Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...
Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology for
woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers used CAD
packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages could get
amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate than
I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that. But
they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Welllllll No CAD program is easy if you have no drafting experience or CAD
experience. You have to know how to draw first, read that as drafting
training, and then the CAD programs will seem easier. I had formal drafting
training in the early 70's and just in the last 8 years have found a CAD
program that I like. AutoCAD.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


This question comes up about once a week around here.

Unless you're a professional, who needs to present drawings to a
client, you're better off drawing on paper.

Sketch to get general shapes and proportions and then draw it up full
size if you feel the need.

There's no such thing as an intuitive CAD program. I've been through
DesignCad, TurboCad, AutoCad, and currently work in AutoDesk Inventor
10. These programs all have a steep learning curve. This takes away
time from your goal, which I would presume is to actually build
something.

The rudiments of isometric drawing are relatively easy to learn but
even that is not required for furniture design.

You'd be even better off by working on a 2d paper drawing, using only
elevations, plans and sections, and then moving on to a mockup of the
piece, using Foamcore or even MDF, buttered together with a cheap glue
gun.


Even the best 3D program can't give you the intuitve impact that a
mockup does. Why? Because 3D programs are really only 2D programs
tarted up, and woodworking is sculptural, or truly 3D.

At work we draw things up in our 3D program (at $5000.00 a seat) but
still have to build a prototype for the customer. When you mock up,
and if the customer is you, you've accomplished what is needed in
fewer steps.




Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
wrote in message ...
Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers used
CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages could get
amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Welllllll No CAD program is easy if you have no drafting experience or
CAD experience. You have to know how to draw first, read that as drafting
training, and then the CAD programs will seem easier. I had formal
drafting training in the early 70's and just in the last 8 years have
found a CAD program that I like. AutoCAD.



Funny things CAD operators do when they don't have drafting experience, its
like someone with power tools without knowledge of hand tools. AutoCAD is
what, $4,000 now plus you are forced to paid for the upgrades or you
investment will be worthless. Not for the average woodworker unless you're
already using it. AutoCAD LT, much cheaper at $725 but still pricey, still
much more than what the OP needed. For what he needed there should be some
free downloads or cheap CAD packages. TurboCAD for $50 comes to mind and
still more drafting power than what the OP needed.

Okay, forget that I used the acronym CAD.

Do you know of any easy "drawing package" that I could use for designing
projects in my woodshop?

Jack

Leon wrote:

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology for
woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers used CAD
packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages could get
amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate than
I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that. But
they don't make construction drawings any easier.


Welllllll No CAD program is easy if you have no drafting experience or CAD
experience. You have to know how to draw first, read that as drafting
training, and then the CAD programs will seem easier. I had formal drafting
training in the early 70's and just in the last 8 years have found a CAD
program that I like. AutoCAD.

While I've never used it for woodworking because I pull out my old high
school T-square for that, I have used Visio to design data centers before.
You can do quite a bit with Visio with walls, flooring and plumbing and then
define your own elements. It also has layering capabilities so you can peel
off layers to make other things visible. I did some things with it to put
in fiber cabling and cable trays which were all not native to the product.

I think it would work with woodworking but it has no 3-D capability that I
know about. Generally, when I got to that point, it was something for the
engineers to do and put it in a CAD system - which was nice as Visio allowed
me to export to a CAD format.

FWIW....


"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...
Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology for
woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers used CAD
packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages could get
amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate than
I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that. But
they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack

mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net wrote:
Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology =

for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers=20
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages=20
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!
=20
I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic=20
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or=20
dowels or joint types, etc.
=20
Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really=
=20
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate=20
than I would need (albeit really nice!).
=20
Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software =

packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that. =

But they don't make construction drawings any easier.
=20
Thanks!
=20
Jack
=20

TurboCAD at the least if you can afford it -- professional version is=20
much better....

http://turbocad.com/

Use professional as the benchmark when looking at other programs...

It looks to me like one of the few good ones at a low price.



See this synopsis.

http://www.woodbin.com/docs/cad.htm




--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw

I'm goning to climb on that pile. Not only does CAD have a horific learning
curve, but it's also not like riding a bicucle.

