Ooops! ‘Bye ‘Bye Alibre Atom

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I’d not used Alibre for quite a while, but when I tried to open it yesterday it proudly offered an “up-grade”. I am usually wary as these invariable adding more bells and whistles I don’t understand, need or want, but I loaded it anyway. I don’t think it gave any choice anyway.

Then Alibre said this:

 

I did not know I had bought any “yearly maintenance subscription”. I thought I had simply bought the then-current version of Alibre Atom by one-off purchase. Anyway, although Alibre Atom is still taking up space in the computer, it will not now open even from a drawing made in the older edition.

Unless I have Alibre Atom on my previous and now spare, off-line PC, I cannot even convert my Alibre drawings to transferable formats possibly useable in TurboCAD.

Well, not without buying a new version of Alibre Atom.

As I needed do to restore TC after a computer breakdown had lost everything. And you buy TurboCAD as one-off purchases, not by hidden subscription. Its publisher, IMSI (now under shadowy ownership far away from its native America), does issue up-dates but Norton spotted the most recent had been infected and quarantined it; i.e. threw it away . Since then TurboCAD has been unable to accept any up-dates, it says in a plaintive error message every time I open it. I expect I can live without them.

The saving grace is very few of those now-useless Alibre drawings were for projects. The rest were only exercises.

 

So long Alibre Atom. It was nice knowing you, though I never really understood your planes, parts-orientating and assembly systems, nor how you imagine designing a completely new machine by drawing and assembling its components without first having such an assembly (or general-arrangement) to guide designing them.

 

Happy Christmas One And All!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Surely [correction: make that hopefully] there must be a way to retrieve use of your, now unsupported, previous version.

You don’t deserve to encounter hurdles like this, Nigel

MichaelG.

.

Edit:__ a Google search for alibre atom downgrade returns some reasonably encouraging links.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

You got a limited amount of maintenance when you originally purchased it, most likely 1 year.

Just as I told you before when you thought you had lost Atom from your computer it is simply a matter of downloading the version you have paid for from the Alibre website

It’s not a hurdle if you know how to jump.

Select Atom from the first dropdown that comes up here and then go to the bottom “all versions” and load the one you have. Any problems then the Alibre forum should sort you out.

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

As Jason mentioned, uninstall the version that won’t start, then re-install the previous version.  Ignore messages about licence release when uninstalling.

You should have seen a warning during the update that it was not valid with you licence, and had the option to cancel at that point.

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

Once you have Atom3D working again, I suggest that you disable automatic checks for updates.  That will avoid the problem in future.

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

Surely [correction: make that hopefully] there must be a way to retrieve use of your, now unsupported, previous version.

You don’t deserve to encounter hurdles like this, Nigel

MichaelG.

Exactly so.  Nigel assumes the old version has gone, but that’s unlikely.   He might have to uninstall the new version.

As to not deserving hurdles, though Nigel is good at many other things, he’s distinctly accident prone when it comes to computers!   I put this down to him rather stubbornly believing software works as he imagines it should, and then getting confused when it doesn’t.  In that sense some of his misadventures are self-inflicted!

Software is tirelessly single-minded, and it cannot adapt to individuals.  The individual has to change.   Cure is difficult: users have to RTFM and they have to adapt to how the software works, not the other way round.

Nigel damns Alibre unfairly with ‘nor how you imagine designing a completely new machine by drawing and assembling its components without first having such an assembly (or general-arrangement) to guide designing them.’  

Now I’m not an Alibre user, but having followed the offer articles, and what owners say about Alibre, it’s clear that Alibre is similar to other CAD packages.   Many provide tools that help tackle chicken and egg problems, but using those tools requires technique, which Nigel hasn’t learned yet.   The fault is Nigel not Alibre.

All my efforts to help Nigel with CAD failed and it’s frustrating – he gets so close to success, and then stubbornly veers off, perhaps jumping in at the deep end or by making a small mistake and persisting despite warnings that the foundations are crumbling until the software can’t cope.  When a 3D model has so many mistakes that the geometry does not compute, the computer bails out!     Then the software is blamed when the real problem is good ole “garbage in, garbage out”.  The operator is responsible for the garbage, and learners make lots of mistakes.   No shortcuts or preconceptions – newbies have to start at the bottom and learn the ropes.

