Mark wrote:

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...

Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless. Most of what's
/ever/ been made hasn't been all that beautiful. CAD technology
neither enhances nor detracts from the beauty of the object being
designed.

I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems; but
the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software - it goes
to the designer in every case. Art doesn't originate in the
computer; but the right computer and the right software in
combination with talent and skill can expedite the realization of
an artist's vision.

Speaking of art, it's probably worth pointing out that every
individual has their own standard for what is beautiful to them
(and what is not). What seems bland for one person may be even
gaudy to another. Sometimes it's a mixed bag - I recall how ugly
I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass (sp?) speakers were (no
wood!), even as I admired the sound they produced.

[For those not familiar with Sturgeon's Law - it states that
"Ninety percent of everything is crud."]

--
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.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
|
| Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless.

I would tend to agree, but CAD provides another target for the blame.

| I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems;
| but the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software -
| it goes to the designer in every case.

No argument whatsoever. It has been my experience -- and I have a fair
amount of it -- that good CAD cannot substitute for bad design. And it has
also been my experience that people who are good at CAD are also good at
pencil-and-paper design. The most adept CAD users I've seen are engineers
from the Apollo era, and they can pretty much design freehand if they need
to.

CAD is not a substitute for design skill.

Nevertheless it's true that CAD can limit a design. CAD gives you a set of
tools to work with, and heaven help you if there's no tool to do what you
want. I remember the olden days before NURBS and Bezier curves where if you
wanted anything besides straight lines and circular arcs out of your CAD
system you were just out of luck. Those of us constrained to use straight
lines and circular arcs produced unexciting designs.

CAD as a method of creating a drawing is putrid. I can produce much more
exciting designs in dimensioned freehand than on any CAD system, and I have
used CAD for years and even programmed high-end CAD systems for others to
use. CAD is a tool aimed at the *professional* designer. That's not to
make it sound snooty. It's to say that a professional designer (individual
or design group) has other concerns to worry about, chiefly about efficiency
and cutting down on design overhead for accommodating change. CAD speaks to
those needs, which aren't necessarily the same as the needs of the hobbyist
woodworker, or even the small-scale professional.

| What seems bland for one person may be even gaudy to another.

Right, but that's not necessarily what Mark is talking about. CAD
encourages "cookie cutter" design for two reasons: it allows easy cutting
and pasting to reuse elements of a design, and it gives you a limited set of
tools.

My sister, who is an architect, can drive down a street and point out which
houses were designed on AutoCAD, which were designed on some other CAD
package, and so forth. Why? Because they display the features to which
those systems lend themselves.

Is this bad? No, not really. There will always be a market for cookie
cutter designs because they're inexpensive, fast and easy to produce, and
are functionally refined to perfection over time. In the industrial world
that's a win. Sometimes that's a win for professional woodworkers. Usually
it's not for hobbyist woodworkers.

| I recall how ugly I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass (sp?)
| speakers were (no wood!), even as I admired the sound they produced.

Sure, there's an aesthetic. Look at the other end of the spectrum: Frank
Lloyd Wright. His stuff looks great, but no one wants to sit in his chairs
or duck under his low ceilings.

Something can look good, or it can function well, or both. Often optimizing
for one tends to sacrifice the other. But CAD introduces a new dimension to
that problem -- can I design it using this particular tool? How much time
have I got to design it? How much do I have to learn about this tool before
it's useful to me?

I recommend to hobbyist woodworkers, and small-scale professionals (i.e.,
lone wolves with at most one or two assistants) that they use paper designs.
If your joy in woodworking is to produce a thing of beauty that springs from
your imagination unfettered, then fancy design tools won't help. One of my
more exciting clock projects started as a slab of turning stock that I
grabbed at random and slapped on the band saw table. I didn't draw
anything; I didn't even have a good idea what it was going to look like
until four cuts or so into the stock.

--Jay

This isn't email.
"Mark" wrote in message
...



You have confused an oral conversation with email.

Works just fine. I used one for a while that defaulted to the bottom. That
was the first thing I changed.


"Mark" wrote in message
...


you're using a
broken news client which

"Frank Shute" wrote in message
...

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

Where? When?

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.

Hire it programmed or buy it from someone that has already done it doesn't
change anything. You buy a piece of software for way to high a price that
won't do what you want then throw money at it trying to make into
something. Kind of like buying a Ford Fiesta and adding/replacing parts
'till you have and Indy car. Do you work for the government?



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?

You brought it up and is a frequent reason that people give for buying the
full version (of AutoCAD) over LT. For things that are made predominantly by
hand, 2D prints are still the way to go. For the majority of manufactured
items (machinery, tooling, plastics, ect) 2D detail drawings are becoming
less relevant all the time. Why spend the time making a 2D print just so
when it gets to the manufacturer, he has to redraw it?

I suspect it's because you don't know
a first angle projection from a 3rd ie.

You're shooting in the dark and hitting nothing but air.

You don't know anything about
technical drawing nor how to draught.

Another couple of shots. Both misses.

Done any design engineering?

Yep.

