TurboCAD Query: Maintaining Rendering Acrss File-types?

[Nick WheelerParticipant @nickwheeler]

That video is largely how I made my crank. And it's done in eight minutes.

While it shows the steps required, it's a demonstration and not the tutorial Nigel needs to correct his misconceptions of how the program works. From what he's written many times, that tutorial needs to be face to face so that the explanations and resulting questions can be answered immediately without adding extra misunderstanding. That would probably make for a thirty minute session.

But if I was running the tutorial, instead of random exercises I would use the three examples he's already struggled with: the chassis rails, pumps and wheels. That would give a solid grounding in all the aspects of how and why to use either 2D or 3D base sketches, dimensions and constraints, extrudes, revolves, construction planes, projected geometry from already created and matching parts, joints etc, using parts he already understands and needs.

That's an afternoon, or preferably a couple of evening sessions helped along with beer, chocolate cake or whatever he prefers in such situations.

First item on the agenda would be a mind-wipe of anything to do with TurboCad!

Edited By Nick Wheeler on 14/04/2023 12:42:27

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 14/04/2023 10:52:56:

. I see you use the word "constrained" at one point. I know that is a definite CAD term but one not used in TurboCAD, which may have some equivalent under another name though.

You do have constraints in TC, here is a non video user guide the icons are very similar to those used in Alibre and all the other popular CAD packages. eg one circle inside another makes two circles concentric or // makes two lines or edges parallel and so on.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 14/04/2023 10:52:56:

…

Just as in Maths, I can understand 3D graphs but never matrices – though there is a significant difference. 3D graphs can, and CAD models do, both depict real things whereas matrices are pure abstractions with no real-world meanings.*

…

*(I know Matrices have found a real but very arcane use. They are in computer programmes solving vast volumes of extremely advanced calculations in certain dynamic stress and vibration analyses; but that is all for professional specialists at PhD level and above. Such as the Doctor of Mathematics who tried to help me understand them. So I am very surprised matrices are where I first heard of, and was baffled by, them as mere puzzles in the GCSE school maths syllabus I studied in evening-class about 30 years ago.)

…

Are you pulling our legs Nigel? In the middle of a CAD learning question, we're suddenly treated to an attack on matrices.

If not a joke, seems to confirm this is a mindset problem – considerable intelligence being applied to prevent learning rather than achieve anything. Brain used to dismiss options and deploy smokescreens rather than exploit opportunities. Videos are no good, products don't work as they should, manuals aren't organised properly, courses are too expensive, teaching examples aren't in the right order, forum help denied, refusing the need to grasp the basics, insistence on applying inappropriate previous knowledge, and more.

Now, based on a struggle with GCSE maths 30 years ago, Nigel jumps to incorrect conclusions about matrices: "very arcane", "extremely advanced", "for professional specialists at PhD level and above" etc. Note the pejorative language: "very arcane" is much more convincing than the ordinary arcane. And apparently because matrices weren't grasped 30 years ago, Nigel is "very surprised" to find they are still taught as "mere puzzles". I feel sand is being thrown in my eyes!

The truth is matrices are just another useful mathematical tool. May not be needed in most workplaces, but still highly valuable. Good for solving many different technical problems and particularly suited to any requiring lots of computerised number-crunching. Decent weather forecasts require billions of sums, but matrices are used by TurboCAD rotate and transform 3D objects in memory, and then project them on to a 2D computer screen. Computer graphics require lots of arithmetic to be done very quickly, so software engineers often go for matrix solutions. The end-user doesn't need to know or care.

I've always accepted engineering is full of stuff I personally don't understand that is wonderfully useful. I want to know more. Learning is horribly difficult though, therefore I feel it's important not to sabotage myself with irrelevant opinions and excuses. Above all, I never decide in advance that anything is "impossible" or give up too quickly.

I think Nigel is more than capable of cracking 3D-CAD. The problem is he insists on doing it his way which, unfortunately, is wrong. Despite many failures, Nigel doesn't see his approach is flawed, so he always steers into the ditch and gets stuck. Blaming matrices, adverts in Youtube videos, or anything else won't help! I think the answer is a tutor – someone to keep Nigel on track through the basics. After that I'm sure Nigel could tackle advanced work on his own.

