TurboCAD Question: Accurate Printing?

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

Not all that difficult to model in Atom3D – with some (probably incorrect) assumptions for items not clear in Nigel’s image.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Michael –

I don’t know about other printers but Hewlett-Packard ones, as my ‘Deskjet 1510’, warns you if any material is outside its printable margins, and asks if you want to continue. I don’t know if adjusts the image size or just crops it, automatically.

Instead, at least in the TurboCAD settings, it asks if you want it to adjust the image, and that of course discards any scaling.

…

 

David J. –

Thank you! That’s not ever so far off but I could not see the CAD possibilities as you can.

The two large cylinders overlap by about half an inch, joined by a channel-section ring with holes for pipes through it, but I’d not represented these on my drawing. The top of the outer cylinder also has a large hole – for the chimney – holding a funnel-shaped fitting, also yet to be added to my partial drawing.

…

T’other David –

No CAD is easy for me, but this forum and the magazines show that many model-engineers do find it easy, to an advanced level. I use two systems because although both offer similar things to skilled users, each offers me something the other does not as I cannot use them well enough!

It is a compromise, of course. I would stay with only one if I could learn it well enough.

‘

Why do I want partial elevation drawings of areas of my steam wagon?

These are of existing but incomplete assemblies, and the prints are foundations for measuring further details to help me design what still has to be made, or modify what is already made. I asked previously about using photographs, but experimenting proved that unreliable and inaccurate.

.

I bought a CAD system originally thinking it would help me by producing workshop drawings more efficiently than by hand; but I had not realised I would find it so damnably hard to learn. Now stuck with it, I have probably spent far longer attempting to learn it than drawing anything manually down to the last un-counted rivet.

 

In effect I use several design “tools” for the wagon project, each with its pros and cons:

– Archive manufacturers’ and trade-magazine material, but sadly no original drawings, so a very difficult project;

– Some preliminary, manual drawings, made years ago: not sure I still have them all.

– Making / modifying-to-measure small components from completed work, helped by:

– Rough pencil sketches, soon lost.

– TurboCAD: GA and complicated assemblies, orthographic only as impossible for me in 3D. I could create a basic 3D model for a single, very simple part like an angle-bracket, but not derive its dimensioned elevations, and printing any TC drawing is very difficult;

– Alibre: simple components and very simple sub-assemblies – easy to dimension and print the workshop elevations from the ‘model’. Not multi-part work like the engine, let alone the vehicle, even by your “boxes” approach.

….

I use the best method for me, hence that mixture.

The experts here would produce a full set of 3D and elevation, G.A. and detail, CAD drawings of any engine, easily and quickly.

I only wish I could, too!

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Michael –

I don’t know about other printers but Hewlett-Packard ones, as my ‘Deskjet 1510’, warns you if any material is outside its printable margins, and asks if you want to continue. I don’t know if adjusts the image size or just crops it, automatically.

Instead, at least in the TurboCAD settings, it asks if you want it to adjust the image, and that of course discards any scaling.

…

 

I only mentioned it, Nigel, because it appeared to have been glossed-over in the otherwise excellent video that I had linked … and I am painfully aware [on your behalf] that exact 1:1 scaling is your ambition.

It now appears that my observation was redundant … So have you already sorted the problem ?

MichaelG.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Dave, Tom  –

A bit more background.

I bought TurboCAD several years ago as the only CAD system readily available at sensible, one-off retail prices to model-engineers. It was advertised regularly in the magazines, even. Though I had never used CAD at work I had seen it there (as Solid Edge I think), so knew its possibilities.

Very slowly I learnt its orthographic (2D) mode enough for my purposes, but always struggled with its 3D mode, which is extremely difficult and full of strange, unexpected traps to ruin your work.

Once I realised 3D modelling in TurboCAD is impossible for me I looked at what might be appearing, suitable and simpler. Fusion 360 put me off itself almost immediately. SolidWorks let me down by assuming advanced Siemens-made CAD knowledge, and poor tutorial material.

I realised too I cannot learn anything from videos. Most I saw only demonstrated the programme, not telling me how I ask it to do that. I need proper texts and diagrams, and indeed TurboCAD had come with a good introductory set in pdf form, by its agent, Paul Tracy.

‘

Then Alibre Atom appeared, everyone on here seemed impressed by it, and it is supported by good teaching material. Though those prior experiences had made me wary of the 3D-first approach, I tried it, liked it for doing much the same as TC but far, far more simply and directly, took the plunge…

It’s simpler, not simple, some parts of it baffle me; and I use Alibre Atom now rather than TurboCad but still have a library of existing TC drawings.

Some can be translated to Alibre-ese but the most important, still-used is most certainly not transferable. This is the unfinished GA for my steam-wagon. It is not like an Alibre Assembly, made from a gallery of Parts, and there are few Parts drawings anyway.

Instead every part is built in situ from individual lines, circles and rectangles. I aimed to outline components on it first so they fit the rest of the thing, then copy their outlines to draw them in detail – it seemed logical at the time.

Apart from being useless as an Alibre “Sketch” anyway, this drawing is probably full of errors including left-over construction-lines, hidden line trimmings, layer misplacements, invisible gaps and odd extraneous work-planes. I have no idea why the work-planes because a 2D drawing created in 2D view should have only one work-plane: the screen!

I cannot make a similar GA in Alibre because the problem is the other way round. I’d need draw all the components first… then I’d find the Assembly too difficult.

.

So I still need TurboCAD on my computer, both archivally and in use – but I cannot use it for 3D work!

+++++

Michael –

I don’t know if I have sorted it or not.

I was careful to select an area of the drawing that would fit the paper, then in “Paper Space” used the entire available area as its “View” site. That worked but I don’t know if I had done the right thing, nor know where I had gone wrong previously.

At least Alibre’s printing routine is a lot easier than the IMSI product’s arcane “Viewport” (trade-mark??) system.

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 […]

a lot easier than the IMSI product’s arcane “Viewport” (trade-mark??) system.

Unlikely to be IMSI’s trade-mark, methinks

https://help.autodesk.com/view/ACD/2024/ENU/?guid=GUID-2B5D404A-DCAB-4AF6-A5C1-51593B38F519

MichaelG.

[David JuppParticipant @davidjupp51506]

For information – and I think I’ve mentioned the approach before…

I have on several occasions extracted individual part outlines from DXF G.A. style drawings, and used the result in Alibre.

Now sometimes, it is actually faster to just model from scratch in Alibre, but to say that any file is not transferable is probably untrue.  Whether the effort involved is justified is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider (and the answer may not be obvious until you try).

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Thank you David –

Yes, I have experimented with transferring files.

I have had mixed results but probably due to oddities or faults I had put in the drawing, not intrinsic compatibility problems or me picking the wrong file type. The latter is important because I think there are only one or two types that both TurboCAD and Alibre can share, though they are common types, with DXF as one.

Many of my TurboCAD drawings are messy in computing terms, with misplaced layers, hidden line fragments and the like, so might not translate properly.

It probably would be easier and more efficient for me to draw from scratch than trying to use a ropey import – not necessarily faster though!

….

Michael –

I recall now seeing the term viewport referred to in a generic CAD primer, as a method common across makes of the software. I would cite the book, which I bought from the TEE Publishing stand at an exhibition, but have mislaid it!

I thought it a purely TurboCAD term because I do not remember seeing it used anywhere else, even if the software is doing basically the same thing with a different outward face.

[Author]

Posts