Is CAD for Me?

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes Gary's post is showing up OK for me much the same as one of my posts you could not see either.

Why not just stay logged in then you won't get lost so easily.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Oh typical!!!

I posted the above, and it made Gary's post appear!

Anyway, Gary –

You had the benefit of proper training and professional experience. My training, at work, was only an introduction to using MS' ordinary Office programmes, though including the nightmare of Access.

I think the edition of TC you used was earlier than mine. The User's Guide with TC 19 Deluxe is very haphazard, and the quality of instructions with each tool very variable from sufficient to practically non-existent. Sometimes it even gives a heading above a different topic.

Making a printed index certainly helped because a pdf document can be searched only by page-number. I was surprised though that I could make that index, as I'd always thought pdf files are locked images. (I know Adobe offers a converter but only by costly rental.)

'

I find that Model Space / Paper Space business very confusing, worsened by the " Viewport " routine and TC's printer-settings menus. They differ in the paper sizes they offer, and at least one lacks ISO A sizes.

Dimensions: I think you can set the dimensioning in TC so changing the entity changes the annotation automatically; but I don't know how. Not vice-versa though. The dimension system is very confusing, but at least I can alter dimensions' labels to my intended values!

TurboCAD uses Snaps extensively, but you often have to turn them off for tools you assume would need them.

TC's equivalent to Fusion's " components " seems to be Boolean Adding / Subtracting. TC offers no animation.

If my edition of TC has that " Drafting Pallet ", it might be among the many tools I have not used.

'

It odes not surprise me Fusion's 2D mode is weak, because AutoDESK wants you to use its industrial-grade orthographic AutoCAD. No " layers "? I thought they are a fundamental CAD drawing principle, so does it hide the concept in those other methods?

'

You say you could not change that revolved mug lid in TurboCAD. For a quick test, I drew a simple, chamfered quadrilateral like the section of a lathe dovetail, turned it into a polyline; then Revolved it to a cylinder with a countersunk end. Now the real test: and yes, I changed its overall length and diameter. I doubt it's possible to change its shape though.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Jason –

It doesn't let me either log in or stay logged in, consistently and reliably. To do this now, I had to close the lot and come back in.

'

Neil –

Thank you, but I tried what Alibre seemed to be offering a few days ago. It waited until I'd loaded the programme, then said the trial period had ended. I was surprised at first then realised I should have expected that.

Trying again would be a big gamble. It won't be any use if I can't produce orthographic workshop drawings of what I want to design and make, but whilst 3D CAD may be a useful option if was capable of learning it, Alibre puts that huge barrier in the way by default.

I'd only be able to complete whatever trial it offers by hours of successfully fighting a new but slimmed-down package from scratch before it expires. Then I'd have to buy the full edition if I felt I could take it further.

If I buy it then it becomes too hard, I will have wasted a lot of money and time. The whole exercise would be so desperately frustrating and discouraging it may even damage my interest in the model-engineering I had hoped it would support.

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

Nigel

I had no formal training in reading technical manuals – I had a 2 week introduction to programming course when I joined the company, but after that I was on my own. I did, however, have the advantage of being able to ask questions.

The PDF User Guide that came with TCad V21 PP contains 1154 pages, and is quite comprehensive, but it's not a How-To manual. It describes the functions of the multitude of tools, but not how to use them. An analogy could be descriptions of various paints, paint brushes, and canvases, but no assistance on how to paint a picture.

You are right, changing an entity causes the dimensions to change (that's called "associated dimensions&quot, but manually changing a dimension has no effect on the entity.

Fusion has no layers. Instead, it creates a list of every entity you create, together with a name (which you can change). Next to each name is a symbolic lightbulb which you can switch on or off. The entity is visible only if the lightbulb is on. Groups of entities are controlled in the same way. This gives far more control than layers can provide.

Fusion also uses snaps, but they are rather more intuitive than TC's.

It's possible that the drafting pallet is only in TC PP.

The problem with changing the size of the mug-lid was that the shape had to subtly change as well. It just wasn't feasible in TC.

I think you're wrong in thinking that Fusion's poor 2D drawing is intentional so as to prevent it usurping AutoDesk's other products. Fusion is relatively new and the main thrust has been to create a superior modelling system. I think that the 2D drawing section is still being developed.

Did you take a look at the Philippines series I mentioned. The new entries for 2019 are a good place to start – the challenges get more difficult in later months.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Alibre's at it again – e-posting me things I can't use! This time I'd left Atom loaded, but when I tried to open the simplest of several exercises they'd sent, Alibre told me (more or less), "SHAN'T! Licence expired!".

Clearly one department not knowing what the other's done. Mind you, the exercises all looked far more advanced than that scribing-block in the MEW series.