Dave

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Dave –

I object to that allegation that I blame anything except me. NO! Just the opposite. I blame only me.

Also to being totally mis-read and told how I think!

The maths example shows it's not only CAD I find hard, and that I learn complicated subjects only in discrete "boxes", not in their entirety, leaving big gaps. One my Maths teachers at school observed that. I found out only from his Report, as he never offered to help anyone who found maths hard, just discouraged them.

I knew only that use for matrices from the scientist who tried to help me understand them. I have never seen them in anything simpler, so naturally associate them only with professional mathematics far above the simple mensuration and trigonometry in model-engineering. In turn she failed to understand why I could not learn them. I said, "Sorry, but you've only repeated the instructions". No explanations or more down-to-Earth applications.

Not their fault. Certainly not her fault Just Nature and my brain! At least CAD has a reason for me: designing things I can make.

I do NOT "Insist" on doing it my way. It do it its way, as far as I can. Any computer application can only work if you use its way – I've used them often enough. The difficult bit is learning that way.

I do NOT decide in advance if anything is impossible, certainly not out of hand. I assess that only after either failing several tries, or by using my experience to judge my skill and chance of success.

'

So very wrong in some things but you are right about tuition. It would have to be personal, singly or as I was taught MS-DOS, Windows, 'Word', 'Excel' and 'Access'. Admittedly all "Introductory" courses, but properly with each having a PC and issued, printed notes.

Even so, I learnt from the associated text-books to use my first home PC, an Amstrad PCW9512 with its "CPM" OS, well enough to write a book and to teach myself basic BASIC – used for all our locally-written laboratory programmes at work.

Formal courses are only for the trade and academia, mainly AutoDesk (AutoCAD & Fusion) and SolidWorks; though my local college offers a 2-day AutoCAD 2D course.

Paul Tracey offers various TurboCAD materials, interestingly suggesting that for 3D TC will also help people learning SolidWorks, which he says is very similar. I also found his warning of the difference between the surface-plotting Deluxe and other, solid-generating, versions of TC; which explains the former's limitations.

With no-one to tell me which buttons to press, I am back to self-teaching.

I looked at TurboCAD. This sells tuition materlals at quite reasonable prices. Oddly it does not list TC 2021, (my version) which may or may not matter. The important tools are probably the same though not all are included in all editions. I am not sure if video, .pdf or both. I'd have to enquire.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Nigel.

Why not download MoI and give it a go (Free for 3 Months)? It will cost you nothing but the effort.

Martin.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Martin –

A good point!

Thankyou Jason.

I've just viewed your two videos. I am impressed!

The speeds were not too bad, and I left them alone; but couldn't enlarge the pictures quite enough for full legibility of the labels without then losing them into the pixels.

Never mind – I got the gist of it. Alibre looks slightly similar to Solid Edge, I think, but might be a little simpler to use. A lot less complicated than TurboCAD as well.

I like the way it puts the object on translucent planes to help you see what's happening, especially when you turn it back and forth. Some objects can create strange optical illusions or lose your sense of direction if your turn them to odd angles, so having those fixed planes keeps track of where it is.

And that parts file system – you can probably do that in any CAD package in its own way but Alibre's way does seem to make for easier assembling, and especially if some parts are common to more than one assembly. I think Alibre has extended the concept of 'blocks' here, without needing call them that, simplifying the process.

Can you re-scale those so the shapes are the same but the overall size smaller, between assemblies? (E.g. traction-engine front wheels copied onto a trailer at a different diameter).

I noticed you used the revolve tool (I may have mis-remembered the name, but it was a bit difficult to read anyway) to make the hub from a rectilinear figure. Are the dimensions active, so typing the value into the little box makes the line that size? I assume on the dimensioned views, there is a way to ensure the dimensions use consistent datum points and directions?

The assembling looked confusing but I did spot the use of the stud-holes on the wheels as alignment points. That's a neat way to "drill" the holes through – extrusions back through the solid, as if of negative lengths.

