# 3D Drafting and Design Software Comparison



## JorgensenSteam (Oct 12, 2010)

I have noticed that a number of HMEM folks are using 3D software, and I have tried using one of the less expensive 3D packages with little success.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Oct 13, 2010)

I work in 3D every day. When I first made the leap from 2D to 3D, I did a lot of market research. Solidworks, Solid Edge, and Inventor by Autodesk were the leading contenders. Solid Edge has since fallen off the edge of the world. The main contenders now are Solidworks and Inventor, used by most major engineering houses.---Brian


----------



## jpeter (Oct 13, 2010)

I use Inventor cuz its whats available where I work. Its what I used to design my v8. Check it out .
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9zt3SF_Flc[/ame]
I don't know how the old guys did complex designs w/o tools like Inventor. These modern parametric drafting programs make it so easy to check fits and interferences. It seems almost undoable without these tools. I know on the v8 lots of parts run within thousands of each other without interference and when built will need to run with the same closeness. I know on the v8 too, at least for me, getting all the parts to fit together would have been a nightmere without the aid of the parametric drafting program and its ability to actually spin the engine before building it. 
Although I've never used Solidworks guys I know in the biz are pretty high on it. Sounds a lot like Inventor. No doubt they're both pretty good. Both are pricy though if you don't have a source. There are others too. A friend at one of the large auto companies uses Cateia and another guy I know in the mold making biz uses pro engineer and Mastercam. I use Mastercam a lot. Once again cuz its available at work.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Oct 13, 2010)

JPeter---I am one of "The Old Guys".---worked on a drafting board for 32 years before transitioning to CAD about 13 years ago. I did a lot of complex stuff, and I was very good, but the guys who absolutely blew me away were the fellows who were born around 1910 or so, and had worked all their life in engineering offices. (This was in 1965 or so). My God---They were like MACHINES--the things they could bring to life on paper.----Brian


----------



## GWRdriver (Oct 13, 2010)

jpeter  said:
			
		

> I don't know how the old guys did complex designs w/o tools like Inventor. These modern parametric drafting programs make it so easy to check fits and interferences. It seems almost undoable without these tools.


Simple . . . they were educated and conditioned to use pencil, paper, slide rule, and their brains to do the job. Such things were sketched, thought out, checked arithmetically, and commited to paper, sometimes several times. I'm one of the old guys too (but not THAT old) and I loved Cad when it came along in my profession, it changed a lot of things. It also became one of my most useful modeling tools, but then everything became awash in 3D. The field and shop liked 3D because now they didn't have to think as much, do the transfer from 2D to 3D in their heads, how this or that assembly had to be put together. That's not to say that the old guys were any more intelligent or talented than later generations, they had different obstacles to overcome and they just had to think more to do it.

In the last few years I have seen 3D drawings sets for model locomotive projects for sale which were done by someone proficient at 3D drawing but who didn't know how to design the details of a live steam locomotive model. More importantly, although the 3D drawings were beautiful and the author's graphics talents apparent, IMHO a working live steam model could not be built from the information shown therein, and they weren't cheap! In the last couple of years I've had a couple of people contact me to ask about one of those designers in particlular and my advice was this, contact the author and ask if a successful running example of the design has been built. Ask for the name and contact information of the builder, or builders, and photos. If that information can't be produced then don't buy the drawings, unless you are willing to accept them as "illustrations" rather than working drawings.


----------



## jpeter (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm one of the old guys too. I switched over to cad way back though, around 1990. I too see quite a few designs published on this forum I'd suggest get modeled, assembled, in some modeling program such as Inventor and try to spin it a few times. So, I give the manual guys a lot of credit for getting done what they "done." Never-the-less you have to admit these days products are pretty neatly put together. I attribute a lot of that to modern modeling tools and of course CNC.


----------



## jpeter (Oct 13, 2010)

Students often can get deeply discounted versions of these cad products. A short class in the local community college might be turned to advantage.


----------



## rleete (Oct 13, 2010)

I currently use SolidWorks, but previously used Inventor. A mechanical designer by trade, I actually have a degree in CAD, and the engineering part is secondary. I started out on Computervision way back when, and have learned about a dozen different systems over the years. Several of them don't even exist anymore.

Re: Inventor vs. Solidworks. Both packages have their advantages and disadvantages. Simulation/animation is easier in Inventor, in my opinion. SolidWorks translation package is second to none, so if you need to import files from other systems, that's the one to get. Both have particular ways of handling files. Inventor has a very structured way it handles files, and it can be confusing to those not very computer savy. SW is less structured, but it can also be less flexible.

A heck of a lot of the comparisons are BS generated by those trying to get you to buy one over the other. Both are far more user friendly than anything from 15 years ago. Tutorials can get even the slowest user up to making parts, assemblies and drawings in no time.


----------



## cfellows (Oct 13, 2010)

The only one I know of that seems to be within reach of the hobbyist and still maintains a degree of professionalism is Alibre. That's the one that I use, although I'm not a professional draftsment (or even close). I'm slowly learning to use Alibre and still have a ways to go. I believe quite a few folks on the forum also use Alibre and are probably more proficient with it than I am.

Chuck


----------



## kf2qd (Oct 13, 2010)

Depending on how much time you want to spend learning vs. drawing... I started out with AutoCAD LT and, like the old pencil and paper designers, I created a lot of pieces, parts and assemblies with 2D. I have since done some 3D work drawing up the frame for a Lotus 7 clone and could not have done it without 3D. Most of teh drawings I have done for manufactureing would not have gained anything by being done in 3D as they still had to be printed out in 2D because thats all the paper was capable of. I have seen some 3D designs that sucked when they were put on paper because they were not planned for production, just to look good in 3D. it is nice to model things in 3D, but with proper use of layers (and what I think they were created for...) you can do a lot of modeling in 2D to check how things will run together.
It will not let you make better designs, parts or assemblies. You still need the ability to visualize what you want before you can create it on any CAD system. I have done some 3D modeling with an AutoCAD clone called ProgeCAD Pro. The main strong pioint is that it cost $400 for the full version. You will still need to learn how to use the program and the learning curve is fairly steep. You have to figure out what you want to do, Figure out what the command is, and then figure out all the optional forms of that command,some of which you might find useful, and then you have to figure out how to do all that stuff in 3D with a whole new set of commands and procedures that may or may not relate to the 2D commands...

It will take time, frustration and an bunch of patience.

I will try to post a 3D rendering of a model airplane engine that is teh avatar under my name... Home computer has a virus...


----------



## aussie bruce (Oct 13, 2010)

Just my two bobs worth i have the luxury of Solidworks here at work so my lunch break is for me i have been working on Pisces II a flash steam hydroplane motor 
Pic's hopefully attached ;D

My experience for the last couple of years is Rubber Moulding tooling, and design and many years ago i did Autocad 12 

I can only say i don't want to go back to 2 d ever again.

The ability to model and assemble the item and then edit in assembly is too important to me. especially the ability to articulate your moulds in animation and perform crash detection and interferences. 

importing DWG files is very quick and easy to do from our old legacy drawings.

I don't actually pull the drawing sheets up until late in the design phase put having the drawing update from the model is priceless. 

I tend to think as a machinist when drawing, Bar Plate Billet etc and then drill tap mill away the bits i dont want it helps in the learning stages 

Bruce


----------



## deere_x475guy (Oct 13, 2010)

I also use Alibre. I purchased it a little over a year ago and I also have the maintenance which is going to give me the new release free. I am using it as an HSMer (new word ???) and so far I am very pleased with it. I tried most of the others out there and didn't have much success. I think Alibre's tutorials helped to set me up for success better than the rest.

