Tom Watson wrote:
Do you prefer the old irony to the newer sort?

I'm still out with the new, in with the old which is usually
new to me.

I've been told that the old irony was allowed to sit around and season
for a good bit before being cleaned up and put into the game whilst
the newer stuff is thrown into the game full of unresolved stresses
that can result in severe deformation and pockets of brittleness.

Yahbut, they tell us that with all the new teknologee that
the new irony is, well, I've never seen the werds superior
used, just that it's "just as good". I think they were
specifically citing the amount of time it takes to rust
clear through.

Of course, when dropped from a twenty story building, both will have
approximately the same impact and to one so impacted, they would
appear to be very nearly indistinguishable.

That one is called the "falls on foot/foot hurts like hell"
test. From shorter heights there's no discernable
difference.

That is, if they have any impact at all.

Oh! It has impact though what happens is, and this from an
arm chair injineering background mind you, as it falls some
of the Chiwanese cheese sheds itself. This is called the
"Chiwanese Cheese Shed Factor" (CCSF). It'll lighten up by
a pound or two dependent upon the height of fall/wind
speed/barometric pressures and let us not forget, the all
important wind chill (side of licked finger that freezes
first).

In all seriousness, there's a kewl write up on the subject
of Duck Tile Irony in the most recent Lee Valley
Catalogette. I got mine yesterday along with the newest
issue of the Dumbed Down Fine Wooddorking and a whole 10%
coupon (not worth pulling on socks for) from Woodcraft.

UA100

CW wrote:
Glad you agree.



Uh-huh. I'm glad that you're glad.

By the way, your trousers are starting to blow up real big.

UA100

The December issue of Practical Woodworker has an excellent article on
getting started with CAD written by Dave Mackenzie and is based on Turbocad.
I'm anxioius to see the next edition which will have Part II.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Michael Press wrote:
I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program
that's inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure $100) and
useful for designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby
work, but I'd like precise drawings of my designs. I also
imagine that it would be useful to generate a bill of
materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map" of cuts on a sheet of
plywood.

I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
woodworking point of view. (This article is what got me
thinging - http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)

I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep
learning curve.

Given Mike Hide's suggestion, you may be able to find a bargain
price for a professional-level package.

I use DesignCAD (a 3D package) for my woodworking. I export DXF
files that are, in turn, imported into my CNC control software so
that I can make the drawing and produce the parts more or less
seamlessly.

Unless you're planning to use the package only for tables and
boxes (drawers, kitchen cabinets, and all things with
rectangular, flat sides) you would do well to consider a 3D
capability and features to deal with curved surfaces.

--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

whatsa Mac? burger and fries?

Leslie

--
She's got tools, and she knows how to use them.
The legs aren't too bad either!


"Brian" wrote in message
...
The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
(And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)

TIA!
Brian

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:30:13 GMT, "Leslie G"
wrote:

whatsa Mac?

Like a Barbie, only with less pink.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:10:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote
(in message .ca):

I haven't played with it yet, but have a look at Design Intuition
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21980

I've used it and like it. It's not without faults, but the developer is
working on fixing a few things, which should help.

Wayne

(And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)

At least accept that it's a recommendation that you don't like. You need
not perpetuate the idea that of all the Mac users, only the zealots are
left...

While not a MacBigot (I hate those people, just as I do those who
espose the superiority of Windows, UNix, Linux, or anything else for
that matter) I would consider myself a diehard Mac user and evangelist
- it is the perfect machine and OS for what *I* want/need it to do... I
was merely trying to dissuade both well-meaning and non-well-meaning
suggestions to get a PC. Been there, done that, never do it again,
don't waste yer breath.

Michael Press wrote in message . ..
I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure $100) and useful for
designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
of cuts on a sheet of plywood.