The wheel you drew is pretty well as mine. The plates converge rather than diverge towards the rim but that's unimportant here. It is just a matter of forming them "up" instead of "down". The construction of the individual plate on the drawing would otherwise be the same.

'''''''

[To make the real plates, I used the 3/16" holes they have all round the rim between the piercings and the edge. In time these will hold rivets (or slotless screws and domed nuts). I made a heavy steel plate disc with corresponding 2BA holes, and a central hole that held the hub. I screwed the pierced plate to the hub by the holes you show, located that on the jig then carefully, systematically screwed the rim down by the appropriate amount. I must have had some arrangement for depth control but I forget what! I tack welded the rolled strip flanges on, then removed the plate from the jig for full welding, on the outside so I could clean the joint and the weld would be hidden on full assembly. The lack of an internal fillet – the pressing radius on the full-size – is not particularly noticeable. The steel tyres – and the smokebox – are actually slices cut from pipeline scraps, so the front wheels are a little under-scale but not too seriously – the archive photos show many detail differences between specimens anyway! ]

[VersabossParticipant @versaboss]

It was quite entertaining to read (again) the almost unbelievable mental topsyturvifications (*) of Mr. Graham.

But, as it seems, only a human tutor can eventually lead him out of his misery, why not doing that 'over the 'net'?

There is a small program called Teamviewer. Maybe there are others, but that's what I used in my professional life. With its help, a tutor can log in into the pupil's computer and guide him as if they were in the same room. I'm sure colleague Andy could do that.

But I fear that Mr. Graham would immediately dismiss such dangerous things. Not in his lifetime would he allow a stranger having access to his computer.

(*) A nice word I found in the Leo translator program, I hope it's appropriate.

I take my coat…

Hans

[Andy AshParticipant @andyash24902]

Hi Nigel.

Don't lose heart. I've no interest in selling TurboCAD but if you want to do it that way, I'm sure you can. You mentioned about the assembly of a crank, so I thought I would draw one up and make a vid out of it for you. I'm pretty sure there isn't anything here that requires the platinum features of TC.

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

I am sorry to say I stopped the video half way through. No fault of yours, but this has to be the clumsiest piece of cad software I have ever seen. If this is what Nigel is using it's no wonder he isn't having much luck. I downloaded a trial of tubocad last year. I thought it was awful then. I deleted it less than an hour later.

Thanks for taking the time to show Nigel what turbocad can do, I didn't watch to the end, but I think it's safe to say you did the crankshaft.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Well I did watch to the end and like Lee also downloaded the trial last year when a similar thread was ongoing and I can see why anyone would struggle with Turbocad after watching that video. At best it could be called 2.5D but even the basic drawing of the 2D outlines is so complicated no wonder it took 13mins to do rather than less than 3mins in my video to get the basic webs, pins and shafts drawn. Probably needs a lot more time to do fillets and chamfers etc.

To take a couple of examples.

Laying out the initial 1" spaced lines, I would just draw one, select it and then do a linear pattern at 1/2" or 1" spacing If I wanted guide lines though they are nor often needed in Alibre or could have turned on snap to grid if needed.

Not sure how easy it would be to make alterations to say crank throw, Would all those individual lines need altering one at a time or how easy it is to go back through the various stages but in the likes of Alibre I would just need to select that initial sketch of the crank pin and enter a new value for it's distance from ctr and click return. Every other operation will then alter by itself.

Triming lines and tangents. I also noticed this with MOI having to do radial lines to get an intersection to a tangental line to define the point to trim the excess is not needed in Alibre of F360. They put a node for want of a better word where the line tangents the circle so the point the excess is trimmed to is automatically put there for you.

Joining up the shapes at the end, Alibre treats it as a single part so no need to do this which could get very complicated with more complex parts.

Thanks for taking the time Andy at least we have a better idea of what Nigel is up against.

 

Edited By JasonB on 15/04/2023 07:58:09

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 14/04/2023 21:53:03:

Reply in Bold

The speeds were not too bad, and I left them alone; but couldn't enlarge the pictures quite enough for full legibility of the labels without then losing them into the pixels.

Don't get too bogged down in the individual programs details it's th ebasic concept of how it works that matters at the moment

Never mind – I got the gist of it. Alibre looks slightly similar to Solid Edge, I think, but might be a little simpler to use. A lot less complicated than TurboCAD as well.

