Anyone use CAD software to design projects?

Page 2 of 5  
CW wrote:

Actually this isn't entirely true. At least not in the architectural woodwork business.
UA100, cabinet drawerer...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue to buy it on reputation. It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by the name.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In rec.woodworking

Are you implying that performance is an issue in 2D CAD with today's computers? I don't think so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The ability, or lack thereof, of the software makes a lot of difference.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In rec.woodworking

Please elaborate on what the hell you are talking about. You used the word performance. I guess I'm not sure what your connotation is because a plain jane PIII 700 can regen the most complex 2D AutoCAD drawings in seconds.
Now you use the word "ability" of the software. Ignoring the personification of software, what "abilities" does TurboCAD or whatever you're pushing have that AutoCAD doesn't?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

The guy was just trying to say that whatever made AutoCAD top of the line, does not anymore. You can get pretty cheap products that do the same things.
You don't need to get all defensive about it. Just keep using AutoCAD if you so please...
--
gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In rec.woodworking

I will keep using it. The defensive one is him. I'm not promoting AutoCAD, he is demoting it and pushing other products.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There was a time when AutoCAD was top of the line in CAD technology. As with any technology, success breeds competition. There are enough choices of good products now that what is "best" is a subjective thing. It depends on what you want to do. 2D only? Your choices are many. Have specific tasks for this package that will require customization? AutoCAD shines here and, in the lite version, is a good value for the money. Think 3D will be more your thing? AutoCAD starts looking worse. There are far more capable programs. There are a lot of choices and things to consider when putting what could potentially be a lot of money into something like a CAD package. A lot of it is personal preference. There is no point in having something technically superior if you hate using it. What I use: Turbocad Pro. Very good 3D/2D package with the emphasis on 3D. Intellicad. So much like AutoCAD, if you can run one, you can run the other. Are either of these the best? Yes, no, maybe, it depends. BTW, of the programs mentioned, the only one that fits the original criteria of about $100.00 is intellicad in its lite version.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

Oh. I misunderstood. You must be right.
UA100
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Do you prefer the old irony to the newer sort?
I've been told that the old irony was allowed to sit around and season for a good bit before being cleaned up and put into the game whilst the newer stuff is thrown into the game full of unresolved stresses that can result in severe deformation and pockets of brittleness.
Of course, when dropped from a twenty story building, both will have approximately the same impact and to one so impacted, they would appear to be very nearly indistinguishable.
That is, if they have any impact at all.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret) Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

I'm still out with the new, in with the old which is usually new to me.

Yahbut, they tell us that with all the new teknologee that the new irony is, well, I've never seen the werds superior used, just that it's "just as good". I think they were specifically citing the amount of time it takes to rust clear through.

That one is called the "falls on foot/foot hurts like hell" test. From shorter heights there's no discernable difference.

Oh! It has impact though what happens is, and this from an arm chair injineering background mind you, as it falls some of the Chiwanese cheese sheds itself. This is called the "Chiwanese Cheese Shed Factor" (CCSF). It'll lighten up by a pound or two dependent upon the height of fall/wind speed/barometric pressures and let us not forget, the all important wind chill (side of licked finger that freezes first).
In all seriousness, there's a kewl write up on the subject of Duck Tile Irony in the most recent Lee Valley Catalogette. I got mine yesterday along with the newest issue of the Dumbed Down Fine Wooddorking and a whole 10% coupon (not worth pulling on socks for) from Woodcraft.
UA100
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glad you agree.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

Uh-huh. I'm glad that you're glad.
By the way, your trousers are starting to blow up real big.
UA100
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:

Try not to top post as it makes it difficult to quote you in context.
Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it sells.
Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of applications for it.
As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of his price bracket and I think he'd get most of the function from TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it would be another bonus if it could.
--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the background when you wrote this? Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want? For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.

NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program, hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something peiced together?

The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.

I thought you said that people only bought the best? In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most quality CAD programs.

If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to costomize, go with Pro.
and I think he'd get most of the function from

There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user groups I have ever seen.

It can, in addition to other usefull formats.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having to scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.
Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following what your addressing.

See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would warrant this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no one should have to guess.
Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.
Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW wrote parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very poor form.
(normally I would remove all the following text)

--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, don't read it (I suggest a few reading classes). You might want to seek a little help for that fading memory while you're at it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

I'm smart enough to figure your too lazy to post properly. That is, by convention.
Or is there some other excuse you chose to use? Other than blaming others for your lack of initiative. ?
Sorry, Bud, can't blame me.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark wrote:

Although you are right about this...you should remember your signature before continuing conversations like these :)
--
-=SW=-

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SWalters wrote:

Welcome to last year.
Since it's been so long you could at least include a bit of whatever your referencing so we know what you mean. ?

--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.