I need the help of someone familiar with Mac computers.
Several years (and operating systems) ago, I bought a drawing/painting program for Mac called “Superpaint”. For my needs – I’m not a pro, but I draw a lot of plans and simply want to do on computer what I would otherwise do on graph paper – it was perfect.
At the time, the software cost $19.95
Now my new flat screen iMac OSX will not even load, much less run the program. The company that made the old program apparently now only offers mega-monster graphics behemouths that cost $400.
The old program was SIMPLE and INTUITIVE. Why is every “advance” more complicated and less intuitive? Is it because they couldn’t charge $400 for it?
Please help. I just want to draw plans.
(see next post for more information, if you’re still interested)
Replies
For computer geeks out there, I have a question (and a gripe).
In every "drawing" program I have ever seen, you pick a "shape" tool and place an "object" on the page. You can then manipulate the object. You cannot edit pixel by pixel. Let's say the house plan has a 40' long wall and then you decide to move the last 12' over to create a jog in the wall. Any normal person would "surround" that portion of the wall to highlite it, then take the mouse and move it over. But sorry, you're screwed, because in this "drawing" program, that 40' long wall is one object, and has to be manipulated as a whole, not as a part, and definitely not pixel by pixel.
Someone explain to me how anyone, anywhere, can "draw" a house plan with a system this insane?!?
Conversely, every "painting" program I have ever seen uses the same kinds of tools, but everything that you draw with that tool becomes just a set of pixels that can be edited/changed in any way imaginable all the way down to pixel by pixel - just like you would do with a pencil and eraser!
Who thought this system up?
Is there something I'm missing here?
By the way, the Appleworks 6 that the computer came with comes with both "drawing" and "painting" systems, but both are so poorly designed compared to the old clunker program I'm used to, there is no way I could use them productively and keep my sanity.
Please help!
Nanny,
I once owned superpaint! It was a program that combined the pixel-oriented painting type of program with an object oriented drawing program. If I recall, they were on different layers though.
Anyway, your question about why there are pixel-based and object-based programs gets to the heart of a computer. Object-based programs work by describing a shape witha mathematical formula that defines the "vectors" that create the shape. Thus they are called vector-based drawing programs. make the object bigger or smaller and it still is decsribed by a data-compact formula. Pixel based programs are just that. They are built by recording the position and attribute of each pixel on the screen. Make it bigger, and you must increase the amount of data needed to describe it. Superpaint was the first to combine the two into one program I think. Now the biggie programs (painter, illustrator, photoshop) all have both vector tools and raster (pixel) tools.
As to your problem, you could always pick up an ancient mac somewhere, probably for free, and run superpaint on that. But if you really want to do construction drawings on your mac I would pick up an antry-level drafting program. I've heard a program called MacDraft is pretty usable.
Steve
Gee, I guess I should have read your second message before I replied to your first. If you've already tried Appleworks 6, then just go for the shareware.
Having done a little programming myself, I shudder to think of the herculean task you propose.
Programs can easily manipulate mathematically stored objects, such as your 40 foot wall, because there are only a few bits of data required to store and manipulate each object. The end points, size, position, etc. The program uses these data points to figure out what the screen would then look like, generates a bit map to contain the picture, and sends it to the screen. (I hope you allow me a little flexibility in terms here)
On the other hand, paint programs store bit maps, like pictures, that just describe what each pixel looks like. You change the pixel, the data describing the pixel changes, and that's what your computer remembers. You can apply affects to areas, and the computer calculates data shifts for that area of pixels and applies them to the stored data, update the bit map, and off you go again.
So to do what you want, each 3-D object would have to have a bit map on each surface. Every time you changed a surface, you would generate a new set of bit maps with effects to be calculated in 3-D and stored. Maybe Hal could handle it, or one of the Cray supercomputers. I sure wouldn't want to be the guy trying to get it to work, unless I was getting paid by the hour with no results expected.
The quick answer is, it's like trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The programmer who figures out this one will not have to work anymore.
This probably won't alleviate your frustration, but maybe it'll explain a few things.
