I'm currently in the planning stages for a pair of end tables for the
living room. Since I recently migrated to Linux, my old TurboCAD drafting
approach is no longer viable. After considering various alternatives, I
went with VariCAD www.varicad.com. I initially tried installing
GraphiteOneCAD after Robotoy's comments regarding his success with it. Had
no luck getting it to build or install after considerable effort so decided
life was too short to mess with that level of problem.

Thus far, I'm impressed; I have been able to put together a 3D model much
faster than I could with TurboCAD. No need to keep changing the axes in
order to get parts to fit where I want them. However, I have not yet
transferred to 2D drawings for dimensioning, that may add some time.
VariCAD does not support 3D dimensioning in the same way TC does, thus
every drawing needs to export to 2D to insert dimensions. This can be both
a benefit and and downside, I'll see how it works out.

Upsides:
1. Faster 3D modeling. In the past, I have avoided putting in joinery
because of the time required to draw out M&T joints. I've always done the
joinery once the drawings are done and just add those details during
construction. In the future, given how quickly one can draw and mill parts
I may consider including the M&T and other joint details.
2. Automatic snap points by default, manual by selection
3. Seems quite a bit faster (this is somewhat difficult to judge because I'm
also running on a faster computer)
4. Perspective rotations are very fast

Downsides
1. Doesn't support 3D dimensioning. It has a tape measure, but that's only
a transient measure
2. Doesn't print 3D, you have to export as a BMP file
3. Doesn't render or have material luminance properties, also doesn't have
the option to render the object with hidden lines not shown (TC users will
know what I mean here)

Since VariCAD doesn't do rendering, I had to learn to use a rendering
engine. I downloaded and have started using Blender www.blender.org for
the purpose of rendering the drawings.

The following postings consist of the following:

1. This post: exported VariCAD bmp file converted to jpeg

2. Post 2 of 3: A blender rendered image with the table in a setting
similar to where the end tables will reside

3. Post 3 of 3: WARNING:Large Post! One of the other things I did with
Blender was to animate a rotation of the table from various perspectives.
This avi file shows a full 360 degree rotation of the table in order to
provide an idea of what the design may look like.

As always, comments and constructive recommendations welcome.





--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Garage_Woodworks wrote:



As always, comments and constructive recommendations welcome.





--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


I like the curvature of the legs! Instead of two separate boards below
the bottom drawer, why not combine into one piece?



Thanks for the comments. The first board below the bottom drawer is part
of the dust skirt and has a slight reveal that provides some shadow detail,
the second is the curved dust skirt. I'll have to look at what would
happen if I changed that. Thanks for the suggestion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...
Thanks for the comments. The first board below the bottom drawer is
part
of the dust skirt and has a slight reveal that provides some shadow
detail, the second is the curved dust skirt.

Is that construction ruling over design, instead of design ruling over
construction?

It might look more fluid below the bottom drawer if not 'broken' into two
pieces. Maybe I'm off here.


I respect you thoughts on the matter of the 2 pieces at the bottom but IMHO
the elimination of the appearance of that upper piece below the bottom
drawer would throw things out of balance with all the other drawers as all
of them have that piece on top and below each.

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

Thanks for the comments. The first board below the bottom drawer is
part
of the dust skirt and has a slight reveal that provides some shadow
detail, the second is the curved dust skirt.

Is that construction ruling over design, instead of design ruling over
construction?

It might look more fluid below the bottom drawer if not 'broken' into two
pieces. Maybe I'm off here.


That's why I need to look at that. It may look more fluid, but it might
also break up the pattern established by the drawers above it. At least
that was my thought when I initially established the design; I could just
as easily make the dust skirt a part of the bottom rail. I need to take a
look at it and see.


I'll have to look at what would
happen if I changed that. Thanks for the suggestion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

I respect you thoughts on the matter of the 2 pieces at the bottom but
IMHO the elimination of the appearance of that upper piece below the
bottom drawer would throw things out of balance with all the other
drawers as all of them have that piece on top and below each.

