Hello all,
Some time ago (June 2nd), I posted a question about woodworking design
tasks titled "Picture to Plans." The essence of my need was how to take
a picture of my daughter's choosing and turn it into a "reasonable
replica" - minus any fancy turnings, curves, and what not. (For
reference, the picture is posted in abpw under "Daughter's Dresser."
Since then, I've bought TurboCAD and spent a good 40-60 hours learning
to use it. Under the kind advice of "Bob," I pasted the picture into
TurboCAD, and using the dimensions from the furniture store website,
created a simple, front-end, 2D view.
In my struggles with TurboCAD, I've created 3-D breadboard tops, and a
few mortise and tenon assemblies - so while no expert, 3D makes some
sense to me. In creating my dresser plan, I had assumed that I would
create the 3-D image as I would build it. Make a 3-D carcass, create the
3-D internals, attach the carcass, create 3-D drawers and insert them,
etc. However, one of the tools that I've used in learning TurboCAD is
the "Modern Desk" PDF tutorial from Textual Creations. His method was to
create a 2D front drawing and extrude out the members into 3D. (200+
pages of step by step for dummies for $30 - strongly recommended!)
I'd like to keep with my method if possible - building and assembling 3D
members vs extruding a 2D drawing. After working through his tutorial,
I'm not sure which way is "right" - or what the trade-offs are between
the two approaches.
Yes, I wholly understand this is a CAD question - but I figured I'd be
speaking to folks with similar experiences and needs vs getting
responses from draftsmen that I wouldn't even understand.
Guess Who, I'll be needed help on creating that "O" (converted to an
"H") in about 3 more months at this rate...
Regards,
-JBD in Denver
"CW" wrote in message
> Drawing 2D profiles and extruding is the way to go in most cases. Starting
> with a 2D drawing allows you to have exactly the profile you need from the
> start without the need of slicing or otherwise modifying the shape of a 3D
> primitive object.
<snip>
Damn ... that one single post was an eye/mind opener, and explained a lot of
things that have just not been that intuitive regarding CAD.
Thanks!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/21/06
I do almost exactly as CW explained.
The only real difference is, I start with a layer that contains
a cube, the dimensions of which the object must fit within. It's
visible when I'm working at the extremes, hidden otherwise. And
locked, of course.
Then I create all the layers I think I'll need; that way
they're in a logical order, at least to me. Those are titled iN
ALL CAPS, with later added layer in all lower case.
Then I create a sketch-layer or two, for practicing with
different ideas. If a part works, great, transfer it to the good
layer, else delete, whatever might seem most reasonable.
The fewer on-screen dimensions you have to use, the better,
IMO. Then in the end you just dimension the relevant parts and
go from there.
It's also handy to "group" certain layers together for quicker
access to a view, and use Layers freely.
TurboCad has a definite learning curve, but you'll never be sorry
once you're up the hill a ways. IMO anyway.
Pop
CW wrote:
> Drawing 2D profiles and extruding is the way to go in most
> cases. Starting with a 2D drawing allows you to have
> exactly the profile you need from the start without the
> need of slicing or otherwise modifying the shape of a 3D
> primitive object. Not having seen Don's tutorial (I
> remember when he was a newbie asking questions), I don't
> really know how involved he makes the 2D drawing from the
> start. my method is to start with the most prominent part.
> Draw it in 2D, extrude to thickness and add any further
> detail. I then change workplanes to suite the next part of
> the assembly and go through the same process with that one.
> I build the parts in place, placing each one on it's own
> layer. By building the parts in place, a fit is assured and
> you can use existing parts to determine dimensions of new
> parts being built. The more measuring you do, the more
> likely you are to make a mistake. The downside is, by my
> method, a firm grasp of workplanes is necessary, a concept
> that not everyone finds intuitive. There are some that
> build each part flat on the world workplane and then
> assemble the parts when done. This, to me, is the hard way.
> A couple of tips: If you are designing something that must
> fit into a particular space, draw a 3D cube of those
> dimensions, put it on it's own layer and lock it. Then,
> build inside it. A fit is insured without constantly having
> to measure. Same goes for making something that must
> contain something else. Draw a shape of the dimensions that
> the part must fit around and build around it.
