# Learning to use CAD



## tmuir (Sep 7, 2008)

I decided I really need to learn CAD software so I can draw up some plans of all the parts I've made.

I've never used CAD software before and last time I did tech drawing was over 20 years ago in high school so I'm far from an expert in it.

I have dabbled with 3D software before so I do have some idea though.

After doing a search here I came across a post that recommended Alibre.
http://www.alibre.com/ 

It's free for their basic version and I must say I love it.

Here is a drawing I produced after playing with the software for an hour or two.
Its for a pulley I need to fabricate, yes I forgot to put the groove on the pulley and the hole for the grub screw but for a first play I was quite pleased with it.

The second drawing is for the safety valve and whistle bush and yes a whole a4 drawing for this bush is overkill but I did this drawing really just to have another play with the software.
This drawing took me about 20 minutes to do and I'm sure with practice I would get a lot faster.

Got to say I really like this software.




View attachment Renown_Pulley.pdf


View attachment Renown_bush.pdf


----------



## steamer (Sep 7, 2008)

Hi Timur,

I have it too.  Very useful and simple enough to use.

Dave


----------



## DICKEYBIRD (Sep 7, 2008)

Nice work! CAD is an indispensible tool in my shop, even the simplest jobs. I've been a TurboCAD user (2D only) for over 10 yrs....the older free versions and a newer version bought for less than $20 online.

I have of couple questions about Alibre:

1) Did the program generate the isometric view for you after you drew the top & side views?

2) When you say free, do you mean FREE as in a no cost, unlimited use, less capable version? I only do simple plans and have no need for photo-realistic renderings.

3) Can Alibre save your drawings as standard .dxf files?

Thanks,
Milton


----------



## tmuir (Sep 7, 2008)

DICKEYBIRD  said:
			
		

> Nice work! CAD is an indispensible tool in my shop, even the simplest jobs. I've been a TurboCAD user (2D only) for over 10 yrs....the older free versions and a newer version bought for less than $20 online.
> 
> I have of couple questions about Alibre:
> 
> ...



1) You create the item in 3D and then create the 2D drawing from that

2) For the first 30 days you get all the bells and whistle then after that some of the more fancy parts get turned off but after the 30 days it should still be fine for me and yes its completely free unless you want all the bells and whistles

3)Pretty sure you can export to DXF


----------



## DICKEYBIRD (Sep 7, 2008)

Thanks! The .dxf thing is important to me. I need .dxf's for conversion to G-Code for my CNC router. I'll give it a try when I get some spare time.


----------



## pmerritt (Sep 7, 2008)

I too have found Alibre easy and fun to use. I have tried other CAD programs out there and just couldn't get them to do what I wanted. There are several good tutorials for Alibre available for free.  You might have to be using a paid for version to export in dxf format. I just looked for the option in my free version and couldn't find it, though the help does say it is possible. They definitely try to hook you with the full featured version that you get for the first thirty days. They offer it for half price a lot and if you are a student or university employee you can get it for 90% off (~$150 for the pro version). 

Peter


----------



## steamer (Sep 7, 2008)

I needed something that was mine that I could update.

If you can't update or upgrade, it will become obsolete and then difficult to extract and maintain.  That defeats the purpose of using CAD.

I bought my version, full up.
I use it ALOT.  I even used it at work!

Great package for the money.

Dave


----------



## tmuir (Sep 7, 2008)

pmerritt  said:
			
		

> They offer it for half price a lot and if you are a student or university employee you can get it for 90% off (~$150 for the pro version).
> 
> Peter



Gee for $150 I would be happy to buy the pro version but for what I will use it the full price (and half price) is just way too much for me.


----------



## John S (Sep 7, 2008)

For anyone not wanting to work in 3D then convert to 2D drawings try Solid Edge 2D

http://www.solidedge.eu.com/isapi/pagegen.dll/pages?campaign=home&page=free_2d&lang=en

Completely free, no strings other than it needs XP to run.

Will export as dxf 
It been released as a taster for their flagship 3D software.

Very powerful and impressive.

.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 7, 2008)

I worked for 33 years on a drafting board, as a machine design engineer. About 11 years ago I found that I was no longer marketable, and even though I was terrified of computers, (I was 51 years old, and had never used one) I went back to college and learned Autocad 2D, and bought a "state of the art" computer. I found autocad 2D fairly straightforeward, because it was the drafting board all over again---just input lines, arcs, and circles. I worked with Autocad 2D for 3 years, and then found, much to my dismay that the market perception was now changing to "If a person can't design my machinery in 3D with full parametrics and associativity, they must not be very good!!!"---so---Coughed up about $6000 for solidworks and another $3000 for a computer big enough to run it, and went for the training courses that were included in that price. I love the software, and I work in Solidworks exclusively now. Heck, I even teach 3D modelling. It costs me about $1800 a year for my upgrade and software liscence, ut at least I can write it off as a business expense. If ya want to see some neat stuff, have a look at the models in the portfolio section of my web page. www.rupnowdesign.com ---Brian


----------



## pmerritt (Sep 7, 2008)

I agree, even half price is too much. This is after all just another toy! I am considering taking advantage of the educational discount. I just hope they don't care that I'm a biologist with no need for CAD!

Peter


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 7, 2008)

[size=10pt][size=10pt]Cad rules.  [/size] [/size] 

Reason to go 3D

1 it's more fun than 2D

2 you make your virtual parts and the software does the boring bits like making drawings and does it faster and more accurately

3 you can see what your designing/drawing so it has a "presents" that you can't get with 2D

4 you can fit the parts together in assemblies to "see" if they will work (first three drawings)

5 shows you that machining might be a real ***** before you start and not after you have invested a lot of time (last 2 drawings)

6 many stock parts such as gears, shafts, nuts and bolts, chains and sprockets, gearboxes etc. can be downloaded off of the Internet from many sources and added into your assemblies or in the more advanced packages the cad software will generate them for you.

These are "assembly" drawings of the elevating gear for my artillery piece 1/6 scale.











This shows it with the outer bits visibility turned off to show internals. Having the ability to visualize parts is a big advantage over 2D. The gears were downloaded and modified, everything else was drawn "in house"





the last two are of the breach block and the "how do I make It factor".











I'm strictly an amateur draftsman so be gentle.

No drafting tools where harmed in the making of these drawings.


----------



## John S (Sep 7, 2008)

3D is nice but bottom line is who pays ?
If it's your own in your own time and the program is cheap enough or paid for then fine.

If it's a job or a paying customer will he pay the extra to get nice 3D draings as opposed to simple 2D drawings and a finished job?

Most of my work goes out as work with no drawing but I need some form of drawing to work with. Bottom line is I'm paying for the amount of drawing needed.
If I can save an hour using accurate sketches as opposed to full detailed and dimensioned drawings then that's an hour up to me.

It isn't all about money either as you can get carried away with drawings to the extent shop time suffers.

Tomorrow I have to mill some clearance channels on a load of electric motor casings. The drawing consists of an approach line, a curve and a depart line, all in 2D. This file has been saved as a DXF and the CNC mill will read this in add the depth, tool offset and follow the three entities. The shape of the motor casing never existed.

.


----------



## kf2qd (Sep 7, 2008)

#D is nice... But it is still hard to print a real 3d object on a 2D piece of paper. I have worked for several companies that build special machines and we did all our CAD in 2D. Only one company that i visited on service calls used 3D. One of the employees at one of my customers worked in teh Nuclear industry and he worked on plants before and after teh transition to 3D. the 3D plant drawings gave better results. 

SO - if you are going to build very complex systems then 3D might be to your advantage. If you are used to seeing a 2D drawing and can visualize the 3D object then a 2D CAD package will be just fine.

There is one package out there that seems to be much more affordable that works a lot like AutoCAD - Progecad. Progecad Smart is a free download and handles DWG & DXF files and is missing a few features of the full version which is under $500.00 which is not a bad price for a CAD package. http://www.progesoft.us is the url.


----------



## steamer (Sep 8, 2008)

I started out on he boards guys, like Brian.

If I don't use 3D at work, Im not employed.

I prefer CAD and 3D for the engineering benefits it brings

I use the options that come with the package I have.

Brians comments about cost are spot on for Solidworks, and I truly love that package.  I can't justify it for home though ( I use UG at work....if you think Solidworks is expensive......whooooo boy, are you in for a surprise with UG Try 3 to 4X Solidworks, and IMHO it's not as good as Solidworks)

If your never going to use linear FEA, or create toolpaths, or need an engineering library of standard parts,(nuts bolts screws ballbearings,gears ect)
and will never need to do any dynamic analysis or rendering,and I conceed that most will never need any of these features, Go with an appropriate package. 

