Drawing board v CAD

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

I used to do drawings on an A4 Rotring board which was a great improvement on the wooden one used previously.

I then bought DesignCad 3D Max but struggle with thinking in 3D so have moved on to DesignCad 2D.

I've recenly started trying to learn Fusion but find that I'm more interested in making things than trying to learn.

I'm 72 by the way so age is not the problem.

Brian

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

It is interesting that Adrian Newey the F1 designer still works on a board and it takes two CAD operators to keep up with him.

I started on a board 64 years ago, still use one. Rotring A3 for small drawings. I just find it quicker with a pencil and can quite easily "think" in 3D/2 D including rotating the image in my mind.

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

I am an ex pro. draffy, used board and autocad. I have an A3 board for home use and do not use the computer. I think better on the board, can fiddle about with it and throw away a sheet of paper if needed. I tend to just do layouts to get the feel and rough dimensions. Also can sit down in the living room and keep warm. Back when I was working for money all the rush jobs, eg a sketch for a night-shift welder, was given to me because it was quicker than cad. As for keeping records I trust paper more than electronics.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Spent first twenty five years of my working life on the board. In a break, went on a fourteen week (should have been sixteen weeks but I was on holiday for the last two) course of two and a half days a week using AutoCAD release twelve (Yep, long time ago). First two weeks were an absolute nightmare and the tutor confirmed that the worst people to teach were those who had spent years facing a lump of wood. However, it then started to click to the point I took and passed the practical and theoretical exams earlier than the course planning.

Observations, You NEVER have to sharpen a pencil, always have the correct hardness and line width after setting. NO ink smudges. No thin paper after rubbing out. After saving a drawing, the complete range of tools you.ve used to generate it are tied to it (for mods). Every thing is drawn Full Size (hard to grasp after years of scaling).Array – what a time saver as are the other tweaks, BUT it's a DRAWING tool, NOT a design tool.

 Was lucky to be taught on AutoCAD, all the others are intuitive based on the industry standard with their own variations on the "Master".

 I do a lot of rescaling mag plans using – – – – Photoshop!!!!    Yep, not a drawing program(me) but I'm cleaning and resizing, not redrawing so I find it quite adequate.

For "Designing", free hand sketch, you can talk via Skype, draw while talking and hold the paper up to the camera, much quicker than conventional drawing. If I want to keep it, scan to file or if I want to do a Rolls Royce job, commit to Cad.

 

  Regards  Ian.

Edited By Circlip on 18/03/2018 10:10:53

Edited By Circlip on 18/03/2018 10:12:11

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

I agree with Gordons comments about record keeping. I always print my drawings, even or especially, unfinished ones. I find it easier to work from a paper copy and it keeps the computer screen clean.

Brian

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

The thing I like about CAD is you can draw full size items which you cannot on on a drawing board. I once had a commision to make a triangle shaped steel grill to go under a set of stairs in France. The only way it could be made without going to France and taking the measurements myself. I got the client to measure the 3 sides and then I drew it up in CAD to get the correct angles.

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

Posted by BDH on 18/03/2018 07:49:14:

I used to do drawings on an A4 Rotring board which was a great improvement on the wooden one used previously. I then bought DesignCad 3D Max but struggle with thinking in 3D so have moved on to DesignCad 2D. I've recenly started trying to learn Fusion but find that I'm more interested in making things than trying to learn. I'm 72 by the way so age is not the problem. Brian

Brian, I have exactly the same problem. It must be worth investing the time, but just can't get around to it.

[colin hawesParticipant @colinhawes85982]

I like to use both methods but on intricate things e.g. a gearbox I find that the great advantage is taking measurements with CAD to various parts without having to spend time on lots of calculations to the order of accuracy necessary for the job. I, too, am well into retirement. Colin

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

I'm somewhat confused. Two respondents both say that they struggled with 3D thinking in DesignCad 3D Max so they moved on to DesignCad 2D.

I use DesignCad 3D Max v. 17.2. I also have a copy of DesignCad 2000 which despite not mentioning 3D in its title is indeed an earlier version of v.17.2. In both programs, there is a button to switch between 2D and 3D modes. Hence I cannot understand why both people say that they moved onto DesignCad 2D which as far as I know is a 2D only version of the 3D program.

Could you enlighten me please.

Incidently, I, in the main, like about 99% of the time, use the 3D program in its 2D mode.

Peter G. Shaw

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by David Colwill on 18/03/2018 07:06:20:

Does anyone have experience of the smaller A3 boards made by rotaring and others. I like the idea of something that can be easily moved out of the way but still has reasonable functionality. Even as I am typing this I realise it may be a tall order.

I have one, not hugely impressed. Flimsy, paper clamps are poor, ruler is a challenge to get locked in the right place.

The well-chewed wooden board and t-square I used at O-level was better.