I think Steve Hucks used Alibre to model is V8 he is currently building...maybe he will stop by this thread.


----------



## jpeter (Oct 13, 2010)

Aussie Bruce said it best. I say those who haven't yet experienced 3d modeling greatly underestimate its design power. I get the idea lots think 3d modeling is somehow just a faster route to a finished 2d shop drafting. The power of 3d parametric modeling is mind boggling. Finding a poorly chosen size when creating a virtual assembly, and having the ability to change that dimension and have that change cascade down through the entire project, 2d shop drawings included, is just crazy. Just an example: After virtually assembling the v8 I decided I'd designed it too long to look good. by narrowing up the rods, bringing the cylinders closer together, I could gain the appearance I wanted. I only needed to change a few dimensions and the job was done. Had I had only 2d drawings I'd have had to start over. Also, creating a new part in an assembly view provides for perfectly aligned features from one 2d view to another such as locating head bolt holes in the block and also in the head. You also get to see interferences from one part to another such as, "will the spark plug clear the exhaust manifold?" Here's another example, "is the tappet wide enough for the cam?" After the cam is designed you can animate it and watch how it interacts with the tappet as it gets rotated. As you can tell, I'm voting for 3d modeling.


----------



## dsquire (Oct 14, 2010)

aussie bruce  said:
			
		

> I tend to think as a machinist when drawing, Bar Plate Billet etc and then drill tap mill away the bits i dont want it helps in the learning stages
> 
> Bruce



Bruce

I believe that statement may be the key to making 3d easier to learn for some shapes. When I read that, it just jumped out at me as I know how frustrated I have become at times. When I have time I will have to go back and give it a try using this approach. :bow:

Cheers 

Don


----------



## kuhncw (Oct 14, 2010)

I feel Alibre Design is a good 3D package for the home shop. It seems like alot of value for the cost. I felt it didn't take long to get up and running on simple parts and it's learn as you go on the more complex parts.

I still use a 2D package called Visual Cadd, which came from the old Generic Cadd back in the DOS days. I use the 3D most of the time, but run the 2D now and then. I find the 2D very good for a quick layout of crank centers, rod ends, top deck height, etc when working on an engine design.

Regards,

Chuck Kuhn


----------



## rleete (Oct 14, 2010)

aussie bruce  said:
			
		

> I tend to think as a machinist when drawing, Bar Plate Billet etc and then drill tap mill away the bits i dont want it helps in the learning stages



It's always a good practice to build up a part the way it's going to be made. For a part like we make, say, a steam chest, you take a chunk, and whittle away until you get the shape. That way it's logical.

But you have to be able to work the other way, as well. For injection molded parts, you make them the way the material flows. For weldments, you build them up. Molds are a whole nuther story.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Oct 14, 2010)

I have and use alibe CAD I am getting used to it. you can download the full version and use it for free for IIRC 30 days , may be 90 and the basic version is afordable. 
Tin


----------



## aussie bruce (Oct 14, 2010)

rleete  said:
			
		

> But you have to be able to work the other way, as well. For injection molded parts, you make them the way the material flows. For weldments, you build them up. Molds are a whole nuther story.



Um not quite that hard in 3D mate ;D
1 Make model of finished part
2 Draw a block of steel 
3 do an assembly model and stick the bit in the middle of the block 
4 Do a cut option ie shell the block of steel (block of steel minus model)
5 insert split lines 
6 Mould is finished
7 Insert from your local vendor you alignment pins (cad models)
8 minus one from the other and your alignment is done 
9 cut some runners in the mould 
10 Run MOLDFLOWEXPRESS ie inject your material set your temps etc and run it 

I know its a simplistic reply and i do not mean to sound flipant or smart and to do a 10 cavity tool and get the runners just right and balanced can take me a week solid.

But once you know your way around it the power of parametric modeling is addictive 

Best regards all 
Bruce


----------



## Captain Jerry (Oct 14, 2010)

I am a big fan of Alibre'. I tried other programs that had free trials and downloaded some shareware programs and even tried Google Sketchup. Until Alibre" nothing quite "clicked". I was using a shareware 2D program that I had gotten quite comfortable with but my only formal training goes back about 65 years when it was on the drawing board. Like anything new there is a period of adjustment and learning (and unlearning ). The greatest thing that I like about 3D modeling the ability to design and immediately view the object from any angle and to rotate it in real time. I also like the ability to assemble a model with unfinished parts. For example many of the parts in the attached animation are not finished. The forward/reverse lever is just square bars but in the assembly, it is fully functional and can be raised and lowered to shift the quadrant. The only thing that is important is the length of the lever arms and the pivot position and I can modify those as much as i want to and test the affect on the motion. Later, I can go back and bling up the lever keeping the key dimensions.


http://screencast.com/t/O6VKgJWNo0

I agree with all of the previous comments "Think like a machinist" or as I would say, "Make parts, not drawings". After you have made the part, the program will make the drawing. Start out with a round or flat bar or plate and mill, turn and shape it with the software. It helps you design parts than can be made.

I have imported both 2D and 3D files into Alibre' with generally good results. The files that did not import well were files that were created by 3rd rate programs that could "export" a DFX or DWG and I think the problems were caused by the "export".

The catch is, Alibre' will not create a 3D model from a 2D file, not even its own 2D drawings. There are some other limitations as well. Alibre' does not translate motion through belts or gears. You cannot model two gears, mesh them and then cause one of them to turn the other. Same for belts and pulleys.

I am only using the Basic version and there is an advanced option called "Motion" but from what I can tell from the product descriptions on line, Motion does not do gears and belts either. There is a very active on line forum that answers a lot of the questions that come up and can help with some workarounds. It is a viable product that is improving although clearly not up to the capability of Solidworks or any of the other Gold Plated programs but is was within my budget and does what I expect it to do.

My 2 cents and change.

Jerry


Edit: if you saw this page with a bunch of HTML code, I was trying to imbed video from Screencast.com and didn't get it right. I'll try again.


----------



## Chazz (Oct 15, 2010)

Here's my 2 pesos. As that Fellow(s), Chuck and others opined several points about Alibre and, being an 'Old School' chicken-scratch-on-a-napkin type of sketcher, this is my forray into the world of CAD.

First, I spent a couple of weekends playing with a few different drawing programs, Second, I did some research (how much the CFO would allow in the budget), Third, I kindly thanked the paramedics for their speedy response upon my discovering the pricing on some of these programs. 

Based on personal circumstances and common sense (I think) I decided on Alibre Personal edition.
1. My machinery is all manual so currently (gonna win the lotto) I have no need to pay for the CAM aspect of a CAD\CAM system.
2. I spent only 2 weekends with their video demos and tutorials as well as the built in tutorials and pretty much have been able to draw what I imagine I want to draw with not as much frustration as I was expecting, nor as difficult a learning curve as I imagined.
3. Should I ever need\afford added features, there pricing seems to be the most reasonable with their advanced products also.
4. 10 Brownie Points. When I first tabled a budget request of $400~$1,200 for a 'Drawing' program, you could well imagine the boards reaction to my request, however, upon re-tabling a budget amendment to $100 won the boards overwhelming approval.

Cheers,
Chazz


----------



## jpeter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey, just to backup my pervious comment about price, I did a google search for educational prices of gold standard 3d parametric modeling software. What I found is Solidworks Student Edition cost $140; Inventor Student Edition is $205. Thats not too far out of reach for most.


----------



## deere_x475guy (Oct 15, 2010)

For me there would still be the learning curve. Plus, I am not a student.....and if you are a student what does support cost?