Thought not.

I'm beginning to question your thinking ability.

Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.

Nope. Did without for many years but I wouldn't go back to those conditions
for anything.

Wooun't know. I use a number of them. Tell me where I ever claimed anything
was the best.

"Unisaw A100" wrote in message
...
UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
us what the best plotter is...

Jay Windley wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

| Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless.

I would tend to agree, but CAD provides another target for the
blame.

Perhaps - but I don't think the problem lies with that target.

| I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems;
| but the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software -
| it goes to the designer in every case.

No argument whatsoever. It has been my experience -- and I
have a fair amount of it -- that good CAD cannot substitute
for bad design. And it has also been my experience that
people who are good at CAD are also good at pencil-and-paper
design. The most adept CAD users I've seen are engineers from
the Apollo era, and they can pretty much design freehand if
they need to.

CAD is not a substitute for design skill.

I absolutely agree.

Nevertheless it's true that CAD can limit a design. CAD gives
you a set of tools to work with, and heaven help you if
there's no tool to do what you want. I remember the olden
days before NURBS and Bezier curves where if you wanted
anything besides straight lines and circular arcs out of your
CAD system you were just out of luck. Those of us constrained
to use straight lines and circular arcs produced unexciting
designs.

I still agree. It was a serious problem. Back in 1975 I became so
frustrated with available tools that I went out and bought my own
Houston Instruments DP-1 plotter, hooked it up to my IMSAI-8080,
and wrote my own software. I realize that not everyone can do
that kind of thing; but this is 2004 and there're much better
tools available off the shelf. My outdated DesignCAD package even
allows me to write "macros" in a version of BASIC.

CAD as a method of creating a drawing is putrid. I can
produce much more exciting designs in dimensioned freehand
than on any CAD system, and I have used CAD for years and even
programmed high-end CAD systems for others to use. CAD is a
tool aimed at the *professional* designer. That's not to make
it sound snooty. It's to say that a professional designer
(individual or design group) has other concerns to worry
about, chiefly about efficiency and cutting down on design
overhead for accommodating change. CAD speaks to those needs,
which aren't necessarily the same as the needs of the hobbyist
woodworker, or even the small-scale professional.

Well, I still have my T-square and drawing table; but I really am
more productive with the CAD tools. That doesn't mean that I
don't do a lot of pencil sketches along the way - but most of
what I would have sketched on paper I now sketch on the screen.

Just for fun, I'll post two of this morning's sketches on a.p.b.w
under the subject of "Inlay Sketches". I'm thinking of a deep,
rich-grained wooden box with this pattern inlaid in mother of
pearl - as a July birthday present for someone special. I don't
think I could have managed the design with pencil and paper only.
The left sketch is the inlay plan; and the right sketch is the
tool path. They aren't quite on the same scale; but they /are/
just sketches. It's an ancient middle-eastern geometric construct.

/I/ think the end result will be better than bland. I don't know
if it's good art or not - although I like it. I only care that
the recipient likes it. These two sketches represent about an
hour of effort. I guarantee that I couldn't have managed them in
an hour (or even five) with just pencil and paper.

| What seems bland for one person may be even gaudy to
another.

Right, but that's not necessarily what Mark is talking about.
CAD encourages "cookie cutter" design for two reasons: it
allows easy cutting and pasting to reuse elements of a design,
and it gives you a limited set of tools.

Hmm. The tool set isn't bad at this stage; and it's getting
better all the time. Less expensive too.

Re-use of design elements isn't necessarily bad - I had the old
350 engine in my old C20 pickup, a GM van, and a Buick sedan. On
the other hand, I'm glad they didn't cut 'n' paste the C20 cab
into the Buick.

My sister, who is an architect, can drive down a street and
point out which houses were designed on AutoCAD, which were
designed on some other CAD package, and so forth. Why?
Because they display the features to which those systems lend
themselves.

I've noticed the same effect in the publishing world. I probably
got as sick of seeing Adobe layouts as she did AutoCAD.

Is this bad? No, not really. There will always be a market
for cookie cutter designs because they're inexpensive, fast
and easy to produce, and are functionally refined to
perfection over time. In the industrial world that's a win.
Sometimes that's a win for professional woodworkers. Usually
it's not for hobbyist woodworkers.

I think that needs to be considered on a case by case basis. I've
always produced at least partial drawings for my projects; and it
seems to me that the projects have turned out better for my
having taken the time and effort. Part of my reason for feeling
that way may be that I've always tried to reach further than I
had before. Another part may be the enjoyment I find in
experimentation with joinery techniques.

| I recall how ugly I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass
(sp?) | speakers were (no wood!), even as I admired the sound
they produced.

Sure, there's an aesthetic. Look at the other end of the
spectrum: Frank Lloyd Wright. His stuff looks great, but no
one wants to sit in his chairs or duck under his low ceilings.

Me me me! I do! (-: I don't know about his chairs; but I get
quite a buzz from his approach to design. I once spent a couple
of weeks in the old Imperial Hotel in Tokyo. I wouldn't trade the
experience for anything.