Over the last decade or so I have taken a couple of stabs at CAD. When I
put the addition on my house I felt I *had* to do tak the plunge because I
wanted to be able to hand the zoning guy and prospective contractors
something which would be as unambiguous as possible.

The package that I ended up using was specifically taylored to house design.
I was happy with the wire frame elevations and the fairly detailed top-down
"blueprint" the I got, but it took me 40 hours to get there. I' happy that I
did it in that context, but it's back to graph paper for me in the
woodshoop.

IMHO there are 2 type of woodworkers that use CAD: CAD pros that are
wooddorkers on the side, and wooddorkers who just enjoy playing with
complicated programs.

Do you want to print plans, or help you visualize a project?

-Steve



"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


This question comes up about once a week around here.

Unless you're a professional, who needs to present drawings to a
client, you're better off drawing on paper.

Sketch to get general shapes and proportions and then draw it up full
size if you feel the need.

There's no such thing as an intuitive CAD program. I've been through
DesignCad, TurboCad, AutoCad, and currently work in AutoDesk Inventor
10. These programs all have a steep learning curve. This takes away
time from your goal, which I would presume is to actually build
something.

The rudiments of isometric drawing are relatively easy to learn but
even that is not required for furniture design.

You'd be even better off by working on a 2d paper drawing, using only
elevations, plans and sections, and then moving on to a mockup of the
piece, using Foamcore or even MDF, buttered together with a cheap glue
gun.


Even the best 3D program can't give you the intuitve impact that a
mockup does. Why? Because 3D programs are really only 2D programs
tarted up, and woodworking is sculptural, or truly 3D.

At work we draw things up in our 3D program (at $5000.00 a seat) but
still have to build a prototype for the customer. When you mock up,
and if the customer is you, you've accomplished what is needed in
fewer steps.




Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message


Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Unlike other responders, and after many fits and starts getting over the
startup hump with different products, I find that working with a simple CAD
program lets me get my head around a project before I ever cut a stick, and
that lets me eventually proceed with a confident purpose.

Use of one has cut back drastically on me having to 'design' my way out of a
corner.

Mostly I just render simple, 2D shop drawings, with few or no perspectives.
These help in generating project cutlist's, and make it much easier with
dimension changes, which ends up $aving time and materials.

Of course, and as others have noted, you can do the same thing with paper,
pencil, and a few drafting tools.

I use a $50 program called QuickCAD ... unfortunately, it may no longer be
available, but certainly worth, IMO, trying to find a copy, or its
replacement if it's in the same price range. A plus is that it will open my
architect's AutoCAD drawings if the need arises.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...
Okay, forget that I used the acronym CAD.

Do you know of any easy "drawing package" that I could use for designing
projects in my woodshop?

Jack

Define easy. AutoCAD LT for me is easy. Easy for you may equate to simply
using a drawing board, T-square, a 45 degree and 30-60-90 degree triangle.
No drawing software does the drawing for you. You are still in charge of
the drawing. If you know the fundamentals of drafting, drawing/CAD programs
will make the drawings go more quickly and more accurately.

"Fred" wrote in message
...

Funny things CAD operators do when they don't have drafting experience,
its like someone with power tools without knowledge of hand tools. AutoCAD
is what, $4,000 now plus you are forced to paid for the upgrades or you
investment will be worthless. Not for the average woodworker unless you're
already using it. AutoCAD LT, much cheaper at $725 but still pricey, still
much more than what the OP needed. For what he needed there should be some
free downloads or cheap CAD packages. TurboCAD for $50 comes to mind and
still more drafting power than what the OP needed.

My reference was from my experience of using CAD programs. The first I used
was in 1985 and have graduated up through several brands since. I am
probably on my 8th program that I have purchased my self. I realize the
AutoCAD is quite expensive and I actually neglected to reference the
possible use of AutoCAD LT. AutoCAD LT is actually what I use and have been
for the last several years. I was fortunate enough to be able to up grade
from way back where newer versions only cost me in the $200 range. That
said, Auto CAD LT does not supply what the OP was actually looking for. He
mentioned 3D and LT simply helps you draw Isometric drawings. Not really a
perspective type 3D drawing. As for TurboCAD, I used it in the late 80's
and personally was not impressed nor IMHO opinion did it operate like a
draftsman thinks. Today's version may very well be better.