As we have now seen it's a lot simpler

And that parts file system – you can probably do that in any CAD package in its own way but Alibre's way does seem to make for easier assembling, and especially if some parts are common to more than one assembly. I think Alibre has extended the concept of 'blocks' here, without needing call them that, simplifying the process.

It is simply done by selecting the type of view in windows explorer not Alibre specific. I could have it just as a list of file names by leaving it at the default "details" but it tend to select large or extra large icons which give san image of the part.

Can you re-scale those so the shapes are the same but the overall size smaller, between assemblies? (E.g. traction-engine front wheels copied onto a trailer at a different diameter).

Yes parts can be scaled equally or in a specific direction or mirrored if you want L/H and R/H and you could alter one of the hands if it had an extra feature

I noticed you used the revolve tool (I may have mis-remembered the name, but it was a bit difficult to read anyway) to make the hub from a rectilinear figure. Are the dimensions active, so typing the value into the little box makes the line that size? I assume on the dimensioned views, there is a way to ensure the dimensions use consistent datum points and directions?

Yes I like that over MOI and TC shown here where you have to go to a box, click the box, delete or highlight what is there and then type a value. Alibre just pops up the box with the active length of a line or dia of a circle and you simply type in the number

When producing the 2Ddrawings there is an option to use all dimensions from the model but unless you are very particular whare they are placed at that stage it can look a bit messy. I prefer to lay out my dimensions neatly on teh 2D drawing picking datums etc and it will just pick up the sizes from the 3D model

The assembling looked confusing but I did spot the use of the stud-holes on the wheels as alignment points. That's a neat way to "drill" the holes through – extrusions back through the solid, as if of negative lengths.

Most cad packages have all the extrude options which give a positive shape as "cut" as well which removes rather than adds and is very common. I tend to do holes like that most of the time but there is a "hole" option which will for example show a drilled blind hole as having a conical bottom or size the hole to suit a thread eg it will put a 5mm hole for M6 and also put the thread call out on the 2D drawing

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Well I'm impressed with your fluency in TC Andy – although when I still used TC 2D, I took Paul Tracey's (Paul the CAD) advice to have a 'clean' screen and use keystokes instead of mouse clicks. I assume you may do this in practice and possibly just used the mouse for the purposes of your video. If not, then I would very much advise you to learn the keystoke alternatives, they make TC use so much easier.

Other than that, I'm afraid you just managed to remind me why I didn't get on with TC 3D. I always felt that TC 3D evolved from it's 2D roots and I think your demo just confirms this to me. So, I'm impressed that you can make TC 3D work well for you but I'm not at all tempted to use anything other than a modern 3D CAD – in my case Solid Edge. The difference is like Night & Day.

Regards,

IanT

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

For Jason and others, I just wanted to clear the confusion that in MoI you have to access a box to enter values. This isn't usually the case, as I show in this updated video. It's also not necessary to "…do radial lines to get an intersection to a tangental line to define the point to trim the excess…", so I show another way in this video of a five bearing, fully filleted and chamfered crankshaft – all in less than 7 minutes.

Please forgive the faffing about, where I'm drawing the first main bearing near the beginning of the video.

Martin.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Thanks Martin

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

Martin,

I would do something similar in Design Spark Mechanical. I can't recommend DS at the moment because it seems that RS components who supply DS (free), are going to turn it into a subscription only package, similar to Fusion 360. I don't know if it will be cloud based or not.

I might get back into FreeCAD. I used it for a year or two before switching to DS. It falls short in certain areas, and the latest version won't run on two of my computers, including one that has win11, 16gb of memory with a 4gb graphics card and fast SSD. I use 0.19 which runs OK. And it's free, forever?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

I found Andy's TC video fascinating. The workflow is very different from FreeCAD, MOI, Alibre, Fusion360, and Solid Edge. TC reminded me of the thought process needed to translate a 3D object into a 2D first or third angle projection, a method that might well appeal to a 2D draughtsman. Although I'm sure I could get used to it, the approach goes against the grain for me. It's not how I think.