----------



## jpeter (Oct 15, 2010)

Good point about not being a student. Some would be ok with just knowing a student. 

Anyway, I look at the learning curve much like I looked at it when starting this hobby. Any day I learned something new was a good day. There is a learning curve to these programs. W/O help it might be pretty steep. I know though a couple of hours with an Invertor user would give one a pretty good start.


----------



## rcfreak177 (Oct 27, 2010)

G'day Pat J,
 I too use Alibre, I purchased the personal edition for $120.00 AUS.
I am way too tight fisted to spend $3000.00 for the 4 axis cam plug in so I bought Meshcam for $180.00. I can draw in Alibre 3D then export the file as a STL format then import into Meshcam for 3D post processing, Including 4th axis rotary table function. The only down side is you can not do continuous rotary machining but with a bit of planning I can find a solution most of the time. I reckon both packages work well together and it all came for under $500.00. Alibre is quite easy to learn and the support network is quite good.

Barry.


----------



## gbritnell (Nov 3, 2010)

I started out on the 'board' with the Ford Motor Co. I was a pattern designer for the casting division. We created large linen master drawings, they were 42" tall and the lengths could be up to 8' at times. I worked with fellows who had a great understanding of drafting, projection and just plain visualization of three dimensional parts. 
 After making drawings with pencils, and mechanical protractor heads along came our first introduction to the electronic world. I believe the program we used was Computervision. They weren't doing very well and Ford funded them by using their product exclusively. 
 When these programs first came out parts had to be created with projected solids or patched with surfaces. No one was into parametrics at that time. 
 Working with the casting division everything we drew had fillets or radii on the corners. These early programs didn't like filleting at all, sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.
 Years passed, software came and went, things got better and way more expensive. To purchase what was known as a 'seat' or one license cost thousands of dollars. 
 After that brief resume I'll get to my point. 
 For the home modeler who doesn't have access to CNC why do you need a solid modeling program. In some cases the learning curve is steep and in others without proper schooling you might as well forget it. 
 I don't mean to step on anyone's toes who uses it but just to have it to see if mating parts might interfere isn't worth the time it takes to learn it. 
 In this hobby most of the people can operate a mill and lathe. These are necessities. From this point a few branch out to CNC, pouring their own castings, EDM work, anodizing and quite a few others. Wherever your interests take you and you can afford it by all means give it a try.
 Having come up designing parts with basic tools I use a good 2D program to do all of my work. Yes I have a 3D program but I only 'play' with it as part of my hobby. 
 To do any kind of design work a person needs a very good understanding of what a part looks like in modeling space and how that equates to putting it on paper or in this case on a computer screen. 
 The lead in to this thread asked the question about software comparisons. I have another question. What do you need it for? 
 As I stated earlier, I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but it seems like people are looking for something they don't really need. 
gbritnell


----------



## steamer (Nov 3, 2010)

George makes a good point.

Just knowing how to "drive" the code won't design a quality engine or part.

We must invest in our own education to do that.

Dave


----------



## Dan Rowe (Nov 3, 2010)

George,
I do not really disagree with you, I spend most of my time drafting with 2D. This is partly because I work with original Lima Locomotive Works drawings and they are all 2D and made a full size engine.

The one use of 3D that I use is to get patterns printed or metal parts printed. The learning curve is step but for some cases it is worth it in my opinion.

Dan


----------



## gbritnell (Nov 3, 2010)

Hi Dan,
I totally agree with you. It's a wonderful tool if you have a use for it, most of us don't. If a person understands 2D drawings they can design and draw what they need and it will get them by quite well. I have a bunch of 3D models that I have created. They just sit in a folder and every once in awhile I open them and say "boy those are really cool". Then I put them back to bed. I don't know whether this will open or not but I'm attaching the model I just made of my V-twin crankcase, gear side. It keeps me sharp with modeling but I have no further use for it.
George 

View attachment V-twin ccase master cam model.doc


----------



## jpeter (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't think MC9 is quite at the modeling level to which the thread speaks. Programs being addressed are considered parametric and can create assemblies and moving simulations with constraints and flexable joints. MasterCam can import solid models from these programs and generate some nice tool paths for your CNC but I'm not sure its billed as a top tier solid modeling program.


----------



## gbritnell (Nov 3, 2010)

Jim,
I think you missed my point here. No matter what the 3D modeling program is, what is the home engine builder going to do with it. Most of the fellows that use it come from a background of using it on their job. If a person wants to learn it more power to them but after they've gone through the learning curve and built a simple model, then what?
George


----------



## Maryak (Nov 3, 2010)

George,

As a 2D man I agree with you. The thing is I have Turbocad 12 professional and there is all this stuff about lofting and extruding etc. I have had a crack at 3D using TC12 but as yet I can't get my head around it with any real success.

For me the bottom line is "I want to understand it." rather than I need to understand it. The 3rd axis appears to have no logic in the scheme of things but I'm sure that's me, not the program. Any expansion of knowledge is usually a good thing. From drawing board to 2D CAD lifted me from a poor drawer to being able to share an idea across the planet and have a better than even chance of the person at the other end being able to decipher my intent. I think 3D, (when I get the hang of it), would increase my chances even further.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## RonGinger (Nov 3, 2010)

I bought several versions of TurboCad and got pretty good using it in 2D mode. I use it to create layouts that are then run through Sheetcam to generate Gcode for my CNC machine. For this it is great.

I tried several times to understand its 3D ability and it drove me pure nuts. I eventually got Alibre and got into 3D very quick and easy.

I really believe Alibre as a solid modeler is a great benefit to a home shop guy. The ability to design parts, see accurate renderings form any view, test fits and clearances, is very helpful.

I cannot even imagine trying to do a design as complicated as Georges Vtwin in a 2D CAD system. Id call that cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Nov 3, 2010)

I agree Alibe is a great tool the home guy that wants to design an an engine a machine or whatever very powerfull not teribly difficult to learn and not overly expensive. for the hobby version. 
Tin


----------



## vascon2196 (Nov 29, 2010)

SolidWorks is definately the way to go. I had 4-years of board drafting until I was introduced to 2D Autocad in 1996. I used Autocad for about 5-years after that until the company I was working for switched to SolidWorks. I hated every minute of it and it was not an easy transition....for about 3-weeks. Once you build your first assembly and make changes, you will then see how powerful the program is. You really have to use it to appreciate it. Since then I have used Pro-E, SolidWorks, Inventor, and Alibre but SolidWorks still takes the cake (for me anyway).

If you navigate to the "Help" section in SolidWorks, there is a 2D to 3D transition page that helps the big move to 3D. It explains the differences between "o-snaps and constraints" and so on.

I have at least 2-dozen steam engines in SolidWorks and they "run" great on screen.

Chris


----------



## Maryak (Nov 30, 2010)

At last,

My present has arrived.







Right now I don't know if my workplane is by world by facet or by entity............. In fact I feel a none entity.

My world co-ordinates are out of this world

My user co-ordinates are more abused than used

My entity co-ordinates are in a similar fix to my workplane.

And to think I'm doing this for fun. ;D

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Maryak (Nov 30, 2010)

Pat J,

Thanks for the support. :bow:

At this stage I have no desire to extrude anything although the DVD is a candidate for lofting. :

Best Regards
bob


----------



## aussie bruce (Nov 30, 2010)

Pat J  said:
			
		

> Screenshot No.14 is a new part, which is a rectangle that was extruded, and then two holes where drawn in the top plane and Extruded Cut through the piece.
> 
> Perfect example of a common piece of steel with 2 holes drilled in it
> in latter examples you use your design tables those holes can change dia or location without affecting the base part
> ...