In article ,
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
wrote:

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack

SketchUp or Vectorworks. Both available for PC or Mac.

Leon's right. Without a drafting background, you're jumping in at the
middle, trying to get everything at once. Be prepared to put in quite a lot
of time to learn. Considerable time. If doing 2D, Deltacad is about the
easiest to learn cad program I have seen. If you would like the interface
and compatibility of AutoCAD without the high price, try Intellicad.
Intellicad is an AutoCAD clone. The programs are so similar that if you can
run one, you can run the other. For 3D, Turbocad Pro will model about
anything you want and has about the most performance for the price
available. Honestly though, with the amount of time and effort it takes to
get good with one of these programs(good as in faster with it than on
paper), most find paper and pencil their best option.

"Leon" wrote in message
...
Welllllll No CAD program is easy if you have no drafting experience or
CAD
experience. You have to know how to draw first, read that as drafting
training, and then the CAD programs will seem easier. I had formal
drafting
training in the early 70's and just in the last 8 years have found a CAD
program that I like. AutoCAD.

Must be the way different people see things. I had used Turbocad for several
years before using AutoCAD though I started with version 6, much later than
what you had tried. I found the similarities so great that going from one to
the other was not at all difficult. Turbocad is far superior for 3D (what I
do most) but I rather prefer AutoCAD for 2D.
"Leon" wrote in message
.. .

"Fred" wrote in message
...
As for TurboCAD, I used it in the late 80's
and personally was not impressed nor IMHO opinion did it operate like a
draftsman thinks. Today's version may very well be better.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

None of those programs act like a cad program, so the experience won't be
relevant, but the aptitude may apply. I suggest you get a 15 day trial of
DesignCad 3D Max (www.imsisoft.com) and then go to a user supported web site
(www.designcadunleashed.com) and start looking through the samples and
tutorials and doing some things. This will give you an idea of whether a
low end cad program will work for you. I've found the 3D modeling to be
handy for "visualizing" how things fit together. It has the ability to take
a 3D picture and allow you to scroll around from different angles to look at
whatever you are working on. I bought my copy from a supplier on Amazon
(search for designcad, then check "new and used") for $45.

I did manual drafting for extra work in high school and to help pay for my
college. I still think about going back to triangles and T square for
initial sketching of some projects. its still much faster for me.

Bob

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
wrote in :

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


I really like a program called CadStd (Cad Standard). The light version
is FREE, and contains enough functionality to draw most objects. I used
it for years before I upgraded to the pro version. The pro version
includes features such as trim and intercept, as well as the ability to
project the 2-d drawing to 3-d. (It's not automatic, but it's a lot
easier than drawing everything over again.)

The program does have a learning curve, but once you get used to one
feature it takes very little to get used to another.

It's also compatible with Autocad files, both in creating and editing
them.

You can download it from http://cadstd.com

Puckdropper

--
www.uncreativelabs.net

Old computers are getting to be a lost art. Here at Uncreative Labs, we
still enjoy using the old computers. Sometimes we want to see how far a
particular system can go, other times we use a stock system to remind
ourselves of what we once had.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Ah ... I see how I mis-spoke. The only "3D" effect I'm looking for is
that of looking at an object that "looks" 3D .. you know, like a box.

I don't want to use true-3D routines where you can rotate the object and
stuff like that. I just want to be able to draw pictures of boards
without having to play the games required in Corel or in PowerPoint.

Jack


CW wrote:
Leon's right. Without a drafting background, you're jumping in at the
middle, trying to get everything at once. Be prepared to put in quite a lot
of time to learn. Considerable time. If doing 2D, Deltacad is about the
easiest to learn cad program I have seen. If you would like the interface
and compatibility of AutoCAD without the high price, try Intellicad.
Intellicad is an AutoCAD clone. The programs are so similar that if you can
run one, you can run the other. For 3D, Turbocad Pro will model about
anything you want and has about the most performance for the price
available. Honestly though, with the amount of time and effort it takes to
get good with one of these programs(good as in faster with it than on
paper), most find paper and pencil their best option.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

Welllllll No CAD program is easy if you have no drafting experience or

CAD

experience. You have to know how to draw first, read that as drafting
training, and then the CAD programs will seem easier. I had formal

drafting

training in the early 70's and just in the last 8 years have found a CAD
program that I like. AutoCAD.