FreeCAD and chums are more realistic in my mind, in that models are constructed by creating solid lumps and then shaping them by cutting and extruding. Solids are manipulated into shape, and only 'drawn' when the model is finished. Even more realistic when the software allows related parts to be assembled with working joints. This type of modelling is very like actual milling, turning, drilling and fitting, except there's less need to plan ahead because all operations are reversible.

Dave

[Andy AshParticipant @andyash24902]

I was never trying to sell TC. You should use whatever CAD system you want to. If it helps to understand how bad I actually am, I'd have done way less 2D layout if it had been an intermediate task. Nigel did mention that he likes 2D TC techniques, and I hopefully demonstrated that there isn't a massive gulf between 2D and 3D. Maybe people would still disagree with that, but I don't think they're even vaguely separate things.

It is fair to say that I do many more 2D drawings than I do 3D ones, and I actually make money from those. That's because most things I get made, are in sheet metal. I think if I had a five axis machining centre on tap, I might think differently, but not everything useful comes from a billet. As it is, I mostly use the 3D modelling for the 3D printer.

As an example I'm making a battery mount for a Chinese micro camera. It is 3D printed but is like a plastic moulding. That was just completely different in the way it arose. With that I did a model of the camera, then I took an imprint from the camera model. After that I just created the battery compartment and the passages for the wiring and spring contacts.

I don't really mind about how critical people are of my CAD skills. Nor my bone headed persistence for using a tool as bad as TC. Really, it doesn't feel like a chore. I don't really have any set way of doing things at all. I just have an idea in my head, and it expands out to suit whatever. For some people it's about creating a perfect CAD model. I don't really want to be the best CAD person in the world. I just want to make stuff. If you're doing patterns for castings, it doesn't even matter if the model is a bit wonky. If you're making something from solid on a manual machine, the 3D model is all but useless.

What I disagree about is that 2D is a bad, old, passe or irrelevant philosophy. That's like saying that the teachings of Euclid or Pythagoras are no longer important. Know your first principles, because sooner or later they will serve you well. More important than that, don't think of CAD as an end. If you really need to create a 3D model so that you can get 2D dimensions, think of that drawing output as the beginning of actually making something. If you do, sooner or later you won't need a 3D model, you'll just see it in your head. You might not even need a drawing. The less drawings you do, the more stuff you get to make and test!

It's not how good your drawing is. It's how well what you drew actually works. Even failure isn't bad, because if you fail, you make it better the next time.

Edited By Andy Ash on 15/04/2023 17:46:59

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by lee webster on 15/04/2023 16:25:10:

Martin,

I would do something similar in Design Spark Mechanical. I can't recommend DS at the moment because it seems that RS components who supply DS (free), are going to turn it into a subscription only package, similar to Fusion 360. I don't know if it will be cloud based or not.

I might get back into FreeCAD. I used it for a year or two before switching to DS. It falls short in certain areas, and the latest version won't run on two of my computers, including one that has win11, 16gb of memory with a 4gb graphics card and fast SSD. I use 0.19 which runs OK. And it's free, forever?

It's because of things like that, I took the plunge and forked out for MoI. It runs on just about anything, stores files locally, doesn't have any 'trick' agreements and doesn't crash. Every three or four years an update is released, which is $100 currently. The author starts work straight away on the next update and releases new betas to paid-up users as work progesses.

Martin.

[IanTParticipant @iant]

"I don't really mind about how critical people are of my CAD skills"

Quite the opposite Andy, having tried to use TC in 3D mode, I was very impressed wiith your CAD skills. I never got that far with it. I've always thought that 'what you know' is 'what you prefer' where CAD is concerned.

Whilst I was just '2D', then I was very happy with TurboCAD but when I wanted to design for 3D Print, then I moved to Open SCAD. It was a much easier then to 'hop' over to SE once I wanted to do more complicated objects (and my 'logical' skills weren't quite good enough to use SCAD).

Regards,

IanT

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

As Ian says I think were were all being critical of Turbocad not you Andy.

We all have different needs from our chosen cad package(s), Nigel seems to mostly want 2D for workshop drawings though 3D assemblies would allow him to visualise and trial fit parts before committing to metal.