Dave

[Nigel Graham 2]

On 25 December 2024 at 09:40 Nigel Graham 2 Said:

So long Alibre Atom. It was nice knowing you, though I never really understood your planes, parts-orientating and assembly systems, nor how you imagine designing a completely new machine by drawing and assembling its components without first having such an assembly (or general-arrangement) to guide designing them.

 

And there’s your problem with CAD in a nutshell: it doesn’t do the design(including the general-arrangement)- you do. I can’t imagine you would design something on paper without simple sketches of where important bits go, what they do how and big they are. After a number of iterations you produce more refined chunks of the design – I start with bought in bits which are therefore fixed, or that have particular functions. Once you’ve finished those, and any necessary iterations, you fill in the gaps. That’s the design process, and it’s the same whether the desired thing is a complex machine, new house, posh dress or abstract sculpture. The difference with using a computer, at least once you are efficient with the programme, is that it keeps up with your process while removing some of the boring calculations, so you don’t end up with a notebook full of chicken scratches and whatever graphic representation you need to build the thing.

The key to quality work is using your tools efficiently. We’ve been suggesting for some time that you would benefit from a few hours with a mentor who can talk you through modelling a part you understand, in the program of your choice. That would have saved you years of expense, time, effort and frustration that could have been spent actually making your project. Good teaching doesn’t change the learning curve, but gives you a good boost up the initial steep part.

 

I do agree that the subscription approach for modern software is annoying, badly explained and potentially very expensive to the customer. Which are some of the many reasons why producers of it are so keen.

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

To be clear, Atom3D does not enforce a subscription based licence – though in North America a subscription option is available for those who really want it.

The default licence type is perpetual (for the version of the software that was current at purchase).  Software updates (access to newer versions) are optional and can be purchased in 12 month chunks.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I now have it back.

Thankyou David!

The way it had acted, as AA 28, suggested it was completely locked, not even simply rejected the up-dating.

It took two attempts to re-load version 27. The first failed because v.28 was hogging the space, but once uninstalled that it all worked fine and did not even need ask for the licence key – though I have copied that to a reference ‘Word’ document.

It worked so well it even showed me I had as usual, aligned each part on different planes and not the correct ones. I’d created a simple, 2-part non-return valve… that would squirt water over everything from a hole in the body side!

……

Nick –

I’m afraid you’ve mis-read me! (You’re not the only one.)

I have always regarded CAD as a tool that should help me design the objects, rather as a lathe as a metalworking tool helps me make them.

We seem to sort of agree, where I was saying I cannot see how to design components without an initial, simplified image of the entire assembly – however made:  CAD, manual drawing or rough sketches. You need starting information such as cylinder sizes, bought component dimensions or the object’s location; but again, independently of drawing method.

So I see 3D-first-and-only CAD as a sort of circular-reasoning like hens and eggs unless you treat the two processes as complementary and even contemporary. Easy if you are just copying something, but not when designing anew.

My main project, a 4″-scale steam-lorry, has only fragmentary copies of contemporary publicity material. So I have to try to design the innards, without original drawings of the hidden machinery to scale and simplify. To help that process, I develop orthographic elevations readily modifiable as work slowly progresses… 3 steps forward, 2 or 4 back. Yes, I admit I could never 3D-CAD model all that machinery, let alone the whole vehicle; but I may be able to model the simpler parts individually. Although rather needlessly if their elevations already exist (the reverse to Alibre’s approach).

Having over-optimistically and irreparably dismantled my drawing board, I need the TurboCAD I had originally bought, especially for that initial 2D general-arrangement.

Totally different if adapting old drawings, essentially copying existing material. Or if designing, say, a lathe accessory, measuring the existing, physical lumps gives that “general arrangement”.

 

I have spent too much money and time, relied on too many others for help, to abandon CAD completely now; but could not possibly have foreseen it being such a ghastly, gigantic mistake.

I may as well tried to learn Higher Mathematics instead for all the good CAD has done me; and in recent years have made many parts from simply measuring the existing, associated ironmongery.

 

I do not blame the software as some wrongly accuse me of doing. I know everyone else here finds it easy. If I mis-set my lathe’s gearbox I don’t blame Myford for the cut thread’s wrong pitch!

They were the ones on a steep “learning curve”; I am always ahead of a very gentle curve – if you think about the cliche’s [y = a.x^2] metaphor.

…

So after one expensive PC crash, I have restored TurboCAD with help from Paul Tracy, and Alibre Atom with help from David Jupp.

Ummm, and now…..?