As I just wrote in another response, I'm just looking for an easy way to
draw "3D looking objects" like boards. I'm NOT looking for the ability
to rotate the objects in three dimensions and stuff like that.

In Coreldraw and Powerpoint, I can draw a board, but to make it look
like a board, I have to draw a rectangle, then draw another rectangle
and stretch it and tilt it, and then a third ... and after getting
everything tilted in various dimensions, group it so I can move it around.

To make another board of other dimensions, it's starting from stratch again.

Jack

C & S wrote:

I'm goning to climb on that pile. Not only does CAD have a horific learning
curve, but it's also not like riding a bicucle.

Over the last decade or so I have taken a couple of stabs at CAD. When I
put the addition on my house I felt I *had* to do tak the plunge because I
wanted to be able to hand the zoning guy and prospective contractors
something which would be as unambiguous as possible.

The package that I ended up using was specifically taylored to house design.
I was happy with the wire frame elevations and the fairly detailed top-down
"blueprint" the I got, but it took me 40 hours to get there. I' happy that I
did it in that context, but it's back to graph paper for me in the
woodshoop.

IMHO there are 2 type of woodworkers that use CAD: CAD pros that are
wooddorkers on the side, and wooddorkers who just enjoy playing with
complicated programs.

Do you want to print plans, or help you visualize a project?

-Steve



"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:


Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


This question comes up about once a week around here.

Unless you're a professional, who needs to present drawings to a
client, you're better off drawing on paper.

Sketch to get general shapes and proportions and then draw it up full
size if you feel the need.

There's no such thing as an intuitive CAD program. I've been through
DesignCad, TurboCad, AutoCad, and currently work in AutoDesk Inventor
10. These programs all have a steep learning curve. This takes away
time from your goal, which I would presume is to actually build
something.

The rudiments of isometric drawing are relatively easy to learn but
even that is not required for furniture design.

You'd be even better off by working on a 2d paper drawing, using only
elevations, plans and sections, and then moving on to a mockup of the
piece, using Foamcore or even MDF, buttered together with a cheap glue
gun.


Even the best 3D program can't give you the intuitve impact that a
mockup does. Why? Because 3D programs are really only 2D programs
tarted up, and woodworking is sculptural, or truly 3D.

At work we draw things up in our 3D program (at $5000.00 a seat) but
still have to build a prototype for the customer. When you mock up,
and if the customer is you, you've accomplished what is needed in
fewer steps.




Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Must be the way different people see things. I had used Turbocad for
several
years before using AutoCAD though I started with version 6, much later
than
what you had tried.

CW, I think mine was v1.0. LOL.

Hi Jack,

mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net wrote:
As I just wrote in another response, I'm just looking for an easy way to
draw "3D looking objects" like boards. I'm NOT looking for the ability
to rotate the objects in three dimensions and stuff like that.

In Coreldraw and Powerpoint, I can draw a board, but to make it look
like a board, I have to draw a rectangle, then draw another rectangle
and stretch it and tilt it, and then a third ... and after getting
everything tilted in various dimensions, group it so I can move it around.

To make another board of other dimensions, it's starting from stratch
again.


There's a multiplatform program called Canvas that might work for
you. I use it for some of my woodworking layout. It's not CAD but it's
pretty sweet....

Jack

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:22:00 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...
Okay, forget that I used the acronym CAD.

Do you know of any easy "drawing package" that I could use for designing
projects in my woodshop?

Jack

Define easy. AutoCAD LT for me is easy. Easy for you may equate to simply
using a drawing board, T-square, a 45 degree and 30-60-90 degree triangle.
No drawing software does the drawing for you. You are still in charge of
the drawing. If you know the fundamentals of drafting, drawing/CAD programs
will make the drawings go more quickly and more accurately.

I'm curious, when you first learned to use AutoCad where you using
it every day in your profession? It has been my experience that those
that have the opportunity to use a package eight hours a day every day
it becomes relatively easy to them.

