AutoCAD Alternatives

[Yankee Chronicler]

I perhaps could have posted this under Building Code Administration, but it's not a perfect fir there so I decided to post it here. If your department accepts digital construction documents, more than likely the usual format will be PDF -- as it should be.Nonetheless, the general public is endlessly inventive in its collective efforts to frustrate the poor, over-burdened code officials. We've seen a recent "uptick" (how I hate that word) in digital submissions consisting of a plan sketched free-hand on a sheet of lined paper torn out of a notebook and scanned or photographed to .JPG or .PNG format with a cell phone and then sent to someone in the department (usually the first name they could find an e-mail address for) using the "Share" function from the cell phone's photo gallery.

And, once in a while, we'll get a drawing from somebody who must have gotten a student copy of AutoCAD when they were in college 20 years ago and they fired it up to draw plans for their new deck or family room addition. So you get this file in AutoCAD .dwg format (because God forbid our intrepid hero should know how to export or plot to PDF) -- what can you do if you can't or don't want to just reject it outright?

Option 1 is that Autodesk, the company that sells (sorry -- rents) AutoCAD and Revit publishes a FREE utility that allows you to open AutoCAD files and view them, but not make any editorial changes. It also allows converting new .dwg files to be compatible with older versions of AutoCAD. It's called DWG TrueView and it's entirely free. It only runs under windows, but most municipal and county computer systems are probably locked into Microsoft anyway, so for most of us that's not an issue.

Option 2 is to actually install a program that can open and edit AutoCAD .dwg files. There are a number of commercial programs that can do that, all of them cheaper than AutoCAD itself. Surprisingly, some of these companies offer versions that are entirely free. I've looked at as many of them as I could get my grubby hands on, and I've found a couple that might be handy to have on at least one computer in your department (if you can convince your IT department to install it). One caution, though, is that the free versions don't open .dwg files created by the newest versions of AutoCAD, so you'll also need the DWG TrueView utility discussed above to convert files to an older version of the .dwg format.

The two I suggest looking at if you want to go this route are NanoCAD Free and DoubleCAD XT. Both are essentially older versions of commercial CADD software that the manufacturers/publishers make available for free in the hope that users will like the software well enough to upgrade to the newest paid version. Both of them look and work enough like AutoCAD that anyone who has learned on AutoCAD should be able to start using them with virtually no learning curve.

DoubleCAD XT is put out by TurboCAD, which is a company that publishes the commercial program TurboCAD, a serious contended in CADD software for architecture and building engineering, as well as several programs aimed squarely at do-it-yourselfers and home designers looking for CADD solutions for generating house plans that more or less automate the creation of construction documents from schematic designs.

Despite this pedigree, I found a couple of quirks with DoubleCAD XT that are different enough from AutoCAD that I had trouble adapting to using it. I prefer NanoCAD Free. It's so similar to AutoCAD that there's virtually no learning curve at all for people who have learned on AutoCAD. Our town IT department was willing to install NanoCAD on my computer and the boss's computer in our department. We don't use it often, but it's nice to have. And it was very handy a couple of years ago when the boss decided to rearrange the office, because we were able to draw up the plan in CADD and see what would fit where, without starting to actually push furniture and cubicles around.

 

[tbz]

A third option is to have them send you an older .dxf file which there are more than a few programs that will allow you to open older .dxf cad files and save it right to pdf, not the .dxf or .dwg.

Bluebeam Revue Core or higher is one.

I tell plan reviewers and code officials, never accept a format that your department can alter by accident that is non-traceable or auditable.

 

[jar546]

A third option is to have them send you an older .dxf file which there are more than a few programs that will allow you to open older .dxf cad files and save it right to pdf, not the .dxf or .dwg.

Bluebeam Revue Core or higher is one.

I tell plan reviewers and code officials, never accept a format that your department can alter by accident that is non-traceable or auditable.

All drawings for us are required to be in PDF and digitally signed and sealed by the design professional of record using a qualified third-party app such as GlobalSign, IdenTrust, or other verification system.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

All drawings for us are required to be in PDF and digitally signed and sealed by the design professional of record using a qualified third-party app such as GlobalSign, IdenTrust, or other verification system.