Best wishes to all,

Dave


----------



## ianjkirby (Sep 8, 2008)

Hi all,
 I have recently purchased a package called ViaCad 2D/3D from PunchCad ( website http://www.punchcad.com/products/viacad2d3d.htm )
 It cost $99, and I have found after a bit of time learning to use it that it is excellent for model engineers. It imports and exports a variety of formats, can create 3-view engineering drawings from a 3D model, and can handle assemblies by putting each part on its own layer. It can also do basic analysis stuff like determining volume, mass, moments of inertia, and a few other things. It does not yet do motion, but there is an upgrade path to a dearer package which will do this.
 There is an excellent website support, and an extremely helpful users forum, which is read by the team which writes the software, and they actually respond to user input.
 All in all, I am very impressed with it. It seems to do 60-80% of what packages like solidworks can do, for way less cost.
 If I can work out how to do so, I will post a couple of my early efforts; it might take me a few days, so don't hold your breath!
Regards, Ian.


----------



## ianjkirby (Sep 8, 2008)

I forgot to mention the principal reason for my choosing this package - as well as running on PCs, it also runs seamlessly on Macs, one of which I drive. This is the first package (other than GibbsCam, which costs a bomb!) that I have found which allows me draw the things in which I am interested on a Mac.
 I also forgot to mention google sketchup, which is free, and seems capable of producing drawings suitable for model engineers, but I have not used it myself. I have only looked briefly at the website; http://sketchup.google.com/ It also runs on both PCs and Macs
Regards, Ian.


----------



## Metal Mickey (Sep 8, 2008)

I have tried to do the free thingy with Alibre. Is there anyone out there more in tune with computers thanI am before I just give up on this? I have downloaded the software and tried to install it several times but I keep getting this message..

Can't even load an image now!!!!

It says "Unable to start the application - The Java virtual machine cannot be loaded. Class not registered.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't started some things!


----------



## Twinsquirrel (Sep 8, 2008)

Hi MM

Have you installed microsoft java virtual machine? Alibre requires it to run. You can download it from the alibre support site here: http://www.alibre.com/support/downloads.aspx#jvm

just a thought

David


----------



## tmuir (Sep 8, 2008)

Yes as Twinsquirrel says.
You need to install some other software first but don't worry its only a small download compared to the CAD software


----------



## Metal Mickey (Sep 8, 2008)

See, it isn't just the help with engineering, your great! Many thanks....I will try your suggestion David. Mike


----------



## Metal Mickey (Sep 8, 2008)

Well I downloaded the Microsoft Java machine and it loaded ok ........but........still crashes the same....... ???

Come up with an error code of 1722

I won't take up any more of this thread so it there is a quick fix/suggestion I will give it one more go before finding some big sheets of paper and a sharp pencil!


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 8, 2008)

Your right when you say that most of us won't use the FEA and other advanced functions in the 3D cad packages, on the other hand if you are making a complex part or assembly of parts and need to make sure that everything is right and parts don't conflict or interfere with each other before cutting metal 3D is pretty much the only game in town. 2D is good for simpler things as is a drawing on the back of an envelope, it is all a matter of perspective.


----------



## steamer (Sep 8, 2008)

I remember working on lots of drawings of machine layouts drawn on J3 sheets.

It can all be done with pencil and paper.  But it can be done faster with 3D
However, I offer the following into evidence.

I had the pleasure of attending a club meeting one night and the guest speaker was none other than Rudy Kouhoupt.

He was giving a talk on mechanical design. Rudy is renown for flawless documentation packages. If you build it to his prints it works and that's all there is to it. He is also known for his hand inked drawings with full perspective assemblies. I have never finished a print that way, but I have tried to ink before That is a lot of tedious particular work!
Being the "sophisticated professional" ( laugh giggle) I asked a rather sophmorish question " Rudy, why have'nt you changed over to CAD?" fully expecting the "I hate computers...or such and such type answer.
He looked at me with just a touch of a scowl and his answer was most enlightening and unexpected and brought the room to dead silence.

"You can make changes too fast and as a result you don't think through the design up front" 

He then showed the "layout" for a new engine design.  It was nothing but center and phantom lines with some notes.  But every line meant something. A very fast way to flesh out an idea if you experienced ( which he was) in doing it that way.

At first I was suprised by the comment, but he's right.  A CAD package can not replace the brain driving it.  A bad design is just that regardless of how it's drawn.  
How ever you document your design, make sure you think it through! ;D

Dave


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 10, 2008)

I would think that most people would sketch an idea out on paper before moving to the computer. 

It is much easier to think with a pencil than a mouse but the mouse can draw more accurately than a pencil and doesn't need sharpening.


----------



## steamer (Sep 10, 2008)

Hi Loose Nut,

That is exactly what I do.  I guess I think in pencil. ;D


----------



## BobWarfield (Sep 10, 2008)

I spent a lot of time fussing over my choice of CAD program and ultimately settled on Rhino3D after trying several including Alibre. One of my biggest reasons for doing so is that it "thinks" the same way I do, so I can skip the pencil and paper sketch. I find it's easy for me to compose directly in Rhino and it goes very fast. Here's the most recent project I've done in Rhino:












Cheers,

BW


----------



## steamer (Sep 10, 2008)

Good looking engine Bob,

Stuart No 1?

Dave


----------



## BobWarfield (Sep 11, 2008)

It's a Bob's No. 1!  :big:

I decided to draw it after seeing the Engineman's copy of the Stuart. This one is scaled to stand about 8" high.

More info here:

http://www.cnccookbook.com/CCBobsNo1Home.htm

Cheers,

BW


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 11, 2008)

Very nice work Bob. What formats can you save/export that in?--Brian


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 11, 2008)

steamer  said:
			
		

> I guess I think in pencil. ;D



 :bow: Old Draughtsmen never die ........... they may need sending for re-sharpening occasionally ........ but wth 8)

CC


----------



## steamer (Sep 13, 2008)

:big: ;D


----------



## BAH101 (Sep 17, 2008)

I have used Turbocad for quite a few years and find it is great. I have Pro15 now and draw everything in 3D. It is great to be able to fit things together and see how they interact before cutting anything. I just purchased TurboCADCAM, so I am looking forward to trying that out. Here are some jpg's of some of my drawing (taken from magazines)


----------



## Metal Mickey (Sep 18, 2008)

I find these 3D drawings close to works of art and many would justify framing an put on the wall. Excellent stuff. How many hours work to produce any one of the drawings?


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 18, 2008)

Metal Mickey--If you think those are works of art, you'd love the walls of my office. thats all I do 8 hours a day, 5 days a week!!!---Brian


----------



## John S (Sep 18, 2008)

Yes Brian but you get paid to do just that.
I get paid to make parts and if I spent hours drawing rendered images in 3D who pays ?

You only need to be able to draw enough to get the job done, in Brian's case it all the way as that's what his customer wants and is willing to pay.

You have to base how much time is spent drawing to how much is lost actually making the part.






This is a drawing of the business end of a boring bar. The green line is the trimmed shape, the red line is the pocket for the tip, small cross is 0,0 large cross is the centre for the holding screw.

That's all the CNC needs to be able to make one, no outer shape, no rendered drawings just what you see.
Anything else is wasted as that time could be better spent actually making the part.

That tool will bore a hole, the drawing will become blunt if you try to use that.

.


----------



## Maryak (Sep 18, 2008)

Part of my last job I restored an old steam tug to a working passenger vessel taking tourists for rides in the river and up and down the coast.

Some of the old blueprints were almost unreadable and some dimensions did not match those found on the actual machinery.

The answer was CAD so I bought Quickcad which was a 2D program produced by Autodesk. I could not get the hang of it! It was this layers business that had me boxed. One day the penny dropped and away I went.

My wife and I are building our retirement home to our own design. Quickcad was not up to the task so I went and bought Turbocad which seemed to offer the best value for money in my opinion. I have tried Autocad but it and I are not good mates so although it is the industry standard package I had to go elsewhere to save both my sanity and my hip pocket nerve from irreversible damage.

After our house plans and elevations were complete and in the hands of the builder, I though it would be nice if I produced a 3D drawing with different camera angles and walk throughs etc. 

Suffice to say that so far the only thing of note is my complete lack of success. I am sure that as with my initial foray into 2D, my brain is not grasping some small but vital concept. 

If anyone can give me and my penny a push so it will drop I would be a very happy man. ???


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 18, 2008)

Working in 3D CAD is a bit like eating an elephant. It looks very impressive, but its done one bite at a time. I make some incredible assemblies, and animations. People say "Whooeee---Ya must be an Einstein!!"---'Taint so!! Even the most complex assemblies are made one part at a time, and to make one part, you draw it in 2D, just like the most simple and straightforeward Autocad. ---and then you extrude it to get that third "dimension". To put it in very simple terms, if you want a 3D model of a 2 x 4" x 24" long, then you draw a rectangle and dimension the sides to be 2" and 4", and the angles all to be 90 degrees. Then you hit the "extrude" button and type in a value (in this case 24" )and hit the "go" button. Bingo---You've created a 3D solid model. You drag all the individual "parts" (which each are created as a seperate "file" in your computer) into an "assembly" and use the "mate function" to assemble all the parts. The very first part that you put into an assembly file is automatically "fixed" in place. All parts added after the very first one are "floating"--meaning that the software can move them to wherever the "mate function" decrees that they have to go. The mate function is really neat--you assemble the individual "parts" just the same as you would if you were out in the garage putting real parts together. Say for instance that you have 2 "parts" that you want to put together--both parts have a hole in them. You use the "concentric mate" and highlite the hole in each part.--The software will move the "floating" part around automatically untill the holes are concentric. Then you determine which "faces" of the 2 parts you want touching each other, and after highlighting them, you use a "coincident mate"--The software will move the "floating" part untill the faces touch each other. Then you only have one choice left to make---What is the angular relationship you want between the 2 parts. (remember, the faces are touching each other, but the "floating" part can still rotate about the centerline of the 2 holes which are concentric). So you use an "angle mate" to click on the two parts and type in a value representing the angle you want between the parts--and the software will automatically move the parts into that relationship. Now both parts are "fixed". then you just keep adding "parts" and using the "mate" functions untill you have created an entire machine. The really great thing is that the individual "parts" or even major "assemblies" will create 2D drawings automatically---because you have already input all the math data when you were creating the "parts" in the first place. As a consequence, you don't really "draw" when you work in Solidworks 3D. You create "parts" and "assemblies" and any 2D shop drawing is 95% automatically created by the software. The remaining 5% being tolerances and notes that you type in manually.