I use DeltaCAD. It is inexpensive and very easy to learn. But it is
only a 2D application. No sketching, modeling, or advanced functions
of any kind. I use it to plan home projects. I bought mine about five
years ago for $20.00 (no manual). I think they now sell it for about
$40.00 including the manual. I've seen the CD in Staples for $12.99.
If you want down 'n dirty -- but useful, it's a pretty good product.

Thanks for the links - I've got some research to do! Design Intuition
looks like the only one that's intended specifically for woodworking,
which is more to my liking (I don't forsee me needing a full-on CAD
application, just the feature subset that applies to designing and
implementing woodworking projects).

Since I do already use Illustrator, tho (I am a graphic artist by
profession, amateur woodworker as a hobby) the AI plugins might also be
worthwhile.

Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!

Brian

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:51:26 -0600, (p_j) wrote:

My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:

http://www.gizmolab.com/software/

Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix.


nope.

long ago, autocad was available for the mac. that is a thing of the
past. now it's a windows only thing.

eventually linux may get to the point where it can emulate all of the
windows APIs or somethin and we can pitch bill's code, but for now if
you want to play with acad you have to run windows.




If so, there are no
doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.

Brian wrote:

Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!

You should try living in Linuxdom. At least you have the option of buying a
program or three.

(I've thought about getting a Mac for that very reason. Maybe being part of
3% would be better than being part of 1%. OTOH, I don't have any money
anyway, and most of the Windows software I still occasionally miss doesn't
run on a Mac, so I'd be in the same boat, only with one mouse button and a
really goofy looking computer.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

In article , Silvan
wrote:

Brian wrote:

Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!

You should try living in Linuxdom. At least you have the option of buying a
program or three.

(I've thought about getting a Mac for that very reason. Maybe being part of
3% would be better than being part of 1%. OTOH, I don't have any money
anyway, and most of the Windows software I still occasionally miss doesn't
run on a Mac, so I'd be in the same boat, only with one mouse button and a
really goofy looking computer.)

Funny looking computer! FUNNY LOOKING COMPUTER! Why I outta ....
Well, yea the grape iMac at home is a bit funny looking if you prefer
beige boxes but my titanium laptop is just cool looking. By the by I
have a Macally mouse attached to the work computer and both buttons are
functional. There are plenty of programable mouse or trackballs out
there also. While I'm a dedicated Mac guy I do a lot of work on
Windows architectures and as much as it pains me to admit neither Mac
nor Linux is ready to run a medium to large enterprise and meet the
requirements of the government (or at least the three lettered
government folks where I work) . On the other hand to build an
enterprise entirely out of Windows is a bad bad mistake.
Allen
Catonsville, MD

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:48:41 -0500, Brian wrote:

The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
(And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)

TIA!
Brian

http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html

--
-Doug

Design workshop lite (freeware) runs on classic and in the classic
enviroment under OSX. Not too bad for general visualization stuff.
http://www.artifice.com/free/dw_lite.html


Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) does a good job of translating the
Windows API into X11 for use of windows software on linux.

-Bruce

p_j wrote:
My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:

http://www.gizmolab.com/software/

Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix. If so, there are no
doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

FWIW this guy uses CAD:

http://tinyurl.com/ywkqd

http://tinyurl.com/3e2tc

g

-- Mark

FWIW this guy uses CAD:

Drawings up to 54" wide.
http://plamann.com/sys-tmpl/scrapboo...book&UID=10013

(Yes I do visit Tom's site at least once a week. Why do you ask? g)

-- Mark

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:08:24 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote:

FWIW this guy uses CAD:

http://tinyurl.com/ywkqd

http://tinyurl.com/3e2tc

g

-- Mark






ah what does he know......



G

BruceR wrote:

Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) does a good job of translating the
Windows API into X11 for use of windows software on linux.

A "good" job? That's kinda like saying my Skil 3400 (anemic benchtop saw)
does a good job of ripping 12/4 osage orange.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Allen Epps wrote:

button and a really goofy looking computer.)