----------



## doc1955 (Nov 30, 2010)

I use Unigraphics NX at work it's way to spendy to get personal copies but they did mention they were going to offer a student license. Del Cam offers a free package I have not tried it as I can use NX and have used it since I graduated way back from the T square and board. :big:
DelCam


----------



## vascon2196 (Dec 2, 2010)

Pat,

I just looked through all of the screen shots. Let me put some screen shots of my own together of me building a piston, crankshaft, and an eccentric for starters. There are a few golden rules of 3D CAD that I would like to share with you. As for assemblies, yes you can build each part separate and then build an assembly from your parts. You can also create parts "on the fly" in an assembly but that can get confusing, especially for a beginner.

Give me some time and I will post some screen shots.

Chris


----------



## vascon2196 (Dec 2, 2010)

O.K. Pat.....instead of screen shots I took video screen captures of me creating a crank disc, crank pin, and then assembling both parts together. I also downloaded a 4-40 set screw from McMaster Carr. Almost everything they sell is available as a SolidWorks CAD model.

I hope you can view them....and I hope they help.

One major thing to remember is your sketch relations. I go over sketch relations with my students for two classes before they extrude anything. Sketch relations govern your sketch geometry. Without them you would have lines, arcs, and circles just floating around. Dimensions are the simplest form of sketch relations, they govern the size of the geometry. A "vertical" relation added to a "line" is telling SolidWorks that the line you just created is a vertical line...not a horizontal line or a diagonal line. Try and familiarize yourself with the sketch relations, they are the key to any good and more importantly "stable" CAD model.

Also, if you see "blue" geometry in your sketch..this means the sketch is "under-defined" and it is missing a sketch relation or a dimension. You want your sketch geometry to have solid black entities. Another indication that you are missing a relation is a negative sign to the left of your sketch located in the feature manager design tree. Usually located on the left side of the screen.

























Good luck.

Chris


----------



## Hilmar (Dec 2, 2010)

Hi Bob,
let me know how You like the Book. How useful is it?I have TC 14
Hilmar


----------



## aussie bruce (Dec 2, 2010)

Hey chris very nice little tutorials mate i wish i could work out how you do this.

Very important point too regarding relations and under defined dimensions its so long ago that i since i was learning ie never leave a sketch with dimensions ie blue 

Bruce


----------



## doc1955 (Dec 2, 2010)

vascon2196  said:
			
		

> O.K. Pat.....instead of screen shots I took video screen captures of me creating a crank disc, crank pin, and then assembling both parts together. I also downloaded a 4-40 set screw from McMaster Carr. Almost everything they sell is available as a SolidWorks CAD model.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris



Almost all our vendors offer cad models it makes tooling design easier to use new products when you don't need to first model them up to see if they will work in you tool designs.
SolidWorks and UG NX are very similar I've used both I have also used Catia which I hate I've also used auto cad I would have to say SolidWorks or UG NX would be my favs. With the new NX 7.5 I think is in my opinion becoming the industry standard I believe the auto industry use's it Boeing use's Catia and NX as does our company. At work I run NX and Catia mostly NX on a 64bit -platform with dual monitors and 20 gigs of ram. 

Good job Chris on the videos.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 2, 2010)

I use Inventor. Like the solidworks suggestion I like the top down approach. First I mach up a major part like a block. Next, I add it to a blank assembly. Then, in the assembly view I start creating parts to add to the block, like a head or cylinder. In the assembly view I can add features to parts I may have intentionly or otherwise omitted. For example, I may have left out the bore for the cylinder. After I build the cylinder I can edit the block by adding the bore. 
 If you intend on making complex assemblies you'd better have a powerful computer with a pretty hot video card. These programs can bring a weak computer to its knees.


----------



## vascon2196 (Dec 3, 2010)

There is a sketch command called "ellipse" under the "sketch entities" drop down menu. You can make a tapered elipse many different ways. I have attached a Word document with several screen shots of the two most popular ways to construct a tapered elipse. There is also a SolidWorks model of a flywheel you can reverse engineer if you like.

I prefer the "loft" feature for creating tapered features. You can also do a simple extrude and add a draft angle. You can also use a "sweep" feature, and so on.

Chris


View attachment tapered spoke.doc













View attachment FW045-6S-T-RG-XXXX-CI.SLDPRT


----------



## Captain Jerry (Dec 3, 2010)

Here is a quick 8 spoke flywheel with tapered elliptical spokes, done in Alibre'
1 draw an ellipse to dimension
2 extrude to length with angular draft
3 circular pattern of spoke (8 copies @ 45deg around base of spoke)
4 overlay hub 
5 revolve cross section of rim around center of hub
6 fillet as desired


Jerry


----------



## kvom (Dec 4, 2010)

Seems a lot easier to draw elliptical spokes than to actually machine them.  ???


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2010)

"Seems a lot easier to draw elliptical spokes than to actually machine them. "

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsEipETufyI[/ame]

Check out my Lamina flywheel. Since CNC all my flywheels have tapered elliptical spokes. Can't remember if the Lamina flywheel got designed in Inventor or MasterCam. Whatever, MasterCam created the tool path. For creating a single part that has softened corners and some complex warped surfaces I'm kinda fond of MasterCam.


----------



## rleete (Dec 4, 2010)

I'm a Solidworks pro, and use it daily in my job. I design tooling with it. I've also used Inventor, ProE and several others. My degree is in CAD, and the mechanical stuff was secondary. That said just to give you an idea that I'm not just a weekend warrior.

So, several tips and observations. SW and the others will indeed do just about anything you can imagine, including things that are impossible to manufacture. It's a matter of knowing how to tell the computer what you want. That takes lots of practice.

1. ALWAYS pick the plane/surface before the operation. In other words, pick the surface or plane you want to cut before the cut. Doesn't make a difference in simpler parts, but can really cause problems for the novice if they get into more complicated stuff. It also avoids a 3D sketch, whic will be more confusing for the beginner. Naturally, there are exceptions to this, but for most stuff, it's a good rule to follow.

2. Try to build the part the way it will be made. If it's to be a casting, take a block and build on it. Use draft in the extrusions as you go. If it's to be machined from stock, take a block and hack away at it. Molds are made by cutting away, but molded parts are made by adding to it. This generally results in a more logical build, such that it is easier to incorporate changes later on.

3. Make the part simply. That's not to say it won't end up being complex, but the individual step should be simple. Don't cut a complex shape, cut a hole, a slot or a pocket, and add features as you go. Once again, this makes changes easier. Got a crankcase to hollow out? Cut out a square block, and add fillets later. Try to make all sketches fully defined so that later features don't give unpredictable results. 

4. Spokes can be made in several ways, as already demonstrated. There's also an advanced fillet option, when you can specify a start and end radius, rather than the revolved cut. As with most stuff in parametric CAD, there are several ways to do the same thing. Use whatever method you are most comfortable with.

5. Learn the menus! Learn how to customize them! There are a couple of ways to get to each feature/shape you want. Going through multiple dropdowns everytime you want a polygon is silly. Put the command on the sketch menu, and have it right there one click away.


Several others here have given good advice. Best thing I can tell you is to play with it, trying to get the shape you _want_, not settling for what it gives you if that's not exactly what you were trying to do. I've been doing this for almost 30 years, and I still learn new stuff.


----------



## RMS (Dec 4, 2010)

Hey All,

Thought I would just chime in here since I am a CAD user full time at my job though not a 3D expert since I process lots of 2D geometry for flat stock cutting like plate or sheet metal. Though I can do 3D, and at times I do. 