'

Tried again following the introductory exercise on the introductory CD issued with the TurboCAD programme itself. At least it uses step-by-step instructions, not a wretched video of an expert showing he finds CAD easy. At the dimensioning stage it all went to rats as every attempt to dimension it as it told me, failed on an error message about no snap points or something. I found I have to dimension objects only approximately, by eye, then edit the value texts to the right numbers; so defeating one of the programmes' main features.

'

So what now?

Obviously, I can't learn 3D modelling. Unfortunately though, nor can I learn 2D (orthographic) CAD drawing beyond a very basic level.

Is CAD for me?

Well, yes, but only at a very primitive level of rough, single-layer, 2D drawings with semi-manual dimension and line-type editing, and non-scale prints. Its only advantages over manual drawing are such as easily copying objects around the image.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 20/06/2019 22:15:15:

Alibre's at it again – e-posting me things I can't use! This time I'd left Atom loaded, but when I tried to open the simplest of several exercises they'd sent, Alibre told me (more or less), "SHAN'T! Licence expired!".

Clearly one department not knowing what the other's done. Mind you, the exercises all looked far more advanced than that scribing-block in the MEW series.

'

Tried again following the introductory exercise on the introductory CD issued with the TurboCAD programme itself. At least it uses step-by-step instructions, not a wretched video of an expert showing he finds CAD easy. At the dimensioning stage it all went to rats as every attempt to dimension it as it told me, failed on an error message about no snap points or something. I found I have to dimension objects only approximately, by eye, then edit the value texts to the right numbers; so defeating one of the programmes' main features.

'

So what now?

Obviously, I can't learn 3D modelling. Unfortunately though, nor can I learn 2D (orthographic) CAD drawing beyond a very basic level.

Is CAD for me?

Well, yes, but only at a very primitive level of rough, single-layer, 2D drawings with semi-manual dimension and line-type editing, and non-scale prints. Its only advantages over manual drawing are such as easily copying objects around the image.

It doesn't sound like CAD is for you, but you'll never know for sure until you check out MoI.

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

Nigel.

If you live anywhere near Warwick then I'd be happy to teach you to use either Tcad or Fusion, or both. I'm certain I can make your "penny drop".

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Gary – thank you for your very kind offer!

Unfortunately I live in South Dorset.

I'd stick to TurboCAD – having made a little progress and started using it to help me design my steam-wagon engine it would not really help me to try to learn a very different package. I did briefly try Fusion but with no success. The snag is that there is an entire mint of pennies to drop, and none are at all intuitive.

The TC User's Forum Gallery shows very many wonderful brochure-quality pictures, both engineering and architectural, but I think they are all by full-time designers who use TurboCAD professionally.

I don't know anyone locally who uses TurboCAD, who could help me.

'

Blowlamp – I think you're right, at least as far as 3D CAD modelling goes, but I would like at least to make ordinary orthographic workshop drawings with it. I am not bothered about those brochure pictures, but I'd hoped to be able to learn the 3D mode as an adjunct, for such things as assembly-drawings.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by blowlamp on 20/06/2019 23:33:48:

It doesn't sound like CAD is for you, but you'll never know for sure until you check out MoI.

.

Maybe true … 'though the introductory text doesn't inspire confidence that it will be an easy ride:

**LINK** http://moi3d.com/

MichaelG.

.

Edit: This might be a good place to start:

http://moiusers.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-10-09T07:31:00-07:00&max-results=7

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 08:48:40

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Sorry Chaps – you've lost me with that abbreviation – MOI?

I'm not trying to place " constraints " on anything. Nature does that, imposing learning limits as natural as height or eye-colour. I do not choose mine, but wish they were a lot wider.

'

" 3D in MOI is really a case of imagining your model/structure… [of a subject] … defined by a plan view … "

I understand that, probably true of all 3D packages.

I can imagine the subject, both in three dimensions and in plan.

I can't understand how to turn that 3D mental image into the 3D CAD model version; i.e., with using the software as I had hoped possible!

Another thread shows how to model a tool-post key in 3D in FreeCAD. I could do the same in TurboCAD, without minor details like chamfers; but only because it is 5 symmetrical elements I can join on one axis by co-ordinate calculations. Such sums are theoretically not necessary; but anyway impracticable for drawing the model dinghy or aircraft wing.

(By "minor details" I meant minor only on the drawing – the real thing needs the chamfers, but if unable to draw them I would use text descriptors instead.)

'

" … would not meet BS308 standards… "

If I had to meet such artificialities, I'd be a fully-trained professional who obviously always found CAD very easy to learn!

However, I would like to be able to do things like adding automatically correct dimensions to useable drawings of correctly-sized objects; rather than having to use guesswork, text-editing and untidy, mis-aligned dimension lines.

