Have a shufty over here: http://moi3d.com/4.0/docs/moi_command_reference.htm

Nice, concise eplanation of each tool in MoI v4. I'm currently running a beta of v5, which is going to be a worthwhile update.

I'm happy to demo any features you might be interested in.

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 17/05/2023 18:56:18

I think the Scene Browser would be the equivalent in MoI. This Video should give you an idea of how objects can be filtered & organised for further work.

Martin.

Hi Lee.

Michael Gibson is the author of MoI and offers support that is second to none. He is also the author of Rhino Cad, so is a real expert in his field.

Download it and have some fun.

Martin.

You are right Ady, MoI doesn't have those particular tools, but it does have a well developed range of modelling tools that aren't necessarily available in similarly priced CAD packages.

Martin.

Lee.

You can easily do an extruded through cut with curves, just by selecting the solid and a suitably placed curve and then doing a Boolean Difference.

The cylinder heads in your picture look simple enough, so I did a quick video of one way this could be done in MoI. A few more booleans and you could relieve the fins for the plug hole & stud holes. Dead easy.

Martin.

It's just different ways of doing the same thing and you probably need to give it more than a couple of hours to find out the way MOI works.

Going back to Nigel's early posts with teh nut and cylinder cover Martin got the same results with boolenes as I got with cuts. His recent video that just used the plan and section sketches is a lot less work than having to extrude that section, then do cuts for the two notched out areas, holes, rounding and filleting etc

Jason.

I agree, just a different way of getting the job done as I think MoI is classed as a Direct Modeler whereas Alibre & Fusion 360 are Parametric.

You might be able to do the same thing in your version of Alibre as I did in my last video by extruding two solids that intersect and then doing a boolean intersect.

Martin.

That's my understanding. It means that MOI is better at some things than parametric modellers, and vice versa. In the middle, both do the same job equally well. The differences and overlaps make it difficult for a beginner to choose which is best for him, unless he understands what his needs are.

MOI is good at curves, making it an excellent choice for 3d-print modelling. Also photo-realistic images, and designing decorative objects. It also appears to be easy to learn, and can do flat stuff as well. All considerable advantages if that's what's needed, but not for me. My needs are more 'mechanical engineering' , and although Solid Edge has surface tools that can do similar to MOI, I've never used them.

What I want is:

• The ability to create and edit 3D engineering parts, to be 3D printed or machined and brazed etc. Most of what I design is machined flat or round, not curved.
• Material definitions so the software can calculate mass and centre of gravity etc
• Sheet metal parts to be unfolded by the software to show where cut-outs are needed before folding in the real world, plus folding tools
• Finite element analysis to identify stress points.
• First Angle or Third Angled dimensioned technical drawings generated from the 3D model for workshop use.
• Most important, the ability to Assemble many parts into a complex model:
  • Each part an individual file, for version control
  • Editing a part updates the Assembly
  • Able to replace any part in an assembly with a different one
  • Assemblies within assemblies
  • Parts in the assembly to be joined realistically – sliders, rotations, fixed etc
  • Joints to move correctly, so that movement of one part causes its neighbours to respond in an animation, with interference alerts and other warnings.
  • Create new parts from referenced from existing parts in an assembly, and adding the new part to the assembly. For example, an entire car could be created from an assembly containing a wheel by defining a half-shaft to fit the wheel, then a differential grown off the axle, a prop-shaft to fit the diff, a universal joint on the end of the prop-shaft, from which a gear box is developed, and so on until an air-freshener is dangling from the mirror. In this mode, dimensions are inherited from existing objects, and don't have to be looked up. And later on, the half-shaft can be modified to grow the suspension off it.

Parametric is well-suited to designing complex assemblies. But of course the extra complication is a burden if features like Assembly aren't needed in your workshop.

I use Solid Edge at the moment because it does most the above and isn't in the cloud. I found harder to learn than Fusion, which I like very much, but Fusion is a cloud product, and restrictions added by Autodesk to the free version annoyed me enough to look elsewhere. Like many hobbyists, I'm awkwardly placed because don't make enough use of 3D-CAD to justify spending big money on it, even though the full versions are highly desirable. It's a compromise. Alibre is definitely a runner: if Community Solid Edge was withdrawn, and a full license too pricey, Alibre Atom does most of what I need with a short learning curve because it's similar to what I already know.

Maybe Solid Edge isn't a natural fit to my mindset, but I find it powerful rather than friendly. Synchronous mode comes with a multi-purpose steering wheel tool that does amazingly useful things, but is weird unless the operator understands a bunch of 'Design Intent' options as well. Once learnt stuff that takes a long time to do step by step in other CAD, is done very quickly by the wheel. Best for power users though, not beginners.

I often use FreeCAD for single parts, especially when 3D printing. It's free as in beer and speech. Main problem is its a little experimental guv, so somewhat prone to crash, and early attempts at the tooling aren't always user friendly. So far the Assembly features are primitive, but it's strong in other aspects. Main fault from my point of view is the sheer range of workbenches provided, most of which I don't need. I'd rather the project concentrated on Mechanical Engineering, but it seems the Architects, Ship designers, Surface Modellers and other CAD specialisms don't agree.

MOI is very tempting for that type of modelling. I like the look of Alibre as well – for other reasons.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 19/05/2023 12:25:02

Have you read the MOI blurb, or looked at the Gallery Martin? MOI say, my bold: 'Focused on being easy to use, it's a great tool for designers and artists who want to construct accurate models.' Designers and artists rather than engineers. Examples:

The last MOI example represents a record turntable. It's a broadly correct and scaled external view that could be 3D printed as a model, used to illustrate a forum post, or published in a glossy magazine advert.

Great, so far as it goes, but tell me if I'm wrong: the turntable isn't an engineering model. It's an outer view of a turntable with nothing inside.

Alibre, SE, and Fusion are different. They get outer appearance almost as a side-effect of modelling all the internal parts. This type of CAD models engineering assemblies, where each part, maybe thousands of them, are designed sufficient to make or source a real one. There would be a motor, drive train, arm-linkages, and all the other fixtures and fittings necessary to make a real turntable, positioned inside the outer casing. The model will often include trivia like washers, bearings, o-rings, fuse-holders, and cable clips etc. so the overall weight is always known, and a full BOM available.

This type of CAD modelling is much more focussed on getting the engineering detail right than look, which is added later. The model of the arm assembly would be accurate enough to confirm that the counter-weight correctly balanced the cartridge, and also to swing across the record with the necessary geometry. After that the shiny good looks depicted by MOI are paint, putty and polish.

MOI focusses on selling, whilst parametric CAD focusses on manufacture. Both are important. The MOI turntable model has many features designed to make it look top-quality hi-tech, but which are unlikely to be functional. MOI is top-notch for that, hi-fi fanboys would buy that turntable I'm sure. My sort of CAD model focuses on the practical, where the MOI's sexy rear 'heat-sink' is implemented as some chrome-plated plastic fins stuck on the back, whilst the engineering design uses intelligently sized standard items clipped on the transistors. MOI doesn't need to model the heat capacity of heatsinks, modelling for production does.

There's a lot of overlap between the two approaches, but MOI punches hard at the artistic end, whilst Alibre and friends concentrate on engineering. In the middle both tools produce similar results, but I don't think MOI can model a jet engine as an assembly. How about a working lazy tong?

Dave