Myself I also "build" a whole engine in 3D and check how all parts move in relation to the rest, see if it simply looks right, etc. Only then will I start to make things so will mostly pull dimensions off my 3D parts and make simple hand drawings based on those, more complex parts I will do a 2D drawing derrived from the 3D. If I'm going to CNC machine them the 3D model is used for the CAM, even if a 2D or 2.5D machining job having the 3D part just lets me click on a surface to give heights or depending on path the computer will pick up those heights itself. A do a fair bit of 3D shaped parts so much like a 3D printer need 3D input.

I think even for sheet metal 3D is useful, there was a recent thread where I drew the part in 3D, roughly assembled assembled them all and then used the CAD packages "sheet metal "to flatten out the part which makes allowance for bend radii etc. Doing that with just 2D would mean calculating all the bends and stretching the flat sheet accordingly.

3D is also good for the furniture I design for a living, most of my clients are not technically trained so find it hard to visualise from plans and elevations but send then a coloured 3D interactive file they where they can move the part about, zoom in etc and they can see what they will get. Its a hell of a lot easier than the isometric or perspective drawings I used to do by hand and so easy when there are changes or you want to show several options

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

I agree with Jason and Ian Andy. It wasn't your skills I found lacking.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Jason –

Yes, exactly what I want, with 3D as an extra aid to the initial design. I know the orthographic elevations can be derived from the isometric representation.

My problem was not of "make" of programme although Turbo CAD was the only proper CAD system at the time (about 8 or 10 years ago) readily and affordably available to home users; and with the advantage it still has, of outright, simple purchase.

TurboCAD's 2D mode is probably no harder to learn than any other, and it was sold with a tutorial CD made by its agent, Paul ('The CAD' ) Tracey who realised the potential market in model-engineering. Indeed, he decorated the CD's box label with miniature-locomotive sub-assemblies drawn in 3D.

'

Rather, my problem was not knowing the basic principles of CAD, not TurboCAD, just CAD, common to almost all makes. The two books I have already cited (by Brown and by Hughes, written for amateur engineers) are the ONLY ones I have found that explain them!

Unless you know these principles, you will will not know why Snaps, Work-planes, Layers, Blocks, etc. If you don't know it's probably because no-one tells you. Most of the tutorial material, if any, from the CAD publishers is rote exercises without explanation. So when you try your own drawings, failure part-way through can just leave you floundering.

.

No doubt some makes are easier to learn than others, but it was not knowing the common principles that caused me more problems than the individual programme. It took me quite a while, for example, to realise a Snap is vital because it is a mathematical meeting-point far, finer than the visual image, and necessary for many other tools to work!

'

Similarly, Individual programmes can have traps for the innocent beyond simply not knowing which little symbol to select.

I have only just learnt that the three versions of each edition-number of TurboCAD differ by more than just menus and peripheral functions. Those differences result from of two fundamentally different ways to represent solid objects; and it is very likely not knowing that led to many of the difficulties I, and perhaps others, have with its 3D mode.

A tool might "work", but behind the screen might not be acting as you see and think, leading to frustration later. And you don't know that because no-one has told you.

.

As far as TurboCAD goes, once you've grasped the common CAD basics and its own basics and expectations, its 2D mode is relatively straightforward, yet very powerful and flexible indeed. Just be careful to draw in 2D, only on a 2D template!

.

(If I understand the web-site correctly, TurboCAD's basic 'Deluxe' versions draw "solids" as surfaces, whereas the 'Professional' and 'Platinum' versions, to which you can up-grade the 'Deluxe' forms, treat them mathematically as if actually solid. The whole thing is very enigmatic though, thanks to the different generation tools it offers to do ostensibly the same thing.

I am guessing that Alibre (and SE?) uses the mathematically-solid principle entirely for such tools as the immediate "negative"-extrusion cuts, and fillets and chamfers, to work as fully and immediately as they do. TC's 'Deluxe' versions at least, use Boolean subtracting a second "solid" to create a recess or hole; and their chamfer and fillet abilities are very limited.

.

