3D Drafting and Design Software Comparison

[JorgensenSteam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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