In an even slightly complex drawing, walls cross walls, dimension lines cross each other, etc. If the software does not treat the items as objects, then the user may not be able to "lasso" only the pixels he/she wants to change.
For example, how could you change the color of a dimension line and its text to blue, if you can't lasso it without also including pixels from other objects?
As another example, suppose the software knows only pixel information. Then to store a rectangle it must store information about every pixel making up the line segments of the rectangle. Using objects, it need store only the location of diagonally opposite corners. When the object is drawn, the line segments are constructed according to the locations of the corners and the resolution of the window you're working in.
If you rotate and zoom a rectangle which is stored pixel by pixel (bitmapped), then every pixel must undergo a mathematical computation to determine its new position. Furthermore, the software will have difficulty drawing smooth angled lines. It has no way of knowing that the pixels actually form a line. This is why paint programs are usually plagued by the "jaggies" when lines are angled or circles are zoomed.
The object oriented rectangle is rotated by applying the math to only the two opposite corners. The sides are then drawn using fairly simple algorithms.
Finally, storing object information provides better accuracy. A circle is stored as a center and radius. The object oriented drawing software allows you to "snap" to the center of the circle, or snap to a point of tangency. That accuracy wouldn't be possible if only pixel data were stored.
I might also point out that pixel editing would be impossible for more complex programs that provide 3-d capability.
However, I can understand your frustration, especially the part about losing the use of a simple program that provided what you needed.....
Thanks everyone for the responses.
To clarify the draw vs. paint issue; I have no desire to ever draw the way the "drawing" programs want me to draw. What baffles me is how anyone could!!
Imagine you were near finishing a detailed plan, then thought "you know, if this room were 16" wider and the room next to it 16" narrower...." In a "painting" program you grab the click&drag highliter, copy, paste 16" over and boom, you're done. Total elapsed time, maybe 4.5 seconds.
In a "drawing" program, you try that click&drag highliter and BOOM, somewhere between 10 and 1000 "objects" (depending on how detailed your plan is) light up, including many parts of lines you had no intention of moving. How on earth does a person alter a drawing done in this manner! If you can't efficiently alter it, why do it at all? Why not just get a quill and some India ink and draw the thing on parchment!
I want to draw on what (God knows why) is called a painting program. Yet many of those painting programs are (understandibly) geared toward free painting and not strait lines and grids, like my old program was.
I need tools precise enough that I can easily control which pixel I click on. I need logical and alterable grids & rulers. I need to be able to print on multiple pages (large drawings) to whatever scale I choose.
The most maddening aspect of all is that this ought to be so simple a high school geek should be able to put it together for $10 retail and instead I get glitzy memory busting software that costs a fortune and that no one user will ever use more than 10% of.
#1 pet peeve; Things that ought to be simple made complicated by people who think they're really clever.
#2 pet peeve; People that get impressed by complexity without purpose.
nanny.. bs.. if i want to make the room 16" wider.. i highlight the wall, and "open " it.. type in a new dimension and the wall & everything in it moves.
. or.. i can grab it and drag it.. everything else still ties to the wall.. but the wall i am dragging is the only thing that moves..... the floor joists extend with it... the floor extends with it..
i will have to regenerate the roof.. but you don't normally put the roof on until you like the extreior walls..
it just isn't as complicated as you described it..
except of course that it is more sophisticated than you described it Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
...of course.
Ted,
I will concede, rotating to odd angles in a bit system is very problematic. I rarely need to rotate angles other than 90/180/270 so I rarely encounter a situation I can't find a way around, but I'll admit, it does happen.
I have yet to encounter a situation where "lassoing" took more than a few seconds to do and a few more seconds to clean up any difficiencies. Most are very simple.
If what you want is an improvement on pencil and paper, how could a system without an eraser ever serve your purpose?
Imagin walking into a software store wanting to draw pseudo-architectural drawings on your computer knowing that what you have to say to the clerk is "do you have painting programs?"
What sense does that make?