Here are some examples of a single piece below bottom drawer.


http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
One piece below bottom drawer. Looks good to me.

http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
Another

http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
Hard to tell on this one, but it is one piece.

Do they look "out of balance" ?

Yeah. I'm a fan of Stickley.

Thanks for posting that. I don't know, I kind of think there is a break
in the design flow at the bottom drawer, but on the other hand, I'm not
sure how it would look with a piece below that drawer. I've got to think
on this some and play with some images.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...
I respect you thoughts on the matter of the 2 pieces at the bottom but
IMHO the elimination of the appearance of that upper piece below the
bottom drawer would throw things out of balance with all the other
drawers as all of them have that piece on top and below each.

Here are some examples of a single piece below bottom drawer.

http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
One piece below bottom drawer. Looks good to me.
http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
Another
http://www.stickley.com/OurProducts_...t1=89&view=all
Hard to tell on this one, but it is one piece.

Do they look "out of balance" ?

Yeah. I'm a fan of Stickley.


I am a Stickley fan also but do prefer the way that Mark has presented the
drawing. To be honest I have never really noticed the difference that you
are pointing out but after looking at all 3 of your examples I still believe
that the bottom drawer would look better if it had the same distinct frame
below it as the other drawers to. I was drawn on all three examples to look
for the frame at the very top. When I saw the frame I instantly felt that a
bottom frame on the bottom drawer would look better. Just my opinion and
yours is certainly valid.

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...
I am a Stickley fan also but do prefer the way that Mark has presented
the drawing. To be honest I have never really noticed the difference
that you are pointing out but after looking at all 3 of your examples I
still believe that the bottom drawer would look better if it had the same
distinct frame below it as the other drawers to. I was drawn on all
three examples to look for the frame at the very top. When I saw the
frame I instantly felt that a bottom frame on the bottom drawer would
look better. Just my opinion and yours is certainly valid.

I am in the design process of a bedside table and originally drew the
bottom drawer the way Mark did. Structurally, having it 'broken' into two
pieces just looked redundant to my eye
(http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Bedside_Project.htm).

But, I guess that's why we as woodworkers get to make our own stuff to
suit our own tastes! :^)

Yeah! I'm going to use that excuse and drop the one that I always though
that I was too cheap to buy furniture. LOL

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

I am a Stickley fan also but do prefer the way that Mark has presented
the
drawing. To be honest I have never really noticed the difference that
you are pointing out but after looking at all 3 of your examples I still
believe that the bottom drawer would look better if it had the same
distinct frame below it as the other drawers to. I was drawn on all
three
examples to look for the frame at the very top. When I saw the frame I
instantly felt that a bottom frame on the bottom drawer would look
better. Just my opinion and yours is certainly valid.

I am in the design process of a bedside table and originally drew the
bottom
drawer the way Mark did. Structurally, having it 'broken' into two pieces
just looked redundant to my eye
(http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Bedside_Project.htm).

But, I guess that's why we as woodworkers get to make our own stuff to
suit
our own tastes! :^)




I just did a quick-and dirty mod to the drawing to see how the other way
looks. I'm definitely going to have to sleep on this one.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Looks good in my opinion Mark, but I'm easy to please...lol

Congrats on your move to Linux.
Ubuntu user here....



--
All the Best
Dale Miller
Tennessee
ASP since February 2005





(cut the spam to reply)


VOTE TO REBUILD!
www.twintowersalliance.com

----

I really like the design. Think it has a modern look with some arts and
crafts flair to it. Only thing I'd question (since the bottom rail
discussion has been had!) is the top panel of the drawer cabinet being a
frame a panel construction. Rarely do you see a horizontal surface done as
frame and panel. One reason is the difficulty of keeping it clean! That just
looks out of place to me for some reason. Otherwise I really like the look
of the piece. It cries out for a nice piece of figured cherry as the top.
I'm really intrigued by the design process though. I've always been a
paper/pencil kind of guy (hold over from drafting class in junior high
school). How long did it take you to do the rendering??

