On 11/21/2013 4:53 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:22:50 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 12:39 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:09:04 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

Things I want to draw...
...wood boards
...aluminum flat bar, square tube, round tube, rod
...holes through materials
...bolts, washers, and nuts
...wheels
In other words, I want to draw things you might make at home.

Is 2-D CAD appropriate for drawing three-dimensional objects, like
boxes? Do they typically allow you to enter a third dimension when
placing an object? I don't mind having limited views, like a front
view and a side view, but most of us work with three-dimensional
objects...

Thanks.

2-D Cad is exactly what 2-D says -- it is two dimensional, period. But
if all you want to do is draw, not design, you will have more
functionality than you need with pretty much any 2-D package.

On the other hand, if you want to DESIGN in 3 dimensions, a 2-D
package is about as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Others
have mentioned AutoCAD and SketchUp and I have heard they work well.

Personally, I use Pro-Engineer for the simple reason that I didn't
have to take the time to learn it. It was what I used as a design
engineer before I retired. The power of Pro-E for designing
woodworking projects is like hitting a thumb tack with a sledge
hammer. But it sure is easy for me!


I did a lot of 3D work on a drafting table, so I disagree with what you
said here. A LOT of drafting was done before computers evolved to help out.


Tell me what was designed on a board that wasn't 3D??? What did I say
that you disagree with... the part about the screen door being
useless?

I noticed that this thread is cross posted and apparently some of the AR
responders are taking parts of what we say and rewording those comments
to compose arguments into what they apparently think makes them look
like experts.