I'm in the category that I used AutoCad infrequently and struggle. I
have had drafting and design training and know the basics of drafting,
but it seems like every time I bring it up (release 14) to do a
design which might be once or twice a month I struggle to relearn the
routines.

I suspect that most powerful CAD programs are like that.

I'm curious, when you first learned to use AutoCad where you using
it every day in your profession? It has been my experience that those
that have the opportunity to use a package eight hours a day every day
it becomes relatively easy to them.

I'm in the category that I used AutoCad infrequently and struggle. I
have had drafting and design training and know the basics of drafting,
but it seems like every time I bring it up (release 14) to do a
design which might be once or twice a month I struggle to relearn the
routines.

Egg-zactly my experience.Well said.

If you are truly up to speed with Corel Draw version 11 or higher, then your
transisition to CAD will not be that painful. But my question is why don't
you use Corel Draw? Where does Corel Draw fail in your needs?

Corel Draw is a great vector graphic program. You should be able to sketch
your project, have several layers, do line measurements, just about
everything you are asking about. With basic drafting skills, you can do
many, many things. But you must have the basic drafting skills.

But a vector graphic programs (as a class of software) cannot do, and were
not designed to do several things:
-- accurate, to scale, precision printouts.
-- exchange drafting files between engineers at different companies as in
sub-contracting work.
-- Civil engineering projects (loads, vibration, and so forth.
-- and other things that a hobby woodworker should not care about.

However, there is another very small class of software called Technical
Illustration vector graphics. The only application I know about in this
class is Designer (there are others.) Designer once was owned by
Micrografx, but is now sold by Corel. Designer is very close to Corel Draw
(as a vector graphics program) with most of the same tools and techniques.
Just more emphasis on accurate placement of objects on computer screen, and
less attention to color and paint brush styles. See the Corel website.

But just asking, have you run a Google on: CAD, woodworking ?
I found several hits on summaries and reviews of several cross-breeds
between full CAD programs and the despised "Kitchen Re-Model" programs.
These cross-breeds seemed to be just for Wood Workers and many offer free
download trials.

Phil

I can understand that then. We have a machine at work, a waterjet, that has
it's own cad cam system built in. It's based on Turbocad 1. Rather than use
that weak system, we program it off line with Autocad, Cadkey or Matercam.
To show it's age, this was one of the first waterjets on the market.

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Must be the way different people see things. I had used Turbocad for
several
years before using AutoCAD though I started with version 6, much later
than
what you had tried.

CW, I think mine was v1.0. LOL.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote
in message ...
Okay, forget that I used the acronym CAD.

Do you know of any easy "drawing package" that I could use for designing
projects in my woodshop?

Jack

Leon wrote:

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
wrote in message ...

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers used
CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages could get
amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

I've used an old version of Harvard graphics to do exactly that. Since I
used Harvard extensively, I could get the simple stuff done pretty quick.
(During a recent move, a couple of the old 3.5 inch Harvard disks
disappeared, and I'm out of the "Harvard business" permanently, I guess.

At any rate I've bought a copy of TurboCAD now, and let's just say...the
learning curve is damn steep, even for someone use to command line entries
and back in the Jurassic period, had extensive training in drafting
techniques.
My thinking is, I've got the computing power, now it's a question of
RTFM........

James...

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

I'm curious, when you first learned to use AutoCad where you using
it every day in your profession? It has been my experience that those
that have the opportunity to use a package eight hours a day every day
it becomes relatively easy to them.

Take in mind that I had used probably 4 or 5 CAD programs prior to AutoCAD
the previous 12 years. AutoCAD was easy from the first hour of install for
me. I have always used CAD programs as an aid to my less than a full
schedule wood working business. I retired 10 years ago at age 40 and turned
my hobby into a fun job. Basically I on average use AutoCAD about 1 day out
of the week on average. Some weeks I don't touch it, some I use it
everyday.


I'm in the category that I used AutoCad infrequently and struggle. I
have had drafting and design training and know the basics of drafting,
but it seems like every time I bring it up (release 14) to do a
design which might be once or twice a month I struggle to relearn the
routines.