Neil

[richardandtracyParticipant @richardandtracy]

I went from 3D FEA stress analysis to a stint of 6 months on AutoCAD to 3D SolidWorks. I find 3D CAD infinitely easier than 2D. The productivity of the design office where I work went up approx 3x when we got 3D CAD, which has meant the company has survived. Had we been doing the same with 2D we'd have been out on our ears, current jobs would be unprofitable so no workers.

At home, I use a fountain pen & scrap of paper for easy jobs, or lunch half-hour at work on 3D for the more complex stuff. Drawing boards are a skill I never acquired, and I never got highly proficient with AutoCAD. I wrote my own 2D CAD programme once, that worked the way I think, but 3D CAD proved quicker, and I don't have the programming skills for anything more sophisticated than a FEA modeller. The current data structures and surface calculation methods are way beyond my imagination.

Regards

Richard

[larry PhelanParticipant @larryphelan54019]

The only CAD I ever knew was an old sod I had to work with,and he was a CAD,all the way !

My drawing board skills were of a type best forgotten,so I am a lost cause on both fronts.

I seem to just make it up as I go along,anyone else out there like me ? could we form a club ? Just asking !!

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 18/03/2018 11:29:37:

I'm somewhat confused. Two respondents both say that they struggled with 3D thinking in DesignCad 3D Max so they moved on to DesignCad 2D.

Could you enlighten me please.

Hello Peter, The DesignCad 3D Max program that I struggled with was used in 2D mode for a while but became increasingly out of date so I bought the up to date 2D version which I still use.

I will get around to learning more of Fusion 360 but at the moment I'm quite happy to be making things already drawn in 2D.

Brian

[Bob JeppParticipant @bobjepp]

I think that there is a more important issue here than drawing board versus CAD – having worked in industrial automation for the last 25 years, I fear that the understanding of what is drawn has slid away from us.

At school, I started using the board and tee square at 11 years old, being taught by Mr Turbin – an experienced draughtsman turned teacher. I started work as an apprentice and wasn't allowed to go on the board until the third year, having completed the training schools first year and some time on the shop floor.

I've just completed a project with one of my customers whose 3D CAD operators, whilst very capable on the computer, don't have the practical experience and therefore make silly errors claiming that 'it looked alright on the CAD' !

Any method of producing drawings is great, as long as one can pass over the intended information – what do I do, well a lot of scribbly sketches on scrap paper, some pencil drawings in 3D and 2D & 3D CAD – using the appropriate method for the job – as long as the information is easy to follow. My favourite – a quick 3D pencil sketch passes over ones ideas as quickly as anything.

Bob

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I think it's easy to conflate the ability to think and design in 3D with the ability to draw (on paper or computer).

They aren't the same thing and it's just as easy to draw an 'impossible to make or assemble part on paper as it is on a computer screen.

[Bob JeppParticipant @bobjepp]

Neil /

Quite agree – I've done it both ways around !

[roy entwistleParticipant @royentwistle24699]

Neil In 84 years that's the first time I've come across ' conflate ' ( Had to consult dictionary )

Roy

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Neil

It may well be that its just as easy to draw an impossible to make part on paper in 2D as it is to produce one on the screen in 3D. But its a darn sight easier to see the impossible nature in 2D as, generally, you are working from a "tools eye" viewpoint. In practice most folk with more than a modicum of experience in reduce to 2D visualisation and drawing thereof almost automatically avoid the impossible pitfalls on any given view. Unless the part is far more complex than folk like us are likely to handle.

For us 2D drawing impossibles are usually related to work holding and machining sequence rather than absolute impossibilities. Usually due to not properly visualising the assembly aspects where each view is perfectly practical. Sections can be important there. I'm as guilty as any for flying shy of doing sections to better illustrate access problems. Case in point was last "bitch job from hell", an aluminium replacement for an unobtanium plastic base / pivot part for a glass shower screen. Had I done an extra couple of sections I'd have realised that my proposed machining sequence was very poor and made life far easier for myself by doing things a different way.

With 3D its much easier to end up with impossible having produced an overall shape that looks fine but could only be done by clever casting, multicore plastic moulding or 3D printing. 3D drawn objects are inevitably more complex than 2D views and are flattened out into a pseudo perspective view on the monitor. So you need to track rotation of a pseudo perspective representation of a complex object to verify if it can be made. Lot harder than verifying a 2D drawing. Much more likely that you will see what you thought you'd drawn not what you actually have drawn. Which is easy enough in 2D despite greater simplicity.