Gary in KC


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

I'm currently in the planning stages for a pair of end tables for the
living room. Since I recently migrated to Linux, my old TurboCAD drafting
approach is no longer viable. After considering various alternatives, I
went with VariCAD www.varicad.com. I initially tried installing
GraphiteOneCAD after Robotoy's comments regarding his success with it.
Had
no luck getting it to build or install after considerable effort so
decided
life was too short to mess with that level of problem.

Thus far, I'm impressed; I have been able to put together a 3D model
much
faster than I could with TurboCAD. No need to keep changing the axes in
order to get parts to fit where I want them. However, I have not yet
transferred to 2D drawings for dimensioning, that may add some time.
VariCAD does not support 3D dimensioning in the same way TC does, thus
every drawing needs to export to 2D to insert dimensions. This can be
both
a benefit and and downside, I'll see how it works out.

Upsides:
1. Faster 3D modeling. In the past, I have avoided putting in joinery
because of the time required to draw out M&T joints. I've always done the
joinery once the drawings are done and just add those details during
construction. In the future, given how quickly one can draw and mill
parts
I may consider including the M&T and other joint details.
2. Automatic snap points by default, manual by selection
3. Seems quite a bit faster (this is somewhat difficult to judge because
I'm
also running on a faster computer)
4. Perspective rotations are very fast

Downsides
1. Doesn't support 3D dimensioning. It has a tape measure, but that's
only
a transient measure
2. Doesn't print 3D, you have to export as a BMP file
3. Doesn't render or have material luminance properties, also doesn't have
the option to render the object with hidden lines not shown (TC users will
know what I mean here)

Since VariCAD doesn't do rendering, I had to learn to use a rendering
engine. I downloaded and have started using Blender www.blender.org for
the purpose of rendering the drawings.

The following postings consist of the following:

1. This post: exported VariCAD bmp file converted to jpeg

2. Post 2 of 3: A blender rendered image with the table in a setting
similar to where the end tables will reside

3. Post 3 of 3: WARNING:Large Post! One of the other things I did with
Blender was to animate a rotation of the table from various perspectives.
This avi file shows a full 360 degree rotation of the table in order to
provide an idea of what the design may look like.

As always, comments and constructive recommendations welcome.





--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

mj,

I like the design. One thing that I might consider changing is the height
of the apron under the top (maybe 1/2 as tall?). My thinking is that it
doesn't need to be as tall as a 'normal' (not implying anything there...)
apron since the piece is getting that type of structural integrity from the
drawer box below. It almost becomes more decorative than structural, so it
can be lightened up.

But again, I like the design,

jc

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

I'm currently in the planning stages for a pair of end tables for the
living room. Since I recently migrated to Linux, my old TurboCAD drafting
approach is no longer viable. After considering various alternatives, I
went with VariCAD www.varicad.com. I initially tried installing
GraphiteOneCAD after Robotoy's comments regarding his success with it.
Had
no luck getting it to build or install after considerable effort so
decided
life was too short to mess with that level of problem.

Thus far, I'm impressed; I have been able to put together a 3D model much
faster than I could with TurboCAD. No need to keep changing the axes in
order to get parts to fit where I want them. However, I have not yet
transferred to 2D drawings for dimensioning, that may add some time.
VariCAD does not support 3D dimensioning in the same way TC does, thus
every drawing needs to export to 2D to insert dimensions. This can be
both
a benefit and and downside, I'll see how it works out.

Upsides:
1. Faster 3D modeling. In the past, I have avoided putting in joinery
because of the time required to draw out M&T joints. I've always done the
joinery once the drawings are done and just add those details during
construction. In the future, given how quickly one can draw and mill
parts
I may consider including the M&T and other joint details.
2. Automatic snap points by default, manual by selection
3. Seems quite a bit faster (this is somewhat difficult to judge because
I'm
also running on a faster computer)
4. Perspective rotations are very fast

Downsides
1. Doesn't support 3D dimensioning. It has a tape measure, but that's
only
a transient measure
2. Doesn't print 3D, you have to export as a BMP file
3. Doesn't render or have material luminance properties, also doesn't have
the option to render the object with hidden lines not shown (TC users will
know what I mean here)

Since VariCAD doesn't do rendering, I had to learn to use a rendering
engine. I downloaded and have started using Blender www.blender.org for
the purpose of rendering the drawings.

