I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

On Jun 21, 3:31 am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I'm kinda partial to AUTOSKETCH, which is a product from the AUTOCAD
people.

Cost is about $150.00 US. It permits you to create .dwg and DXF files
which are compatible with full-blown AUTOCAD programs and others.
Don't know if they are FULLY compatible... I have not explored this
fully.

It is pretty comprehensive and I use it for commercial design work.

Wolfgang

In my opinion, any CAD software you get will reqiure a BIG investment in
your time to learn. In a year or two, the cost of the software won't
seem to be that big a deal. You'll be wondering which package would
have been easier to use, whic one had the features you need that yours
does not, or which one has better tech support, etc.

I googled "compare cad software" and got lots of hits.

Here's one:
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/mc...d_software.htm

How many times in life has someone said: "you'll LOVE this movie" and,
when you saw it, you hated it? Many of us will be glad to tell you
what we have and/or what works for us. But, since you haven't told us
much about your interests, background, education experience with
mechanical drawing, machining, etc., what will you do with the info you
get?

I'd read ALL the reviews and all the comparisons that I could get my
hands on. NO CAD software is "easy to use". I ALL requires a lot of
rote memorization by the time you get deep enough to be able to actually
make a useful drawing of anything of moderate complexity.

I use one brand almost daily and have tinkered with 2 others. The
bright spot in all this is the some or many of the commands and
processes may be tranportable from one system to the next, so even if
you end up choosing the absolute cheapo (is 2D TurboCad still free?),
you will be a little ahead of the game if you switch later.
I am told that folks who already do a LOT of CAD find it easy to
switch between vendors.

Long time Turbocad user who loves it one day and hates it the next,
Pete Stanaitis
----------------------


kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I bought Turbo Cadd for a simple project - quite frankly, I found it's
menuing system indecipherable - but then again, I bought an older version
off e-bay for $30 so I didn't pay the big bucks. Autosketch is good, but
when I last used it, it was only 2-D

"kuikahi" wrote in message
...
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:32:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 21, 3:31 am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I'm kinda partial to AUTOSKETCH, which is a product from the AUTOCAD
people.

Cost is about $150.00 US. It permits you to create .dwg and DXF files
which are compatible with full-blown AUTOCAD programs and others.
Don't know if they are FULLY compatible... I have not explored this
fully.

It is pretty comprehensive and I use it for commercial design work.

Wolfgang
==========
Indeed, and to follow up on this, an AutoCAD or a clone like
Intellicad that will accept LISP or VBA add-ins [free] may be all
that you need for reasonably simple parts. There are several
free LISP programs that will allow you to use the osnap command
to pick up end of arcs, etc, eliminating any need for "trigging."
Simply more/rotate the cartoon so that the desired origin is
located at 0,0,0 and use the lisp add-in to generate the
end-points of the lines, arcs, centers, etc.

There are several "flavors" of Intellicad. the one I use is from
CMS
See http://www.intellicadms.com/
you can download a free trial version and the users guide at
http://www.intellicadms.com/products...d-software.asp
the standard edition at 110$US may be all you need [no photo
rendering or raster imaging.]
http://www.intellicadms.com/store/ca...ategoryID=Mg==

As in an other post, if you don't know at least one cad program,
contact your local vo-tech or community college and take a class.
This will greatly shorten your learning curve and get you started
the right way.



Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Jun 21, 3:31*am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

This is the free evaluation version of a powerful printed circuit
board program that I use for 2D CAD. It is NOT easy to learn but it
has worked quite well for the electronics housings I've designed with
it.

http://www.mentor.com/products/pcb/pads/pads_eval.cfm

On Jun 21, 1:31*am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I would want a solid modeler, which ideally be Solid works. Since this
is very expensive, try Alibre, starts out free and you can upgrade to
multiple levels depending on your budget.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:05:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jun 21, 1:31*am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I would want a solid modeler, which ideally be Solid works. Since this
is very expensive, try Alibre, starts out free and you can upgrade to
multiple levels depending on your budget.