NannyGee,
Again, I'm only trying to explain to you why programs are like they are. Here is a typical conversation between a programmer and a potential user:
User: I want a program which lets me draw floor plans, and lets me edit/copy/move individual bits.
Programmer: Do you want the program to show you the area of a room?
User: Of course.
Programmer: How will I know what bounds the room?
User: By the walls, of course!
Programmer: What are walls? All I know about is colored pixels.
User: Can't you tell which pixels make up the walls?
Programmer: You can tell me the color of the walls. But how do I know what is inside and what is outside?
User: I'll click on the inside.
Programmer: What if there's a door in the wall? Then the wall color won't totally surround the room, and I'll include the area outside the room.
User: Can't you detect the door and ignore it?
Programmer: What's a door? All I can see are pixels.
etc....
It's the same ol' problem.....the trade off of a simple tool versus a versatile tool.. Sometimes a handsaw beats a compound sliding mitre saw...
I understand what you are trying to say in describing why there are differences, I'm just not convinced the "drawing" system really makes sense for homes.
In your example conversation, I think it would go like this;
Programmer: Do you want the program to show you the area of a room?
User: Not necessarily. I can figure that in my head.
Programmer: Really? You can multiply to four decimal places, factoring in curves and odd angles in your head? You must be a freakin' genius!
User: I am, actually, but that's beside the point. I'm drawing rooms in a house, not parts of a rocket ship. The precise floor space is about the least important piece of information on the page.
I think the key problem here is that the programmers of the drawing program want you to be able to draw parts of a rocket ship if you want to. I just want a program that was meant for folks trying to draw houses in the same fasion you would on graph paper with a pencil, ruler, and ERASER!
Sounds to me like you're trying to use a "paint" program that's designed to draw pictures, and use it to draw plans. You've trained yourself to do something one way that goes against the grain of the way everybody else does it. And you rant that you can't believe that everyone else doesn't do it YOUR way.
I think you're going to have to give up your "paint" programs and go with some kind of drawing program. They will have a learning curve, as all programs do. But once you get used to using them, you'll find that there's a REASON to have objects and such. It may take a year or two, but you'll be glad ya switched.
Just MHO.Bumpersticker: It's not my fault I'm the only one in the world who knows how to drive correctly.
"Sounds to me like you're trying to use a "paint" program that's designed to draw pictures, and use it to draw plans."
By default, yes.
"You've trained yourself..."
Well, it wasn't hard. The program I used was very intuitive. I never once even read the instructions.
"....to do something one way that goes against the grain of the way everybody else does it."
I'm not sure how "everyone" draws on the computer. But I know NO ONE draws that way on paper.
"And you rant..."
I am clearly irritated. I wouldn't call that a rant. I haven't been abusive, have I? (of course, I haven't yet met one of these programmers - then I might be sorely tempted)
"...that you can't believe that everyone else doesn't do it YOUR way."
But that implies that I care how "everyone else" does it. Why should I? I only care that I apparently cannot do what ought to be infinitely simpler. That would kind if tick you off too, wouldn't it?
Imagine that automakers, in an effort to make it easier to replace an engine in a car, designed it to be very simple to remove. You start out thinking this is a great idea. Then you discover that in order to change the oil filter or the air filter or even add washer fluid you had to first remove the engine. And then when you challenge the wisdom of such a design, the mechanic says "Yea, but this is easier. You're just not used to doing it this way."
I don't know what kind of drawing program you're using (I switched from MAC to PC 10 years ago. I do remember liking Superpaint.) but inexpensive CAD programs will let you cut objects into pieces. You can then move those pieces around to your heart's content. The "jog" in your foundation would be a 5-second task.
If you're doing only floorplan work, you may find that a low-end architectural program fits your needs. 3D Home Architect is the one I'm familiar with. I have no idea if it's available for MAC's.
I agree with Boss - get a decent CAD or arch. program (talking $50-$75 here, not $400) and learn to use it. You'll be glad you did.
You'll also likely find out that things you thought you couldn't do were just things you didn't know how to do.
Here are some titles that may or may not be interesting to you.
http://www.caddepot.com/dcd/CAD_Demos/Mac/CAD_Programs/
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."Jon
This site should help:
http://www.architosh.com/index.phtml
bit
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "rant".