----------



## BAH101 (Sep 18, 2008)

I did have a hard time grasping the concept of drawing in 3D for quite a while. My first drawings are all 2D and they work quite fine for what I need them for. I bought the TurboCad training books which were a great help, but then I found this website http://www.textualcreations.ca/index.html He has a whole bunch of tutorial that has help a lot to produce those images. You do have to pay for most of them, but worth it. 
I spend a lot of time in remote camps waiting for pilots to bring back broken helicopters for me to fix, so I have a lot of time to work on these. Lot better than staring at a tent roof, cant go have a drink either as the camps are dry. 
Don't forget, in CAD you only draw things once. The Snow double acting engine, there are 4 cylinder heads, only one has to be drawn. You them duplicate it and place it where you want it. Once one complete cylinder is done, you then copy it and now you have 2.
I have not worked with Solidworks but would like to give it a try, your pics are really good Brian, you do excellent work, thanks for sharing them


----------



## Maryak (Sep 19, 2008)

Brian,

Thanks for your concise explanation of the 3D concept, I will give it a try over the weekend.

Most guys I know have a keen interest in mating so I will keep the concept to the forefront of my endeavours :


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 19, 2008)

Maryak---If you look at my website, you will see that I teach 3D modelling.---Brian


----------



## Maryak (Sep 19, 2008)

Brian,

Viewed your site and my congratulations on your home page.

Everything you need to go forward is there in a clear uncluttered format.

If all sites were like yours the internet would be a much easier place to surf. A lot of them make it impossible to even find the surfboard.

Thanks again for your help.

Bob


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 19, 2008)

John's point about keeping drawing to a minimum has merit for him but most of us are doing this as a hobby and not for profit. We also need "proper" drawings, a lot us us can't make something off the top of our head, so we get into cad to draw up our ideas and for that 3D minimizes work in the long run. You frequently don't even have to draw parts, they are "built in" on the higher end programs like Solidworks or Inventor. With free programs like Alibre you can download them off of the web for free. 

When Boeing designed the 777 they did it all in 3d cad and started production right off the drawings with out any prototyping or mock ups to see if everything fitted right, they didn't have to.

 The same applies to us. If you are making an engine or anything else to your own design, you can make sure everything is done right before you start cutting metal. This involves a lot of extra head work in 2D cad to make sure that everything is right and even then you can get half way through a part just to find out that the drawing was wrong and the part is no good (got the tee shirt for that one).

Companies don't design planes, cars, buildings or anything else in 2D anymore and once you get use to it 3D is faster in the end, but you won't learn it over night. Also don't think it is to complex for you either, they may look difficult but each individual command is quite simple and easy to use. It's all a matter of learning to use the proper command for each task and the basic ones can be learned in a few hours, the rest will take some time.

You can get books that teach most of these programs, even the free ones and there are free on line tutorials available too.


----------



## rickharris (Sep 19, 2008)

Iwould add into this that everyone can get hold of Google sketchup for free. A 3D drawing tool (I admit I can't use it but my students have produced some good effects with it.)


----------



## John S (Sep 19, 2008)

Replying to Loose nut's post 2 above.

I do follow where you are going and there is always two sides but it's a very fine line between spending more time doing the drawing than the part.

Now for some this can be part of the job, for others it then becomes the job.

There is no hard and fast rule but what doesn't help are these 1/2 page product reviews you see in the mags.
There has just been one in MEW on Turbocad.

Now nothing wrong with Turbocad but the writer gives the impression it's a doddle to use and any one can turn out work as shown in a matter of hours.
What they never tell you is the reviewer doesn't have a clue which end to hold a pencil and the sample shown is part of a tutorial that has taken days to prepare.

Even for retired folk, time isn't endless and there are enough constraints on it and just pointing out how you can loose time when you should be machining.

John S.


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 19, 2008)

I use Autocad in 2d, it's a tool when all said and done, if I need to set out a staircase or foundations ........... or whatever, I put enough lines on paper for me to gather enough information to set it out .............. if it's a Planning or Building Regulation submission that's a different matter ............... they need to be good quality drawings which can be read by any competent person and convey all the required information .......... plus ......... look professional to boot  8)

Horses for Courses  whatever the discipline.

CC


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 19, 2008)

I have been following this from its humble beginnings, and would like to give an example and would just like to ask one question after showing a quote from Brian. Then a little resume from myself.



> Coughed up about $6000 for solidworks and another $3000 for a computer big enough to run it, and went for the training courses that were included in that price. I love the software, and I work in Solidworks exclusively now. Heck, I even teach 3D modelling. It costs me about $1800 a year for my upgrade and software liscence




Now just imagine that you have never used cad in your life, and it isn't part of your work, and like maybe 95% of the members on here, either can't afford it or just don't have the wherewithall to go thru all the learning and training it involves, or just don't give a s**t, would you honestly go down the route of purchasing all that software, equipment and training to make the little engines as we do?

If you wouldn't spend all that amount, then what the hell is everyone boasting about how they use all this very expensive stuff, when it isn't in the realms of the average member on here. Interesting maybe, workable for the average guy, a definite no. So why argue about which is best or not. You use it, OK, but please don't extol the virtues to the majority who can neither afford it or have the knowledge to use it.

I have on my home made, $500, five year old computer, most probably a lot more than your basic solidworks, it runs perfectly fast enough on mine (looks like you paid a bit over the odds on that one). I wouldn't give it time of day for designing little engines. I have used it and learned a little, but for what I want to do with little engines it is the proverbial sledgehammer and nut. I am just about to get rid of it, not needed.

You might throw back at me that I have fully upgraded my shop to do just that. Wrong, I could have carried on just using the old bits and pieces I had. My new machinery will not be for model making, I will only have part time use of it for that purpose, and it was partially outside funded.

So please gents, no more boasting and elitism, just leave it at, 'well I use cad, and thats it'.

You might call me moronic and interferring for butting in, but to me this is just another elitism post that we could well do without, just like the machinery wars we used to go thru.

I could also display all my diplomas on the walls to impress, but mine are stuck up somewhere in the loft, I don't need to remind people who or what I am. I am just a nobody member, who butts in and speaks his mind and makes little engines. I like showing people how I do things, I don't pour it down their throats, but try to explain how with a little bit of thought and planning they can go up in the world of making models. Some love me, most hate me, but I just plod on until I can hold it no longer and have to speak up. This is a time I need to speak up. 

One thing I really hate is a holier than thou attitude as is being shown in this post.

Actions speak louder than words, lets see a bit of action on here rather than just beating gums. This is a site dedicated to making engines, not for how much you pay for paper you use for wiping your a**e.

Upset a lot of people now haven't I?

I would just love to hear all the harrumphing and gnashing of teeth going on in the background now. 'I've been insulted' and 'harsh action' PM's flying around at the speed of light.

Been there, done that, had it done to me, got the proverbial T-shirt, but still it needed to be said.

Just come down to earth, and lets all get on with making things rather than talking about it. Otherwise, be warned, this site will end up like all the others. All talk, no action, miserable as sin, and the many being controlled by an elite few.


John


----------



## John S (Sep 19, 2008)

Can i have the T shirt when you have done with it ?

.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 19, 2008)

Wow John!!! I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I was simply responding to a post that someone else started. I do not advocate the purchase of a 3D cad system to use for any home hobby. I earn my living with it. I know that there are all manner of "cheap" and "free" 3D cad systems available, but I have never tried them. If the changing marketplace hadn't demanded it, I would still be happy as a pig in mud to be working on my old drafting table. I posted what it costs me to show interested people what professional design engineering software costs. I wasn't attempting to foster any form of elitism here. I certainly wasn't trying to post a "My CAD system can beat up your CAD system" thread. Up untill now, I have enjoyed this forum. People have been fun to "talk" to, and share ideas with. Now I read your post, and I feel like I have been personally attacked! I'm off to bed now, with kind of a sour taste in my mouth. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a better day.---Brian


----------



## steamer (Sep 19, 2008)

Im with Brian on this.  I offered no slights or insult to anyone and I certainly put out my fair share of chips in my shop......If you were slighted by my attempts to be helpful by reporting my experience with my software, thats your T shirt, not mine, get over it.


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 19, 2008)

The man (Tmuir) made a post about cad, started a little back and forth discussion, everyone has an opinion and they have been put forward one way or the other just like on other threads. 

John Stevenson has made some valid points from his view on it, it a necessary tool that he uses as he has to, nothing more, others see it differently. I for one have been working on a long term project (life keeps getting in the way) that is fairly complex and there are no drawings available of the original that I can locate. They were produced by a company with an army of draftsmen to design and draw it. If I had to make a set of plans with only the few pictures and line drawings to work off of that I have, using their methods, I wouldn't have even attempted it. I started with a 2D program and that was painful enough but with 3D it is a go'er. Yes it takes time but so would drawing everything with a pencil at a drawing board, it's a necessary tool for me. As for posting pictures of our work it's not elitism, they were posted to show what can be done, in my case by an amateur, so others can see that it's not something beyond their ability, it's not that hard to learn.

You are wrong in the statement that this is beyond the average home shops means, free programs are widely available and are good enough for us in the same way that most of us use small simple lathes and mills to do our work instead of sophisticated CNC equipment. For many people making a good set of drawings is just as important as making the parts.

That's my opinion Bog,

If you don't like the thread don't read it.


----------



## BAH101 (Sep 19, 2008)

An opinion is an opinion, and one can express it weither we like it or not, that is the society we live in. I am glad we have this freedom, as it alows threads like this, but as Loose Nut says, if you don't like it, don't read it .
I started CAD about 4 years ago, bought a cheap copy and didn't know what to do with it, made some cool rectangles and stuff. Over time I taught myself how to use it to draw pictures like the ones I posted, just like I taught myself how to work a lathe amd a mill. Now it is one of my hobby's and as you can see, I draw model engines with it. It is my way to stay busy while I spend long days away from home and my main hobby...making little engines and other cool stuff that you can hold in your hands. This thread was about CAD and I answered...oh, and I have actually not printed any of these onto paper, so the computer screen might scratch a bit... 
I too am off to bed, no sour taste at all and I will have a good day tomorrow...


----------



## BobWarfield (Sep 20, 2008)

Bogs, you're over the top on Mr Rupnow and I'd think you owe him an appology. As others have said, he only responded to the questions asked of him and did so in a good-natured and not elitist way. You've been at greater pains to document your fancy new shop (which you now say has nothing to do with models and therefore even less reason to document it) than he has his CAD, yet nobody is complaining about that. Lighten up!

RE 3D and spending more time in CAD than making parts, I can't imagine the part that I can make faster than I can draw it in my CAD program. It's one of the reasons I like Rhino so much--it's very fast once you're used to it. Even little simple things can be done very very fast (or perhaps especially simple things). That Stuart No. 1 I drew took me maybe 15 or 16 hours to draw. I had some false starts on a couple of the parts, not unlike making a mistake machining. I spent another 4 or 5 hours doing research on the Internet and scratching my head about things like slide valve timing. There's no way in heck I could machine one in 15 or 16 hours, probably even if I had both my lathe and mill converted to CNC.

Here is the very first drawing I did in Rhino for a chuck backplate for my lathe:







I think that drawing took me maybe an hour shortly after I had bought Rhino. I was so proud of it at the time, but if you look at it, there's actually very little there. I count 13 circles, some of which required a precise 3rd dimension. Add to that some construction objects that I created but that are not shown in order to align the circles relative to one another and you've got something on the order of maybe 20 objects created. I tend to use Rhino as though I am machining objects. I know that sounds odd, but that's how I think of it. I "bore" holes by taking a cylinder as my "boring tool" and "subtracting" it from another object. That leaves a hole. I start with a big rectangular solid and subtract a smaller "cutting" object to create a groove.

Now Rhino is not a parametric modeller like Brian's Solidworks or the much cheaper Alibre. I won't explain what that means, but I did force myself to use Alibre to draw 3 or 4 complex objects, and I tried to learn it because it is more like Solidworks which is the gospel of the machine tool cad world. I just never did like it nor was I very productive. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER OR PERFECT PROGRAM! Try several and force yourself to do at least 2 or 3 drawings on each. You'll figure out what you like or dislike from that, and can go from there. Maybe you grew up on 2D and prefer simpler programs. They are faster for you. Maybe you like the parameteric concept and would like Alibre. I liked Rhino. 

FWIW, it costs $788 from Novedge, and can be had sometimes cheaper if you shop carefully. I got a "special deal" from a vendor and got mine for $650. As a productivity tool for my workshop, it has been worth every penny. 

Let me leave you with a last thought. A good CAD program is more than just a way to produce drawings you can build from. It is a visual engineering calculator that is very valuable. Mine will calculate the volume of anything your draw, and you can calculate the weight of the part from that. It will tell you where the center of gravity is, which may help you figure out balance. When I was making a precision backplate for my collet chuck, I used my CAD program to help me figure out how to compensate for some machining inaccuracies on certain features. I used this diagram and some measurements on the part to figure out exactly where I was out of whack:






It enabled me to use some handwheel adjustments on the mill to offset my boring head just enough to produce a fantastically more accurate fit for the chuck. Boy was I happy with that!

As a last visual calculator use for CAD, it wasn't until I played around with various proportions in CAD that I figured out my Turner's Cube proportions and boring depths. You can see that drawing as my avatar. Also done much faster than I could have trial and errored it in real metal!

CAD. Highly recommended if not indispensible.

Cheers,

BW

PS And now the disclaimer: I am a computer scientist, I write computer software, I eat sleep drink and breathe computers. Don't be surprised if I enjoy using them here too. Your mileage may vary, and I'll be the first to admit it. It's a hobby, do what's fun and please let's not get into haranguing one another over our respective CAD programs, CAD program excesses, or lacks thereof!


----------



## Maryak (Sep 20, 2008)

As a new member I was disappointed to read bogstandard's post. Bog you've already given me encouragement with my project as has Brian with his helpful comments re 3D Cad.

This forum is a great place, in fact I'd go as far as saying it's the best I've been associated with and that after one week! This appears to be the 1st incident of uncalled for comment. Let's hope it's the last.

If you can't be nice, be neutral, if you can't be neutral, be constructive, else don't post.


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 20, 2008)

Now I see whom I have upset.

To the first major point I would like to answer.

'You don't have to read it.' - I do!! That is my choice, and no one will stop me reading anything on this sight that I want to.

If it is about raising marigolds or the Titanic, I read every word of every post. I am not on the admin team so cannot do anything about anything, except to raise an issue.

If you read my post it wasn't about using CAD at all, that is your choice, if that is the way you wish to carry on making engines and bits. 

Imagine me saying to anyone on here, I can make my bits better because I have XYZ machinery and I'm the greatest. If you can't afford this, you will never get to my standards, and because you haven't got XYZ machinery, you will never make it any better. 

To me that is elitism, and I am sorry if I have upset anyone over this issue, but my statements stand.



> You've been at greater pains to document your fancy new shop (which you now say has nothing to do with models and therefore even less reason to document it) than he has his CAD, yet nobody is complaining about that. Lighten up!



I said you would throw this at me, and as I stated it is a production workshop, funded partly by outside means. But if you notice with my posts, it isn't all about cost and flaunting it, it is showing how I set up a new workshop, with ideas on how everyone else could, even with the most meagre of machines produce a better finished article, and have a more efficient workshop setup. No way have I said anywhere that this is what is needed to produce little engines. If that still remains an issue with you, consider that post now fully closed. Not thru spite or malice, but you have raised an issue and I am responding to it in the only way I know how.



> It's a hobby, do what's fun and please let's not get into haranguing one another over our respective CAD programs, CAD program excesses, or lacks thereof!



Thank you, that is exactly what I have been on about.




> If you can't be nice, be neutral, if you can't be neutral, be constructive, else don't post.



I WILL NOT be told by anyone what and what I cannot bring to the fore on any posting.
How can you be neutral when there is blatent elitism being shown to other members? Someone has to speak up, otherwise the site will become a free for all for 'holier than thouists, and I've got this, and it is better than yours'



> You are wrong in the statement that this is beyond the average home shops means, free programs are widely available and are good enough for us in the same way that most of us use small simple lathes and mills to do our work instead of sophisticated CNC equipment.



Nowhere in my post did I mention that the average home shop couldn't afford the CAD programs as you quote. 



> Quote
> Coughed up about $6000 for solidworks and another $3000 for a computer big enough to run it, and went for the training courses that were included in that price. I love the software, and I work in Solidworks exclusively now. Heck, I even teach 3D modelling. It costs me about $1800 a year for my upgrade and software liscence
> 
> 
> ...



I am on about the statement by Bob about how much it has cost him overall, and into the future. A little different than freebies and lo cost software.

So gents, like my reply or not, I have had my say and responded to your queries and statements. If you want to carry on, I have all the time in the world at my disposal to argue with you, and fully enjoy it at times.
I have nothing more to say, unless you want to carry it on.

John


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

John, what Brian said is valid, he bought SW to earn a living and that's what he was forced to do by circumstances and customers.

It's no different from your workshop post where you admit that the machines are for production use.