The following postings consist of the following:

1. This post: exported VariCAD bmp file converted to jpeg

2. Post 2 of 3: A blender rendered image with the table in a setting
similar to where the end tables will reside

3. Post 3 of 3: WARNING:Large Post! One of the other things I did with
Blender was to animate a rotation of the table from various perspectives.
This avi file shows a full 360 degree rotation of the table in order to
provide an idea of what the design may look like.

As always, comments and constructive recommendations welcome.





--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark,

Thanks for sharing your drawing and your info on some of the CAD products
out there. A few months ago I read the article in FWW on Google sketchup.
I tried it out and was able to come up to speed pretty quickly with it.
Have you tried using it for your designs? You mentioned that you went to
Linux - not sure if they have a sketchup build that will run on that yet.

If you tried sketchup I'd be interested in a quick comparison of that and
Blender. I've been itching to get a Linux system back up and running at
home - this might be the excuse I need!

thanks again for the info,

Eric

EricY wrote:
Mark,

Thanks for sharing your drawing and your info on some of the CAD products
out there. A few months ago I read the article in FWW on Google sketchup.
I tried it out and was able to come up to speed pretty quickly with it.
Have you tried using it for your designs? You mentioned that you went to
Linux - not sure if they have a sketchup build that will run on that yet.

If you tried sketchup I'd be interested in a quick comparison of that and
Blender. I've been itching to get a Linux system back up and running at
home - this might be the excuse I need!

thanks again for the info,

Eric


There isn't a linux version (yet). I've tried sketchup under wine. It
installs and seems to run, but the drawing area remains black, so it
isn't usable.

There are some linux cad programs such as qcad:

http://www.qcad.org/

Gary A in KC wrote:

I really like the design. Think it has a modern look with some arts and
crafts flair to it. Only thing I'd question (since the bottom rail
discussion has been had!) is the top panel of the drawer cabinet being a
frame a panel construction. Rarely do you see a horizontal surface done as
frame and panel. One reason is the difficulty of keeping it clean! That
just looks out of place to me for some reason.

Thanks for the kind words, I put in the frame and panel to allow for
expansion in the constrained space between the legs. I don't intend to
make it much more than 1/8" gaps, but your comment is a good one. I need
to look into allowing for expansion in another way.

Otherwise I really like the
look of the piece. It cries out for a nice piece of figured cherry as the
top.

The idea of going with marble is to allow the use of the top for beverages
without having to worry about wood damage.

I'm really intrigued by the design process though. I've always been a
paper/pencil kind of guy (hold over from drafting class in junior high
school). How long did it take you to do the rendering??

For the first draft, I have about 12 hours in the CAD drawing; that
includes designing in the drawers, plant-on panels and frame and panel dust
skirts.

The Blender rendering took a bit longer because this is my first
experience with rendering software outside of the built-in rendering that
TurboCAD provides. Thus I've been getting myself up to speed on the
software and finding the desired textures, finding out how to get the
system to animate rotations, etc. I've probably got a few 10's of hours in
the rendering process; that includes playing with various options, aspects,
etc.. Knowing what I know now, I could probably render a new drawing with
desired textures for rotation in a couple of hours and with a reasonable
scene in a couple more.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

EricY wrote:

Mark,

Thanks for sharing your drawing and your info on some of the CAD products
out there. A few months ago I read the article in FWW on Google sketchup.
I tried it out and was able to come up to speed pretty quickly with it.
Have you tried using it for your designs? You mentioned that you went to
Linux - not sure if they have a sketchup build that will run on that yet.