In light of the large investment in time required to become proficient
with any CAD package, whether it's a 2D drafting program or 3D
parametric modeler, I'd also suggest skipping straight to a solid
modeler. Considering that Alibre Express is free, highly regarded, and
probably no more difficult to master than a 2D program, it seems like
a no-brainer to me.

http://www.alibre.com/xpress/softwar...ign-xpress.asp

--
Ned Simmons

Keywords:
In article , wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:31 am, kuikahi wrote:
I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

I'm kinda partial to AUTOSKETCH, which is a product from the AUTOCAD
people.

Cost is about $150.00 US. It permits you to create .dwg and DXF files
which are compatible with full-blown AUTOCAD programs and others.
Don't know if they are FULLY compatible... I have not explored this
fully.

It is pretty comprehensive and I use it for commercial design work.

I've used AutoSketch (and Drafix, which was what it was called before
AutoDesk bought them out) for about 20 years. It's a great 2D program,
and I've used it for everything from diagrams for business presentations
to laying out microwave circuits.

The bad news is that Autodesk hasn't realsed any updates for 4 years.
They have an on-line forum, and there has been some noise about a new
release, but I'm not holding my breath.

Doug White

I agree with these others: solid modeling. It is the natural approach.
Fitting assemblies is incredibly valuable. Projections, sections,
isometric views, exploded diagrams, all come for free.

On Jun 22, 12:04*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I agree with these others: solid modeling. *It is the natural approach. *
Fitting assemblies is incredibly valuable. *Projections, sections,
isometric views, exploded diagrams, all come for free.

Maybe it's just my limited experience, but I've seen more mistakes in
3D Solidworks designs than in conventional 2D drawings. I learned
drafting back in the pencil and blueprint days when there was
considerable emphasis on developing a mental image of the part and
knowing how to transform it from plan and elevation (cabinet?) view to
isometric. Because of that training I don't usually need to make more
than a quick sketch except to document a customer's job. It seems that
3D CAD lets people draw things they don't really understand.

Jim Wilkins

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:31:56 -0700 (PDT), kuikahi
wrote:

I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.
===========
Some good observations from most posters, including our resident
grenches.

Two cautions if you are thinking about going "art to part" from
customer supplied cartoons.

#1 -- While things are improving, many of the customer supplied
cartoons are still drawn using the LAR [looks about right]
drafting standards, and the actual specifications are in the
notes & dimension text, which the cam programs ignore, as they
generate the program from the cartoon. In many cases this is a
result of quick and cheap engineering changes where only the
dimension text was updated. You will however still generate
scrap using a program generated from the [old, not updated]
cartoon.

#2 -- The tolerances specified are not equal/bilaterial from
nominal, for example 1.7500 +0, -0.010, while the customer
cartoon is drawn with the feature at 1.7500, not 1.7450 +/-
0.005, so when the program is generated you are machining to max
which will also tend to generate scrap with any tool wear
(assuming outside machining).

Another factor is the rampant excessive cost cutting which has
eliminated many essential engineering steps such as product
design review and drawing checking, so the customer cartoon with
notes and dimensions may not be producible, such as specifying a
1/2X20 [instead of a 1/4X20] tapped hole in the end of [or
through] a 1/2 ø shaft. Effectively, the contract machine shop
is now not only expected to produce the part, but to also check
the drawing and conduct the design review. It is therefore
essential that your standard order acceptance form include a
disclaimer that the part will be produced to the customer's
cartoon, if that is what you intend to do.

Good luck with your career in CNC machining. and always remember
that the technical stuff is the easy part.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:05:54 -0500, F. George McDuffee wrote:
[...]
Another factor is the rampant excessive cost cutting which has
eliminated many essential engineering steps such as product design
review and drawing checking, so the customer cartoon with notes and
dimensions may not be producible, such as specifying a 1/2X20 [instead
of a 1/4X20] tapped hole in the end of [or through] a 1/2 ø shaft.
[...]

Yes, the practicality of that depends a lot on specified thread
fit, material tolerances, and equipment accuracy. Here's a
picture of a 3/8"-16 bolt threaded through a tapped hole in 3/8"
bar: http://pat7.com/js/m/bolt-28.jpg which was one of half-a-
dozen such attempts before I decided it was a bad idea because I
couldn't center the hole consistently enough.

-jiw

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:05:54 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

SNIP
===========
Some good observations from most posters, including our resident
grenches.