Our state laws have required either "wet" seals and signatures or third-party authenticated digital signatures and seals for architects and for professional engineers since around 1990 -- since before most of the architects we deal with had even gotten their licenses. Even so, it's the exception rather than the rule if we receive digital construction documents with a proper digital signature, and we always get push-back when we cite the law and inform them that the state building inspector has told us we have to enforce that law.

 

[jj1289]

ProgeCad is a very inexpensive option that I use and is dwg compatible back and forth

 

[Paul Sweet]

CMS Intellicad is an even less expensive option. They also have an ETOOLBOX free CAD viewer.

Compatible CAD Software for .DWG files - CMS IntelliCAD - Products

CMS IntelliCAD is the intelligent, powerful and affordable full-featured 2D 3D DWG, DXF, DWF compatible CAD Software.

www.intellicadms.com

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

ProgeCad is a very inexpensive option that I use and is dwg compatible back and forth

ProgeCAD looks and feels almost identical to AutoCAD. They used to offer a free version, but now it's limited to a 30-day trial. It is a lot less expensive than AutoCAD, but at $469 for a single user plus $161 for additional users on a network, it's not something that building departments with tight budgets will easily be able to implement, and wouldn't be worthwhile if the need is random and sporadic. But, it's there.

In fact, for just being able to open and view AutoCAD files, the free Autodesk reviewer is all most departments need.

 

[MtnArch]

Great post, YC, and great discussion all around.

For me, personally, I have BricsCAD and CADDirect (which includes Print2CAD for turning PDF's into DWG files) though both are paid and not free.

I think the real question is (at least for a Building Department), why would you need to open up a DWG file that has been submitted? The minute you open it, the question could then come up of "What did YOU change in the file?" If it's all internal (ie. space planning for your department) it's no different than any of us on the other side of the counter using it to explore and create useable DWG files; if it's to dink around in a DWG file submitted "over the counter" it's best to use the ACAD free reviewer.

 

[BN4537]

I have never needed to play with .dwg files on my work computer, but then I also don't review plans very often. I have used CAD software to draw pictures to help communicate with contractors, and I have used it to draw details for handouts addressing frequently asked questions and common violations. The ADA illustration I drew up and widely distribute has been particularly useful, as the ADA pages on the plans we get are usually technically correct but written in ways that makes the contractors likely to screw it up.

I learned on AutoCAD in school and my dad had an early 2000s version of AutoCAD (from back when you could one-time purchase AutoCAD and have it on a disk) that we used for projects. I have found that the free version of SketchUp is just fine for drawing illustrations in 3D, and then I use screenshots to get the drawings into a more universal format (Word or pdf). It works pretty well, actually, especially for making drawings that are easy to interpret by non-builders, but I have missed AutoCAD for sure. I'm definitely looking into some of these mentioned that look and feel like AutoCAD.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I think the real question is (at least for a Building Department), why would you need to open up a DWG file that has been submitted? The minute you open it, the question could then come up of "What did YOU change in the file?" If it's all internal (ie. space planning for your department) it's no different than any of us on the other side of the counter using it to explore and create useable DWG files; if it's to dink around in a DWG file submitted "over the counter" it's best to use the ACAD free reviewer.

We receive a lot of support documents in Word .docx format rather than PDF, and it drives me bonkers. BUT ... the arbiter of what's acceptable as a public record in this state is the State Library, and they say that Word and Excel files are acceptable, so we have to accept them. I don't think they have ruled on AutoCAD .dwg files, but the town administration would have a cow if I denied a permit because the plans were in .dwg rather than .pdf. Fortunately, that has only happened twice if the four years I've been in this job.

 

[steveray]

We receive a lot of support documents in Word .docx format rather than PDF, and it drives me bonkers. BUT ... the arbiter of what's acceptable as a public record in this state is the State Library, and they say that Word and Excel files are acceptable, so we have to accept them. I don't think they have ruled on AutoCAD .dwg files, but the town administration would have a cow if I denied a permit because the plans were in .dwg rather than .pdf. Fortunately, that has only happened twice if the four years I've been in this job.

I send all of my plan reviews out in Word...That way anyone can insert their answers right into the document...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I send all of my plan reviews out in Word...That way anyone can insert their answers right into the document...

I send mine out as PDF/A (the 'A' indicates "Archival" -- any attempt at editing removes the 'A' flag, indicating tampering). I've been burning too many times by people altering documents. They can copy and paste from a PDF ...