Well if you have the dradting fundamentals down, IMHO AutoCAD should be
easier to learn. Let me bring up something that you may or may not be aware
of that made the program very easy for me to use. AutoCAD used DDS which
translates to Direct Distance Entry. Older programs required you to TYPE in
a beginning coordinate and and ending Coordinate relative to the beginning
coordinate. That was truely a PIA. With DDS you click a starting point
any where on your model space and then simply drag the mouse in the
direction you want the line to go and then type the distance and enter. You
can do it either way with AutoCAD but the DDS way is FAST and easy by
comparison. From there learning all the short cut commands represented by
the icons speeds productivity further.

I suspect that most powerful CAD programs are like that.

May be.

"Amused" wrote in message
...

At any rate I've bought a copy of TurboCAD now, and let's just say...the
learning curve is damn steep, even for someone use to command line entries
and back in the Jurassic period, had extensive training in drafting
techniques.
My thinking is, I've got the computing power, now it's a question of
RTFM........


I had one of the early versions of TurboCAD and it truly was not an easy
program to use. It was pathetic. IMHO AutoCAD products and its clone
products are pretty darn easy to learn if you have a drafting back ground to
begin with.

Only works, though, in ortho mode and at angles you have preset the ortho
to. Otherwise, ending coordinates are it. You do have the option of
absolute, incremental or polar coordinates just by the way you type them in.
That's something that annoys me about Turbocad. Seperate entry boxes for
every kind of input. Puts great wear on the tab key (and wastes a lot of
time). BTW, Turbocad will also do DDS.

"Leon" wrote in message
.. .

Older programs required you to TYPE in
a beginning coordinate and and ending Coordinate relative to the beginning
coordinate. That was truely a PIA. With DDS you click a starting point
any where on your model space and then simply drag the mouse in the
direction you want the line to go and then type the distance and enter.
You
can do it either way with AutoCAD but the DDS way is FAST and easy by
comparison. From there learning all the short cut commands represented by
the icons speeds productivity further.

I suspect that most powerful CAD programs are like that.

May be.

Hope you have found your way to the Turbocad forum. The one on their
website, not usenet. Best learning tool there is for this program. Very
active and very helpful.
http://forums.imsisoft.com/forums/index.cfm?CFApp=200

"Amused" wrote in message
...
At any rate I've bought a copy of TurboCAD now, and let's just say...the
learning curve is damn steep, even for someone use to command line entries
and back in the Jurassic period, had extensive training in drafting
techniques.
My thinking is, I've got the computing power, now it's a question of
RTFM........

James...

CAD is a lot like word processing in the following respect. Once you have
learned one word processing program well and understand what to expect from
a word processing package, then learning a new and better one is easy.
Until then, you will find paper and pencil easier. Same thing with CAD. If
you can't communicate well in writing, can't spell, and/or can't type you'll
find word processing slow going. Same thing with CAD, if you haven't first
learned basic drawing/drafting. A good year of fairly regular use of most
features of a good word processing or CAD package is a reasonable
expectation to gain proficiency. Works best if you approach it as a fun
game.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned solid modeling CAD software. I
retired a few years ago from large-company engineering where wireframe CAD
has long since given way to solid modeling CAD, which is much easier (as
distinct from easy) to use. It's definitely much easier to visualize the
resulting design. Most of the packages being discussed on this
rec.woodworking thread are the old wireframe CAD. One good reason home
users haven't heard about solid modeling has been cost, which used to run
several $10K's per user and was used on UNIX terminals. More recently,
several software vendors have brought out PC versions which run very well,
given an adequate graphic card (same as required for some games).
Professional versions of these CAD packages still typically cost $500-$2000
but a couple of the vendors have offered 'express' versions of the same or
similar package for free download to schools and home users in the hope that
more widespread familiarity will lead to future sales to the future
employers of these users.

For example, I have been using for several years Pro/Desktop Express from
PTC, the publishers of Pro/Engineer, http://www.ptc.com/. It was a free
download (now discontinued), was not a 'trial' version and was not
significantly crippled. It is full featured, even does lofting (as in
sculptured boat hull shapes) and does most everything I want for home use,
including assemblies, file saves, and export of *.jpg files for show and
tell. I'll post a file of my design of a tablesaw extension router
installation on alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking. Even commercial use was
permitted; some European users designed entire industrial plants with it.