I have AutoCAD 2008, UGS NX 7.x, and Solid Works 2006 (though not using). My favorite for 3D is UGS NX BUT I kinda find making assemblies difficult and online training is not all that available. So I give Solid Works the nod here and training is more abundant. For sheet metal unfolds hands down UGS NX. 

For 2D work AutoCAD hands down my favorite and I create all my 2D parts first in AutoCAD then import them into NX for further processing into 3D.

*Alibre for the price looks like a real winner, Solid Works to me is a bit pricey now at $4k*

I also like to automate my CAD work and have been making custom applications to assist me. My latest application is this decimal calculator (see signature) that will automatically insert notes relating to tap data, hole size, drill#, and clearance drill sizes all at a button click.

Rob


----------



## RMS (Dec 5, 2010)

Pat J  said:
			
		

> Rob-
> 
> I agree, $4K is pricey for the home hobby market, and Alibre is a steal, but for my work, the plan is to use Solidworks for production, so there is much at stake as far as time, deadlines, client satisfaction, etc. and even a small savings in time can equal a large savings in money.
> 
> ...



Hey Pat,

About three years ago I took a college class on solid works version 2006. We did assemblies and the motor thing, even turned rotational assemblies by hand. Solid Works is a great CAD package, and I am sure even better now so you cannot go wrong with it! If you can take a night school class at a college on Solid Works see if you work will pay for half and do it. The college level classes are great to really understand and learn all the little tricks. I got my old book still and I will see If my work will move solid works back on my station so I can brush up on things I am a bit rusty now.

The only issue I had with Solid Works now I am not sure if it was with my student version, but sometimes many features in a complex model would become corrupt or un-editable and the file could no longer be used. Not sure if this was an old bug, or what. Have you or anyone ran into this?

Rob


----------



## jpeter (Dec 5, 2010)

I was just reading the student version is $99. Trouble is it times out in one year.
I also notice available for free is a student version of Inventor, not a shabby program either. Its what I use. A cursery look makes it appear as if the only down side to the free version is when printing the border of the print includes a banner informing it is not to be use for commercial purposes. Check it out.


----------



## RMS (Dec 5, 2010)

jpeter  said:
			
		

> I was just reading the student version is $99. Trouble is it times out in one year.
> I also notice available for free is a student version of Inventor, not a shabby program either. Its what I use. A cursery look makes it appear as if the only down side to the free version is when printing the border of the print includes a banner informing it is not to be use for commercial purposes. Check it out.



I had the student version, and I think it did two things; One is it does like you said prints a water mark and two if you merge files into a work version the work version will print the water mark for that file only. (hope that makes sense)

I would buy Inventor; I really think Auto Desk is a great company! (Big AutoCAD Fan here )

One of the great thing about AutoCAD is it comes with .net libraries/API's for Automating beginning around release 2005. Other packages make you pay for that about $2,500 extra.


----------



## pro-e-geek (Dec 7, 2010)

Any Pro-E users here?

I've been recreating a traction engine originally designed by Rudy Kouhoupt
from some plans that were in an old Popular Mechanics magazine. It's been a fun experience, especially creating moving mechanisms. I hope to have all my drawings
finished soon.

 Pro-E was hard to learn & is expensive, but I use at a day job so I am comforatable with it.
I would like to get my hands on SolidWorks though....(Student edition?)


----------



## rleete (Dec 7, 2010)

I knew ProE back in the day. It's been at least a decade since I saw it, much less used it.


----------



## Maryak (Dec 14, 2010)

To All you Cad gurus,

I don't know about Solidworks...............but after a week of SOLID WORK............Success with Turbocad V 14. ;D ;D ;D ;D

My 1st 3D Drawing that I did following Ken Doyle's excellent tutorial DVD.






.


I'm Chuffed................. You can teach an old dog new tricks. 

Now onto the worthwhile exercises.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## Maryak (Dec 14, 2010)

Pat J  said:
			
		

> I can draw shapes, but putting them in the right place on the right plane is not yet something I have mastered.



Yes, you draw something and when you look at it in isometric it's all gone somewhere you least expected. It's very hard to remember to sort out the workplane before you draw the part.



> Move over Brian, Bob is coming in with the 3D.
> Pat J



I WISH. :

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## TSConspiracy (Dec 23, 2010)

Hey, i will throw in my opinion and some facts that could help you with your decision with what 3d modeling software you should use. First off i love autodesk inventor, i've been using it throughout my years in school and have even designed a lot of stuff with it, below is a picture of a suspension assembly i designed in inventor.

Second, i think solidworks is a great program too, I do not have too much experience with it, but i do know it is a lighter, more reliable, and faster software than inventor. although i do not know its limitations.

Third, I saw you mentioned google sketchup. To me this is very generic modeling software. I looked into it a couple years ago, and it doesnt even come close to inventor or solidworks.





This is something i also posted in another thread i made awhile back. This is something that took me about 2 weeks or so, its the suspenion of an E-maxx, made by traxxas, but i re-designed it and compltely changed it. I used inventors rendering studio to get this realistic model.


----------



## Maryak (Jan 6, 2011)

Hi Guys,

After almost 4 weeks of blood sweat and tears not to mention reworks of the reworks of the mistakes and there is one notable one still left in the drawing below.........................but I now have a very basic understanding of 3D Cad and I am tickled pink.






Now I can say I'm in my 3rd element - only 2 to go :

The program is Turbo cad V 14.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## ironman (Jan 6, 2011)

Maryak, your 3D looks a lot better than mine. I use TC 12.5 Pro and TC 16.2 Deluxe. All I ever use is the 2D making drawings and plans. Haven't got the modeling in 3D thing in my head yet. Where did you get Ken Doyle's tutorial DVD?
I may need to get it. Keep learning and doing. That is what I try to do. ironman (Ray)


----------



## Maryak (Jan 6, 2011)

Ray,

I purchased it from the Australian Turbocad site online. It is also available on the TC international site. Ken Doyle also has a companion DVD for 2D Turbocad.

Thanks Pat and Ray for your encouragement.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## RMS (Jan 7, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> To All you Cad gurus,
> 
> I don't know about Solidworks...............but after a week of SOLID WORK............Success with Turbocad V 14. ;D ;D ;D ;D
> 
> ...



Hey Bob,

Nice looking model! Seems like Turbo Cad has a nice photo realistic rendering package. 

I just had my work load SolidWorks on my computer and comparing this to NX 3D, and AutoCAD 3D I have to admit that SolidWorks is a really simple 3D platform to use, I really like it. Right now I am dong the Elmers H-Twin in it at 2x scale, and next week I should have a 3D assembly done with the motor feature to check for mistakes. Then I hope to build my first engine!

Rob


----------



## Maryak (Jan 8, 2011)

Rob,

Thanks for the input. :bow: Hope to see your drawings in plans and the engine in work in progress. ;D

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## steamer (Jan 8, 2011)

Hi Bob,

Looks Great! Using 3D cad is tough if you've been used to 2D drawings for years...like I was about 15 years ago

You just have to keep with it and you'll start thinking 3D, then it flows again and you can bypass the extra "translator" in your mind.  Think of it as learning a new language through total immersion....pretty soon you will start thinking in that lanquage too.

Having my boss check on the status of the drawing package I was struggling with on every 15 minutes really focuses the mind too! :big:

Dave


----------



## Maryak (Jan 8, 2011)

Dave,

Thanks for the support. :bow:

I am now re-drafting the Maryak 10 in 3D. Like you say a new language. I think the penny dropped for me with starting a part as a solid and then taking 2D plans from it rather than trying to do the reverse and wondering why a rectangle wouldn't become a cylinder and when it did why it was at 90o to where I wanted it etc.