 

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

According to #2 son, who is a 3D CAD wizard, having any knowledge of 2D drawing, whether pencil and paper or 2D CAD is a terrible disadvantage in learning 3D CAD, and you should attempt to uninstall such knowledge from your brain.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Oh?

How does your son explain that?

Someone taught only 3D CAD may find orthographic drawings hard to understand, and those of very complicated assemblies or difficult shapes can take considerable skill to read, let alone draw, properly.

Conversely some experienced only in orthographic work might find isometric drawing difficult. Indeed, manual 3D drawing entails a huge amount of geometrical constructions even for simple shapes.

Nevertheless, an isometric representation is not much help in the workshop or on a building-site. You still need the orthographic elevations to show the work’s proper proportions and dimensions in each plane.

Architecturally, speculators use suitably censored 3D renderings for deceitful “artist’s impressions” of their intentions, but the real building plans are orthographic. I have also seen a beautiful, near-photographic TurboCAD rendering of  a fully-fitted kitchen, created by the designer to help the homeowner in discussing the contract; but the installers probably worked to 2D plans. (The 21C version of those lovely tinted images of major structures by 19C civil-engineers presumably for the contract and planning negotiations.)

It is common to put a small isometric rendering of the object in the corner of its orthographic engineering drawing to help the user picture the finished work, but the elevations hold the manufacturing information. I first saw that at work but Hemingway Kits uses the same practice.

 

Consequently CAD systems derive for you, the elevations from the 3D model. Otherwise it is not much use!

Further, within CAD itself, you generate each feature from an orthographic elevation of its base on a virtual plane of the co-ordinate system or a facet of the work itself.

So whilst I agree you cannot really think in two and three dimensions at once, being all 3D creatures in a 3D world, I cannot see how making orthographic drawings is supposedly wrong and must be forgotten.

What does your son really mean?  Is he describing how he finds it individually? Or simply repeating an opinion of a CAD lecturer perhaps excellent at teaching advanced CAD skills, but who does not work in industry?

 

To design, draw and make anything properly you need all those skills to a suitable level, so I cannot understand why you should throw away part of that knowledge.

I am trying to expand my skills in those, but your son would suggest I forget a large area of them… and for no reason.

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yep you are still thinking 2D and in the past. Just because that is how you work does not mean others way of doing things is wrong. Depending on how you are making something a 3D model may well be all that is needed.

Certainly those using CNC and 3D printers have no need to produce 2D drawings be that in industry or in the home workshop.

Even when I’m making a part on the manual machines in most cases I will pull the dimensions straight off the 3D model

[Nick WheelerParticipant @nickwheeler]

Nigel has just proved Duncan’s point. His post is peppered with isometric, orthographic, coordinate, elevations and other terms/techniques that are needed to represent a physical object on a flat piece of paper. There is no need to know the terms, let alone how they work, for 3D CAD until such paper is needed by someone. Having the complete 3D model available, from which any necessary section, view, detail, dimension, angle or reference can be displayed or supressed, dramatically reduces the need for such things. Flat plans are just one step of the process to produce a working part, and are another that technology can reduce, simplify or even eliminate.

Nigel doesn’t need to forget his 2D training to use 3D CAD effectively, but be taught when to actually apply it. One such place is to pick the most useful surface(far simpler to understand than orthographic elevation!) or feature to expand into 3D; another could be to define an axis to build the entire assembly off – I’d design an engine around the crankshaft axis as everything inside works off it and it’s also relevant to whatever the engine will be fitted to.

[Phil PParticipant @philp]

I agree with the above, in that having a knowledge of 2D drawing can be a hinderance when learning how to use 3D CAD properly.
I used Autocad 2D for many years at work before moving on to Solidworks 3D, when we went on the learning courses, all those newbies that had no previous experience seemed to pick it up quicker than those who had worked in 2D.

After about six months using Solidworks I had come to the conclusion that this was a breath of fresh air, and would never go back to Autocad again, the fact that it will produce the final working drawing to print out with just a few mouse clicks is nothing short of fantastic, and then if you want to change the design part way through all the drawings will be updating in the background and you just print them out again. Using Autocad (or pencil & paper when I started) you literally have to start again from scatch.

So +1 from me for 3D CAD, even though I am now retired I still use it for all my model engineering designs.

Phil P

[FatgadgiParticipant @fatgadgi]

I too think and work fully in 3D from the outset. Have done for years in industry and as a hobby.

