CAD programs
 

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:19:56 -0800, Winston
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:01:47 -0800,
wrote:

(...)

$195 instead of $995 is an insane bargain.

So are CA JCs. Up here, courses cost $130 per credit, with most
courses 3+ credits, plus half a dozen extra college fees. I'd be back
up to $995 in a heartbeat with 2 basic classes. But thanks for the
thought. Welding and landscaping programs cost upward of $3k each
here. I think a commercial course would be cheaper.

So get on the other side of the equation and let
the JC purchase your discounted software, yes?

Most mfgrs require specific courses to purchase the software, or they
did the last time I looked. Sometimes they checked, other times they
didn't, but Crom help you if you cheated. You were buggered for it.


Teach a 'beginning XTML' telecourse for your local JC/CC.

Not EVEN! I wouldn't survive the lugubrious liberal bastion of
blubbering maroons. As a student, it would be bad enough, but as an
instructor, look out! Besides, they don't hire people who don't
believe in AGWK. And I refuse to put a Bammy sticker on my vehicle.
They'll just have to do without me.


Your local JC is swamped with folks who want to know this stuff!

Looka he http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/?coursenumber=9.257
The course scheduled for January filled up quickly!

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

CAD programs
 

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:57:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:19:56 -0800, Winston
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:01:47 -0800,
wrote:

(...)

$195 instead of $995 is an insane bargain.

So are CA JCs. Up here, courses cost $130 per credit, with most
courses 3+ credits, plus half a dozen extra college fees. I'd be back
up to $995 in a heartbeat with 2 basic classes. But thanks for the
thought. Welding and landscaping programs cost upward of $3k each
here. I think a commercial course would be cheaper.

So get on the other side of the equation and let
the JC purchase your discounted software, yes?

Most mfgrs require specific courses to purchase the software, or they
did the last time I looked. Sometimes they checked, other times they
didn't, but Crom help you if you cheated. You were buggered for it.

Rhino requires documentation that you're either a teacher or a
student. I sent them a photocopy of my wife's teacher ID. That got me
an upgrade from v. 2 (which I owned and used at Wasino) to v. 4 for
$95.

--
Ed Huntress



Teach a 'beginning XTML' telecourse for your local JC/CC.

Not EVEN! I wouldn't survive the lugubrious liberal bastion of
blubbering maroons. As a student, it would be bad enough, but as an
instructor, look out! Besides, they don't hire people who don't
believe in AGWK. And I refuse to put a Bammy sticker on my vehicle.
They'll just have to do without me.


Your local JC is swamped with folks who want to know this stuff!

Looka he http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/?coursenumber=9.257
The course scheduled for January filled up quickly!

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

CAD programs
 

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

Rhino requires documentation that you're either a teacher or a
student. I sent them a photocopy of my wife's teacher ID. That got me
an upgrade from v. 2 (which I owned and used at Wasino) to v. 4 for
$95.

Ah! See, Larry? It works! :)

I see that McNeel requires either a dated student ID or a
dated, current class schedule on the student side or an
dated faculty ID card or recent faculty/staff pay stub
on the instructor side. You could teach "Conservative
Underwater Basketweaving 101" and still qualify.

--Winston

CAD programs (was Alternative Battery LR44)
 

Joseph Gwinn Inscribed thus:

In article , Baron
wrote:

Winston Inscribed thus:

Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

I once thought I'd won a copy after filling out an entry form for
a raffle with a fresh copy as the prize. They called a week later
and my
heart stopped...until I found out that I hadn't won squat. They
just wanted to see if I had $1,500 (a $700 savings!) to try it out
anyway. I gritted my teeth, deleted my expletives, and said "Uh,
no."

Ouch.

2D CAD is worlds better than a drawing board IMHO.
If you can buy a copy of Generic CADD from days of
yore, you can use it's license number to get a
huge discount on Visual CADD 6 ($150 instead of
$450):
http://www.visualcadd.com/

--Winston

Draftsight runs on Linux and Winblows, and its free for personal use
!

I stared out using Draftsight, but found the learning curve far too
difficult. There isn't enough Draftsight documentation for a new user
to figure it out, so I started reading the AutoCAD documentation, as
Draftsight speaks perfect AutoCAD. It's *very* complex, with
curliques accumulated over the years.

So I talked to the MEs (mechanical engineers) at work. They said that
AutoCAD dominates the Architecture field, where it started, but had a
very long learning curve, and is 2D (with later 3D additions). Pro-E
was used for large-scale projects (with millions of pieces), is 3D,
but was impossible to use unless you used it for a living.

What the MEs used and recommended for home use was Alibre, which is 3D
from the start, and is a fairly clean new design. So I bought a
personal-use copy for $200 or so, and made more progress in two weeks
than I had made with DraftSight in many months. So, I abandoned
Draftsight, and stopped reading the thick AutoCAD books.

Joe Gwinn

Oddly enough I found Autocad very un-intuitive though not overly
difficult. I find Draftsight much easier to get on with, though I must
confess I originally started with Turbocad way way back in the DOS days
and did a lot of PCB work using that until I discovered Eagle.