Currently another software publisher is offering a similar free solid
modeling package called Alibre Design Express http://www.alibre.com/xpress/.
There are limitations, limited number of parts in an assembly (front, back,
two sides and bottom parts could make up a drawer or it could be modeled as
one part if joinery details aren't needed), maybe no or limited photovisual
rendering, etc. But it's free and relatively easy to learn with the online
tutorials and company monitored user group (no company support).

Disclaimer: no personal connection; just a happy benefactor.

David Merrill


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


This question comes up about once a week around here.

Unless you're a professional, who needs to present drawings to a
client, you're better off drawing on paper.

Sketch to get general shapes and proportions and then draw it up full
size if you feel the need.

There's no such thing as an intuitive CAD program. I've been through
DesignCad, TurboCad, AutoCad, and currently work in AutoDesk Inventor
10. These programs all have a steep learning curve. This takes away
time from your goal, which I would presume is to actually build
something.

The rudiments of isometric drawing are relatively easy to learn but
even that is not required for furniture design.

You'd be even better off by working on a 2d paper drawing, using only
elevations, plans and sections, and then moving on to a mockup of the
piece, using Foamcore or even MDF, buttered together with a cheap glue
gun.


Even the best 3D program can't give you the intuitve impact that a
mockup does. Why? Because 3D programs are really only 2D programs
tarted up, and woodworking is sculptural, or truly 3D.

At work we draw things up in our 3D program (at $5000.00 a seat) but
still have to build a prototype for the customer. When you mock up,
and if the customer is you, you've accomplished what is needed in
fewer steps.




Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
Only works, though, in ortho mode and at angles you have preset the ortho
to. Otherwise, ending coordinates are it. You do have the option of
absolute, incremental or polar coordinates just by the way you type them
in.
That's something that annoys me about Turbocad. Seperate entry boxes for
every kind of input. Puts great wear on the tab key (and wastes a lot of
time). BTW, Turbocad will also do DDS.

Well actually DDS does work if Polar coordinates and Ortho are turned off
BUT it may as well just be a hand drawn sketch at that point. It seems like
I recall TurboCAD being a bit non-intuitive in the respect that you
mentioned. And yes DDS is for certain available in other programs. My
first experience with DDS was in AutoSketch version 2.1. I had been using
2.0 AutoSketch and when I learned that 2.1 had DDS I was all over it. From
there I progressed to AutoCAD LT 97 and have been upgrading AutoCAD LT since
then.

"David Merrill" wrote in message
news:d40Te.87666$084.47603@attbi_s22...
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned solid modeling CAD software.

I Did. Turbocad Pro.



For example, I have been using for several years Pro/Desktop Express from
PTC, the publishers of Pro/Engineer, http://www.ptc.com/.

I used PDE for a time. Nice to have parametric. That's about the only thing
that it really had over Turbocad. 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.


Currently another software publisher is offering a similar free solid
modeling package called Alibre Design Express
http://www.alibre.com/xpress/.
There are limitations, limited number of parts in an assembly (front,
back,
two sides and bottom parts could make up a drawer or it could be modeled
as
one part if joinery details aren't needed), maybe no or limited
photovisual
rendering, etc. But it's free and relatively easy to learn with the
online
tutorials and company monitored user group (no company support).

Disclaimer: no personal connection; just a happy benefactor.

David Merrill


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" wrote:

Actually, I'm not even sure if CAD software is the correct terminology
for woodwork planning. Back on my last job, the mechanical engineers
used CAD packages to draw all sorts of 3D pictures. These packages
could get amazingly powerful ... with amazingly high prices too!

I'm just looking for something that would allow me to draw generic
pictures showing relative thickness of boards, placement of screws or
dowels or joint types, etc.

Now, I happen to have (purchased via Internet) Pat's plans for a really
nice fence. The pictures in his download file are far more elaborate
than I would need (albeit really nice!).

Anyway, I'd appreciate any suggestions for looking at various software
packages. I'm profient at CorelDraw, PowerPoint and others like that.
But they don't make construction drawings any easier.

Thanks!

Jack


This question comes up about once a week around here.