I almost never sketch ideas first with paper and pencil, and absolutely never use 2D CAD for anything other than generating them from the 3D model to take to the workshop, rather than getting the laptop dirty.

Guess we’re all different, but I find this way of working natural and easy (and relaxing actually, bit like an artist painting).

Cheers Will

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

No Jason, I am not thinking “in the past”.

 

I am thinking what I can and cannot do on the computer and in my own workshop, and what I need work around!

I do not use computer-controlled machinery so have to think, and operate my machine-tools, in three planes perpendicular to each other. We can’t all have the luxury of CNC machining-centres and 3D printers in the garden shed – anyway, what sort of plans would you use to build the shed?

CAD uses three planes – twisting the image to produce a three-dimensional illusion, does not remove that characteristic. It twists the planes. It also needs one of those foundation planes, or a flat view of a facet on the object, on which to mount the next feature.

Yes, if you use a CNC machine, either to sculpt a billet or to build up layers of material, you as operator do not need dimensioned elevation drawings, but the machine uses orthogonal (x, y, z) co-ordinate sets, not the isometric “image” you have created to help you designing the work.

If though you use conventional machine-tools, and indeed hand-work, then you do need those elevation prints even if they are derived from the 3D CAD “model”.

Even with CNC production methods, if working to old orthographic drawings you need understand those. In some cases, you might be able to base new 3D drawings on scans of the original elevations, but still need be able to read the originals and picture the object mentally, from them.

 

Duncan –

My beef with your point was that you quoted another’s opinion without his source, context or explanation. So it read as a blanket dismissal of working to 2D drawings irrespective of why one might do that.

Industrially, the capabilities of modern industrial CAD/CAM methods and their trained operators may mean orthographic drawings are rarely needed. I did work for an R&D organisation that used CAD but its internal workshop was mainly conventional because it made lots of one-offs for experimental work. The items it sub-contracted may have been made on NC machines from CAD/CAM files, though.

Whereas in model-engineering few of us have such equipment, but unless making things entirely to our own designs from scratch we need be flexible enough to use conventional drawings straight off or translated to CAD versions.

 

That’s even before individual ability…

The source information for my steam-wagon is extremely limited, with no original drawings, so building the model relies on own designing from rather liberal interpretations and general engineering knowledge.

You or Jason could and probably would first make a fully-detailed CAD drawing set of the entire vehicle, including its hidden machinery, small fittings, even pipe runs; deriving the workshop part and assembly drawings from their initial, full 3D CAD models.

I lack any such ability. So need instead, develop orthographic (2D) drawings of the project’s assemblies and difficult components like the cylinders and crankshaft; and limit the 3D route to simple, individual parts.  Still CAD but necessarily far lower in ambition, complexity and quality than yours.

 

I built my workshop travelling-crane from orthographic drawings in TurboCAD, which gives direct 2D / 3D-model choice, and has its “Viewports” for orthogonal views from 3D models. (Rather as in Alibre; the primary difference being Alibre’s direct 3D-model-only approach.) I later drew a simplified 3D model of the crane’s cross-beam, but only to see if I could.

…

It’s not a matter of imaginary competition between methods, nor of lofty pronouncements quoted without context; rather of what is available and possible both in own brain and the garden-shed.

In the end the physical result is what counts, not the route to it, but I had thought CAD really could help me.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Nigel suggest you read what Duncan quoted his Son as saying again.

2D CAD is a terrible disadvantage in learning 3D CAD, and you should attempt to uninstall such knowledge from your brain.

No one is saying there is no need for 2D but if you have a 2D mindset then it can hamper your learning 3D. I have seen this mentioned many times by many people so not just a one off thought.

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

I recently made something for someone who had drawn it in 2D. I redrew it in 3D for 2 reasons:

1. I always redraw complicated parts other people have drawn before starting on them to find out if there are missing dimensions or other information that would help. If you can’t redraw it then there must be something missing.

2. I find a 3D model that can be rotated and looked at from different angles helps to plan the order of operations for making the part.

If you are doing your own drawings and design these may be un-necessary steps but I work in 3D CAD for most things I make it can save you from embarrassing mistakes. Especially if it is a drawing for someone else. I had to explain to a chief draughtsman at work once that what he had drawn in 2D was impossible to make. He took the view that if he could draw it then we could make it. His problem was that he had drawn a pipe that was 3D in a 2D drawing. Two connected straight sections looked fine from above in his drawing but in reality they were unconnected. Not a good way to move fluids around.