I am tempted to try Alibre again, via its one-month free trial; and I have indexed its web-site. The purchase price looks reasonable and seems outright, not the first of some disingenuous "subscription" model. I did try it a while back with the MEW series, but "lost" it. I found SE very confusing by its drawing tools and by its rote-learning exercises based on assuming already knowing Siemens' own quirks.

Edited By Nigel Graham 2 on 16/04/2023 11:14:03

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 16/04/2023 11:13:20:

Jason –

Yes, exactly what I want, with 3D as an extra aid to the initial design. I know the orthographic elevations can be derived from the isometric representation.

My problem was not of "make" of programme although Turbo CAD was the only proper CAD system at the time (about 8 or 10 years ago) readily and affordably available to home users; and with the advantage it still has, of outright, simple purchase.

TurboCAD's 2D mode is probably no harder to learn than any other, and it was sold with a tutorial CD made by its agent, Paul ('The CAD' ) Tracey who realised the potential market in model-engineering. Indeed, he decorated the CD's box label with miniature-locomotive sub-assemblies drawn in 3D.

'

Rather, my problem was not knowing the basic principles of CAD, not TurboCAD, just CAD, common to almost all makes. The two books I have already cited (by Brown and by Hughes, written for amateur engineers) are the ONLY ones I have found that explain them!

Unless you know these principles, you will will not know why Snaps, Work-planes, Layers, Blocks, etc. If you don't know it's probably because no-one tells you. Most of the tutorial material, if any, from the CAD publishers is rote exercises without explanation. So when you try your own drawings, failure part-way through can just leave you floundering.

.

No doubt some makes are easier to learn than others, but it was not knowing the common principles that caused me more problems than the individual programme. It took me quite a while, for example, to realise a Snap is vital because it is a mathematical meeting-point far, finer than the visual image, and necessary for many other tools to work!

'

Similarly, Individual programmes can have traps for the innocent beyond simply not knowing which little symbol to select.

I have only just learnt that the three versions of each edition-number of TurboCAD differ by more than just menus and peripheral functions. Those differences result from of two fundamentally different ways to represent solid objects; and it is very likely not knowing that led to many of the difficulties I, and perhaps others, have with its 3D mode.

A tool might "work", but behind the screen might not be acting as you see and think, leading to frustration later. And you don't know that because no-one has told you.

.

As far as TurboCAD goes, once you've grasped the common CAD basics and its own basics and expectations, its 2D mode is relatively straightforward, yet very powerful and flexible indeed. Just be careful to draw in 2D, only on a 2D template!

.

(If I understand the web-site correctly, TurboCAD's basic 'Deluxe' versions draw "solids" as surfaces, whereas the 'Professional' and 'Platinum' versions, to which you can up-grade the 'Deluxe' forms, treat them mathematically as if actually solid. The whole thing is very enigmatic though, thanks to the different generation tools it offers to do ostensibly the same thing.

I am guessing that Alibre (and SE?) uses the mathematically-solid principle entirely for such tools as the immediate "negative"-extrusion cuts, and fillets and chamfers, to work as fully and immediately as they do. TC's 'Deluxe' versions at least, use Boolean subtracting a second "solid" to create a recess or hole; and their chamfer and fillet abilities are very limited.

.

I am tempted to try Alibre again, via its one-month free trial; and I have indexed its web-site. The purchase price looks reasonable and seems outright, not the first of some disingenuous "subscription" model. I did try it a while back with the MEW series, but "lost" it. I found SE very confusing by its drawing tools and by its rote-learning exercises based on assuming already knowing Siemens' own quirks.

Edited By Nigel Graham 2 on 16/04/2023 11:14:03

Okay, so what is your plan from here?

Martin.

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

Just to correct a point I made in an earlier thread. Designspark Mechanical will still be offered as a free programme. It is called Explorer. The subscription models are, Creator and Engineer. They have a lot more features than Explorer and have a monthly charge. I must say that Creator looks promising, but at £9.99 per month (for how long I wonder?) I would look at other cad packages such as MOI or Alibre before I took a financial plunge.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

That's why I took the Alibre plunge

It's more than adequate for a hobbyist and ticks the local file storage and use it for life boxes

Things can change fast in software world

[Author]

Posts