Clive

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by roy entwistle on 18/03/2018 19:39:44:

Neil In 84 years that's the first time I've come across ' conflate ' ( Had to consult dictionary )

Roy

Possibly the first time I've every typed it

Neil

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Brian,

I am surprised. Although my two versions of DesignCad are both old (1999 & 2007 respectively) I've yet to find something that I could do in v 17.2 that I cannot do in the earlier version. Of course, it may be that I haven't yet had to do something particularly difficult. I agree that v17.2 for example, added some extra facilities which made some tasks easier, but as far as I can remember, nothing that I couldn't find a way round in the older version. In fact, in some respects, the older version was actually easier to use, and when I bought v.17.2, I was somewhat disappointed as the leap in facilities was not as great as I had expected. All of which makes me think that for me, there is no real advantage in upgrading any further.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Clive Foster on 18/03/2018 19:39:52:

With 3D its much easier to end up with impossible having produced an overall shape that looks fine but could only be done by clever casting, multicore plastic moulding or 3D printing. 3D drawn objects are inevitably more complex than 2D views and are flattened out into a pseudo perspective view on the monitor. So you need to track rotation of a pseudo perspective representation of a complex object to verify if it can be made. Lot harder than verifying a 2D drawing. Much more likely that you will see what you thought you'd drawn not what you actually have drawn. Which is easy enough in 2D despite greater simplicity.

Clive

You're assuming you can't see 3D objects as 2D projections.

It's two clicks for me to look at my object in any projecting I want from a choice of 14, so I can see the same as any of the six 2D elevations with the option of dimetric and isometric as well.

That means I can do any check I could do in 2D or on paper AND I can also 'orbit' my object and look from any direction and do trial assemblies to check they will fit together.

I'v just decided to scrap a part made largely by cut and try combined with back of an envelope (actually the little chalkboard on my workshop door), but i sued 3D CAD to get the basic shape. The scrapping was because after I machined out a 'scar' left by the 4-jaw one section was left too thin. No design process would have told me to make it overlength to avoid marking surfaces I don't want to machine – only common sense could have done that!

Neil

[WindyParticipant @windy30762]

As a late starter with computers and for me the long slog learning Turbo cad have found it so useful.

I started with a very basic computer given to me by a student then had to upgrade to be able to use the early Turbo cad program I played with 3D but for me 2D was adequate.

Have a bit more modern cad program but the early version seemed easier to use

Read D.A.G. Browns Cad for model engineers to start with you don't have to spend a lot for an old cad program for what I was doing.

Regards my flash steamer things are not looking good for me to compete again as health problems don't suit wading in water and walking far.

Shame as when right it's capable of 130 mph plus as certain laps have proved.

Time is in short supply and hope my latest project gets running at end of the year.

That's the thing with all aspects of engineering the old brain cells are kept working.

Edited By Windy on 18/03/2018 21:38:02

[Paul LousickParticipant @paullousick59116]

Not only can you produce projected views (plan,elevation, isometric, etc from a 3D model), you can also produce 2D and 3D sections with a couple of clicks.

3D CAD models are extremely accurate and can calculate the centre of gravity and mass of an object. 2D drawings from 3D models can be automatically or manually dimensioned to 8 or more decimal points (eg. 0.00000001mm).

Most models are parametric, meaning that the size of a model is controlled by the size of the dimension. By changing the size of a dimension on a part, the model is automatically updated and every instance of that part in every assembly model and drawing that references it is also updated, saving heaps of work updating associated drawings.

Paul

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Neil

I know you can turn 3D objects into 2D projections with is a great help but seeing is a lot different to creating. Especially if you have numerous choices of projection angle and style. Far too easy to see what you think you drew rather than what you actually drew. Its also very easy to choose a favourable view or projection angle rather than the one that demonstrates impossibility. Ultimately you still have to be able to fuse everything together in your minds eye. Which is no trivial skill for something relatively complex.

It doesn't help that 3D usually involves more complex things than 2D. From the inevitably time limited Model Engineers perspective the biggest issue with 3D is the amount of stuff you need to be familiar with before you can sensibly get started and the even larger amount you need to understand before you can be pretty sure you aren't making errors. 2D is much simpler and more forgiving in that respect. Especially as its quite reasonable to sort with something very simple, maybe a pattern of holes with odd spacings needing to be converted into co-rdiantes for milling on the mill, and build from there.

I'm currently looking at Fusion 360 (again) 'cos I really should get that CNC Tag going after 12 years! Basically getting nowhere because its all silly arty crafty curves 'n stuff tutorials. No sensible manual to cherry pick what I need out of it to actually poxy do something.

Clive.

[Swarf MakerParticipant @swarfmaker85383]

Clive, perhaps this may help.

Agreed that F360 learning is a bit hit and miss but it may be that you have not discovered the route to the more conventional 'user manual' style teaching area.

With F360 open on your screen, click the 'Help' question mark and select 'Learn Fusion 360'. This opens a page in your web browser.

That page has a series of short video tutorials which although they demonstrate a few principles, don't answer the kind of questions most of us would ask. However, at the bottom of the table on the LHS of the screen is an option 'See all Fusion 360 learning".

Click that link and you are taken to another web page that is laid out very much more like a user manual and with links in each category that branch into further depths.

You may have already been there and found it unsatisfactory, but others may not have discovered it, so perhaps useful to have noted it in this thread.

Another route which is also useful is to use keyword searches having entered into the 'Community Forum' area, again under the question mark, top right in the application banner. A lot of information via that route, plus you can ask specific questions and usually get a prompt answer.

 

Edited By Swarf Maker on 18/03/2018 23:48:50

[Author]

Posts