Draftcad is an excellent 2D/3D platform and as you say, reads and writes
DFX/DWG perfectly. Certainly well enough to feed straight into a laser
cutter and auto punch press. It does have some bugs though and its
behavior is different between Winblows and Linux. The DO/UnDo is very
handy at times particularly when a bug causes an unexpected effect.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

CAD programs
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:19:56 -0800,
wrote:

(...)

Your local JC is swamped with folks who want to know this stuff!

Looka he http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/?coursenumber=9.257
The course scheduled for January filled up quickly!

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

They must have dropped the 'full' classes on their
website this AM, shortly after I posted.
Note that it now says "(Current Term is Winter - 2012)"

That makes sense. You don't want the web list full of
courses that you cannot offer to new students, after all.

The demand is there. 'Sounds like they could use your
help. :)

--Winston

CAD programs
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
(...)

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/
Plug in to 'Course Number' on the left side:CS195

:)

--Winston

CAD programs
 

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:52:48 -0800, Winston
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

Rhino requires documentation that you're either a teacher or a
student. I sent them a photocopy of my wife's teacher ID. That got me
an upgrade from v. 2 (which I owned and used at Wasino) to v. 4 for
$95.

Ah! See, Larry? It works! :)

Oh, sure. For Mafia/PTA/Union-connected Jersyites.


I see that McNeel requires either a dated student ID or a
dated, current class schedule on the student side or an
dated faculty ID card or recent faculty/staff pay stub
on the instructor side. You could teach "Conservative
Underwater Basketweaving 101" and still qualify.

I wonder if I could get a SCBA setup for dirt cheap as instructor for
that class...


--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

CAD programs
 

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:18:16 -0800, Winston
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
(...)

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/
Plug in to 'Course Number' on the left side:CS195 :)

Me no teach. Me no like liberal institutions. You stop, OK meester?

--
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

CAD programs
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:18:16 -0800,
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
(...)

That's because there is none offered in any quarter, sir.
P.S: That note said "Current Term is Fall 2011" not "full".

http://www.roguecc.edu/Schedule/
Plug in to 'Course Number' on the left side:CS195 :)

Me no teach. Me no like liberal institutions. You stop, OK meester?

Well, all right. :)

--Winston

CAD programs
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:52:48 -0800,
wrote:

(...)

I see that McNeel requires either a dated student ID or a
dated, current class schedule on the student side or an
dated faculty ID card or recent faculty/staff pay stub
on the instructor side. You could teach "Conservative
Underwater Basketweaving 101" and still qualify.

I wonder if I could get a SCBA setup for dirt cheap as instructor for
that class...

I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.

--Winston

Alternative Battery LR44
 

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:34:34 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

If cheap is your only requirement:
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/analog-150mm-caliper-6199
...

The problem with that one is it's 2mm per revolution.

If you need so great resolution that 2mm per revolution is a problem,
you must stop looking for cheap options. The dial is marked for every
two hundredths of a millimeter, and you can easily see when the needle
is between two marks, so you can interpolate to the nearest hundredth
of a millimeter. The indicator, however, is sloppy enough that two
successive measurements on the same object can differ by a hundredth
or two.

The bar is marked
in cm with 4 ticks between each.

No, it is not. It is marked in cm with 9 ticks between each, such that
each tick represents one millimeter. Also, the half-cm tick is a
little longer than the others, so you never need to count more than
four ticks.

So to get the mm you have to count
ticks, multiply by 2 & add the dial reading.

No, you don't. Just read the number of ticks off the bar and then read
the decimals off the dial. As an added bonus, you can use the dial to
verify that you have counted the millimeter ticks right: If the dial
is in the left half, the millimeter count should be an even number,
and if the dial is in the right half, you should have an odd number of
millimeters.

High resolution, but a
nuisance. I'd rather rather have one with 1 cm per revolution.

As mentioned, it would not make sense. There is no point in having
much better resolution than accuracy, and with the accuracy you get in
this price range, there is no point in having 10 micron resolution.
Even the 20 microns is somewhat excessive.
--
RoRo

CAD programs (was Alternative Battery LR44)
 

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
Joseph Gwinn wrote in news:joegwinn-
:

snip
I have Alibre, and use it occasionally for 3D stuff, but it's a bit
buggy. If you don't apply constraints just right when aligning parts, it
will disassemble things at weird angles. "Undo" works, so it's not
fatal, but annoying.


To avoid that problem while constraining parts in an assembly, anchor the
1st part (preferably a "central" part). To do that right click on the part
name in the Design Explorer and select "Anchor Part". You may want to
constrain that first part to the major planes or axes before anchoring, but
if you do, delete the constraints after anchoring to avoid over-constraint
errors..

CAD programs (was Alternative Battery LR44)
 

"Mike Henry" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
Joseph Gwinn wrote in news:joegwinn-
:

snip
I have Alibre, and use it occasionally for 3D stuff, but it's a bit
buggy. If you don't apply constraints just right when aligning
parts, it will disassemble things at weird angles. "Undo" works, so
it's not fatal, but annoying.


To avoid that problem while constraining parts in an assembly, anchor
the 1st part (preferably a "central" part). To do that right click on
the part name in the Design Explorer and select "Anchor Part". You
may want to constrain that first part to the major planes or axes
before anchoring, but if you do, delete the constraints after
anchoring to avoid over-constraint errors..

Thanks! I'll give it a try.

Doug White