Something can look good, or it can function well, or both.
Often optimizing for one tends to sacrifice the other. But
CAD introduces a new dimension to that problem -- can I design
it using this particular tool? How much time have I got to
design it? How much do I have to learn about this tool before
it's useful to me?

Yabbut that's true of all new tools. My first workshop tool was a
radial arm saw. I learned on the first day that power tools could
be a big time and labor saver; but that they could also ruin
perfectly good wood /very/ much faster than hand tools. From that
time on, I didn't buy a power tool until I'd come to speaking
terms with the hand tool equivalent. My then-wife thought I was
nuts; but I discovered that by taking time to learn how wood
behaved/responded to hand tools, I learned a lot about how and
when to use which power tools.

I will argue (forever) that learning to understand the materials
and the tools is a necessary step; and that there is no magic
that will allow a mere mortal to consistantly produce a good
result without climbing the learning curve associated with the
tools used.

I recommend to hobbyist woodworkers, and small-scale
professionals (i.e., lone wolves with at most one or two
assistants) that they use paper designs. If your joy in
woodworking is to produce a thing of beauty that springs from
your imagination unfettered, then fancy design tools won't
help. One of my more exciting clock projects started as a
slab of turning stock that I grabbed at random and slapped on
the band saw table. I didn't draw anything; I didn't even
have a good idea what it was going to look like until four
cuts or so into the stock.

This may be where we differ most. I prefer to have all design
issues resolved before I start making sawdust. I won't claim that
either approach is better than the other; but I strongly prefer
to pack the creativity into the front of the project.

--
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.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
|
| Well, I still have my T-square and drawing table; but I
| really am more productive with the CAD tools.

As are many designers. If you have good CAD tools and you know how to use
them, by all means use them. I looked at your sketches and they're quite
appropriate for the tool, and presumably for the task. Most importantly,
you get things like offset lines for free. Those are tedious to draw. And
if you have patterns that can be described algorithmically, you can get more
done quickly if you're allowed to do that. You mention that your tool is
scriptable. AutoCAD is too. The systems I've helped build are consummately
scriptable, having been built upon a full-featured procedural programming
languages.

For example, to create a radial pattern of holes, such as for a flange, you
could say:

outerFlangeBoundary := circle( centerPt, flangeOuterRadius );
innerFlangeBoundary := circleConcentric( outerFlangeBoundary,
-flangeLipWidth );
draw( outerFlangeBoundary, innerFlangeBoundary );
prototypeHole := simpleBore( holeDiam, normalDir( outerFlangeBoundary ),
HOLE_THROUGH );
holePattern := radialPattern( centerPt,
flangeOuterRadius - (flangeLipWidth / 2),
numHolesNeeded,
prototypeHole );

Or you could use the GUI. But the textual representation allows you to
capture the geometric relationships so that there's a basis for generating
the portions of the drawing that are defined as dependent upon the other
parts according to arbitrarily complex geometric and algebraic constraints.
In plain English, the above would read, "Drill a set of evenly spaced holes
halfway between the inner and outer flange boundaries."

These tools are incredibly powerful and enable modern engineering. But they
have daunting learning curves for newcomers. If you're going to run a
professional shop, regardless of the material you work in, you need that
kind of flexibility and power to stay competitive. But if you're just
putting cabinets in the bathroom and you don't already know how to design
this way, you're better off with pencil and paper.

Most people already know how to use a pencil, and it doesn't take much to
realize that you can draw a little dimension arrow that says, "5/8 inch" and
that keeps track of how big something has to be.

| I don't think I could have managed the design with pencil
| and paper only.

Perhaps, but see below.

| /I/ think the end result will be better than bland.

Definitely. It's not at all bland. I like it.

| These two sketches represent about an hour of effort.

Well, yes and no. It took you that long to produce the drawing, but you
first had to learn the system in order to make it do that. That's the
essence of my point. If you merely want to make one inlay, learning a
software system is overkill. If you plan on making many, many overlays,
learning a design system is a wise investment. Most people already know how
to use a pencil and a straightedge, so if that's all they need then that's
all they should use. The question is whether or not you're happy with your
tools. You shouldn't dive into CAD simply because it's there. You should
dive into it if it's going to get you what you want.

| I guarantee that I couldn't have managed them in
| an hour (or even five) with just pencil and paper.

It would probably take me half an hour to do the tool path with traditional
instruments. I can already see the construction lines, etc., that I'd have
to draw. The double-lined version would take longer. But that's taking
into account seeing what it's supposed to look like. I certainly could do
it in far less than five hours. But then again I was trained in the
traditional methods of geometric construction on paper, so perhaps when I
recommend pencil and paper it's with that knowledge in mind. It would be
fair to say I'm adept in it because I've invested time to learn *that* mode
of drawing too.

| Hmm. The tool set isn't bad at this stage; and it's getting
| better all the time. Less expensive too.