Sketchup is not available for linux at this time. I was also looking for
the drafting features as well (dimensioning, 2D drawing, etc.).

If you tried sketchup I'd be interested in a quick comparison of that and
Blender. I've been itching to get a Linux system back up and running at
home - this might be the excuse I need!

I spent only a little time playing with the blender drawing functions
since I was importing the VariCAD drawings (in .stl format) so I'm probably
not a good reference to evaluate that part of Blender.


thanks again for the info,

Eric

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I'm currently in the planning stages for a pair of end tables for the
living room. Since I recently migrated to Linux, my old TurboCAD drafting
approach is no longer viable. After considering various alternatives, I
went with VariCAD www.varicad.com. I initially tried installing
GraphiteOneCAD after Robotoy's comments regarding his success with it.

My 'success' was limited. But in contrast to spending thousands, I guess
it was.

Had
no luck getting it to build or install after considerable effort so decided
life was too short to mess with that level of problem.


What are the chances of you posting (or e-mailing) the.dxf of the wire
frame?
It would be fun trying to apply both surface and solid textures in
another program.

r

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I just did a quick-and dirty mod to the drawing to see how the other way
looks. I'm definitely going to have to sleep on this one.

Wouldn't a bed be more comfortable? :-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller, Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Registered Linux User No: 307357

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thanks for the kind words, I put in the frame and panel to allow for
expansion in the constrained space between the legs. I don't intend to
make it much more than 1/8" gaps, but your comment is a good one. I need
to look into allowing for expansion in another way.

There's a really easy way to to that Mark - I had photos of a coffee table
that I did some years back that showed how, but I can't find them at the
moment. I'll keep digging. If I can't find it I'll draw them and post
here.

The shelf will float, but that's not a problem because the legs will be held
together by the stretchers...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller, Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Registered Linux User No: 307357

Kevin Miller wrote:

I need to look into allowing for expansion in another way.

There's a really easy way to to that Mark - I had photos of a coffee table
that I did some years back that showed how, but I can't find them at the
moment. I'll keep digging. If I can't find it I'll draw them and post
here.

Following up here, I took a couple photos of a shelf and legs of an
entertainment center I'm working on. Sorry for the slightly blurry photos.
I turned off the flash to cut back on glare. Probably should have left it
on.

For descriptions sake, lets say the table leg is 2" square. The notch in
the leg could be 1" x 1". You notch the shelf to about 1 1/8" from the
back so essentially you have an eighth gap for expansion, but it's hidden
in the notch. From the side you can just cut the shelf back 1" so it fits
snugly, since you won't have expansion and contraction in that direction.
Hope that makes sense.

The third shot is a full view of the side. Just couldn't resist showing the
quilted maple. g

HTH. Holler if you have any questions - if you do a small one in scrap I
expect it'll all make sense.


....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller, Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Registered Linux User No: 307357

Kevin Miller wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

I need to look into allowing for expansion in another way.

There's a really easy way to to that Mark - I had photos of a coffee
table that I did some years back that showed how, but I can't find them
at the
moment. I'll keep digging. If I can't find it I'll draw them and post
here.

Following up here, I took a couple photos of a shelf and legs of an
entertainment center I'm working on. Sorry for the slightly blurry
photos.
I turned off the flash to cut back on glare. Probably should have left it
on.

For descriptions sake, lets say the table leg is 2" square. The notch in
the leg could be 1" x 1". You notch the shelf to about 1 1/8" from the
back so essentially you have an eighth gap for expansion, but it's hidden
in the notch. From the side you can just cut the shelf back 1" so it fits
snugly, since you won't have expansion and contraction in that direction.
Hope that makes sense.

The third shot is a full view of the side. Just couldn't resist showing
the quilted maple. g

HTH. Holler if you have any questions - if you do a small one in scrap I
expect it'll all make sense.


...Kevin

Kevin,

Thanks, I'll see how something like this might fit in.

... and yes, that is some pretty nice looking quilted maple.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough