Do you use any computer based tool for doing project layout?

I have always designed my projects using graph paper, ruler, pencil, and (lots of) eraser. I have a somewhat more complicated job I want to do now. There is a design for an entertainment center in FWW that I want to adapt. I would like to take the measurements from the article, enter them on a computer somehow, and then change the things I want. I have a friend who uses Google Sketchup. He found it awkward to use and not that sophisticated. I don't want to invest the money and a lot of learning time on a CAD program unless I can get a recommendation on this group for a product that one of you likes to use. Should I stick to my paper, pencil, and eraser?

TIA.

Dick Snyder

Reply to
Dick Snyder
Loading thread data ...

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and, perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial following.

I happen to do relatively little of that type of work and use an old version of DesignCAD, which lets me draw curves that aren't often seen in traditional woodworking (parabola, hyperbola, catenaries, sine curves, etc) and export those shapes in a format that permits CNC machining.

Some folks are working with TurboCAD and like it best.

But everybody seems to use pencil and paper along with any CAD package they're comfortable with. :)

Reply to
Morris Dovey

Your freind has not given the latest version of Sketchup a chance. I have been using CAD programs since 1986. I used AutoCad LT from

1996-2008. I have been using Sketchup exclusively since 2008. I am not going back!

First off as with any drawing program experience and or formal training is an asset. There are numerous tutorials on line that will teach you what you need to know for free. I highly recomend Sketchup. I recently designed and built a bedroom project, 6 major components with probably 700-800 seperate parts and I found the program drawings to be completely accurate.

While not the most sophisticated drawing program, most any wood working project needs no more than what Sketchup has to offer.

Reply to
Leon

First you take the word of someone else instead of making up your own mind about a particular program; then you don't want to spend money, or your time, on learning a skill to do what you are asking others to advise you on?

Best stick to your paper and pencil ...

Reply to
Swingman

Meh ... either a thinly veiled insult, or your ignorance is showing, or both:

formatting link
"...essentially boxes...", eh? What a crock!

Reply to
Swingman

And older versions of both are available at a fraction of the original cost.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

"I was able to trace over a scanned image of a top view of the Settee to quickly achieve the flat face shown below."

So it can be used in conjunction with images produced elsewhere to produce approximate copies of what has already been done with other (circa 1820!) design tools - big deal.

True, as illustrated in this settee example, only if tracing a digitized image produced by other tools provides sufficient accuracy, and if representing 3D curved surfaces (like the seat) as planar meets requirements.

No insult was intended - I was attempting to point out a broad class of design objects (which included the OP's immediate project) where I felt SketchUp worked well for its users. If you interpret that as an insult, perhaps you can explain why...

FWIW, when I /intend/ insult, there's no "thinly veiled" about it. :)

If you maintain that SketchUp is a superior tool for easily producing accurate mathematical curves/surfaces in three dimensions (as is the case in the many of _my_ woodworking projects) adequate for precision production, then I invite you to produce the evidence - or to expand your woodworking horizons.

Reply to
Morris Dovey

Come now, Morris ... you've proven yourself too smart a fellow to _not_ know exactly what you are about.

I recall taking the time to cobble up and post a SU tutorial model showing you how to do something with curves which you were unable to accomplish.

Just because you haven't taken to the time to become proficient with the program, don't insult the program and, by association, those who have, with such ignorant remarks.

Nevertheless, I'll spot you the "insult", but the link posted proves either one of my contentions to be correct, without necessity for further words.

Reply to
Swingman

"Dick Snyder" wrote in news:c_CdnaTG9Yx8xl3WnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

If you're familiar with drafting, a program called CadStd will get you going right away. It's basically computer drafting. A little quirky at first, but once you get used to the interface it's easy to use.

Sketchup takes a bit to get used to, also. I had to take the time to get used to the 3D aspect, but didn't find anything too difficult. The interface is a little quirky as well, but not terrible. (Zooming, for example, is done by selecting the Zoom tool and moving the mouse up or down.)

CadStd has a Lite version that does quite a bit, or a Pro version for around $50. Sketchup is free, with a Pro version that costs around $500 (I think). For the base program in either case, you're out only your time to try it.

Puckdropper

Reply to
Puckdropper

Actually if you learn the short cuts with the Sketchup program it becomes much easier to use. I seldom use any icons at all as all can be assiciated with a keyboard command or mouse jesture. For example, I have always used a track ball mouse because IMHO it is much quicker to draw with. To zoom I simply rotate my middle click wheel and hold down the wheel to orbit. Placing the curser over the spot I want to zoom concentrates the zoom at that point and rotating the ball with my thumb enables me to orbit at that spot.

Reply to
Leon

At minimum, a mouse with a wheel works better for most any modern software of this type. All you have to do to zoom is move the wheel, or hold it down and move it, and the mouse, to zoom and orbit.

There are a lot of other "input" devices used by CAD jockeys that work well also.

Reply to
Swingman

I routinely use TurboCAD before starting any woodworking project (w/ the exception of a cutting board, etc.). I have tried Sketchup and I also found it difficult to use/learn coming from TurboCAD. If I invested more time I'm sure I could learn to use it, but I couldn't see investing the time considering I already know TC.

Good luck.

Reply to
GarageWoodworks

Whether I was too stupid to grasp SketchUp or SketchUp was insufficiently capable or user friendly was/is a lot less important to me than producing a result that met requirements. I did know what the requirements were, and SketchUp didn't get me there.

You did - and it was appreciated. My next step in that progression was to add a tapped hole using the same technique - which sorta worked but required /way/ too much patchy cleanup. I got the job done, but wasn't satisfied that something so simple required so much time and piddling.

Sorry, but after spending more than a half-century developing software (link in sig), and using CAD packages for more than half of that time, I don't feel as ignorant as you portray. I have to admit, though, that I only started producing actual 3D renderings in wood eight years ago, when I installed my 'Bot. Sadly, the more I've learned the more ignorant I've become.

Since you feel that noticing difficulties with software is an insult to its user, please bypass any and all comments I may ever make about Microsoft's software products (cough) and practices (cough, cough).

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't work for me. Whatever you think you proved to me with the example went whoosh - unless it was that a settee isn't a box (Well, duh! I never said SketchUp was /limited/ to boxes.)

I hoped SketchUp would work for me, too - but it simply wasn't worth more than 60 hours of my time when I already had a CAD tool doing what, after all that time, I couldn't get SketchUp to do.

I glad you like it so well for the work you're doing.

Reply to
Morris Dovey

I'll see your Spectra 70/45 and raise you an RCA 501 and 301. :o)

Reply to
LDosser

You win - besides, the 70/45 was just a thin film approximation to a

360/30 (same instruction set and I/O devices, but had a sexier front panel) :)
Reply to
Morris Dovey

My 2 cents from a Turbocad user: Unless you plan to use the CAD program often, don't bother. There is a serious learning curve. In the company where I worked for a long time, some of the paper and pencil draftsmen never were able to make the change to CAD.

If you intend to do it: You need to have a large vocabulary of "special" words to utter under your breath to bleed off frustration, unless you have mentor handy. Once you have spent the time and have done the tutorials that some have suggested, you can't really expect to stay current if you only haul the program out once a month or so. To keep myself barely reasonably current, I almost force myself to invoke the program for even small simple things. I am still finding new buttons to push after several years at it. One of the big problems, to me, is that there are so many nesting levels for all the commands, shortcuts, etc.. You have to learn many of the them by rote. This means repitition. And, every time they upgrade, they seem to do it for the highest level of power users; those who spend a lot of their life at the keyboard. And some commands seem to be moved around with each upgrade, too. Okay, no problem. I won't upgrade anymore. Oh yeh? A few years later they stop supporting that level, or they only put the newbie tech guy on that product. ETC. Not to say "don't do it at all", but just to make you aware.

Using a CAD program, to me, is like using a PC based spreadsheet was 20 years ago. I found that, as soon as I added a few numbers together, I wondered what would happen if I doubled it, averaged them, etc.. ---The "what if?" So I started opening my spreadsheet program (Lotus 1-2-3 1A) whenever I even started to do some math. It's the same with CAD. Once you have taken the time to get the basics of the part/assy on the screen, the sky's the limit in playing "what if?" there, too.

Pete Stanaitis

-------------------

Dick Snyder wrote:

Reply to
spaco

By "thin film", do you mean it also had the cros (capacitance read only memory) instruction set as the 360/30? It was punch card size mylar with copper traces that were punched out on one of four sides of a squeare or some such. The first time I saw the 30 power on and the cros "pump up" to push the cros punch card ros together, I wondered "WTF"?

Then there was the 360/40 with the "tros" micro programmed instruction set...

That's the one I started with in '64.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

FWIW, I like the program a lot. I am a new SketchUp user, but if you would like to see how I was able to use it to help model my shop (to be). Click on the pdf at:

formatting link
of the "fancy items" were download from a library at no cost and resized as desired.

Bill

Reply to
Bill

Running under Linux, I use VariCAD

formatting link

I've been very happy with its speed and ease of use

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

You and nearly everyone else - I've always suspected it was designed by the same madman who designed the 407... :)

I honestly don't know how RCA implemented the instruction set or the internals of IPL. I suspect that they may have used ROMs, because IBM was likely to have the CROS covered every which way with patents.

Thin film refers to (yet another) logic family (like ECL, TTL, MOS, CMOS, etc). RCA claimed it was cheaper, provided higher yields, and was more reliable. Of course, when you asked around you discovered that every company's technology flavor was well above average. :)

You might get a kick out of learning that the floppy disk was originally developed to load the microcode into the ill-fated object-based FS (for Future System) machines.

I was away from computers from 62-65 working for Uncle Sam, but IIRC I was introduced to the 40 (but it could have been a 50) and DEBE at the same time. :)

Reply to
Morris Dovey

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.