I agree. Especially with various parametric curves and interpolating
techniques you can leap ahead of many pencil techniques. We were just
talking about old shipwrights and splines and ducks. These days
interpolating through points or drawing freeform curves of appropriate
"bendiness" is drag-and-drop. A while back we had a discussion about
scribing free form contours such as in making boat bulkheads. It's much
easier to instruct a CAD system to extract the appropriate curve from a
freeform surface.

CAD has distinct advantages over paper design. I'm just wondering how much
of that helps the novice designer who just wants to make a chair or two.
I've seen motivated people bog down in the limitations of their tools.

| Re-use of design elements isn't necessarily bad

In the functional sense, it's absolutely essential. If your design library
already contains a bracket or a caster assembly or an inlay pattern --
complete with tool paths and assembly steps -- you should use it. It will
save you time and money.

But where aesthetics are important, such as in residential and furniture
design, re-use isn't always good. It leads to the "bland" look if you're
not careful. Sometimes re-use is good if you want a product line -- a
dining room table and its associated chairs, for example -- to have some
sort of dinstinctive look and feel. You might duplicate the table's center
inlay on the back of each chair. But that doesn't always translate to a cut
and paste in a CAD system.

| I think that needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

I agree. Some people enjoy the design aspect more than the production
aspect. Some people would rather spend time making sawdust than pushing
mice or pencils. Some people need everything spelled out for them in order
to have confidence to actually do it. Some people don't need to know just
how big a pilot hole is going to be or how deeply a screw will penetrate.

You can underdesign, and you can overdesign. Again, my advice to the novice
is not to design any farther than you think you need to go. And so don't
get wrapped up in the mechanism of expressing the design. If you don't need
a full layout plus isometric, don't worry about making it. If you make a
design from a dimensioned sketch and it looks like a Picasso, spend a bit
more time on paper.

| Me me me! I do! (-: I don't know about his chairs; but I get
| quite a buzz from his approach to design.

Don't get me wrong; I admire Wright immensely. The point is that someone so
well known for design can merit legitimate criticism. Wright's chairs are
unquestionable works of art. But they don't fit the human body. Many of
his early chairs have straight vertical backs. To sit in one is
excruciating. I'm only 5'4" (basically no taller than Wright himself) so I
feel quite at home in Wright rooms. My good friend is 6'4" and can't speak
about some Wright ceilings without using profanity.

Grumble all you want, but time has proven that Wright's ideas about varying
the ceiling height are right on the mark. His ideas about using native
materials are right on the mark. Many of his ideas, which he fought hard
for during his career, are now commonplace in architecture.

And there can be no question that Usonic design and CAD would go hand in
hand. Wright wanted design reuse and spent a large portion of his career
advocating it and practicing it. He never got it quite right, but the
notion of "parameterizing" a design in order to hold down its cost -- a
feature of most modern CAD systems -- would have appealed greatly to him.

But if the hobbyist merely wants to create an attractive picnic table or
jewelry box as a gift, or a writing table to fit a custom space in his home,
then the overhead of a parameterized design may be too much work.

| I will argue (forever) that learning to understand the materials
| and the tools is a necessary step...

Yes.

| This may be where we differ most. I prefer to have all design
| issues resolved before I start making sawdust.

As do I. My point in bringing up design on the fly is that it was
surprisingly effective in that one case. It's wasteful and dangerous as a
general method of design. My clock could have just as easily turned out as
a pile of odd maple burl scraps. I took that risk. Not everyone should,
nor certainly on every project. But there's a certain freedom in "drawing"
with a bandsaw blade on wood.

The true path, I believe, lies somewhere between extremes. What I want to
instill in the minds of design novices is neither recklessness nor anal
retentativity. I believe that some people looking for a CAD system are
really looking for guidance on how to approach the problem of design. I
would want to warn them away from CAD if their thought is that it's a magic
bullet. The best thing I believe I can offer people is confidence in their
innate design ability, regardless of the tools used. I want people to look
for design expertise where it really lies, not in some shrink-wrapped
package.

--Jay

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

There were/are "guys" who could do a hand drawing that was
bland and lifeless and there are "guys" who can do a hand
drawing that looks like a plate from some ancient text on
architecture. The same applies to CAD.

Or am I the only one who has noticed this?

Get a jet printer/plotter. Makes all the difference in the
world.

UA100

Jay Windley wrote:
CAD as a method of creating a drawing is putrid.

Yahbut that's only in the context of you. There are others
of us, who while quite capable of visualizing in 3D and can
do rudimentary sketches, fail miserably when it comes to
producing a design as if "shaken from our sleeves".

UA100

Jay Windley wrote:

The true path, I believe, lies somewhere between extremes. What I want to
instill in the minds of design novices is neither recklessness nor anal
retentativity. I believe that some people looking for a CAD system are
really looking for guidance on how to approach the problem of design. I
would want to warn them away from CAD if their thought is that it's a magic
bullet. The best thing I believe I can offer people is confidence in their
innate design ability, regardless of the tools used. I want people to look
for design expertise where it really lies, not in some shrink-wrapped
package.

We're in a lot closer agreement than I'd originally thought.
You're dead on with your comment about CAD neither being a magic
bullet nor a substitute for a fully engaged intellect. My
personal approach would be to tell 'em so - then give all the
encouragement I could to master /some/ CAD package (along with as
many other tools as possible).