Martin C

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Nigel has beaten me!  I can’t think of a way of helping him crack 3d-cad that hasn’t already been suggested and already been ignored.

I feel Nigel uses his considerable intelligence to defend a failed learning approach rather than take advice.  Instead of   stepping back from failure and trying a different approach, he ploughs on regardless, heaping dust upon the bones!

Repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn’t work for me. When things go wrong, I always have a rethink.  When an approach didn’t work, I do my best to find out why and fix it.  I thought everyone did this!

And Nigel’s explanations are erudite but wrong!   Never mind excuses, 3D CAD can’t deliver unless Nigel changes tack.   If that’s impossible, I recommend buying an old drawing board off ebay.  The work will take much longer than 3D-CAD, but at least having a 2D mindset won’t get in the way!

Dave

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Although I ‘learned’ 2D and isometric drawing in the first form at grammar school (1969) and wrote 3D rendering programs to visualise turbine, generator and foundation vibrations, I lived in a fairly 2D world before I bought Alibre Atom. I had sort of, used CAD due to getting a promotional copy of Visio in 1995 and used it and its Micro$oft descendants since then. But that was, of necessity, 2D.

Getting into Atom was hard work due to the 2D thought processes. I’m now pretty well cured of that, I think…

One thing that I can suggest for Nigel and anyone who has got the Alibre products (dunno about all the others, they probably have equivalents) is, as well as using all of the constraints that are available to make parts join together and align, to use the ‘Equation Editor’. It’s there in Atom V21 and better in later versions and Alibre Design Etc. With that, you can sketch out what you are thinking of and then make it adjust itself to suit. e.g:-

hp-bore=1″
hp-piston-dia=hp-bore-0.008″
lp-bore=hp-borex1.3
cylinder separation=(hp-bore+lp-bore)/2+cylinder-wall
et cetera and so forth.

Then, instead of having to remember to change lots of details when you need to make a change to one thing, the whole model and drawing can change itself and warn you when the change has accidentally made things overlap or otherwise break.

That’s the ‘Parametric’ part to the Parametric 3D CAD

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Dave –

Please do not accuse me of ignoring you, or anyone else. I do NOT ignore advice! I might not understand it properly, or apply it correctly, but at least I try to use it.

Also, please stop trying to think for me. I do NOT think only in two dimensions if I am trying to create an engineering drawing, whether pencil on paper or 3D CAD, beyond that necessary to a particular drawing stage.

Nor do I try to think in one system when using another.

 

Also please accept that we cannot all learn the same things to the same levels. I would like, and had once hoped, to use CAD to a decent, really practical level. I see others’ examples on here but could not possibly match them.

I can form rather rough assembly or general-arrangement drawings in 2D in TurboCAD, and use TurboCAD or possibly Alibre Atom to draw single components in 3D, as I did for the cylinder cover I machined this evening. Not represent the whole engine though.

This is nothing new. My academic, sporting and artistic levels were always low, as I was always a slow learner with modest learning limits in any area.

…..

Mark –

This business of finding it hard to convert from one form to another does seem very common, even among people who should have no problems doing so at all. Yet I have not found it with me, despite others’ claims. Perhaps it happens only to the experts and I am no expert!

Is the problem in converting from one skill to another, or of acquiring a second? Is it difficult to learn to play the piano because you can already play the violin? Does a train driver struggle to drive his car, because he has to steer it?

It’s intriguing. Many people cling to one way of thinking by habit, but I can’t help thinking that does not apply to all, and that there is more to this than mere habit. Physiology, perhaps? The brain is of finite size, after all, so despite its wonderful complexity does it have to apply finite limits to comprehension and memory?

I’ve often wondered why it happens, because it does not happen with me. Although I cannot achieve decent 3D CAD skills, I know perfectly well it is nothing like orthographic drawing on paper, and I do not think in one mode when using the other.

.

Regarding constraints, I know a bit about them in Alibre, though never fully and they often show mysterious messages about something “over-constrained”.

TurboCAD has “constraints” too but I am not sure if they are similar. They seem one of those tools that help advanced users but are best left alone otherwise.

Parametric CAD? I am still struggling with the basics! I have heard of it without ever seeing a definition, but like “parametric equations” – whatever they are –  in advanced mathematics, it’s not for the likes of me. I can add three distances by pen and paper, but would totally fail if I tried by things like “parameters”.

.

Either way, I use CAD less now than a couple of years or so ago.

