Can anyone recommend a good CAD package?

I'm curious, when you first learned to use AutoCad where you using it every day in your profession? It has been my experience that those that have the opportunity to use a package eight hours a day every day it becomes relatively easy to them.

I'm in the category that I used AutoCad infrequently and struggle. I have had drafting and design training and know the basics of drafting, but it seems like every time I bring it up (release 14) to do a design which might be once or twice a month I struggle to relearn the routines.

I suspect that most powerful CAD programs are like that.

Reply to
Frank Boettcher
Loading thread data ...

Egg-zactly my experience.Well said.

Reply to
C & S

If you are truly up to speed with Corel Draw version 11 or higher, then your transisition to CAD will not be that painful. But my question is why don't you use Corel Draw? Where does Corel Draw fail in your needs?

Corel Draw is a great vector graphic program. You should be able to sketch your project, have several layers, do line measurements, just about everything you are asking about. With basic drafting skills, you can do many, many things. But you must have the basic drafting skills.

But a vector graphic programs (as a class of software) cannot do, and were not designed to do several things:

-- accurate, to scale, precision printouts.

-- exchange drafting files between engineers at different companies as in sub-contracting work.

-- Civil engineering projects (loads, vibration, and so forth.

-- and other things that a hobby woodworker should not care about.

However, there is another very small class of software called Technical Illustration vector graphics. The only application I know about in this class is Designer (there are others.) Designer once was owned by Micrografx, but is now sold by Corel. Designer is very close to Corel Draw (as a vector graphics program) with most of the same tools and techniques. Just more emphasis on accurate placement of objects on computer screen, and less attention to color and paint brush styles. See the Corel website.

But just asking, have you run a Google on: CAD, woodworking ? I found several hits on summaries and reviews of several cross-breeds between full CAD programs and the despised "Kitchen Re-Model" programs. These cross-breeds seemed to be just for Wood Workers and many offer free download trials.

Phil

Reply to
Phil

I can understand that then. We have a machine at work, a waterjet, that has it's own cad cam system built in. It's based on Turbocad 1. Rather than use that weak system, we program it off line with Autocad, Cadkey or Matercam. To show it's age, this was one of the first waterjets on the market.

Reply to
CW

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...

I've used an old version of Harvard graphics to do exactly that. Since I used Harvard extensively, I could get the simple stuff done pretty quick. (During a recent move, a couple of the old 3.5 inch Harvard disks disappeared, and I'm out of the "Harvard business" permanently, I guess.

At any rate I've bought a copy of TurboCAD now, and let's just say...the learning curve is damn steep, even for someone use to command line entries and back in the Jurassic period, had extensive training in drafting techniques. My thinking is, I've got the computing power, now it's a question of RTFM........

James...

Reply to
Amused

Take in mind that I had used probably 4 or 5 CAD programs prior to AutoCAD the previous 12 years. AutoCAD was easy from the first hour of install for me. I have always used CAD programs as an aid to my less than a full schedule wood working business. I retired 10 years ago at age 40 and turned my hobby into a fun job. Basically I on average use AutoCAD about 1 day out of the week on average. Some weeks I don't touch it, some I use it everyday.

Well if you have the dradting fundamentals down, IMHO AutoCAD should be easier to learn. Let me bring up something that you may or may not be aware of that made the program very easy for me to use. AutoCAD used DDS which translates to Direct Distance Entry. Older programs required you to TYPE in a beginning coordinate and and ending Coordinate relative to the beginning coordinate. That was truely a PIA. With DDS you click a starting point any where on your model space and then simply drag the mouse in the direction you want the line to go and then type the distance and enter. You can do it either way with AutoCAD but the DDS way is FAST and easy by comparison. From there learning all the short cut commands represented by the icons speeds productivity further.

May be.

Reply to
Leon

I had one of the early versions of TurboCAD and it truly was not an easy program to use. It was pathetic. IMHO AutoCAD products and its clone products are pretty darn easy to learn if you have a drafting back ground to begin with.

Reply to
Leon

Only works, though, in ortho mode and at angles you have preset the ortho to. Otherwise, ending coordinates are it. You do have the option of absolute, incremental or polar coordinates just by the way you type them in. That's something that annoys me about Turbocad. Seperate entry boxes for every kind of input. Puts great wear on the tab key (and wastes a lot of time). BTW, Turbocad will also do DDS.