(TurboCAD lets you Snap dimensions to their true points, but it doesn't let me do that. I can only use the cursor only, by eye. So the objects are accurate, but their dimensions very inaccurate and untidy; even when I carefully follow an introductory exercise. Nothing indicates what I may have missed, mis-read or mis-set, when or where.)

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 08:46:20:

Posted by blowlamp on 20/06/2019 23:33:48:

It doesn't sound like CAD is for you, but you'll never know for sure until you check out MoI.

.

Maybe true … 'though the introductory text doesn't inspire confidence that it will be an easy ride:

**LINK** http://moi3d.com/

MichaelG.

.

Edit: This might be a good place to start:

**LINK**

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 08:48:40

MOI Moment Of Inspiration.

Brian

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Oh dear … am I on Nigel's "Ignore member" list already ?

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Brian H on 21/06/2019 16:47:19:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 08:46:20:

Posted by blowlamp on 20/06/2019 23:33:48:

It doesn't sound like CAD is for you, but you'll never know for sure until you check out MoI.

.

Maybe true … 'though the introductory text doesn't inspire confidence that it will be an easy ride:

**LINK** http://moi3d.com/

MichaelG.

.

Edit: This might be a good place to start:

**LINK**

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 08:48:40

MOI Moment Of Inspiration.

Brian

No CAD system is a complete breeze, but which bit of text in the link do you think doesn't inspire confidence?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

MoI is also a fantastic complementary tool for a polygon-based artist since its CAD toolset and advanced boolean functions enable extremely rapid creation of mechanical or man-made type “hard surface” models. The icing on the cake is MoI’s unique polygon mesh export that generates exceptionally clean and crisp N-Gon polygon meshes from CAD NURBS models.

.

Bearing in mind the title of this thread …. A bit jargon-laden is it not ?

MichaelG.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 18:07:42:

MoI is also a fantastic complementary tool for a polygon-based artist since its CAD toolset and advanced boolean functions enable extremely rapid creation of mechanical or man-made type “hard surface” models. The icing on the cake is MoI’s unique polygon mesh export that generates exceptionally clean and crisp N-Gon polygon meshes from CAD NURBS models.

.

Bearing in mind the title of this thread …. A bit jargon-laden is it not ?

MichaelG.

The text I've highlighted above leads me to think that paragraph is aimed at the well-versed user or professional modeller, so some jargon might be necessary.

[John HinkleyParticipant @johnhinkley26699]

I have followed this thread from day one and contributed what I hoped was an encouraging post. All I hear now as I read on is a constant "swish – thwack, swish – thwack, swish – thwack.." It's the sound of a dead horse being flogged.

John

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

I made a short video with MoI.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Michael –

I can assure you I've not listed you – or anyone – as "Ignore"!

I'll have a look at that link you cite.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks, Nigel

I was just a little concerned when you wrote:

Sorry Chaps – you've lost me with that abbreviation – MOI?

shortly after I had posted those two links.

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by blowlamp on 21/06/2019 18:26:01:

 

…

 

The text I've highlighted above leads me to think that paragraph is aimed at the well-versed user or professional modeller, so some jargon might be necessary.

.

But that paragraph constitutes the majority of the text on the landing-page

… Hence my comment, and my provision of a link to something friendlier, for Nigel's benefit.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/06/2019 20:58:03

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

MOI was totally new to me; but thank you for showing me.

I looked at the links Michael offers. MOI seems really for 3D printing ornamental rather than engineering work. FreeCAD would be the better.

I can use TurboCAD, albeit very basically and roughly but practically; thanks to hundreds of hours of effort.

Indeed I spent this evening starting to design in TurboCAD, a bevel-gearbox for my steam-wagon's brake rigging.

I found the gears, a stock metric pair, on a "come-in-handy-bits" stand at an exhibition. Their actual sizes are not very important. Even an equal pair of bevel wheels isn't easy to measure and draw though! I will need to measure them meshed on improvised stub-axles on an angle-plate and surface-plate; rather like clock-wheel depthing.

The brakes on this thing are right crude, just simple blocks suspended railway-wagon style, and acting directly on the rear wheels' smooth steel tyres. The bevels link the operating-handle's vertical shaft to the horizontal screw-shaft extending to behind the rear axle.

The drawing so far of the two wheels and interposed bearing block, establishes the basic mechanical arrangement. I now need measure the centres, modify the drawing accordingly, then design the box and brake-column around them.

'

BTW I made the differential for the chain-driven, traction-engine pattern, back axle from an old car front-wheel drive unit. I replaced the crown wheel with a machined-out motorcycle sprocket; and annealed the differential wheels themselves for turning, in a wood-burning stove overnight.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 21/06/2019 23:23:50:

MOI was totally new to me; but thank you for showing me.

I looked at the links Michael offers. MOI seems really for 3D printing ornamental rather than engineering work...

Where did you get that idea from?

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[Author]

Posts