One of my discoveries was that being able to use a CAD package
boosted my self confidence quite a bit because I could do
somewhat of a "dry run" in advance of every project. When I began
the actual work I felt as if I'd "been here before." I'm not sure
if it would work that way for everyone though.

Back in my early wodworking days I'd have given almost anything
for access to a resource like rec.woodworking - a lot of things
are getting better.

--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA

In rec.woodworking
Morris Dovey wrote:

Speaking of art, it's probably worth pointing out that every
individual has their own standard for what is beautiful to them
(and what is not).

To a point but studies with babies have shown that babies prefer
"beautiful" people as commonly accepted by society and dislike ugly people.

"Unisaw A100" wrote in message
...
|
| There are others of us, who while quite capable of
| visualizing in 3D and can do rudimentary sketches, fail
| miserably when it comes to producing a design as if "shaken
| from our sleeves".

Fair enough, but a design is not necessarily a drawing. If you can see it
in your head in 3D, you don't necessarily need to have good drawings in
order to build it. As I said, I build stuff from rudimentary sketches all
the time. But if you need or want to record it for later, or need to
communicate it to others, and you find CAD systems easier or faster than
pencil, then use CAD.

Keep in mind that I'm not anti-CAD, nor do I assume that everyone is an
artist, nor do I assume everyone can see designs in 3D in their heads. My
point is simply not to work the formalisms of the design process any
farther, or make it any more complicated, than you have to. Rather than
leap ahead for the complex tool, see if a simpler tool will work first.
Brilliant designers aren't brilliant because they use some particular tool
or method.

For most people, pencil and paper are simpler tools than AutoCAD. That
doesn't automatically make them suitable for all design tasks. Whatever you
choose should enable your imagination, not restrict or frustrate it.

--Jay

CW wrote:
This isn't email.



Mayhaps not, but it's much closer to email than speech.


Here's a clue, when you reply, and I choose to acknowledge it, will I be
listening with my ears or reading with my eyes.

Understand the difference. ??



--

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 Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not yet
exist. Drawing for publication, I've settled for using Photoshop Elements
and more latterly, Paint Shop Pro V8 for 'inking in' pencil drawings made on
the drawing board and scanned into the computer.

This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work neatly on
ordinary drawing paper, smudges are easy to remove, and changes fairly easy
to make. Changing line widths is very convenient.

However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get with careful
freehand drawing.

Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.

Does anyone know of such an application existing today?

And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
Elements, and found they do not meet this need.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

Squiggle. http://www.residential.com/squiggle.html



"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
...

Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.

Does anyone know of such an application existing today?

And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
Elements, and found they do not meet this need.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
exist.

Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a steep
part of the "learning curve".

By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
| "Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
| I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things
| that do not yet exist.
|
| Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being
| a steep part of the "learning curve".

That's one of the points I was trying to make, thanks. I'm not anti-CAD.
Having worked with and built CAD systems for years, I like to think of
myself as a CAD evangelist. But I tend to believe that the learning curve
is less favorable for CAD than for basic pencil techniques. If learning
curves are a problem for what you want to do, then simply do what works best
for you with the effort you're willing to put in and the innate individual
talents you have.

Technically if you consider the learning curve as a graph of expertise
acquired (vertical axis) against time taken to learn (horizontal axis) then
you want it to be as "steep" as possible. But I know what you mean. :-)

Some people -- like me -- must use CAD because we have to get designs out
quickly and be able to modify them easily and store them compactly. And
other people have to build what I design, so I can't just send them off a
sketch with a few dimensions scribbled on it and hope they can read my mind.
There are reasons for using CAD that have nothing to do with whether you're
best with a pencil or a mouse.

But as one person clearly stated, not everyone is good with a pencil. It's
probably better to drag out a rectangle with a CAD program than to agonize
over straight lines and right angles on paper if you're not good at that.
The point is to get to a usable design by the most comfortable and helpful
method. It's equally fallacious to say "design = pencil" as it is to say
"design = CAD". The situation I hope to avoid is someone who bought a $500
piece of software and then sits waving a fist at the screen saying, "I just
want a *%$&%-ing ellipse, you @$$#^ piece of @&&%$!" For less than five
bucks you can have a pencil and an ellipse template, and if that's what gets
you making sawdust faster, more power to you.

--Jay

"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
...
|
| This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work
| neatly on ordinary drawing paper...

Urg. I remember back in the 1970s cursing blue streaks at my Rapidograph
pens that either refused to deposit ink at all, or got most of it on my
fingertips. I use Micron felt-tip technical pens now, but then again I
don't do many ink drawings by hand anymore.

| However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
| with careful freehand drawing.

This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings. It's
ironic because of the agonizing practice many of us went through to start
and stop our lines precisely where they were supposed to start and stop, and
to keep the line weights consistent from start to finish. The goal was a
drawing that looked like it had been made by some kind of machine. Now that
machines make most of the drawings, we long for the hand-drawn ones.