How many think you are now the elitist one ? and if you say you are not they why didn't you keep your original machines to do what you planned?

Chances are they wouldn't have done the work just as Brian's blunt pencil won't scratch the paper with new customers 

Many choices were put forward from Free versions of Solid Edge and Alibre to relatively cheap Rhino to just using 2D CAD from whatever source.

Brian's post was only one

BTW anyone thinking about setting a workshop up, MEW have brought a special out, only available from them or W.H. Smiths [ a Barnes and Noble store for the cousins ]
It gives a good insight on machine tools, hand tools, wiring, insurance, security and many more subjects.

It's well written and put together with no bias on any one supplier or product, woth getting a copy for a fiver, even if you have a workshop setup it's still a good read.


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 20, 2008)

John,

If I didn't have to upgrade to carry out contract work (which my old machines were not capable of) I would have kept the old shop and all machines in it, as I have stated elsewhere on this site.
I have used the information on the rebuild of my shop to help people in giving people ideas about how they could improve theirs (NOT MACHINE UPGRADES) and how I go about setting up machines to get the best out of them. Not flaunting it, but using them as an example. Unlike our friend who seems to think that everyone should know how much it costs, even down to yearly licensing costs.

If my post is classed as elitism, then so be it, the problem you and others have with that is now solved. Well before you made your post.

A decision I have made to stop any confusion over the issue.



John


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

"If I didn't have to upgrade to carry out contract work (which my old machines were not capable of) I would have kept the old shop and all machines in it, as I have stated elsewhere on this site."

That was Brian's point also, He made that clear.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 20, 2008)

Really, I lied. I only paid 47 cents for my CAD system, and I only use it to draw pictures of my cat!!! Are Ya happy now??? Do ya like me better now??? Hope this makes you feel better now!!! There is obviously something wrong in your world.---Brian


----------



## SmoggyTurnip (Sep 20, 2008)

I thought Brians post was informative, intresting and on topic. - It's also nice to know how much Cad software costs - the thread was interesting.


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 20, 2008)

Bog, you said you had a right to your opinion and your right there. 

Nobody is saying you don't. 

It is the manner in which you slammed people for working with CAD programs and what you perceive as elitism, which you don't agree with, that has people pissed off. There are lots of threads on this and other forums that don't really interest me so I don't read them, and yes you do have that choice. You can make your point about a subject with out coming off as an ass.

If that seems harsh Bog it's no worse than you have treated others here. 

Why don't we just end this before people decide that they want to quit this forum, it's to good a place to goto for help and interest, we don't want to cause irreparable damage and lose people.

"nuff said.


----------



## Brass_Machine (Sep 20, 2008)

Hey guys...

I honestly didn't see any elitism from anybody on any of the prior posts (or threads for that matter). I didn't start to get upset until all the arguing and accusations of 'elitism'. Lets keep this civilized. Everyone has different opinions about machines and software to use... whether that be a hobby or for a career. Both Brian and John have careers that relate back to machining, whether that is model engines or what have you. Everyone here has things to offer and guide... I don't care if you are new to machining models or not.

So lets all shake hands, agree to disagree and let the hard feelings fall away or I lock this thread.

Sound good?

Eric


----------



## wareagle (Sep 20, 2008)

Gentlemen,

Things on this thread have gone sideways for whatever reason. Each and every one of us has different opinions regarding every aspect of this hobby, whether it be brands of machines, types of materials, suppliers, CAD software, whether to use CNC or not, and on and on. This board is for the passage of information and ideas common to our hobby. Let's not have ruffled feathers and hurt feelings damage the good thing we have going here.

My function here with this post is to keep the forum civilized. The judgement of who is right and wrong is up to you, and I encourage each of you to let it go and move on. Everyone has a bad day, and let that be that. But, this arguing has to stop now. It is totally counter productive to the purposes of the forum. If your feelings were hurt by another member's comments (including mine), then I apologize and hope that you will continue to contribute to this forum. 

Each and every member here has something to contribute no matter their experience level, location, budget, or vocation. Those ideas will not be passed along effectively in an environment of hostility. Let's play nice and respect each member's opinions whether we agree or disagree.

If this hostility continues, then this thread will have lost the original intention and will therefore be locked.


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Thank you Eric and W/E.

My interest in this thread was to find a simple 2D CAD to use around the shop. I had a copy of Generic CADD some years ago and really liked it. Unfortunately that company was bought by AutoDesk and the product has not been available for quite some time now.

I believe that quest had been met early in the thread, but I was still curious about other systems. I had tried 3D several times and found I didn't like it. Mostly because I didn't understand what was possible, nor how to do it. I thought maybe I could learn something.

I hope I still can.


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers,

I thought maybe I could learn something.

I hope I still can."


Glad to help if I can.  Let me know.

Dave


----------



## Brass_Machine (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers  said:
			
		

> Thank you Eric and W/E.
> 
> I hope I still can.



Of course you still can. I think earlier it was stated Alibre has a free version. I use the Pro version, but the system is still the same. If you decide to give it a go, let me know... I may be able to help if you have questions. Like Solidworks, there are plenty of free tutorials on the web for it out there.

What you end up choosing for a program is completely up to you. They are all pretty good. Each person has their own preference for the interface... so it may take a couple of trials to find the one that suits you.

Good luck with it.

Eric


----------



## Peter Neill (Sep 20, 2008)

3D CAD is definitely a useful tool for the workshop, particularly on more complicated assemblies or parts, be they model engines or otherwise.

And learning it is not really that hard either. I taught myself 2D on AutoCad 16 years ago, and 3D on Solidworks about 7-8 years ago.
The built in tutorials for either package are useful to get you started, but IMO the best way to learn is by using a paper drawing (of a reasonably complex part) that you already have.
If you take this drawing of a part you already know, and then work at converting it to a 2D or 3D model  with frequent references to the help section of the program  you would be surprised at how quick you pick it up. It always seems daunting at first, in many ways a bit having all the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle but with no idea what the final picture should look like. But once you start using a few commands they stick in your brain, and you easily go back to reference and use them again.

Like Brian, I use Solidworks for my business, and its employed in product design and development and mould tool design. Its completely invaluable in these areas and I couldnt work without it. The business paid for it, and (as I own the business) Im lucky enough to get to use it whenever and for whatever I want.

But I also play with too. The Carburettor model below was drawn a few years ago when I was on a motorbike forum. One of the common FAQs there was always related to carbs after someone had stripped one down and put it together incorrectly, or didnt know what a pilot jet or a needle valve was, or where to look for problems or blockages, and so on.
The model was made available as a free download that could be viewed, sectioned, made transparent, separated into individually labeled components, with any level of sub-assembly of the parts you wanted  and all using a *Free* CAD viewer from Solidworks called e-drawings. People could download it and see how the carb worked and where all the parts went and what they were called.
All with no prior knowledge or experience of CAD systems. I use exactly the same program to send 3D models to some of my non-technical clients.

However, for straightforward 2D drawing I still use an old version of Autocad that I havent upgraded for 8 years and see no need to do so.
The only real argument against either form of CAD in the workshop is initial cost, and ultimately this will get cheaper.








Peter


----------



## Brass_Machine (Sep 20, 2008)

[email protected] Peter, that is a nice model. Cad skills are impressive to me as much as machining skills. Still have that file as a download? I wouldn't mind looking at it. I do have e-drawings still loaded.

Eric


----------



## wareagle (Sep 20, 2008)

Peter, that is an impressive rendering!

ksouers, hang in there! You'll get all of the pieces to the puzzle before you know it and will have everything you need to get on your way. 

FWIW I use AutoCAD myself. I've not tried any of the other programs, but with some practice and patience most of the CAD programs would likely serve the needs of the home machinist just fine.  In my opinion, CAD is a nice luxury to compliment the hobby, but it certainly isn't a nessecity. Just remember that the SR-71 was designed on paper using slide rules!!!


----------



## Peter Neill (Sep 20, 2008)

Thanks for the compliments Guys, I must admit I was quite pleased with that one myself.

Eric, no problem I still have the e-drawing file. I think it was done in the 2005 version, so any post 2005 e-drawings package should open it.
Download location is here, and the file size is around 3.5 MB.

http://www.btinternet.com/~p.neill/Carb_Assy.easm

Peter


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Dave,
Thanks. But at this point I don't know what I don't know.

Eric,
I've downloaded Alibre but haven't installed it yet. May get to that this weekend. My past experience has been that using 2D CAD was easier than drawing with pencil, though rough sketches helped to get the process started.

Peter,
Simply amazing!


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers,

No worries.  The big differance right off the bat is that you first sketch and then extrude.

Alibre should have an on line tutorial.  Their pretty good.

Feel free to ask questions though...glad to help

It took a while for me to get my head wrapped around it the first time...your not alone.

Dave


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers  said:
			
		

> Thank you Eric and W/E.
> 
> My interest in this thread was to find a simple 2D CAD to use around the shop. I had a copy of Generic CADD some years ago and really liked it. Unfortunately that company was bought by AutoDesk and the product has not been available for quite some time now.
> 
> ...



Ksouers.
CAD is rather like religion everyone has their own idea of what is best and what suits one doesn't suit another.