My point is that you're expecting the programmers to do things to suit you. But they're going to write programs for the majority of the people. You and your methods are an exception.
CAD programs are far from perfect, but they're the best thing going for drawing prints.
Have you looked at SoftPlan?Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words.
Thanks all for the names and links. While not exactly what I was looking for, a few do look interesting & I'll try to wade through all the info.
NannyGee I think you are going about drawing plans on the computer all wrong. I can't imagine using a paint program to design a house or the plans for it. When I was in college we still hand drew everything and paint programs are more like handdrawing. Architectural cad programs are a whole other world. Once you learn them they will accomplish anything you can imagine in drawing home plans or a 100 story building. Start with a cheap Program such as 3d home architect, which is not a bad program for the beginner, eventually if you make your living drawing you will want to move up to a very robust and serious program such as SoftPlan. Of course these programs get into the many thousands of dollars.
I have a very famous Architect friend who uses 3d home architect for many of his drawings. I personally use and love SoftPlan and many others here will recommend many other programs.
From your posts I would say you are a beginner in all this drawing stuff. What I have found people a lot of times complain about things they don't fully understand. Hey I was the same way when I first started using cad programs for drawing. Just take a deep breath lay back and try to allow yourself to understand how these programs work. I will say if you are drawing plans with a paint program I am very very impressed, but you are doing a lot more work then you need to then you would with a cad program.
Lee J. Buivdas
Thanks for your response. You were insighful without being insulting. That's a lesson a few other posters on this board could learn.
I'm in the process of seeing what I can find out via the web, but it's hard to get a feel for it unless it's there in front of you. Price is key here. I'm not doing this for clients, just for myself - no potential for income to offset investment. Frankly, $100 is my limit for any piece of software.
I'm pretty comfortable with visualizing space so, while 3D with textures & furniture would be interesting, mainly, I just want to draw.
There are times when working on paper feels better - more tactile, I guess - but inevitably, as soon as it's nearly finished (I go into a lot of detail) I get a brainstorm and realize that a little change here or there would really improve the design, and destroy the drawing, while on the computer it's just a few seconds of work.
That's all I'm looking for. I don't design commercial spaces or space ships or do multimedia presentations to boards of directors. I'm just a regular guy with not a lot of money to spend on a hobby who would rather be drawing on my nice new iMac than surfing the web. No offence :-)
NannyGee thanks for the kind words there are some professional architectural forums that think I'm a trouble maker, just ask my buddy piffin here. ha ha ha
For your budget get 3d home architect (it is in your budget) it is a great program and is owned by one of the most powerful names in cad that develops extremely expensive programs for the professional. You can buy it at best buy comp usa etc or online Hey you never know you might be the next Frank Loyd Wright. :-) I think with a little time learning 3d home architect you will not go back to a paint program for your main drawing of plans. Believe me I have been where you are at, keep at it, you never know where all this will lead to.
I make my living from designing and building and it took me several years to be comfortable from hand drawing to computer aided drawing. Now I comfortable with both. It is a shame mac has become a niche market and a lot of software is much more expensive for the mac then the pc.
Anyway
Good Luck enjoy your hobby to the fullest, I started the same way when I was 12 years old and now my dreams are built all over the world.
Lee J. Buividas
Hoo, boy
I thought I was the only Mac guy around. I've had Macs since 1986 currently have an iMac and have used Superpaint. Anyway, the answer to your question:
No, you can't use Superpaint on your iMac. It's totally incompatable.
If your iMac came with Appleworks, you can use the drawing program in a very limited way for drawing plans. I drew up the beam plans for my timber-framed house on Appleworks, but they are very simple.
There are a lot of shareware sites where you can get cheaper stuff than the $400 and up programs that are made for desktop publishers and architects. Check out http://www.mac-o-rama.com or web search on Mac shareware.
Hey Rick,
Were out here. I'm a die-hard mac addict. Cloud Hidden is one too, I believe. A few others as well.
Steve