My various wood project books that have plans in them vary between pure CAD
drawings and those which are either drawn by hand or have been
post-processed as you suggest. Maybe it's because woodworking is built more
on traditional hands-on techniques than other forms of engineering. But I
think the hand-drawn project plans look better. It makes me feel like the
person who drew them really cared about the project. Dunno if that's
irrational or not, but that's what came to mind.

--Jay

Jay Windley wrote:
"Jeff Gorman"

| However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
| with careful freehand drawing.

This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings. It's
ironic because of the agonizing practice many of us went through to start
and stop our lines precisely where they were supposed to start and stop, and
to keep the line weights consistent from start to finish. The goal was a
drawing that looked like it had been made by some kind of machine. Now that
machines make most of the drawings, we long for the hand-drawn ones.



You have me laughing out loud.


In the late 70's I took drafting/ mechanical drawing. I did the best I could but
the best I could manage was a C.

Twenty something years later I wanted to take a CAD class and figured I could
use a refresher so I took the basic drafting class.

I was getting 'A's on work that twenty years prior would have gotten me thrown
out of class. (I'm able to 'draw' better but twenty years before a student would
be in deep siht if the teacher saw compressed paper after an erasure, or if the
construction lines weren't *just so*, and God help you if there was any type of
smudge.)

To give this class it's due, it's point was more to teach the mechanics of
drawing and teach us to see what we were drawing and less turning out proficient.



I've seen people who can pick up a pad and pencil and freehand working drawings
that are better than what I can do on a table. I am in awe of this talent. But
is there a difference between their CAD and my CAD? Not really. I think that's
one of my problems with CAD, it diminishes the value of true talent.


--

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 like Micrografx designer. It is very intuitive for me. I am not sure if
they still make it, but I saw it on Overstock.com for $50.

Montyhp
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
exist.

Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a
steep
part of the "learning curve".

By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04

If you get a "Wacom Intous Tablet" it includes a pressure sensitve pen and
it is recognized by "Paint", "Paintshop Pro", and others you can get the
effects you want.


"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
...
I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
exist. Drawing for publication, I've settled for using Photoshop Elements
and more latterly, Paint Shop Pro V8 for 'inking in' pencil drawings made
on
the drawing board and scanned into the computer.

This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work neatly on
ordinary drawing paper, smudges are easy to remove, and changes fairly
easy
to make. Changing line widths is very convenient.

However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get with
careful
freehand drawing.

Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.

Does anyone know of such an application existing today?

And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
Elements, and found they do not meet this need.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

In article , Sam Soltan
wrote:

If you get a "Wacom Intous Tablet" it includes a pressure sensitve pen and
it is recognized by "Paint", "Paintshop Pro", and others you can get the
effects you want.

I'll echo that. We use the Wacoms at work. They're terrific.

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

If you can get your mitts on a program
like 3dStudio Max or Caligari Truespace
and take the trouble to learn the basics,
you'll find that these programs fit
seamlessly into your collection of
shop tools. Very intuitive, and fast,
and accurate enough for wood.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:

"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
exist.

Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a steep
part of the "learning curve".

By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?

You draw all your objects 1:1 and let CAD generate the dimensions for
you.

When you do a plot, the CAD programs I'm familiar with allow you
to layout views of your drawing on a `canvas'. In AutoCAD this is
called `paper space' and you can end up with various views of your
drawing plotted on your bit of paper to different scales. ie. you
might want to `blow-up'/do a partial view of an intricate bit of the
drawing.

More basic CAD programs might not allow you to do that. I'm afraid I
don't know about QuickCAD. If it doesn't, then you have to do more
than one plot at different scales.

You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
(automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

"Frank Shute" wrote in message
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:

By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension
a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?

You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
(automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.

Thanks, using the "rectangle tool" and _drawing a rectangle to units_ with
the mouse is the way I currently do it, but that's not quite what I was
tallking about. Doing it this way is dicey according to how you have "snap
to" set, at least with this program, and requires any adjustments to the
length and width of a rectangle/square to be done via mouse.

In QuickCAD, a straight line has a length dimension which can be
input/edited with a keyboard entry once the line is drawn.

A rectangle/square has two of these dimensions, one for height and one for
length. In QuickCAD, inputting the line length via keyboard was not that
hard to figure out, but inputting the rectangle/square dimensions still
escape me.

I've used programs in the past where it was possible to input the two
lengths of the sides of a rectangle.square via keyboard, so figured that
QuickCAD would allow this ... I could be wrong, or it could be simple and
staring me in the face and I just haven't "snapped to" it yet. If it's in
the Help file, it's well hidden!

As woodworkers, we use mostly rectangles in our drawings, so being able to
edit/adjust/input the length and width of say, a rail or stile, quickly by
keyboard, without the mouse, would be handy, at least in the admittedly
amateur way I use the program.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply.

... still wondering.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04

On 2004/2/27 12:22 PM, "Jay Windley" wrote:



| However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
| with careful freehand drawing.

This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings.

Personally, I have no problem with the lack of character in machine
generated drawings. What does get in the way is the lack of any judgment as
to what details to include. With any complex design, there are parts that
are pretty obvious and other where I need more detail to understand what is
going on. When I view something using the electronic tools, I can control
those dynamically as needed, zooming in/out, turning on/off various
dimensioning, etc. But when a drawing is prepared, either electronically or
on paper, it locks in a certain level of detail that may or may not be right
for what I want to do. Humans, especially when they are familiar with their
audience, can make judgments about where to show more detail or to emphasize
certain parts. This is similar to the way that cartographers may distort
scale in some parts of a map in order to make significant objects show up
better.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:31:39 -0600, Swingman wrote:

"Frank Shute" wrote in message
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:

By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension
a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?

You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
(automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.

Thanks, using the "rectangle tool" and _drawing a rectangle to units_ with
the mouse is the way I currently do it, but that's not quite what I was
tallking about. Doing it this way is dicey according to how you have "snap
to" set, at least with this program, and requires any adjustments to the
length and width of a rectangle/square to be done via mouse.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.


In QuickCAD, a straight line has a length dimension which can be
input/edited with a keyboard entry once the line is drawn.

I've got the picture now


A rectangle/square has two of these dimensions, one for height and one for
length. In QuickCAD, inputting the line length via keyboard was not that
hard to figure out, but inputting the rectangle/square dimensions still
escape me.

I downloaded the manual from Autodesk. You want to look at the stuff
about relative coordinates on p.105 of your manual. It looks like you
pick the first corner of your rectangle and then press R and punch in
where you want the opposite corner relative to the first point in the
dialog (you will be able to use negative values also).

Absolute coordinates are another feature you want to get familiar with
if you haven't already.


I've used programs in the past where it was possible to input the two
lengths of the sides of a rectangle.square via keyboard, so figured that
QuickCAD would allow this ... I could be wrong, or it could be simple and
staring me in the face and I just haven't "snapped to" it yet. If it's in
the Help file, it's well hidden!

It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:

@15,30

or whatever.

Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.


As woodworkers, we use mostly rectangles in our drawings, so being able to
edit/adjust/input the length and width of say, a rail or stile, quickly by
keyboard, without the mouse, would be handy, at least in the admittedly
amateur way I use the program.

Sure.


Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply.

No worries.


... still wondering.


Hope the above helps.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

"Frank Shute" wrote in message

I downloaded the manual from Autodesk. You want to look at the stuff
about relative coordinates on p.105 of your manual. It looks like you
pick the first corner of your rectangle and then press R and punch in
where you want the opposite corner relative to the first point in the
dialog (you will be able to use negative values also).

Absolute coordinates are another feature you want to get familiar with
if you haven't already.
snip

It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:

@15,30

or whatever.

Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.


Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
you know how it turns out.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04

In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" wrote:

It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:

@15,30

or whatever.

Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.


Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
you know how it turns out.

That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.

You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:

@645

Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
would go up to the right. To go up to the left:

@6135

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:21:04 GMT, (Bruce) wrote:

In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" wrote:

It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:

@15,30

or whatever.

Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.


Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
you know how it turns out.

That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.

You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:

@645

Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
would go up to the right. To go up to the left:

@6135




or (i think) @6-225
G

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:21:04 GMT, Bruce wrote:

In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" wrote:

It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:

@15,30

or whatever.

Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.


Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
you know how it turns out.

That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.

You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:

@645

These are known as polar coordinates rather than relative/rectangular
coordinates. He's also using QuickCAD and not AutoCAD, so I don't
know if that input notation will work with his software.


Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
would go up to the right. To go up to the left:

@6135

The post was about drawing a rectangle so polar coordinates aren't a
lot of use in that situation....or I've never found them to be. Useful
for lines as you indicate and Swingman can find out how to use them on
p.107 of his manual.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

In rec.woodworking
(Frank Shute) wrote:

These are known as polar coordinates rather than relative/rectangular
coordinates. He's also using QuickCAD and not AutoCAD, so I don't
know if that input notation will work with his software.

Relative coordinates refer to the origin and whether or not they are
rectangular or polar is irrelevant.

@6135

The post was about drawing a rectangle so polar coordinates aren't a
lot of use in that situation....or I've never found them to be.

Actually, they will indeed plot a rectangle. If you do @645, it will draw
a square with 6" between opposing corners. OTOH, I was simply trying to
familiarize the gentleman with relative coords of all types. I did NOT
imply that they they were useful for rectangles. I humbly beg your
forgiveness for deviating from the subject by the nth degree.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
|
| I was getting 'A's on work that twenty years prior would have
| gotten me thrown out of class.

Many industries have relaxed their formalisms. Engineering used to be all
about consistency. And to a certain extent, and when the stakes are high,
it still is. But it used to be a lot more formal than it is now. We have
become more pragmatic. A drawing is still good even if it has chocolate
smudges on it.