Unless you're a professional, who needs to present drawings to a
client, you're better off drawing on paper.

Sketch to get general shapes and proportions and then draw it up full
size if you feel the need.

There's no such thing as an intuitive CAD program. I've been through
DesignCad, TurboCad, AutoCad, and currently work in AutoDesk Inventor
10. These programs all have a steep learning curve. This takes away
time from your goal, which I would presume is to actually build
something.

The rudiments of isometric drawing are relatively easy to learn but
even that is not required for furniture design.

You'd be even better off by working on a 2d paper drawing, using only
elevations, plans and sections, and then moving on to a mockup of the
piece, using Foamcore or even MDF, buttered together with a cheap glue
gun.


Even the best 3D program can't give you the intuitve impact that a
mockup does. Why? Because 3D programs are really only 2D programs
tarted up, and woodworking is sculptural, or truly 3D.

At work we draw things up in our 3D program (at $5000.00 a seat) but
still have to build a prototype for the customer. When you mock up,
and if the customer is you, you've accomplished what is needed in
fewer steps.




Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"David Merrill" wrote in message
news:d40Te.87666$084.47603@attbi_s22...
snip
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned solid modeling CAD software. I
retired a few years ago from large-company engineering where wireframe CAD
has long since given way to solid modeling CAD, which is much easier (as
distinct from easy) to use. It's definitely much easier to visualize the
resulting design. Most of the packages being discussed on this
rec.woodworking thread are the old wireframe CAD. One good reason home
users haven't heard about solid modeling has been cost, which used to run
several $10K's per user and was used on UNIX terminals. More recently,
several software vendors have brought out PC versions which run very well,
given an adequate graphic card (same as required for some games).
Professional versions of these CAD packages still typically cost
$500-$2000
but a couple of the vendors have offered 'express' versions of the same or
similar package for free download to schools and home users in the hope
that
more widespread familiarity will lead to future sales to the future
employers of these users.

For example, I have been using for several years Pro/Desktop Express from
PTC, the publishers of Pro/Engineer, http://www.ptc.com/. It was a free
download (now discontinued), was not a 'trial' version and was not
significantly crippled. It is full featured, even does lofting (as in
sculptured boat hull shapes) and does most everything I want for home use,
including assemblies, file saves, and export of *.jpg files for show and
tell. I'll post a file of my design of a tablesaw extension router
installation on alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking. Even commercial use
was
permitted; some European users designed entire industrial plants with it.

I had the same thought regarding solid modeling vs. CAD. 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. I used a solid modeling package several years ago from Aries
Technologies (now part of MSC, I believe). That experience plus about 15
years of AutoCAD experience did not seem to help. Heck, maybe it hurts
because I have a pre-conceived notion of how it should work.

For visualization of 3D models, I've found SketchUp to be handy.

todd

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:25:13 GMT, "David Merrill"
wrote:


I'm surprised that no one has mentioned solid modeling CAD software. I
retired a few years ago from large-company engineering where wireframe CAD
has long since given way to solid modeling CAD, which is much easier (as
distinct from easy) to use. It's definitely much easier to visualize the
resulting design. Most of the packages being discussed on this
rec.woodworking thread are the old wireframe CAD. One good reason home
users haven't heard about solid modeling has been cost, which used to run
several $10K's per user and was used on UNIX terminals. More recently,
several software vendors have brought out PC versions which run very well,
given an adequate graphic card (same as required for some games).
Professional versions of these CAD packages still typically cost $500-$2000
but a couple of the vendors have offered 'express' versions of the same or
similar package for free download to schools and home users in the hope that
more widespread familiarity will lead to future sales to the future
employers of these users.


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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
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.


Well...At least until I get there.

I downloaded the trial version of Sketchup today, and after watching
portions of the tutorials was able to render an end table I am working
on for a client in about 30 minutes. I am sure that it has some short
comings compared to some of the more expensive CAD programs available,
but if what you are interested in is a better rendering of a plan it
works great. I am planning based on this fooling around to start using
it in addition to my hand drawn images for the next couple rounds of
client interactions. Based on my first impressions I might set down the
pencil entirely before too long.

Andrew

"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).


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.

"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/

"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/