The best thing to do is download a few and try them to find one that suits the way you work.

There are two main ways to draw, one id the default CAD way where you draw everything from an origin point and everything is absolute from that point.

This works well with people who have never drawn before and have no previous experiance.

For the dinosaurs amongst us [ ME  ] who have moved off drawing boards and construction lines a program that allows you to EASILY offset lines to produce the shape can be better.

I say easily as the offset command isn't always obvious in some programs and in a few it's very hard to do.


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 20, 2008)

John Stevenson  said:
			
		

> the offset command



That must be the tool I use the most  .............. does that make me a "dam BIG" dinosaur ;D ............ or just "almost extinct" ;D

CC


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

CrewCab  said:
			
		

> That must be the tool I use the most  .............. does that make me a "dam BIG" dinosaur ;D ............ or just "almost extinct" ;D
> 
> CC



Doesn't matter, all that matters is you get the part drawn to YOUR satisfaction.

.


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Thanks, JS. You can count me amongst your dinosaurs 
Started with pencil and vellum way back in high school some 30+ years ago. Haven't touched a drawing board since. Probably why I liked Generic CADD so much, it was very close to drawing on paper. I have a copy of TurboCad 3D I've tried to use several times, but it always made my head hurt.


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

Kevin, I also learn on Generic CADD and loved the program.
When Autodesk killed it I vowed I'd never use one of their products again.
I moved on to Fastcad which I have configured virtually the same as generic with one and two letter shortcuts for most applications.

I am pretty sure I still have the 3 disks for Generic CADD somewhere but I don't know it it will run under XP, do you want me to look them out ?


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Well now.
I'm having a bit of a problem with Alibre. I get it installed just fine. But when I start it up it wants me to register. OK, fine. I click on the button, a window pops up briefly then disappears and nothing happens.

What's the secret? By the way I'm running XP.


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Thanks John, but that's not necessary. I still have my disks, but I no longer have any 5 1/4 drives.


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

The ones I have are on 3-1/2" and were the next to last version 6.0 ? I think.
I know the last version was dead buggy.


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

Ksouers,

Your online right?

Dave


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Yep, always on. DSL.


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers,

Did you load the Microsoft Java Virtual Machine?

You need it for XP.....amoung other things.

http://www.alibre.com/support/downloads.aspx

Dave


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Yep, done all that. Verified DirectX 9c.

I absolutely HATE windows.


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

Yeah I know :
Im poking around...give me a minute


Dave


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

ksouers,

How about the Local Help Installation file?

Additionally, I went to the Alibre forum and foud this ..

http://www.alibre.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7977

Look under "Alibre Design installing problem"

which speaks to a Javascript compatibility problem.

Beyond that you may need to call them Monday morning and speak to them, or send them and email...I doubt you are the first to confront this.

I didn't run into this problem when I installed mine, but I had a few others and they have helped me out..

Hope that helps? 

Dave


----------



## John S (Sep 20, 2008)

SmoggyTurnip  said:
			
		

> I thought Brians post was informative, intresting and on topic. - It's also nice to know how much Cad software costs - the thread was interesting.



I thought it was also very valid given that most web sites of high end programs don't give a price and definitely don't mention 'support'
It's nice to see quoted prices as they can fluctuate a lot depending on the salesman's pitch and what he can allow. A lot of these are like double glazing sales and the more you stick out the more you save.
I can see Brian's and Peters point of view in that they need this as a tool but when I read that XX has a copy of Mastercam at about $12,000 to run his little X1 mill on it makes you wonder about the price difference between machine and software.

Personally I'm sticking to 2D for as long as I can, I have a copy of Alibre, Turbocad v15 and small son has his works copy of Solid Edge he can legally use at home but to be honest I find it very hard to get my head round 3D. 
I can accept that using constraints means you can go back and change something and it all changes but setting these up isn't easy for me and usually by the time I have done this in 3D I could have belted out a drawing suitable for me or the CNC in the same time.
I'm fortunate in that I can visualise parts easily in my mind and very often whilst working manually I don't need any drawings at all, working straight out my head.

One of my jobs up until the end of the year is to modify about 20 motors a month that have to fit hydraulic pumps that have already been made wrong, by next year the new batch will be right and fit a standard motor.
In the meanwhile it's cheaper to modify the shaft and flange on these motors.
The first was done out of my head taking measurements of the motor and pump. When that was done a phot was taken of the finished job and a list of operations was hand written on the back of the photo.

That photo is now in a plastic wallet ready for next months batch. The customers doesn't want a drawing, only 20 motors a month at the cheapest rate. I don't want to do a drawing in 2D or 3d as no one is paying me.
.


----------



## steamer (Sep 20, 2008)

If it works don't fix it! ;D

We all have a way we work and a way we think....any one way is neither right or wrong, just differant. I've said it before, if you make your part and you have as many fingers as before and no schrapnel in your forehead, what ever your doing is right.  period. Keep doing it ;D

The pixels on the screen don't make you work, you do.  ;D
If you don't need all the wizbang gittup muffler bearing whatchamacallits....don't get em.....its a waste....unless your into all the wizbang gittup muffler bearing whatchamacallits....but that's another topic ;D

Best wishes to all.

Dave


----------



## ksouers (Sep 20, 2008)

Thanks for the help, guys. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 21, 2008)

Here is a simple rule of thumb (were did that expression come from anyway). 

If it would take you longer to make a drawing of a part then it would to just make it then don't but if you can draw it in less time then it would to make it them it is probably worth the trouble, particularly if there are multiple identical parts to be made.

Going from 2D to 3D is kind of like moving from Imperial to Metric, it requires a different view on the subject, you are trying to achieve the same goal but from a different perspective and some programs are easier to do it on then others.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 21, 2008)

Of course, not everything I do is work related---


----------



## steamer (Sep 21, 2008)

Thats a picture I know and love Brian.

Dave


----------



## steamer (Sep 21, 2008)

Heres a couple of my projects,






Bar stock version of the Westbury twin Wallaby










My version of the Wilson T&C grinder


Dave


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 21, 2008)

How things change, :

When I started work in a drawing office (40 years ago) I was using a Drawing board (a wooden one) and a Tee Square ......... also wood ??? .............. we then progressed to drawing boards with counterweights and parallel motions .... in fact I'm sure I have an A2 version still in the loft ??? ......... that cost me about 2 weeks wages back in the late 70's ......... then again it did earn me a fair bit more than that  ..... at the time it was fantastic progress, in fact the old guys thought it somewhat heathen  ........... they came around though and I do have a lot of respect for them all, they taught me a lot  :bow:

But, things have progressed far, far more than I could have ever imagined when I started work back in 1968 .......... CAD programs are without a doubt much more efficient than one dude on a drawing board .......... but it does lack personality ........ with a drawing you could include a little "style" 

Anyway ......2D I understand but, 3D CAD does look appealing ........... do I need to go back and read the whole thread again or can some kind soul please do me a quick summary particularly of the "free software" bits 8)

CC


----------



## steamer (Sep 21, 2008)

Hi CC,

I started life out on the boards at Milacron a long time ago. 2D was all that is available then in the form of IBM (remember them) CADAM...and they were huge and ran on mainframe Vax machines....Every guy there who had used those beastly monitors for more than 5 years was either bald or sterile.....go figure!

I can speak for Alibre as " a lot of bang for the buck!" Especially the free version! ;D

It is fairly straight forward to use. You will need to get used to approuching a design from a differant perspective. When you were on the boards, and a large blank sheet of paper was staring you in the face, the old trick if you were stuck on where to go was to draw a center line. Usually that would get the brain kicking along and that worked well!

The hard part with 3D is you kind of need to process that center line and perhaps flesh it out on the first sketch ( most 3D packages use a sketcher where you draw a figure and then EXTRUDE it to a depth. Some use boleans...Im not going there) If you can rewire how you think through that part of it, the rest gets easier. Its a skill like anything else, the more you do it the better you get at it.

I'll throw something together if it is deemed relevant. Don't want to torque anyone off...just try to show how it can be used.

If "YOU ALL" would like me to show you something regarding that I could, but I will wait to be asked 

Best Wishes,

Dave

PS.  
 but it does lack personality ........ with a drawing you could include a little "style"

WE called it " hand".  You knew who's drawing it was without ever looking at the title block.....


----------



## wareagle (Sep 21, 2008)

Brian, very nice rendering of the infamous mouse!


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 22, 2008)

steamer  said:
			
		

> If "YOU ALL" would like me to show you something regarding that I could, but I will wait to be asked



Sounds good to me 8)

CC


----------



## steamer (Sep 22, 2008)

I showed on of the young guys at work a picture of a Vemco V-track. I asked him what he thought it was?

Some sort of robot....is the answer I got...... :  Slung a lot of lead on one of those.


----------



## Cedge (Sep 22, 2008)

Sheesh
I turn my back for a bit and the place goes all to hell. I have no problem with anyone running high dollar software, especially when it earns them a living. I've priced CAD and for my personal needs it's beyond any real justification. I've worked in 3D for years and still use a piece of software I paid less than $100.00 for in 1994. It does what I want it to do.... nuff said. 