My 1st Cad package was Quickcad by Autodesk which was a pretty good 2D package. Next I tried Autocad 2000 but I could not come to grips with it nor did I like the way it operated. Then it was Turbocad 14 to design our house, (I had big ideas about a 3D design). I also had a dabble in Alibre. In the end I was determined not to have wasted the money I paid for Turbocad hence the tutorial DVD's and here I am.

As you go up in price it seems to me that you also go up in accuracy. The algorithms and straight out mathematics of the top range programmes are far superior to those at the lower end of the scale.

I like Turbocad's user interface, (which has a windows "feel"), and I like the fact that it shows what will happen, (in the inspector bar), before you hit enter. My version does not do animations but I don't know about the latest versions.

More practice with straight out 3D and then it's onto materials, lighting and backgrounds.

An Inspired Bob


----------



## RMS (Jan 8, 2011)

Learning any CAD package is tough without a good book or taking a class in it. They all have there own little ways or "steps" needed to execute typical commands, and its all too easy to get bad or no results at all. 

I have used CATIA, NX, SolidWorks, AutoCAD, and back in the early 1990's a cad program called Personal Designer. I don't think I could have learned any CAD package without some kind of good training aid, either a book, dvd, or a class, then its just a matter of sticking with one package and putting in the time creating parts, or what ever it is you are interested in then it takes years to master. Cad drafting & design ....this stuff is a trade all in its own!

Rob


----------



## deere_x475guy (Jan 8, 2011)

Nice job with the drawing Bob...it looks great. How much time to you think you have into learning to get this far?


----------



## wareagle (Jan 8, 2011)

Bob, excellent work on the CAD! Very nice.  :bow:  TSConspiracy, that is insane! Has that been made "real" yet? If so, pics pleeeeze! 

Unfortunately (or not), I am stuck with AutoCAD for design/drafting work. I have to use that platform in my profession (and on occasion, CATIA), so I don't see the reason to learn another. Kind of like a comfortable pair of jeans... you know there are others out there, but what is wrong with these? ;D 

Echoing what others have said; just roll the sleeves up and get after it. Try and try again until you get it mastered (if there is such thing). After due diligence in selecting a platform, of course!


----------



## RMS (Jan 8, 2011)

wareagle  said:
			
		

> .....Unfortunately (or not), I am stuck with AutoCAD for design/drafting work. I have to use that platform in my profession (and on occasion, CATIA), so I don't see the reason to learn another. Kind of like a comfortable pair of jeans... you know there are others out there, but what is wrong with these? ;D


 
Just out of curiosity what do you do more of 2D or 3D, and what version of CATIA? I love AutoCAD for 2D, though not so much for 3D.


----------



## wareagle (Jan 8, 2011)

RMS  said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity what do you do more of 2D or 3D, and what version of CATIA? I love AutoCAD for 2D, though not so much for 3D.



The CATIA I have worked with (actually fumbled through ) is V5R14 (IIRC). That is actually on a client's machine, so it is hit and miss (no pun) that I get any time with it. I have ACAD 2008 & ACAD 2010 on different machines. On the 2D/3D, I have been doing close to 50-50 between them of late. Where 2D has been the standard for years (construction industry), more and more 3D files are coming out these days.


----------



## doc1955 (Jan 8, 2011)

I have used Catia where I work but am more at home with NX5 & 6 (unigraphics). I prefer NX over Catia but that may be because I us NX every day. When I started drafting and designing it was on a board with a -T- square :big: Back then you had to think through fold lines in 3d in your mind. CAD has made things a lot easier! I enjoy working with CAD I work designing hydraulic, pneumatic and vacuum fixtures. If you have any questions on the NX package I maybe able to help but Catia I doubt I would be much help as every time I use it I have to stumble my way through it.


----------



## Maryak (Jan 15, 2011)

deere_x475guy  said:
			
		

> Nice job with the drawing Bob...it looks great. How much time to you think you have into learning to get this far?



As of now and just with 3D about 250 hours.

Thanks for the support guys. :bow: :bow: :bow:

The penny has finally dropped and It is a really great tool for finding design and measurement mistakes. :-X

Here is my latest effort - just to show if you can't make them draw them. ;D






Best Regards
Bob


----------



## zeeprogrammer (Jan 15, 2011)

Darn you Bob. You're making me get interested in this.
I must stay away. I must.
I program 8 hours a day as it is...
I've used up at least 2 mice and lost one ball
(which ain't bad when you think of it!)


----------



## ironman (Jan 15, 2011)

Bob,

You seem to be learning very quickly. I am still modeling the pencils. I am up to Vid 12 now. Thanks again for posting about that CD. I did a couple of gears last night.

By next week you may be HMEM"s master 3D man. ;D  Keep at it.

Ray (ironman)


----------



## deere_x475guy (Jan 15, 2011)

zeeprogrammer  said:
			
		

> Darn you Bob. You're making me get interested in this.
> I must stay away. I must.
> I program 8 hours a day as it is...
> I've used up at least 2 mice and lost one ball
> (which ain't bad when you think of it!)



Zee,
Did you buy Alibre last year?


----------



## doc1955 (Jan 15, 2011)

zeeprogrammer  said:
			
		

> Darn you Bob. You're making me get interested in this.
> I must stay away. I must.
> I program 8 hours a day as it is...
> I've used up at least 2 mice and lost one ball
> (which ain't bad when you think of it!)



 :big:Is it really called a lost one ball?

At work I use a gamers mouse and a 3Dconnexion space ball (I'd like to have the space pilot but too spendy) I know of another brand of 3d mouse but not sure of the name.
For at home I use the same gamers mouse and I purchased the 3Dconnexion space puck it was only 50$. I know what you mean I am working with 3d models all day but I must say when you are modeling some thing for your self there is suddenly enjoyment instead of dread. :big:


----------



## zeeprogrammer (Jan 15, 2011)

deere_x475guy  said:
			
		

> Zee,
> Did you buy Alibre last year?



I did. I've opened it twice. And both times my head immediately exploded.
It would do that with any drawing package I open.
But I'll try again.


----------



## Maryak (Jan 15, 2011)

zeeprogrammer  said:
			
		

> I've used up at least 2 mice and lost one ball



Zee when it comes to balls.................. Mine kept getting all furry : 

An optical mouse as opposed to a ball mouse runs much easier with no balls ups and with a centre wheel for clicking, scrolling and zooming are painless.

In Turbocad all the mouse commands can be duplicated with various keys but it's nice to have control of the cursor and drawing items in your hand.

Ray,

I had 3 attempts before I managed to make the pencils. The thing I could not get my head around for some time was that in 2D you draw up, down, left, right; whereas in 3D you draw "into the page away from you" then view the entity using the various 2D projections. I became confused when I would start one entity from top, (plan), view and the another from front view meaning they went into the page at right angles from what I expected and from each other. I have almost disciplined my self to start each item from top view but the odd lapse means when you zoom extents the drawing size is a football field big and the entities are difficult to find...............Just part of life's rich tapestry.

Best Regards
Bob

PS the other thing I do is dimension my drawings in print space. I found that if you use model space the dimensions appear as a thin black line in a view other than the one you used for the dimension and are often quite remote from the entity in 3D space. Having looked and removed the offending thin black line it took me a while to realise I had deleted my hard won dimension. I don't know if this is standard practice but until I learn more it's working for me and has removed one more bit of confusion from my understanding. I guess I don't yet fully understand workplanes.