Older programs required you to TYPE in

Reply to
CW

CAD is a lot like word processing in the following respect. Once you have learned one word processing program well and understand what to expect from a word processing package, then learning a new and better one is easy. Until then, you will find paper and pencil easier. Same thing with CAD. If you can't communicate well in writing, can't spell, and/or can't type you'll find word processing slow going. Same thing with CAD, if you haven't first learned basic drawing/drafting. A good year of fairly regular use of most features of a good word processing or CAD package is a reasonable expectation to gain proficiency. Works best if you approach it as a fun game.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned solid modeling CAD software. I retired a few years ago from large-company engineering where wireframe CAD has long since given way to solid modeling CAD, which is much easier (as distinct from easy) to use. It's definitely much easier to visualize the resulting design. Most of the packages being discussed on this rec.woodworking thread are the old wireframe CAD. One good reason home users haven't heard about solid modeling has been cost, which used to run several $10K's per user and was used on UNIX terminals. More recently, several software vendors have brought out PC versions which run very well, given an adequate graphic card (same as required for some games). Professional versions of these CAD packages still typically cost $500-$2000 but a couple of the vendors have offered 'express' versions of the same or similar package for free download to schools and home users in the hope that more widespread familiarity will lead to future sales to the future employers of these users.

For example, I have been using for several years Pro/Desktop Express from PTC, the publishers of Pro/Engineer,

formatting link
It was a free download (now discontinued), was not a 'trial' version and was not significantly crippled. It is full featured, even does lofting (as in sculptured boat hull shapes) and does most everything I want for home use, including assemblies, file saves, and export of *.jpg files for show and tell. I'll post a file of my design of a tablesaw extension router installation on alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking. Even commercial use was permitted; some European users designed entire industrial plants with it.

Currently another software publisher is offering a similar free solid modeling package called Alibre Design Express

formatting link
are limitations, limited number of parts in an assembly (front, back, two sides and bottom parts could make up a drawer or it could be modeled as one part if joinery details aren't needed), maybe no or limited photovisual rendering, etc. But it's free and relatively easy to learn with the online tutorials and company monitored user group (no company support).

Disclaimer: no personal connection; just a happy benefactor.

David Merrill

Reply to
David Merrill

Well actually DDS does work if Polar coordinates and Ortho are turned off BUT it may as well just be a hand drawn sketch at that point. It seems like I recall TurboCAD being a bit non-intuitive in the respect that you mentioned. And yes DDS is for certain available in other programs. My first experience with DDS was in AutoSketch version 2.1. I had been using

2.0 AutoSketch and when I learned that 2.1 had DDS I was all over it. From there I progressed to AutoCAD LT 97 and have been upgrading AutoCAD LT since then.
Reply to
Leon

I Did. Turbocad Pro.

that it really had over Turbocad. When the license ran out, I didn't go for the five year extension they were offering. Couldn't see getting that used to a product with a limited life.

formatting link
There are limitations, limited number of parts in an assembly (front, back,

photovisual

Reply to
CW

I had the same thought regarding solid modeling vs. CAD. However, IMHO, if one thinks the learning curve is high for AutoCAD, Pro/E is even higher. I downloaded the free trial when it was available and found it to be extremely non-intuitive. I used a solid modeling package several years ago from Aries Technologies (now part of MSC, I believe). That experience plus about 15 years of AutoCAD experience did not seem to help. Heck, maybe it hurts because I have a pre-conceived notion of how it should work.

For visualization of 3D models, I've found SketchUp to be handy.

todd

Reply to
Todd Fatheree

I mentioned that I currently work on AutoDesk Inventor 10, which is a solid modeling program, and is bundled with AutoDesk Mechanical Desktop.

At $5000.00 it is a bit dear for most home users. There is a student edition, available via either yearly subscription or as a permanent installation.

I would agree that these programs are better for visualization of the project than a wireframe program but my advice to the OP still stands: use paper for initial planning and mockups to tune the design.

I think that it is still difficult to judge the visual weight of the components on a piece on paper, even if you can skin it and light it and spin it like a top.

We have a number of guys at work who can do photorealistic renderings but we still have to produce full boat samples for customer approval, because apparent look and feel are qualitatively different from actual look and feel.

Were I a hobbiest, with a limited amount of time to devote to my pursuit of choice, I would not choose to spend a good deal of that time learning a program that can design spaceships, when all I needed was something that showed me the relationship of a few, mostly rectilinear items.

An interesting publishing opportunity would be the production of a text that would teach those subsets of program functionality that would provide an aid to woodworking design.

Most texts are more general in their approach and spend too much time on functions which will not be used in a typical woodworking project.

I've shown a number of builder friends how to use TurboCad (which, in my experience, beginning with V.3, gives the best bang for the buck) at a simple level. Basically, I show them how to draw rectangles and join them together to make traditional 2D elevations, plans and sections.