Though a few days ago I drew two cylinder covers of unequal and overlapping diameters to make a simple-expansion engine resemble its compound prototype. Using CAD helped me blend geometrical construction, arithmetic and trial-and-error to place their boundary and the stud-holes correctly to the cylinder centres and bores. These were the covers I was turning earlier this evening.

So I get by, using CAD as far as I can when it might help, but that’s neither far nor often.

 

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

I’ll comment on the aspect of existing 2D CAD knowledge ‘getting in the way of learning 3D CAD’.  This is not attacking anyone, nor do I suggest that my comments apply equally to all.  My comments are based upon what I’ve seen over the years delivering 3D CAD training both in person and remotely.

My main experience has come from some course participants having worked for some time with AutoCAD – I suspect that similar issues apply where other 2D CAD systems are involved.  I realise that some CAD systems that we tend to refer to as 2D, do also have some 3D capability – to be clear my comments are probably not relevant where the 3D capability of such systems has been used.

As I see it, there tend to be 2 closely linked aspects of the difficulties encountered.  Either or both can cause frustration for the learner.

• Those used to 2D CAD are aiming to produce projected 2D views, and concentrate on that.  In 3D CAD the initial steps of building a 3D model have to be tackled first, 2D projections come later and are (in simplistic terms) a by-product of the 3D model.  So the experienced 2D CAD user is concentrating on something two or three steps further along the road, and can struggle to see value in the steps required to produce the 3D model.  Frustration about this is made worse by the fact that (naturally) learning something new can be a slow process.    I’ve often heard learners say ‘but I could have drawn this already in AutoCAD by now’ on the first morning of a 3D CAD course (when in class we haven’t yet finished the 3D model).
• A projected 2D view includes all edges that would be visible in that view (and possibly hidden detail too).  In contrast the sketch profiles used to define individual features in 3D CAD are best kept very simple, even if that means using more features to build the model.  Those coming from a 2D background often (not always) tend to use over complex sketches and try to ‘put everything’ into a sketch rather as if it were a finished 2D projection of the model.  This tends to lead to both frustrating failures when the software rejects the sketch, and problems when trying to edit or dimension the sketch profile.

In my experience those from a 2D CAD background tend the ‘see the light’ part way through day 2 of a typical course, when after having derived 2D drawing views from the model, we go back and add an extra feature, or change some dimensions in the model and witness the 2D drawings automatically update to show the changes.

 

There is one huge area of the process where those with experience from 2D CAD do have an advantage – often they have years of experience of having to provide clear manufacturing drawings to others.

As far as I’m aware no 3D CAD system will decide for the user which projections to include in a 2D drawing, it won’t determine the clearest placement for dimensions, nor will it judge when a section view or an enlarged detail is appropriate to convey design intent.  The CAD system won’t prevent production of a horribly cluttered sheet showing too many parts.

Some production processes can by-pass the use of 2D drawings, but in many cases they remain critical – even if they are accompanied by a 3D file.  Those who can deliver easy to read 2D drawings which include all needed information possess valuable skills which can be applied to the outputs of any type of CAD system.

 

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Well I promised myself that I wouldn’t get involved with your CAD trevails again Nigel and I’ve managed to stick to that resolve for a year or so now but it’s nearly the New Year, so I’ll try to stick to my resolve again then.

(But mainly for ‘New to CAD’ readers here…)

I used 2D TurboCAD for a very long time before converting to Solid Edge CE some five years ago.  It is perfectly possible to work in both 2D & 3D (I still use 2D with my old TC work) although always in Solid Edge these days (never TC) as it can handle both 2D & 3D perfectly well and I don’t have the problems of mixing two different CAD systems.

To answer one of Nigels comments about “the big picture”. Let’s assume you want to draft a ‘particular’ thing – then you will usually have a photo or drawing to work from. Simply ‘block out’ the larger parts in 3D roughly to size and then loosely postion them together in an assembly and then refine the detail and part relationships. This process is repeated untill the required level of detail is reached. This is far easier in a parametric 3D CAD because any changes will immediately ripple through everything (unlike any 2D CAD) – parts, assemblies and drawings – it all “just” gets updated.

It’s even more useful when designing things from scratch because you can block out the larger components to fit your needs (i.e. the available space or existing parts)  and then see how any ‘sub’ parts/components might fit within or on it, again using “loose” (drag&drop) positioning. Got some holes in one part that need to match holes in other parts? Just place them accurately in the main/larger part and once you have defined the assembly relationships sufficiently well, then ‘spot’ the holes through into any sub-parts (just like in real practice..)

