup-spam

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
I've started Comparison_of_CAD,_CAM_and_CAE_file_viewers but it still needs a lot of work. --DuLithgow (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads As Advertisement

[edit]

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

DWG format documentation

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rewording required

[edit]

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"

fixed, thanks --DuLithgow (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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. -


The following is confusing:

  • “LibreCAD is a free and open-source 2D CAD application that can open DWG & DXF files using your own library.”

Is your a typo and should read their? Or is it referring to the user's own/preferred library? -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.103.130 (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section about the opendwg lawsuit

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Autodesk Spin

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please feel free to incorporate this content into the article. --DuLithgow (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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)[reply]

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.)
  • 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)[reply]

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.

De facto standard

[edit]

Someone requested a citation on the fact that DWG is a de facto standard. I removed it as no citation is needed. It's well documented in the article that the file format is widespread, and there is no international standard for CAD drawing file format in existence. Please do not make such requests, unless you have a reasonable doubt about any of the two facts. Llewelyn MT (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that dwg is widely used does not make it a de facto standard, as the page on de facto describes. What's more the two references to how widespread DWG use is are not trustworthy. The first is from Autodesk itself, promoters and would be controllers of the dwg format, and the second is an unsourced claim from a non-expert, the source states simply 'according to current estimates' which is non-factual. Another problem is that DWG is not an interchange format at all, that's DXF 'Drawing eXchange Format'. For me to accept that DWG is the de facto standard will take more than a biased and an unsourced reference. I'm going to make a revision, see what you thing. --DuLithgow (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Raster or Vector?

[edit]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I find it hard (in the article or elsewhere) finding out the image type or category that .dwg files belong to. But of course .dwg means a file format, as the article states, but that doesn't help much. Can anyone add an expert commentary? Thanks! --AVM (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAD is basically vector based information, but in the last few years, software began to allow things like bitmap underlays and logos to be inserted into (.dwg) drawing files, thus blurring the line (if you will pardon the pun). WonderWheeler (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title "Free Viewer" is confusing

[edit]

IMHO the chapter "Free Viewer" is confusing, because with DWGTrueView there is a "free" viewer. But it is not "open source". The title or the chapter should consider this difference. --194.204.66.38 (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* As a supporter of Free Software (GNU) and member of FSF I get your point. I see that someone has renamed that section using the term freeware instead. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I can't find any references to that site. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the History' section go?

[edit]

As this version shows https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.dwg&diff=644991454&oldid=534761901 there used to be a history section. Does anyone know why it was removed? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Brought it back. Probably deleted by an Autodesk employee or servant, in an attempt to mask the original history of the format thereby increasing their claim on it. They have been appealing for control of the trademark as late as 2013. Wonderfl (reply) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Wonderfl. I couldn't quite work out how to do it cleanly, got any tips? Did you just copy/paste the wiki markup? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Yes I copied the markup but using the WP editor (plain textbox / rich text box, depending on your preferences). You have to click the edit button near "Revision as of 02:59, 25 January 2013 (edit)". You are taken to the WP editor to "edit an old revision", as a large red warning will inform you. You can then copy/paste easily. Wonderfl (reply) 20:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to DWG

[edit]

Can I move this to DWG orDWG (file format) to be consistent with other articles like IGES, STL (file format), DXF?

Wonderfl (reply) 18:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, sounds good to me. I prefer DWG. +mt 20:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've changed my mind after a correspondence with Ralph Grabowski of upfrontezine.com . There are still legal disputes about the extent to which DWG is a registered trademark. Apparently it is registered in Brazil but despite many attempts not registered in the US. The US position is that there is no real difference between .dwg and DWG. Autodesk disagrees, but may have exhausted all means of appeal. I have yet to update the article with this information and will add some links to it soon. Autodesk does not, however, make any claim to .dwg as a file format. So I think it's more NPOV to stick to .dwg. --90.185.222.185 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Once again I forgot to log in, this is me: --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies too much on references to primary sources

[edit]

So I guess I have to agree with this issue. But it's hard to know what to do about it? So here I will see if we can start a list of what we think are good secondary or tertiary sources to use. Please sign after each addition so we can discuss and disagreements. At the time of writing this a rather pitiful list so I hope we can grow it. I know there are other CAD publications out there, I just can't think of any more. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others to consider:

Invalid Internet Media Types

[edit]

A complete list of valid registered internet media types is available here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

Within that list, there is no mention of several of the internet media types that are listed in this article which leads me to believe they are not valid. David Condrey log talk 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance, but I just don't understand what you're gettings at in your comment --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.dwg&oldid=1194780330"