This can be done in less than an hour - but I've never seen a book that told you how to do that.

I'd like to second CW's point about the TurboCad Forum as a resource. They have a very active and knowledgeable community of users, who seem to be able to maintain focus on helping other users solve drawing problems, without a lot of the usual BS.

Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)

formatting link
(website)

Reply to
Tom Watson

Well...At least until I get there. :)

Reply to
CW

I downloaded the trial version of Sketchup today, and after watching portions of the tutorials was able to render an end table I am working on for a client in about 30 minutes. I am sure that it has some short comings compared to some of the more expensive CAD programs available, but if what you are interested in is a better rendering of a plan it works great. I am planning based on this fooling around to start using it in addition to my hand drawn images for the next couple rounds of client interactions. Based on my first impressions I might set down the pencil entirely before too long.

Andrew

Reply to
Tattooed and Dusty

I stand corrected, but note that you neglected to mention that it does solid modeling or that it costs about $750, or alternatively offers a free trial for a whole 15 days (remember, a year of regular, serious use for a qualified newbie to attain proficiency relative to pencil and paper).

out, I didn't go for

Five years, in addition to the two already permitted, was IMO, a pretty long life in the computer world. Should one really expect to use any package for more than five years? Heck, the computer will be obsolete already. And what about the cost of version upgrades over those five years? A marketed product will slither into your wallet on every pretext it's publishers can find. One trick to dealing with the eventual need to switch, for whatever reason, is to carefully note the neutral file export/import formats (STEP,IGES,STL,etc) common to both old and new packages.

Actually, by dutifully following (doing, not just reading or skimming over) the online tutorials of Pro/Desktop, I found that I was up and designing component parts for the router table posted in abpw in about two days. However, I had drawing/drafting training, previous experience with an older wireframe 3D CAD package (CROSSROADS), introductory training on Unigraphics, and real frustration with another unnamed professional modeling/analysis package. Most commenters on the P/D users group seem to concur that it is one of the most intuitive CAD programs they ever used; I agree. Early comments regarding Alibre seem to be running in a similar vein. (I have downloaded it but haven't actually started to use it yet.)

I concur fully, unless and until proficiency with the CAD package exceeds that with paper and pencil or for very preliminary brainstorming. Truly proficient CAD designers (I'm not one but I've worked with many) mostly leave paper and pencil to the latter or not at all.

It is possible that you perceive such things at a higher artistic level than many of us hobbyists :-) Personally, I'm pretty happy with the visualization provided by the current state of the art in solid modeling software.

Customer presentation is another matter entirely. My observations are directed mainly at the home hobbies with nobody to please but him/herself.

Not feeling especially pressed for time in retirement and enjoying the process of design at least as much as that of fabrication, I can only note that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also a CAD package neither knows nor cares whether its user is designing a spaceship, a chest of drawers or a child's toy; it just concentrates on keeping those lines and component shapes where the designer put them.

Back when I first learned to use CROSSROADS CAD, we had an instructor come into our engineering department for a day's instruction. After he bored us all to death with the philosophies and generalities of CAD I sat him down and insisted he show me how to draw the kind of objects that interested me at the time, starting from a naked centerline. I learned more in that half hour than in the rest of the day.

Currently, I think the basics are covered pretty well (except for the furniture, gunstock, astronomy telescope, violin, hang glider or whatever maker slant) in the online tutorials that come with the free CAD packages that I've identified. If it makes you feel any better, an aerospace engineer may get a new $50,000/seat CAD or analysis package dropped in his/her lap with no manuals, tutorials or training whatsoever and is expected to learn it as they work and start being productive almost immediately. That said, I agree that such a tailored manual could be a boon for the woodworker if only the technology would hold still long enough to get it written and published before it is obsolete. Perhaps a magazine article?

Yes, a user group can be extremely helpful to beginner and veteran alike. See for examples:

formatting link

Reply to
David Merrill

No, I didn't mention solid modeling but, he didn't ask and probably wouldn't have known what I was talking about anyway. As for cost, he didn't mention a price range and I doubt he thought it would be cheap. Yes, a fifteen day trial is a bit skimpy but nobody is going to offer a year. Thirty days is more normal. Even 15 days though, is enough to determine if this program will do what he wants.

I have been using Turbocad for more than five years. On my eighth or ninth version now. Yes, upgrades cost money but you get increased functionality and performance in return. I'd rather stay with something that continues to develop rather that something that, in a given amount of time, just ceases to function.

Unigraphics,

Reply to
CW

HomeOwnersHub website 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.