Two cautions if you are thinking about going "art to part" from
customer supplied cartoons.

#1 -- While things are improving, many of the customer supplied
cartoons are still drawn using the LAR [looks about right]
drafting standards, and the actual specifications are in the
notes & dimension text, which the cam programs ignore, as they
generate the program from the cartoon. In many cases this is a
result of quick and cheap engineering changes where only the
dimension text was updated. You will however still generate
scrap using a program generated from the [old, not updated]
cartoon.

#2 -- The tolerances specified are not equal/bilaterial from
nominal, for example 1.7500 +0, -0.010, while the customer
cartoon is drawn with the feature at 1.7500, not 1.7450 +/-
0.005, so when the program is generated you are machining to max
which will also tend to generate scrap with any tool wear
(assuming outside machining).

Another factor is the rampant excessive cost cutting which has
eliminated many essential engineering steps such as product
design review and drawing checking, so the customer cartoon with
notes and dimensions may not be producible, such as specifying a
1/2X20 [instead of a 1/4X20] tapped hole in the end of [or
through] a 1/2 ø shaft. Effectively, the contract machine shop
is now not only expected to produce the part, but to also check
the drawing and conduct the design review. It is therefore
essential that your standard order acceptance form include a
disclaimer that the part will be produced to the customer's
cartoon, if that is what you intend to do.

Good luck with your career in CNC machining. and always remember
that the technical stuff is the easy part.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]


Hey Unca George,

Very nice well considered and written answer. I hope the OP
undertands what you have given him, and the thought and time it takes
to write even those 20 odd lines of text.

Good show!!!

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

kuikahi wrote:

I am new to cad/cam/cnc software.
What is the the most affordable or cheapest software I should
get or buy to learn?
I want to get into small metal parts manufacturing.
thanks for any help you can give.

Ohio Art Etch a sketch?

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:04*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I agree with these others: solid modeling. *It is the natural approach. *
Fitting assemblies is incredibly valuable. *Projections, sections,
isometric views, exploded diagrams, all come for free.

Maybe it's just my limited experience, but I've seen more mistakes in
3D Solidworks designs than in conventional 2D drawings. I learned
drafting back in the pencil and blueprint days when there was
considerable emphasis on developing a mental image of the part and
knowing how to transform it from plan and elevation (cabinet?) view to
isometric. Because of that training I don't usually need to make more
than a quick sketch except to document a customer's job. It seems that
3D CAD lets people draw things they don't really understand.

Jim Wilkins

If you're seeing more errors in 3D parametric designs than in 2D CAD
or board generated designs, that's a failing of either the designers
or the environment they're working in. It's true that an inexperienced
designer can produce impressive looking 3D models and detail drawings
of a poor design with a 3D modeler and toss it over the transom and
let manufacturing deal with the errors. If the business environment
allows, or encourages, inexeperienced, or just plain bad, designers to
pump out crap with no feedback, that's not the fault of the software.

The current crop of modelers really can improve the both the quality
and accuracy of designs. On the other hand, I'm sure they can also
generate good looking garbage with great efficiency and little skill,
if that's what's called for.

I got my ME degree and started my machine design career on a drafting
board, and experienced the infancy of both PC based 2D CAD and
parametric modeling. I used to enjoy working on a board and would not
have been awfully disappointed to give up Autocad and return to manual
drafting. I feel very differently about Inventor, the modeler I'm
using currently.

--
Ned Simmons

On Jun 23, 12:20*am, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

Maybe it's just my limited experience, but I've seen more mistakes in
3D Solidworks designs than in conventional 2D drawings....
Jim Wilkins

If you're seeing more errors in 3D parametric designs than in 2D CAD
or board generated designs, that's a failing of either the designers
or the environment they're working in. It's true that an inexperienced
designer can produce impressive looking 3D models and detail drawings
of a poor design with a 3D modeler and toss it over the transom and
let manufacturing deal with the errors. ...
Ned Simmons

Or an overworked mechanical engineer asked to squeeze in a little temp
help for another department. Since I don't have a Solidworks license
and don't know the program anyway, I had to redraw the dimensions on
paper from measurements before I could make changes.

The full-time CAD operator produces beautiful drawings for complex
sheetmetal that fit together perfectly.