As I said, my "shop drawings" consist usually of something drawn free-hand
on an engineer's pad with dimensions indicated (so I don't have to draw it
to scale). That works for me because the drawing is meant only as an
accumulation of my design ideas, and a guide to remembering details as I
work. I'm the only one who sees those drawings. If I had to show them to
someone else, say to convince them to buy it, I'd obviously want to spend
more time on the drawings. Whether I did them freehand or with CAD would
depend on whether I expected to have to regenerate the drawings.

I know people who use CAD to generate basic perspective or other views of
objects, then trace over them with pen and ink to make color renderings.
This is good because it preserves the desirable look and feel of
hand-rendered drawings, while avoiding the tedium and error of scale
drawing. And often CAD must be used on these projects for other reasons.

I still work in the mode where the designs I produce have to be made by
someone else. And though I use CAD for these, because I have to change them
periodically, I can't just send off the digital model computer file to the
manufacturer. His fabrication techniques (sheet metal stamping, etc.) don't
often benefit from 3D CAD models. He needs drawings. Thankfully I can
generate the drawings he needs, but until this sort of thing is remedied
we'll still need to communicate by means of standard drawings.

This is what would happen in a more production-oriented woodshop. More
formalized communication from designer to craftsman, or from foreman to
operator, is necessary.

| I've seen people who can pick up a pad and pencil and freehand
| working drawings that are better than what I can do on a table. I am
| in awe of this talent.

I studied under these sorts of people. I know what you're talking about.

| But is there a difference between their CAD and my CAD? Not really.

No, and I've seen these people get very disgusted with CAD. CAD, done well,
requires a new way of thinking about drawing.

Let's say you want to build a chest of drawers. You lay out the outer
dimensions of a face frame and then want to know the size of the openings
for the drawers. There is an algebraic relationship between the thickness
of the pieces for the face frame, and the width of the drawer openings. If
you have material on hand for the face frame, you can think of the face
frame parts having a maximum width determined by that on-hand stock, minus
material removed in squaring and surfacing.

You may have selected material for the drawers, and the dimensions of that
raw stock may suggest a minimum or maximum dimension for the drawers. You
can navigate through those constraints and come up with a suitable design.
CAD can help. You can "program" your design so that the drawer opening
width must be the total width of the piece minus twice the width of the face
frame pieces. Or similarly you can program the design so that the final
width is the predetermined width of the drawers plus twice the face frame
width. This is what we call parametric design. Old-hat designers do it
too, but you have to get them used to encoding the relationships between
design parameters in the computer model instead of keeping them in their
heads or on notepads. That's where the real power of CAD begins to shine.

Then of course there are people who just want a quick rendering tool and who
are still quite comfortable keeping the design parameters in their heads or
scribbled in notebooks. They may need to make "presentation" copies of the
plans without erasures or chocolate smudges, and so the "draw once, print
many" paradigm helps. Or they may want to go back later and change the
design. Or they may just not like hand rendering as much as mousing.

I've worked with many talented designers, and I see some who say, "Forget
this mouse crap; just give me my drawing table back." And I see others who
look at the parametric design features of modern CAD systems and say, "Where
have you been all my life?"

-- Jay

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.)

Being a dedicated Mac user at home and being forced to use Windoze at
work, I find that sometimes the best solution to this type of problem is
running Windoz software using Virtual PC on the Mac. If you have a G4
or better you probably won't notice much speed difference. I run the
Windoze version of Office 2000 on my Mac if I'm doing work stuff because
it assures compatibility ( I know the Mac and Windoze versions are
supposed to be cross compatible but when it comes to complex graphics
they are definitely not). I don't really notice a significant speed
difference with Office 2000 - that is using a 900+MHz Pentium 4 at work
and a single processor 867 MHz G4 at home.

--
To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net

Steve James wrote:


Being a dedicated Mac user at home and being forced to use Windoze at
work, I find that sometimes the best solution to this type of problem is
running Windoz software using Virtual PC on the Mac. If you have a G4
or better you probably won't notice much speed difference. I run the
Windoze version of Office 2000 on my Mac if I'm doing work stuff because
it assures compatibility ( I know the Mac and Windoze versions are
supposed to be cross compatible but when it comes to complex graphics
they are definitely not). I don't really notice a significant speed
difference with Office 2000 - that is using a 900+MHz Pentium 4 at work
and a single processor 867 MHz G4 at home.


Virtual PC emulates a rather poor video card, probably not up to snuff
for many CAD programs.

-Bruce



-----= 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! =-----

Mark wrote:

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


Although you are right about this...you should remember your signature
before continuing conversations like these

--
-=SW=-

SWalters wrote:
Mark wrote:


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



Although you are right about this...you should remember your signature
before continuing conversations like these



Welcome to last year.

Since it's been so long you could at least include a bit of whatever your
referencing so we know what you mean. ?








--
--

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:

Welcome to last year.

Since it's been so long you could at least include a bit of whatever
your referencing so we know what you mean. ?

It was 1 1/2 months ago. Sorry for the short memory or do you always get
into arguments?

It was the first time I checked out this newsgroup as I converse in many
others. I didn't even realize how long ago that post was made because of
this. I'm suprised of the amount of unfriendly posts I've read so far since
it's such a specific topic.

--
-=SW=-