What disappoints me is all the bickering and elitist accusations bickering back and forth. I thought for a minute I'd logged into HSM by mistake. There is nothing elitist about a fellow mentioning that his requirements cost him what it costs him. There is nothing elitist about a fellow sharing the fun and excitement of rebuilding his shop from the ground up. 

What is elitist is the idea that you can judge another man's intent. I find myself more than a little annoyed by that. I'm also tired of the "I'll take my ball and go home" thing that keeps cropping up. Lets enjoy the community and if you can't get along with someone, ignore them. We're here to have fun and assist each other where we can. It's called being an mature adult. 

Oh yeah.... a little sample of my 3D/CAD bona fides.....
















Steve


----------



## Metal Mickey (Sep 22, 2008)

Thats not CAD, that ART! :bow: I couldn't understand why you had a picture of the traction engine though? The I looked and looked and looked still a little unsure.....is it CAD? can't be?


----------



## Cedge (Sep 22, 2008)

Thank you MM.... It is indeed computer generated. There are slightly more than 3500 individual components in that project, with all the proper bits programmed to be animated, if I ever manage to get a computer that can take the pressure. The technique is called "Ray Tracing" and computes the reaction to light on the various surfaces.

Steve


----------



## steamer (Sep 22, 2008)

Hello Cedge!


Wonderful work!  Thanks for sharing that!

I was thinking about documenting the creation of a part or two using Alibre for the benefit of those trying to learn.

What do you think?

Dave


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 22, 2008)

Cedge--Those are stunningly beautifull renderings. The CAD I use is strictly utilitarian, not a lot of art to it. I know that there are "photo rendering" add on packages for use with Solidworks, but in my line of work they don't "buy the groceries". I know that the Solidworks software I use for machine design also has "packages" (which of course can all be added at an additional cost) for mold makers, sculptors, artists, etcetera. I wouldn't begin to know how to turn out anything as gorgeous as the pics you posted.---Brian


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 22, 2008)

Steve, those are "works of art"............ are you sure you ain't just downloaded them ........ : ................  just kidding mate ......... honest 8)

I remember the term "Ray Tracing" from a couple of computer guru's I came across ........ back in the 80's I think, never took it any further mi'self ....... but it seemed quite time consuming ............. or have I lost the plot ........... again ???


Just to try and date this, .......... and for no particular reason except I'm bored  ........... : ................ I believe a 486 DX-2 66MHZ Computer was "State of the Art" back then and "Mr Pentium" ........... was just about to knock on the door 


How times change ..................  ??? ............. and very quickly 

CC


----------



## Hilmar (Sep 22, 2008)

> If "YOU ALL" would like me to show you something regarding that I could, but I will wait to be asked



 Just this afternoon I Drew an expansion link in Turbo Cad. Noting big in 2D.
Then I tried to expand it to 3D, tried to give it height.It worked OK but some of the curves turned in to straight lines. So I give up! Back to 2D only.
Himar


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 22, 2008)

Hilmar  said:
			
		

> Back to 2D only.



You n' me both mate ................ 2D I can cope with ..............  3D ... Oh eck 

CC


----------



## zeusrekning (Sep 22, 2008)

Well I reckon I post an opinion too. I use solidworks. Absolutely love it. I wish I had the fancy imaging addition. But I think the elitism griping is a bunch of ****. If someone wants to detail the use of anything related to model engineering so be it. And please do tell us what it cost. It is a real close call with me ,as far as satisfying my desire to create, to own machinery or a really nice cad package. I just acquired machinery at home a few months back. But I've had SW for a few years now. There are a lot fewer limitations to what I can create in SW than what I can in my shop. If someone goes out and buys a wire EDM I hope they don't feel they can not post about it in fear of being elitist. Cause there are things and EDM can do that can only be done on on one. I get so sick of people whining about HSS vs Carbide, Cad vs pencil and paper, Manual vs CNC, Import vs Domestic. Buy what you want do what you want. But keep in mind most of us spend a fair amount on machinery and tools to make toys. This would seem to most that have not been bit by the bug as very ignorant. I thoroughly enjoy reading about equipment, materials, methods, and tooling I'm not familiar with. 
Tim


----------



## steamer (Sep 22, 2008)

Hi, 

I have had a couple of requests, I will try.

A couple of points. As I may not have thought this through as far as I should have.... :-[ :

I use Alibre. I can't vouch that it works the same as Cadkey or Turbocad, or Rhino or whatever your using.

Differant software have differant operating styles. I will do my best, your mileage may vary

I posted this reamer on another thread.






Its a simple part. Heres how I did it. There are 473000 ways of doing it, but I chose this 

Step one
I drew a sketch of the reamer body, a circle the correct size for the reamer. In this case 0.500"





I then extruded that circle to 5 inches long. In Alibre that is a default length, but it can be what ever you want, just type it in.





Next I made the tapered part of the reamer. To do that I formed a body of revolution or Revolve Boss command.
I drew half of the cone from the centerline out, and then using the Revolve boss command on the tool bar, rotated the sketch to create a conical boss. A pointed end. You can see the outline of the sketch in the picture.





Next I made the D cut. This is D/2 + .003 for D bits. This was done again with a sketch, but instead of adding geometry, I used a sketch to cut some off ( the sketch was nothing more than a rectangle)
Think of it as a giant form cutter hacking off half of the end...





I then used the fillet function to put a fillet at the corner of the previous cut, This is to reduce the stress concentration at that point in the D bit.





I have no idea if this is going to work for people, so if it isn't working...just say so...

Hope that helps some.... 

Dave


----------



## zeusrekning (Sep 22, 2008)

Would work the same in solidworks. Like you said one of the many ways to do it.


----------



## steamer (Sep 22, 2008)

Hi seusrekning,

I am fluent in Solidworks 2001 ( old!).  Solidworks and Alibre have a very close "style" I did my boat in Solidworks and was able to accurately determine the center of gravity, the center of boyancy, and many other hard to compute attributes. Alibre isn't as polished as Solidworks, which I love dearly, but man it packs alot of bang for the price.

Could of done the whole thing as revovled boss.... 8)

Regards,

Dave


----------



## zeusrekning (Sep 23, 2008)

I'm far from fluent.  There is so much I still have not learned. It annoys me often b/c I feel like there is surely an easier way to complete my task. But hopefully I'll get a little more formal training on it one day. SW is very decieving b/c of how user friendly it is. I'll have to check into alibre too.


----------



## BAH101 (Sep 23, 2008)

That could also be a TurboCAD tutorial. Done the exact same way. Turbocad also has a cylinder tool, so you could form a cylinder instead of extruding from a circle. 
Bryan


----------



## steamer (Sep 23, 2008)

Well..perhaps this effort will be helpful then.....time will tell


----------



## steamer (Sep 23, 2008)

Hi Bryan,

"That could also be a TurboCAD tutorial. Done the exact same way. Turbocad also has a cylinder tool, so you could form a cylinder instead of extruding from a circle. 
Bryan"

Yes, that would be , generally speaking, a Bolean.  Alibre has that feature also. I was trying to start with a 2D sketch for the sake of those normally dealing with a drawing, Bog Cad or otherwise.  If you can make what your thinking about, it goes a bit easier.....

Dave


----------



## Maryak (Sep 28, 2008)

Brian Rupnow,

Well whadyaknow! - followed your little gem about one bit at a time and at first was like 10 bits at a time NBG.

Read some more of the idiots guide to Turbocad and Eureka the keyword for me in 3D turbocad is WORKPLANES, just like it was layers in 2D.

And you are absolutely 110% spot on, one at a time and slowly slowly catchim monkey. I am pretty chuffed ;D

Nothing achieved that I want to put up against some of the wonderful efforts in this post, but thanks to you at least I'm up and crawling, not just laying there dead beat. :big: :big: :big: :bow: :bow: :bow: 

View attachment 3droof.pdf


----------



## steamer (Sep 28, 2008)

Good for you!

Dave


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 28, 2008)

Way to go Maryak!!! Congratulations. Yes, I'm not sure how other 3D programs work, but with Solidworks there are 3 default planes, Front, top, and Right. These planes all intersect at the Origin. When you are going to start making a "part", you must first select which "Plane" you are going to start your 2D sketch on. Then you make the sketch on that plane, and when you are finished the 'sketch', then you can "extrude" it. I always start my sketches on the "front" plane, to make my first extruded part. Then if I want to add something to that part at 90 degrees to the original plane of extrusion, I can select one of the other 2 remaining planes.--Solidworks also gives you the option of creating your own "plane" either on an existing surface that you have created, offset from a surface you have created, or at an angle to a surface you have created, OR to any of the 3 existing default planes. It also lets you start a "sketch" on the "face" of something that you have already created. You only really need to start your very FIRST sketch on one of the default "planes". The very first part that you make MUST be an extruded 'boss or base" to actually get a part made. After it is made, you can then start a sketch on one of the other default planes or on the side of the "part" which you have created and use the "extruded cut" command to drive a specific shape hole (cut) either through the part completely, or to a depth which you specify.