----------



## doc1955 (Jan 15, 2011)

Maryak  said:
			
		

> Zee when it comes to balls.................. Mine kept getting all furry :
> 
> An optical mouse as opposed to a ball mouse runs much easier with no balls ups and with a centre wheel for clicking, scrolling and zooming are painless.
> 
> In Turbocad all the mouse commands can be duplicated with various keys but it's nice to have control of the cursor and drawing items in your hand.



I believe Zee is refering to a 3d mouse like this one. This is the one I use at work.
SpaceBall


PS They are really cool with Google Earth!


----------



## Maryak (Jan 16, 2011)

Doc,

That's an impressive mouse. I had no idea such a thing existed, (now why am I not surprised).

Galina likes a track ball mouse but I find it an absolute PITA.

What sort of price tag are we talking here because it looks and reads like it costs more than my computer 

Thanks for your input. :bow:

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## zeeprogrammer (Jan 16, 2011)

The hardware guys use that type of mouse since they do a lot of drawing.
For whatever reason, the mechanical guys use a 'standard' mouse.

I also use a standard mouse but I do little if any drawing...
typey typey typey.

I've lost too many balls...I've gone ball-less now.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Jan 16, 2011)

The software I use, Solidworks requires nothing more than a standard two button mouse with a scroll wheel between them. There are a number of very exotic mouse--mouses--mice??? available. They cost a lot, and require that you then memorize all the different functions that each different button/bar/scroll does. And if you have a laptop, then a second mouse of the same type becomes a requirement. I know a few other design engineers using 3D of some type who swear by their exotic, multi function meeses, but I find them a bit gimmicky myself. ---Brian


----------



## doc1955 (Jan 16, 2011)

Well I can be summarized then in the group that swears by a 3D mouse.
Yes I could just use a common mouse but it is truly slower and more work to do it that way. No 3d cad software requires a 3d mouse. A 3d mouse has been proven by software developers to increase productivity by as much as 80%. I wouldn't call them gimmicky. They pay for them selves in a very short time in saved time and increased productivity. The buttons on a 3d mouse you set to your most used functions you choose. Believe me I would hate to try and do my job in a timely fashion with out my 3d mouse. Some of my assembly models have over 3000 components that interact with each other to try and zoom from component to component with just a mouse would take a lot more time that if you just zoom around with a 3D mouse. I guarantee anyone who buys a 3d mouse and spends just a couple hours getting use to it they would not want to give it up.  

This is the one I use at home it is the cheapy I got it when it was on sale for 50$.
SpaceNavigator


----------



## abcmorgan (Jan 16, 2011)

Hi folks, this is my first time posting on the forum. I have always been interested in engines and for the last couple of years (on and off) I was using a 3D programme (Luxology Modo) to try and make an animated model of one of Jan Ridders LTD engines. I found it an infuriating process as errors in rounding kept accumulating as the model went on. Even though it worked in the end I began to search for something more accurate. I read some posts about solidworks and decided to give it a try. Wow! Since Christmas with the help of some video training to get me up to speed I have managed to build the engine and animate it. I have now also completed Elmers Wobbler No 25. I feel like I can almost touch them! I really want to start some machining soon. A friend has loaned me some measuring instruments he no longer uses and I am saving to try and purchase either a Sherline or Sieg lathe and mill (can't decide yet). I hope the attached picture of a Solidworks render of the Ridders LTD comes out ok. You have a wonderful forum here and I am sure to post again soon with loads of questions!


----------



## SignalFailure (Jan 16, 2011)

Great model abcmorgan, just a shame real life is never quite that perfect (and would we want it to be?)


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Jan 16, 2011)

Pat J  said:
			
		

> ABC-
> 
> Welcome to the forum.
> I am trying to learn Solidworks (with limited success, but I have not made it through the book yet).
> ...



Pat---Go to your local Chapters store and buy "Inside Solidworks" 2nd edition by David Murray. ISBN #0-7668-2348-2 It is THE BOOK that will tell you everything you need to know about how to use Solidworks. Its not cheap, but it is very very good. When I started using Solidworks 10 years ago, it was the biggest help of anything I found, and I still occasionally refer to it. I go into other engineering firms and teach a course on 3D solid modelling for those who are new Solidworks users, and that is a book I recommend for all beginners.---Brian


----------



## abcmorgan (Jan 16, 2011)

Pat J  said:
			
		

> ABC-
> 
> Welcome to the forum.
> I am trying to learn Solidworks (with limited success, but I have not made it through the book yet).
> ...


Hi Pat,
I have always found the best way to go about learning a new programme is to use a project. I picked the Stirling engine as I had pretty much built it in a different programme previously and I knew exactly what I wanted to accomplish. My biggest problem is veering off on tangents or not knowing exactly what it is I want to do. I also take regular breaks and come back to it after a while as this helps the fog that grows in my brain to dissolve! I was lucky to be able to devote a lot of time to the project as I get a lot of holidays at Christmas time. Another tip is to hover over a tool to get its exact name in the tooltip and then do a search in youtube for solidworks followed by the tool name. You will usually find a video of somebody who knows their stuff showing you how to use it.

I haven't read Inside Solidworks but a good book is always great to have. That is how I taught myself to use Luxology Modo. The book took me through a project on building a skyscraper step by step showing how different tools were used along the way.

Lastly, keep at it. Being stubborn usually pays off ;D


----------



## doc1955 (Jan 16, 2011)

Here are some SolidWorks Tutorials.
Free SolidWorks tutorials


----------



## Maryak (Jan 19, 2011)

Whew,

I consider it done.






Now to try a steam engine from an old book.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## ironman (Jan 19, 2011)

Thm: Bob, very good model of that engine. What pitch did you use on the propellor? (just joking).
I did the pencils/box and listened to about 5 on the vise and haven't been back at it for a day or 2. Probably will go back and review from the beginning to refresh my mind.

Keep it up man, you are doing great.

Ray (ironman)


----------



## Proflooney (Jan 28, 2011)

Hi guys I am new here and new to model motors I want to find some drawings for a gnome rotory but right now I have the drawings from ageless engines for the 3rd scale Bentley BR2. I draw mainly in solidworks with w tiny amount of solid edge experience. I am slowly getting the bentley drawn in solidworks. I been using solidworks for a couple yrs or more and it really is a fairly easy program to learn the basics of.

Joe


----------



## DaveH (Feb 20, 2011)

Just like to say thank you to all of you who took the trouble to post. I have read every single one and I decided on Alibre Design. (The cost is important to me)
I have tried a few of the others and ended up nowhere, nearly gave up. After reading some of the post I thought in for a penny in for a pound Ill try Alibre  nothing to loose.

After a couple of weeks, with a lot of help from the tutorials and videos, I actually ended up with something. Amazing, so I have now bought the PE version @ $99. 

Whats more the more I use it the easier it becomes!

Thank you all for posting your thoughts. They helped me.

Dave


----------



## JDRay (Aug 1, 2011)

Here I go cracking open old topics again.

I noticed a couple of mentions of SketchUp on this thread, with people generally deciding that it's not up to scratch. I can clearly see that it's not CAD/CAM software like SolidWorks, et al, but having somewhat extensive experience with SketchUp and little experience with machining, I can tell you that it's probably better than you all think it is, and the price (free) is right. 

Since joining this forum a few days ago, I've been looking over different engine designs. Arriving at the conclusion that I liked "swashplate" designs for a variety of reasons, I set about to figuring out a design that I could build with my limited resources and skill. I used Sketchup to help me visualize what I want to create, and am almost done with refinements. I think it's sufficient to show now, though I still have some work on the axle to do.

This design uses a fixed cylinder block and a rotating axle and swash plate. A minor change to the design would make it a fixed axle and a rotating cylinder block. Any feedback is appreciated on the design, but I really wanted to show what about three hours of noodling with SketchUp can accomplish.