Funny looking computer! FUNNY LOOKING COMPUTER! Why I outta ....

No, no, let's take a step back here and take note of the adjective I
actually used. To be precise, I said it's a GOOFY looking computer.

have a Macally mouse attached to the work computer and both buttons are
functional. There are plenty of programable mouse or trackballs out

You mean they finally decided Mac users are smart enough to deal with the
stress of having a mouse with TWO buttons? I'm shocked!

(They used to only have one big button smack in the middle of the mouse, but
that was a long time ago. I haven't used a Mac since the early '90s.)

I really do think their hardware is goofy looking though. Computers should
be blocky and beige, dammit.

I don't like some of the newer PCs either. That's what happens when you
start letting twelve year old girls pick out computers.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

In article , Silvan
wrote:


You mean they finally decided Mac users are smart enough to deal with
the stress of having a mouse with TWO buttons? I'm shocked!

Yep, Still that way on some. Apple seems to think that the one button
keyboard combo is faster. I frankly don't get it so I just buy a new 2
button mouse and it works fine.

(They used to only have one big button smack in the middle of the mouse, but
that was a long time ago. I haven't used a Mac since the early '90s.)

I don't like some of the newer PCs either. That's what happens when you
start letting twelve year old girls pick out computers.

Daddy can I get a matching iPod ???can I? Can I pleeeese, Huh Huh?
........ At least it lets us get cool IT toys because they're considered
fashion accessories!

If you haven't looked at a Mac since OSX came out you really owe it to
yourself to take a look. I dual booted a G4 with Red Hat and OSX and it
worked great. Then figured out I could do any Unix thing I wanted on
pure OSX and run Office and share files with Windoze losers so
reconfigured to just Panther. As much as they'd like us to believe I
just didn't find open office was that compatable with Wiondoze office.
With Office X I get all kinds of folks amazed that the files work fine
between the it and WIndows.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

"If they can put a man on the moon why can't they put a man on
Lifetime?" Colin Quinn

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:01:00 -0700, Bridger wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:51:26 -0600, (p_j) wrote:

My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:

http://www.gizmolab.com/software/

Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix.


nope.

long ago, autocad was available for the mac. that is a thing of the
past. now it's a windows only thing.

eventually linux may get to the point where it can emulate all of the
windows APIs or somethin and we can pitch bill's code, but for now if
you want to play with acad you have to run windows.




If so, there are no
doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.


I think Macs are really nice for graphics work. Windows is the O/S to
have to run just about anything. I just installed a Linux box and I'm
truly amazed at the speed and security, although Linux is not for the
faint at heart. I'd like to see more graphics applications for Linux.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:

[AutoCAD]

Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue
to buy it on reputation.
It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by the
name.

Try not to top post as it makes it difficult to quote you in context.

Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.

Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.

Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.

As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket and I think he'd get most of the function from
TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.

I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

Phisherman wrote:

I think Macs are really nice for graphics work. Windows is the O/S to
have to run just about anything. I just installed a Linux box and I'm
truly amazed at the speed and security, although Linux is not for the
faint at heart. I'd like to see more graphics applications for Linux.

I'd like to see more of everything for Linux, for free or not. I just don't
LIKE Windows. After a few years in Linuxdom, I can't even stand to use a
Windows box anymore. It's just so crappy looking and difficult to
maintain.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this? Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The
only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is
done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the
full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the
least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then
have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want? For half that cost,
modelling software is availble that make Autocad's 3D capabilities look like
a toy.
"Frank Shute" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:


Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.

NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
peiced together?

Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.

The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.

Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.

I thought you said that people only bought the best?
In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The
majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
quality CAD programs.

As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket

If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of
the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
costomize, go with Pro.

and I think he'd get most of the function from
TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.

There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you
want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user
groups I have ever seen.



I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.

It can, in addition to other usefull formats.






--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

CW wrote:

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
already read.



Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having to
scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.

Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following what your
addressing.


Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this?



See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to
mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would warrant
this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no one
should have to guess.


Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.


Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW wrote
parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very poor
form.


(normally I would remove all the following text)


"Frank Shute" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:


Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.


NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
peiced together?

Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.


The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.

Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.


I thought you said that people only bought the best?
In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The
majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
quality CAD programs.

As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket


If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of
the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
costomize, go with Pro.

and I think he'd get most of the function from

TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.


There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you
want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user
groups I have ever seen.



I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.


It can, in addition to other usefull formats.






--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/





--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, don't read it (I suggest a few
reading classes). You might want to seek a little help for that fading
memory while you're at it.

"Mark" wrote in message
...


CW wrote:

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they
have
already read.



Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having
to
scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.

Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following
what your
addressing.


Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this?



See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to
mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would
warrant
this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no
one
should have to guess.


Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.


Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW
wrote
parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very
poor
form.


(normally I would remove all the following text)


"Frank Shute" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:


Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.


NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because,
in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM
program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have
a
high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM
package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
peiced together?

Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.


The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a
business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough
emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.

Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.


I thought you said that people only bought the best?
In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to
an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system,
on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized
that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block?
The
majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
quality CAD programs.

As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket


If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys
one of
the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
costomize, go with Pro.

and I think he'd get most of the function from

TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.


There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if
you
want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull
user
groups I have ever seen.



I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.


It can, in addition to other usefull formats.






--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/





--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

I don't use a CAD program for my woodworking drawings. Instead I use
Micrografx Designer. It's a Windows technical drawing program. In
fact, it almost looks like a CAD program. At least version 9 and under
does. Since Corel bought out Micrografx they've changed the interface
to make it look more like CorelDraw. While Corel is a powerful program
it's interface never suited me and what I needed a drawing program
for. CAD programs are also very powerful, but but too "technical" for
me. Micrografx Designer fit the bill. Too bad the company didn't
market the product better and had to sell out to Corel. There are a
lot of die hard Designer users out there. If you look you can find
versions 9 and under for less than $70. Version 10 is when Corel
changed the interface. :-(

You can draw full scale and then re-size the drawing proportionately
to fit the page or several pages and print out. You can customize the
left side and top tool bar to have the tools you use most (and there
are a lot of tools). One of the ways I judge a program is how well I
can use it without resorting to reading the manual or help files and
just figure things out. Micrografx is just that...easy to figure out.
Click on one of it's many tools and see what it does. CorelDraw's
interface is so simple I couldn't figure it out!

I'm sure you could use Designer to map out your cuts on a sheet of
plywood. Should be really simple.

To do a cutting list I made up a simple Excel spreadsheet where you
list all the parts and their demensions and it will calculate the
total boardfeet and cost.

Don't know if this helped....

Layne

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:06:27 -0500, Michael Press
wrote:

I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure $100) and useful for
designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
of cuts on a sheet of plywood.

I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)

I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
curve.

Thanks,
Michael

CW wrote:
Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the


Top posting ruins the natural flow of a conversation and confuses things. Now,
how much scrolling have you had to do here? Quoting is supposed to give a
reference point to your answer; not a restatement of the entire conversation. A
quick editing to delete the unnecessary crap takes care of scrolling. I never
quote more than two paragraphs, MAX. Most of the time it's less, like here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

CW wrote:
If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, don't read it


I'm smart enough to figure your too lazy to post properly. That is, by convention.

Or is there some other excuse you chose to use? Other than blaming others for
your lack of initiative. ?

Sorry, Bud, can't blame me.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

I use Autocad 2000 LT and Bobcad 18 to do most of my CNC programing of inlay
designs.

William Lee
http://home.stx.rr.com/n5wrx
http://home.earthlink.net/~willeecue

Someone walks up to you and says "hello, how are you doing?" and you respond
hello, how are you doing? I'm good, how about you? Yeah, sounds natural to
me.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
news

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
they have already read.

Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
piece of software.

Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this?

How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
software...

Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The
only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is
done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the
full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the
least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then
have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want?

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You don't need to
hire a programmer (of any description) to make it into a 3D modeller.
You just buy and install additional softs.

For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.

Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.


"Frank Shute" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:


Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.

NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad.

Because you can punch in a few M codes and turn out a plain shaft
doesn't mean you know diddly about NC, engineering, or anything about
CAD/CAM unlike this mech/man engineer (if you really want to get into
a ****ing contest).

Why? Because, in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
high price kluge.

Again, this `programmer' ********. You might need a programmer to
install & use software on your machine but I don't. Us engineers can
generally figure out a lisp routine to generate a gear, it's why we're
engineers and you're down on the shop floor getting your hands dirty
along with the other brain-dead plebs.

Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
peiced together?

See below.


Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.

The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.

You don't know what you're talking about. Leave it to us engineers to
decide what businesses need, you stick to the brainless grease monkey
work. Remember, you're there because thinking isn't your strong point
and you're not clever enough to become an engineer let alone expound
on business requirements.


Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.

I thought you said that people only bought the best?

You thought wrong. If you didn't post all over the place you'd be able
to quote me properly and not make things up.

In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block?

Lots.

The majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than
changes to desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are
available in most quality CAD programs.

Since you've never worked in a shop that uses AutoCAD, how would you
know? You don't and you've no idea about the broad depth of
applications and fields that AutoCAD is used in with add-ons. You're
so ignorant about it that you think you need a programmer to make it
usable. FYI, you don't.

It's all very well indulging in idle speculation as to what AutoCAD may or
may not be used for but unless you've worked with it it's just that -
idle speculation and in your case, entirely wrong speculation.

Stick to your grease monkey work - it sounds like you're
underqualified but you've managed to blag your way into a number of
jobs spouting forth **** anyway.

Oh, and don't post to Usenet about things you clearly know **** all
about ie. software, whilst simultaneously using a broken news client
and top posting.

Instead, try soiling your pants whilst down at the BORG, you'll find it
a good deal less humiliating.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

CW wrote:
Someone walks up to you and says "hello, how are you doing?" and you respond
hello, how are you doing? I'm good, how about you? Yeah, sounds natural to
me.




LMAO.


You have confused an oral conversation with email.

You need to spend some time off line pal.

I shouldn't laugh, confusing the Web and computer relationships with true
socialization is a growing mental illness.

--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Mark wrote:

I shouldn't laugh, confusing the Web and computer relationships with
true socialization is a growing mental illness.

You're not a sociologist, are you?

--
gabriel

Frank Shute wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
they have already read.


Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
piece of software.



I was going to try Outlook myself, I got it set up, found I couldn't delete spam
without opening it in some form, couldn't find the setting to put my sig file at
the end of the quoted text forcing me cut and paste it or condemning me to top
posting.

Might have been other problems but I wasn't going to stick around to find out.




Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this?


How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
software...


On topic: I have AutoCad 2000 Lt., it's more than enough for square and round
structures. like all programs you need to know what a functions called to be
able to use it. TomAAto, TomAHto, ....


For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.


Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.



mayhaps he just lacks the ability to thin and see in three dimensions from a two
dimension format, so he needs a machine to do it for him.

As far as 'needing' 3d to design? I think of the thousands of years and millions
upon millions of items designed using paper and pencil, sticks in the sand, to
know 3d is not an absolute necessity.

Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.





--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:49:18 GMT, Mark wrote:


Frank Shute wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:

Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
they have already read.


Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
piece of software.




I was going to try Outlook myself, I got it set up, found I couldn't
delete spam without opening it in some form, couldn't find the
setting to put my sig file at the end of the quoted text forcing me
cut and paste it or condemning me to top posting.

That's it's main problem, it forces you to top post. Hence matey's top
posts which he excused on the grounds of laziness.

Might have been other problems but I wasn't going to stick around to
find out.