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 28, 2008)

Once you get a little experience you don't have to draw individual parts, you can work within an "assembly" of parts that make up your project (assuming that there is more them one part). You create a work plain on an existing surface ,see Brian's explanation, and then the new sketch can use points on the older part as a reference. The previous parts in an assembly usually "fade out" so they aren't in the way of the new part being made. Hard to explain with out visuals and over the net.

The easiest way to understand 3D is not to think of it as drawing, the program does all that for you when your model is done, but it is more like virtual sculpting. You are building a virtual part or assembly which fits together just like they were in the real world, usually better then the real world. The hard part is making the real parts to the same level of accuracy that the program can draw them. It's easy to model things that are pretty much impossible to make.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 28, 2008)

Loose nut  said:
			
		

> Once you get a little experience you don't have to draw individual parts, you can work within an "assembly" of parts that make up your project (assuming that there is more them one part). You create a work plain on an existing surface ,see Brian's explanation, and then the new sketch can use points on the older part as a reference. The previous parts in an assembly usually "fade out" so they aren't in the way of the new part being made. Hard to explain with out visuals and over the net.
> 
> The easiest way to understand 3D is not to think of it as drawing, the program does all that for you when your model is done, but it is more like virtual sculpting. You are building a virtual part or assembly which fits together just like they were in the real world, usually better then the real world. The hard part is making the real parts to the same level of accuracy that the program can draw them. It's easy to model things that are pretty much impossible to make.


Loose Nut--Which CAD program are you using? In Solidworks, everything goes back to the "Part" level. Yes, when you become an advanced modeler, you can create "in context" parts in an assembly, and reference existing geometry, but the part thus created is still saved as a "part" file. However, I stress, this is for ADVANCED modelers, not someone who is just being introduced to 3D.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 28, 2008)

Hilmar  said:
			
		

> I tried my Expansion Link again. Got the lines straighten out but the rendering is not working out. I will ad an attachment .
> #1 starting out OK in 2D
> #2 gave Height in 3D and wireframe
> #3 render but only the slot should be white looks this has no top or buttom
> ...



Hilmar---The .PDF sheet is blank.---Brian


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 28, 2008)

Hilmar,

It's not working for me either, I just get a page of scribble   ............ If I can be of any help mate ....... just ask.

CC


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 28, 2008)

Brian Rupnow  said:
			
		

> Loose Nut--Which CAD program are you using? In Solidworks, everything goes back to the "Part" level. Yes, when you become an advanced modeler, you can create "in context" parts in an assembly, and reference existing geometry, but the part thus created is still saved as a "part" file. However, I stress, this is for ADVANCED modelers, not someone who is just being introduced to 3D.



I have an older version of AD Inventor which is pretty much the same as Solidworks. The "parts" produced this way are saved in part sub files in an assembly file so they can be opened either as a part or as an assembly. If the part is modeled individually then it is saved as a part file but can be imported into an assembly. It's a choice of either top down or bottom up design, which ever works best for the individual. Just different ways of doing the same thing. Solidworks probably does the same thing but in a different manner and depending on which versions of the two programs you compare, one may have certain features that the other doesn't but they are always playing catchup with each other. Alibre will do it in a similar manner as well.

Assembly modeling is more advanced, and probably not worth doing for making models, I was just trying to point out the fact that there is a advantage to this type of cad work over the older 2D style but it doesn't work so well in a couple of sentences.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Sep 28, 2008)

Loose Nut---I agree with you 100%, in that 3D is so far beyond 2D in its abilities that its unbelieveable. I worked in 2D Autocad for 3 years (after 33 or34 years on a drafting board, and although it has a few advantages over a drafting board, I didn't see any tremendous advantages in having switched to "computerized" drafting. Then due to market pressure, I purchased 3D and went for training courses. I simply can not believe the incredible increase in productivity. I've been using 3D for 7 years now, and I can't say enough good things about it. One large caveat, however, is that unless you are using it every day to make a living, it is outrageously expensive, and it IS DIFFICULT to learn to use with any proficiency. It is definitly not a "once in a while" type of software. Far to many things to remember if you're not using it every day.


----------



## Hilmar (Sep 28, 2008)

Maybe this one works

I tried my Expansion Link again. Got the lines straighten out but the rendering is not working out. I will ad an attachment .
#1 starting out OK in 2D
#2 gave Height in 3D and wireframe
#3 render but only the slot should be white looks this has no top or buttom

Hilmar


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 29, 2008)

Hilmar  said:
			
		

> Maybe this one works



 8)


----------



## MadKad (Sep 29, 2008)

Hi

is Alibre still free or just a trial version?

or would you lot say to use something else for cad? (free if possible lol)

I was using PowerSHAPE-e 7.3.50 but its confusing lol


----------



## Peter Neill (Sep 29, 2008)

Hilmar  said:
			
		

> Maybe this one works
> 
> I tried my Expansion Link again. Got the lines straighten out but the rendering is not working out. I will ad an attachment .
> #1 starting out OK in 2D
> ...



Hilmar, what you have done there is extrude *surfaces*, not solids.
I don't know TurboCad, but you should have another icon button or pull-down menu command to extrude a sold.

Peter


----------



## Loose nut (Sep 29, 2008)

Brian, I agree that 3D does take some effort to learn but so does learning to draw at a drafting table or machining, it's just a another skill and if you really get into it it can be very interesting, at least for us amateurs, the need for production by professionals might mitigate that.

In my current long term project (it isn't suppose to be, it just worked out that way) I started out with Easy cad 2D, then an old copy of ACAD 12 which was miserable to use for 3D but it was state of the art in it's day (wire frames and surfaces) then Quick cad in 2D which was a great little program for basic drafting and then Inventor. 3D cad can be had free or cheap. Alibre's free version is a cut down version but most of the capability that a modeler needs is still there, Turbocad isn't that expensive, and there are others that are available on the web for free with some limitations, like no support and some advanced functions cut out. There is a version of Autodesk Inventor Lite available as a free download, it's good for one year then the next version comes out, and it's free also. It would be nice to have the PRO software but it isn't necessary for model makers.

Brian, I know that all this would be old hat to you, I put it in for some that are just learning about 3D cad

The only real difference between the expensive packages and the free or cheap cad's is the bells and whistles. Programs like Solidworks, Inventor, Pro E, Catia etc. have a lot of built in functions like feature generators and analysis tools such as FEA plus sheet metal layout and weldments. There is a lot of design support tools for group work too, but these things are mostly beyond the amateurs needs so the lesser cad programs are adequate.

Most companies have downloaded-able 3D drawings of there products, gears, sprockets, nuts and bolts etc. that can be had as .sat or step files for free so this offsets the lack of function generates in the free programs. You can even download whole pumps and motor assembly drawings Etc. with all there specs. but that is also beyond our needs too. 

 I added the following picture as an example of the gears generated by a function generator, for those that haven't seen what one can do, you just input a few variables and the program generates the 3D model in a few seconds, which you can add to or remove parts (bosses and shaft holes) to make your finished part.

You can download the same thing from a company that sells gears.


----------



## MadKad (Sep 30, 2008)

Hi

ok I got the trial version of alibre I did this

http://www.madkad.co.uk/taper/taper.html

its a good program and easy to learn, one question I have so far is how do you make the parts look like real metal or colours for different sections?

has any one done that?


----------



## steamer (Sep 30, 2008)

Madkad

Yes go to EDIT in the top command line and then select COLOR PROPERTIES

From there you will get a pop up window with the various color, opacity, and reflectivity options. The little block with a ring will change as you select the differant options.  It's pretty self explanitory from there.

Dave


----------



## MadKad (Sep 30, 2008)

steamer  said:
			
		

> Madkad
> 
> Yes go to EDIT in the top command line and then select COLOR PROPERTIES
> 
> ...



Thank you mate, I played with that but found it changes all the parts to the same colour, how would I change different sectons to different colors if needed?

thank you


----------



## CrewCab (Sep 30, 2008)

Bear in mind ........... I only use an old version of 2D Autocad, however I would have thought the principals would have continued, I would select the "Item" first then edit it's properties .............. keep working with it MK, it will probably all fall into place in a day or two once you've had some more practice .................... then when your an expert you can write simple tutorials for us "Old Folks" ;D

CC


----------



## MadKad (Sep 30, 2008)

LOL crewcab I will see if that will do it now

after looking at http://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/index.php?topic=2794.msg27021#msg27021

I had a little go I did it a different way for the cone part I used edge chamfer, mine looks a little fat and more like an engraving part lol


EDIT: after looking I found that it wouldnt do it that way, the only way I have worked out so far is to make each part on there own and save them as each file for each part then insert all as one in a "new assembly" each part can be different colours then, if any one knows adifferent way it would be great


----------



## steamer (Sep 30, 2008)

MadKad,

That is exactly how you do it.

Now put it all together using assembly mates, and you in like Flynn.

There should be a tutorial on all of this if not part of the software, then online.

I would look.

Dave


----------



## Loose nut (Oct 1, 2008)

All of the programs do things a little differently but the get you to the same place in the end. 

Just keep plugging away until some night when when you realize that you have been at it for 5 or 6 hours and didn't even know it, that when you will know that you hooked.


----------