So the ‘big picture’ can start as a simple 3D block diagram that slowly gets refined to the required level of detail, all thanks to the wonderful parametric features of modern 3D CAD systems.

Like most really useful tools, 3D CAD requires time and patience to use well but this is well worth that investment in my opinion. You do have to evolve your work methods to suit the new tool being used though Nigel!

Anyway, that’s me done here.

Happy New year Everyone!

 

IanT

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Dave –

…I do NOT ignore advice! I might not understand it properly, or apply it correctly, but at least I try to use it.

…
 

Bad news Nigel, you may not be aware, but you continually ride roughshod over others suggestions.   In this topic Nick made a valid and helpful post to which you responded:

I’m afraid you’ve mis-read me! (You’re not the only one.)

Wrong!  Nick didn’t misread you, you misread him.  Not unusual, seems to me you persistently misread everyone else.  Years ago I warned about the dire influence of having a 2D mindset, and despite loud denials, it’s still evident.  I also recommended starting with the basics and progressing step by step towards more complicated tasks, not moving to anything new until the ground was firm underfoot.  Also ignored, see recent posts with your good self in at the deep end trying to design a difficult Steam Truck assembly!  Plus still trying to learn two different CAD packages in parallel, which is extraordinarily difficult  Setting yourself up to fail!

Is the problem an expectation that CAD is easy?  How quickly do you expect to learn 3D modelling?  Although some features came quickly, my experience is it takes hours or even days to conquer each and every tool, and a lot of time is wasted unless the basics are nailed first.  After two years I’m still learning SolidEdge.

I’m certain Nigel’s problem isn’t stupidity!  As I said, more likely intelligence turning against itself.   Happened on a large scale when 2D trained draughtsmen were converted from boards to 3D-modelling.   Quite a few of the very best draughtsmen blew fuses because their minds wouldn’t adapt, whilst ignorant trainees left them in the dust. Two of my dad’s mates, both top of the range Senior Draughtsmen, had nervous breakdowns!  The trainees all did well – they didn’t have to unlearn anything, and their professionalism wasn’t on the line.  Nasty business I thought.   Must be a terrible shock to march confidently into a course as top-dog, only to realise after 10 minutes that humiliating failure is on the cards.  The office dunce understands it, and the boss doesn’t!

Seriously, why not buy a Drawing Board?   If 3D-CAD doesn’t work for you, go back to what does.   3D-modelling is wonderful, but only once it’s been mastered, and not everyone has the time or aptitude.   Though you’re close to “getting it”, victory is proving very elusive, and your reasons for failure are misjudged.

Dave

 

 

 

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

So it would seem anything I think is wrong, anything I say is wrong, then!

To clarify:

I never expected to learn CAD other than step-by-step from the basics. But nor did I expect three steps forwards, two or more back all the time, with significant gaps in understanding.

Obviously I never expected to use CAD in designing a complicated project straight off, but I had embarked on building it well before I started trying to learn CAD. Instead I had hoped it eventually possible, but no longer believe it is.

Two systems? For a reason. I started with TurboCAD but later tried SolidEdge then Alibre because I thought the latter two would be easier – everyone on here was praising them, too. Ha! Siemens assumed prior knowledge of its proprietory technical concepts given inexplicable and unexplained names. Alibre, with baffling Parts-orientations and Assembly constraints, proved about as difficult as TurboCAD. All are very hard to learn but I have the most experience with TurboCAD. Also, TurboCAD offers something Alibre lacks but valuable to me.

 

Doesn’t being “close to getting it” contradict “victory proving so elusive”?

“… reasons for failure misjudged”. By whom? I know my one and only reason: I cannot learn anything to high levels.

…”intelligence”….? Hardly, but thank-you for the compliment!

So if unable to use CAD at the level seen here as routine, as I’d intended and hoped, it’s a frustrating and disheartening failure I cannot help and must accept.

 

I may yet have to return to manual drawing at least for some things. I still have my old drawing-board, but cannot re-assemble it in original form. It’s also far too big and heavy for a small, Edwardian terraced-house parlour.

That was not my aim though, and not merely because a PC and A4 printer will fit a small Edwardian front room. Rather, I do appreciate the advantages of CAD, but need accept my natural limit.

 

[Author]

Posts