Cheers.

J.D.


----------



## JDRay (Aug 1, 2011)

Hmmph...

See what jumping the gun gets you? I was looking at the design I posted, and realized that I had forgotten a critical component of how the engine works. Turns out the axle/swashplate/valve has to be fixed and the cylinder block has to rotate. So, ten minutes later I had the drawing updated. Yay for 3-D design software.

 ;D

J.D.


----------



## JorgensenSteam (Aug 1, 2011)

I have used Solidworks quite a bit recently, and have a much clearer picture of what it can and cannot do. I have reviewed the posts on this thread from last year, and I agree with much of what has been said.

I was beginning to think I would never learn 3D, but when I started treating it like machining instead of 2D drawing, I was on my way.

I use a combination of 2D and 3D now for design.
I start with some rough sketches in 2D using AutoCad, and develope the basic shapes and dimensions in section, and then input that into a 3D model. The 3D model is not only very nice to look at, but it gives a good 3D view of what the part will really look like, including all the fillet work, and whether the fillets will work out.

I am able to complete much more complex designs using a 3D program, since a 3D program basically allows you to virtually machine the part before you try to make the actual engine.
I have saved a lot of metal by being able to find glitches in 3D first.

Another very big advantage of 3D is the ability to change the transparency of the outside surfaces.
This is invaluable and allows you to see into the part, and see how the inner parts align, relate, etc.

And to answer the question of what can you really do with a 3D model besides look at it.
Well, you can purchase a 3D printer and make patterns very accurately, if you are into casting.
The 3D printing and pattern making will be the real boon of 3D modeling.

Pat J

Edit: Also as mentioned by others, if I change the size of a part in a 3D model, it automatically propogates to all other related parts, assemblies, 2D drawings, dimensions, etc. The problem I had with 2D was when I made a change to a part in the front view, it was really diffiucult to get the dimensions corrected in every other view and also in all the related mating parts. For a complex model, using 2D is very difficult if you make changes. If you are developing engine designs from scratch, you will always be making changes, and sometimes very late in the design phase.

A few months ago, 3D modeling was the bane of my existence, and now I would not dream of designing an engine without 3D.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Aug 1, 2011)

Another one up and coming? Open source . Interesting.
http://heeks.net/
Tin


----------



## jpeter (Aug 2, 2011)

So when the truth sneaks out that I machine using CAM I often get the stink eye, like somehow I'm cheating. Does the same hold true for designing in 3D CAD? Do real designers design in 3D CAD?


----------



## Maryak (Aug 2, 2011)

jpeter  said:
			
		

> So when the truth sneaks out that I machine using CAM I often get the stink eye, like somehow I'm cheating. Does the same hold true for designing in 3D CAD? Do real designers design in 3D CAD?



Whatever floats your boat is good, it's a hobby.

I don't know but I imagine a professional would use the latest and greatest design tools they are familiar with. In any event, like all things associated with computers, garbage in = garbage out.

Best Regards
Bob


----------



## JorgensenSteam (Aug 3, 2011)

jpeter  said:
			
		

> So when the truth sneaks out that I machine using CAM I often get the stink eye, like somehow I'm cheating. Does the same hold true for designing in 3D CAD? Do real designers design in 3D CAD?



I have heard that also with the scanning and then printing of 3D parts.
Scanning a part is pretty much copying someone elses design, but as Jay Leno says, if the part broke, it generally needs an improved design anyway.
You would have to be careful what you scan so as not to infringe on copyrights.

3D printing definitely speeds up the pattern making process and more importantly allows you to retain all of the minute and subtle details of the model.

Certainly there is a place for CNC, but really the part produced by the CNC machine will only be as good as the person who programs the machine. In the end it is the design inside the designers head that really matters because that is what drives the ultimate build of the part.

I have seen people with expensive CNC machines make poor quality parts, and people with poor qualit lathes and mills make superb quality parts.

I do think the the 3D printers will revolutonize the modeling business. Again though, the part printed will only be as good as the design that has been entered into the model.  I have seen poor designs made with expensive 3D programs, and superb designs made on $100.00 3D programs.

It really boils down to the person and their individual creativity, not so much the tool.
I do the same design in 3D that I would have done in 2D, but I am able to develop the design much faster and with far fewer inteference problems in 3D. From a standpoint of making changes to a complex design, there is no substitute for 3D modeling unless you have a lot of time to waste.


Pat J


----------



## Leucetius (Aug 17, 2011)

jpeter  said:
			
		

> Does the same hold true for designing in 3D CAD? Do real designers design in 3D CAD?



I only can tell from my work - yes they do. Almost exclusively even. And as my moneygiver is not a unknown and really big one i suggest most others do so as well. And i see the point behind it. As stated in this thread, you get a feeling of the part or assembly, you easily see if parts are fitting as intended and when it comes to drawings it's merely more than "open new file, put base view and child views, add dimensions and off you go".
Behind creating the parts however are different philosophies. Some create them as they are intended ("ready") others - like me - create most parts like machinists. Raw block or cylinder and then subtract everything not needed. I think you can see the benefit of this approach when you indeed plan to make this thing


----------



## JorgensenSteam (Aug 24, 2011)

Like Leucetius mentions, you can start with creating a large block to model with in a 3D program, and then subtract (cut) out the parts you do not want, which is exactly how you would machine a part from a solid piece.

I used this approach for a while, thinking it was the only approach that could be used, and also thinking that if I drew one piece and then added onto it, it would not be treated as one piece, but rather two pieces.

I later found out that it is much more efficient for me to break down a part into its component shapes, ie: a steam cylinder is broken down into a sleeve or cylinder barrel, then a flange is added to one end, then the flange is mirrored to the other end, then the steam chest is sketched on a plane in space and extruded up to the cylinder outside surface. It is very quick to model this way, and much to my surprise, the program treats the entire part as if it had been carved out of a solid block.
Same thing applies to eccentrics, etc., draw the center first, then add a flange and mirror.

The mirror function can be used both with sketches (such as mirroring a shape or hole) and also used to mirror entire extruded shapes such as bosses. The mirror function is probably the biggest time saver in the entire program, and using it generally means you only have to draw at most 25% of a model, if you use symmetry extensively.

My boss once said to me "Work smarter, not harder", and so that is what I try and do. I do sometimes model a part from a solid shape just to understand the steps I will need to machine it though, and there is much to be learned from that method.

Pat J


----------



## panofish (Mar 15, 2012)

I having nothing bad to say about all these great 3d packages, but for me, sketchup is great CAD solution.
It is polygonal though, so you have to make sure things like your circles/cylinders have sufficient steps to create a virtually smooth arc.
If I needed true nurbs, I'd probably use Rhino. Not because its better, but because I am more familiar with it. It is an exceptional nurbs package though. 

For CNC, I am more concerned with which CAM package is easiest for me. For that I like VisualMill. It takes dxf files from sketchup and uses them happily.


----------



## Tin Falcon (Mar 15, 2012)

IMHO all machine and design skills are valuable and good. We are hobbyists. We are here for fun we promote craftsmanship and innovation. How one gets from a cool Idea to a finished engine is a matter of personal preference. if someone sketches out a design on paper and pencil(lovingly called Crap O Cad) COC for short that is fine. If you design with Solid works that is fine too if you can afford it. O have it for professional use.
If you make an engine with a hacksaw file sandpaer and a torch fantastic bless you. if you have cnc skills bless you as well. I will not or do I expect anyone here to down someone on how they make a part or an engine. manual machining skills are different than cnc . But I will not say one is better than another across the board for all uses for everyone. It is all good.
Tin


----------

