"David Merrill" wrote in message
news:Z_8Te.311226$x96.199326@attbi_s72...
"CW" wrote in message
nk.net...
snip
I Did. Turbocad Pro.
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).
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 used P[ro]D[esktop]E[xpress] for a time. ...snip... 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.
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.
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.
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
snip
... 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. ...snip... Heck, maybe it hurts
because I have a pre-conceived notion of how it should work.
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.)
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
snip...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Customer presentation is another matter entirely. My observations are
directed mainly at the home hobbies with nobody to please but him/herself.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, a user group can be extremely helpful to beginner and veteran alike.
See for examples: http://www.prodesktop.net/cgi-bin/dcforum3/dcboard.cgi,
http://www.alibre.com/xpress/forum/