 

[danSAA]

I send mine out as PDF/A (the 'A' indicates "Archival" -- any attempt at editing removes the 'A' flag, indicating tampering). I've been burning too many times by people altering documents. They can copy and paste from a PDF ...

Can't someone just edit the file and resave as PDF/A ?
(FYI I can unlock most any PDF with https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf)

I believe unless you pay for a registered digital certificate, and digitally sign the PDF, at most you can just discourage casual tampering.

I've only come across one engineer who digitally signs their plans, a pool engineer, and they also add a QR code to each drawing which decodes to project address & their project #. I guess that allows them to track who reuses their plans on other projects.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Can't someone just edit the file and resave as PDF/A ?

Yes, but then the file will have a new date/time attribute. In court, if I can produce my copy with the original time/date stamp that still shows it's a PDF/A, that clearly shows that someone has changed something.

(FYI I can unlock most any PDF with https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf)

I don't claim that PDF or even PDF/A is perfect, but the State has decreed that plain PDFs and even .docx files are acceptable for public records. The requirements for digital seals are in different regulations that only apply to documents created by PEs, and to plans created by architects.

I believe unless you pay for a registered digital certificate, and digitally sign the PDF, at most you can just discourage casual tampering.

That is correct. And we never know how sophisticated an applicant is with respect to being able to tamper with a PDF. But I think we can be certain that it's more difficult to fraudulently modify a PDF (especially PDF/A) than it is to modify a Word file.

I've only come across one engineer who digitally signs their plans, a pool engineer, and they also add a QR code to each drawing which decodes to project address & their project #. I guess that allows them to track who reuses their plans on other projects.

Third-party authenticated digital seals have been required in this state since the late 1980s or early 1990s. ("Wet" seals are still allowed.) Even though this has been in the regulations for two generations, we routinely receive digital submittals with just a scanned image of a seal and signature on each sheet -- no digital signature at all, not even a locally-applied (not third-party authenticated) digital signature. When I cite it, I almost always get pushback -- even when I attach a copy of the regulation.

 

[danSAA]

Yes, but then the file will have a new date/time attribute. In court, if I can produce my copy with the original time/date stamp that still shows it's a PDF/A, that clearly shows that someone has changed something.

I agree with all your comments, just wanted to add that changing the metadata dates on files to match the original is trivially easy. Likely your best option is making sure a trusted 3rd party received the original and can testify to that.

I think that the person fraudulently altering your documents is also cutting other corners, which would help in court.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Someone sends something to me that I can't read, the application is rejected.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The ADA illustration I drew up and widely distribute has been particularly useful, as the ADA pages on the plans we get are usually technically correct but written in ways that makes the contractors likely to screw it up.

The standard "ADA" sheet that virtually every architect now includes at the beginning of their plan sets (usually in the G sheets, not even in the A sheets) is one of my pet peeves. They clearly include that as a cover-their-a** fall-back. I long ago lost count of the number of plans I've reviewed in which the actual floor plans included conditions that violated the door approach clearances that were shown in the "ADA" diagrams at the front of the set. It's just another example of architects trying to pass their design responsibility to the contractor -- whose job (theoretically) is NOT to know anything about building codes but to construct exactly what's shown on the approved construction documents.

If I had my druthers, I would outlaw the use of those standard "ADA" sheets.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If I had my druthers, I would outlaw the use of those standard "ADA" sheets.

"The submitted plans do not comply with the requirements of

p
q
r
x
y
z

Please address these violations and re-submit."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

"The submitted plans do not comply with the requirements of

p
q
r
x
y
z

Please address these violations and re-submit."

Yes, I know. We routinely write up the specific deviations from the required maneuvering clearances (we use A117.1 rather than the ADA, but the architects can't seem to meet either one). My gripe about the standard sheet of "ADA" diagrams is that it's totally useless. It's just eyewash. What's the point of even including it if the actual floor plans don't comply?

And I know what the answer is -- so if there's a problem that doesn't get caught until after the plans have been approved and the building has been built, the architect can point to those diagrams and sanctimoniously proclaim that the information was there, so it was the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all doors had the proper maneuvering clearances.

Total cop-out.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

And I know what the answer is -- so if there's a problem that doesn't get caught until after the plans have been approved and the building has been built, the architect can point to those diagrams and sanctimoniously proclaim that the information was there, so it was the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all doors had the proper maneuvering clearances.