Used to be a pile of security problems with it but I believe it's
somewhat better now. I feel that since Microsoft have a monopoly,
there's nothing driving them to produce featureful and secure software
and you're best off looking elsewhere.

You might want to check out Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

I haven't used it but I use the Firebird/Firefox browser from the same
stable which I can recommend.




Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this?


How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
software...


On topic: I have AutoCad 2000 Lt., it's more than enough for square and round
structures. like all programs you need to know what a functions called to be
able to use it. TomAAto, TomAHto, ....


For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.


Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.



mayhaps he just lacks the ability to thin and see in three
dimensions from a two dimension format, so he needs a machine to do
it for him.

A lot of designers do nowadays (not that I think he's a
designer/draughtsman in any meaningful way).


As far as 'needing' 3d to design? I think of the thousands of years
and millions upon millions of items designed using paper and pencil,
sticks in the sand, to know 3d is not an absolute necessity.

Exactly.


Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad
would be more detrimental.

CAD does. It's good for engineering design or architectural design
where your form is very much dependent on function. But with furniture
for example, there might not be very much function (I always think of
Krenov's cabinets) and one can't envision Sam Maloof sitting down at
his CAD station to design one of his rockers.

It's OK for me for designing furniture because I come at furniture
from an engineering aspect and I haven't got too many creative bones
in my body.

If I had the room, I'd prefer to draught by hand. I think I'd produce
more fluid designs and I'd enjoy getting all my old draughting tools
back into action. I don't think it would be very much slower either,
it's difficult to leverage CAD's speed advantages with one-off designs
when you're not using common componentry.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

Mark wrote:
Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.


I dunno. Once upon a time, back before the earth cooled,
and all we had were pen plotters...

God were they awful or what? Ever spend twenty/thirty/forty
minutes watching a plot (1) and seeing the pen rip the paper
on the last line? What did we have, three line weights?

Anyway, with plotter teknologee being what it is a skillful
user can craft a pretty fine looking draring which is half
the battle of wonderment and indecision.

God bless Al Gore for inventing thinner line weights and
half-tones.

sigh...

ObWW: I use the plotter for making pitchers of woodwork so
the guys in the shoppe know what to make and what it is
that's paying our salaries this week/month/year.

(1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
Can't get that with the jet plotters today.

sigh...

UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
us what the best plotter is...

I use Visio... Works well and free from work... Not the best program I
realize... but it does get the job done.

Unisaw A100 wrote:

Mark wrote:

Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.



I dunno. Once upon a time, back before the earth cooled,
and all we had were pen plotters...

God were they awful or what? Ever spend twenty/thirty/forty
minutes watching a plot (1) and seeing the pen rip the paper
on the last line? What did we have, three line weights?

Anyway, with plotter teknologee being what it is a skillful
user can craft a pretty fine looking draring which is half
the battle of wonderment and indecision.

God bless Al Gore for inventing thinner line weights and
half-tones.

sigh...

ObWW: I use the plotter for making pitchers of woodwork so
the guys in the shoppe know what to make and what it is
that's paying our salaries this week/month/year.

(1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
Can't get that with the jet plotters today.

sigh...

UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
us what the best plotter is...

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:33:17 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

Mark wrote:
Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.

That's really stoopid, so we'll just pass right on by.


(1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
Can't get that with the jet plotters today.

Ya need to lay offa the hash brownies at work. They have the ability
to rot your mind, as well as your teeth.

sigh...

UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
us what the best plotter is...

It's too late for Cad******. His teeth are entirely gone.



Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Tom Watson wrote:

Mark wrote:

Also I've said it befo Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.


That's really stoopid, so we'll just pass right on by.



Tom, it's spelled stupid.


No, Tom, it's not stupid but maybe it is too broad of statement.

CAD allows the design and production of more complicated and intricate items,
but they also look less natural, and more bland.

Or am I the only one who has noticed this?



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)