Total cop-out.

Our office generally requires detailed drawings of all barrier-free elements. Period.
Thaaaat reminds me. I gotta go yell at someone who frigged up a door.

 

[arwat23]

And I know what the answer is -- so if there's a problem that doesn't get caught until after the plans have been approved and the building has been built, the architect can point to those diagrams and sanctimoniously proclaim that the information was there, so it was the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all doors had the proper maneuvering clearances.

Total cop-out.

I have the opposite problem. We have a "standard" ADA sheet with a bunch of details, but we make sure they're referenced somewhere in the plans. If there's no reference to that detail, the detail gets removed. Simply having a detail doesn't means crap unless it's called out somewhere imo. If there's no reference, how would the contractor know to look at that detail? It also shows the architect has at least some knowledge on what's required.

Anyways, my problem is some of the contractors we work with can't seem to read. We spell everything out, but they'll only look at one part of the sheet instead of the sheet as a whole. We'll state explicitly "furniture cannot be located within the maneuvering clearance at a door, see detail x for door maneuvering clearances". The detail will also say that nothing can be within the maneuvering clearance. Nothing. Furniture isn't part of our scope, but the AHJ wants us to note this. The contractor will turn around and tell the client they can put a heavy expensive custom table right next to an accessible door. We don't see it because furniture gets put in after our work is done. Oops, now a CASp called that out and they have no place to put that table now. So they lost a couple grand and a admittedly very nice table.

What's the point of even including it if the actual floor plans don't comply?

I'm required to my the local AHJs. We get a huge list of comments if we don't have at least some of those standard details. We could have a 84" wide hallway with a 36" door in the corner. We'll either get a comment to show the maneuvering clearance on the plan or in a detail despite the door being compliant where shown. Can't tell if it's reviewers "finding" comments or if they really like their standard details. We're in CA, and CA is weird, so maybe that's part of it too.

 

[steveray]

I have the opposite problem. We have a "standard" ADA sheet with a bunch of details, but we make sure they're referenced somewhere in the plans. If there's no reference to that detail, the detail gets removed.

I love you…..

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have the opposite problem. We have a "standard" ADA sheet with a bunch of details, but we make sure they're referenced somewhere in the plans. If there's no reference to that detail, the detail gets removed. Simply having a detail doesn't means crap unless it's called out somewhere imo. If there's no reference, how would the contractor know to look at that detail? It also shows the architect has at least some knowledge on what's required.

Good for you. (Seriously -- no sarcasm, for once.) Another problem I encounter too often is construction documents with multiple sheets of standard details, many of which clearly don't apply to the project. When asked why those details are there, the architects cop an attitude and say they're just standard details, if they don't apply the contractor should ignore them. My response is that if they don't apply, they shouldn't be in the drawings.

I'm not very popular ...

Anyways, my problem is some of the contractors we work with can't seem to read. We spell everything out, but they'll only look at one part of the sheet instead of the sheet as a whole. We'll state explicitly "furniture cannot be located within the maneuvering clearance at a door, see detail x for door maneuvering clearances". The detail will also say that nothing can be within the maneuvering clearance. Nothing. Furniture isn't part of our scope, but the AHJ wants us to note this. The contractor will turn around and tell the client they can put a heavy expensive custom table right next to an accessible door. We don't see it because furniture gets put in after our work is done. Oops, now a CASp called that out and they have no place to put that table now. So they lost a couple grand and a admittedly very nice table.

I've never seen a contractor tell that to a client. The bane of my existence is interior designers. If the interiors drawings are part of the permit submittal set, I look at them and catch such transgressions. Too often, an owner will leave the architect out of negotiations with the interior designer, and the interior designer may or may not have a clue about codes.

I'm required to my the local AHJs. We get a huge list of comments if we don't have at least some of those standard details. We could have a 84" wide hallway with a 36" door in the corner. We'll either get a comment to show the maneuvering clearance on the plan or in a detail despite the door being compliant where shown. Can't tell if it's reviewers "finding" comments or if they really like their standard details. We're in CA, and CA is weird, so maybe that's part of it too.

Yes, California is ... unique. I was licensed in California for years. I surrendered my California license when they started requiring continuing education for architects, but they wouldn't accept any of the credits I was able to obtain on the east coast. It was impossible to satisfy their training requirement, so I reluctantly abandoned my California license.