>
> "John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Some time ago (June 2nd), I posted a question about
> > woodworking design tasks titled "Picture to Plans." The
> > essence of my need was how to take a picture of my
> > daughter's choosing and turn it into a "reasonable
> > replica" - minus any fancy turnings, curves, and what
> > not. (For reference, the picture is posted in abpw under
> > "Daughter's Dresser."
> >
> > Since then, I've bought TurboCAD and spent a good 40-60
> > hours learning to use it. Under the kind advice of "Bob,"
> > I pasted the picture into TurboCAD, and using the
> > dimensions from the furniture store website, created a
> > simple, front-end, 2D view.
> >
> > In my struggles with TurboCAD, I've created 3-D
> > breadboard tops, and a few mortise and tenon assemblies -
> > so while no expert, 3D makes some sense to me. In
> > creating my dresser plan, I had assumed that I would
> > create the 3-D image as I would build it. Make a 3-D
> > carcass, create the 3-D internals, attach the carcass,
> > create 3-D drawers and insert them, etc. However, one of
> > the tools that I've used in learning TurboCAD is the
> > "Modern Desk" PDF tutorial from Textual Creations. His
> > method was to create a 2D front drawing and extrude out
> > the members into 3D. (200+ pages of step by step for
> > dummies for $30 - strongly recommended!)
> >
> > I'd like to keep with my method if possible - building
> > and assembling 3D members vs extruding a 2D drawing.
> > After working through his tutorial, I'm not sure which
> > way is "right" - or what the trade-offs are between the
> > two approaches.
> >
> > Yes, I wholly understand this is a CAD question - but I
> > figured I'd be speaking to folks with similar experiences
> > and needs vs getting responses from draftsmen that I
> > wouldn't even understand.
> >
> > Guess Who, I'll be needed help on creating that "O"
> > (converted to an "H") in about 3 more months at this
> > rate...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -JBD in Denver
Drawing 2D profiles and extruding is the way to go in most cases. Starting
with a 2D drawing allows you to have exactly the profile you need from the
start without the need of slicing or otherwise modifying the shape of a 3D
primitive object. Not having seen Don's tutorial (I remember when he was a
newbie asking questions), I don't really know how involved he makes the 2D
drawing from the start. my method is to start with the most prominent part.
Draw it in 2D, extrude to thickness and add any further detail. I then
change workplanes to suite the next part of the assembly and go through the
same process with that one. I build the parts in place, placing each one on
it's own layer. By building the parts in place, a fit is assured and you can
use existing parts to determine dimensions of new parts being built. The
more measuring you do, the more likely you are to make a mistake. The
downside is, by my method, a firm grasp of workplanes is necessary, a
concept that not everyone finds intuitive. There are some that build each
part flat on the world workplane and then assemble the parts when done.
This, to me, is the hard way. A couple of tips: If you are designing
something that must fit into a particular space, draw a 3D cube of those
dimensions, put it on it's own layer and lock it. Then, build inside it. A
fit is insured without constantly having to measure. Same goes for making
something that must contain something else. Draw a shape of the dimensions
that the part must fit around and build around it.
"John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello all,
>
> Some time ago (June 2nd), I posted a question about woodworking design
> tasks titled "Picture to Plans." The essence of my need was how to take
> a picture of my daughter's choosing and turn it into a "reasonable
> replica" - minus any fancy turnings, curves, and what not. (For
> reference, the picture is posted in abpw under "Daughter's Dresser."
>
> Since then, I've bought TurboCAD and spent a good 40-60 hours learning
> to use it. Under the kind advice of "Bob," I pasted the picture into
> TurboCAD, and using the dimensions from the furniture store website,
> created a simple, front-end, 2D view.
>
> In my struggles with TurboCAD, I've created 3-D breadboard tops, and a
> few mortise and tenon assemblies - so while no expert, 3D makes some
> sense to me. In creating my dresser plan, I had assumed that I would
> create the 3-D image as I would build it. Make a 3-D carcass, create the
> 3-D internals, attach the carcass, create 3-D drawers and insert them,
> etc. However, one of the tools that I've used in learning TurboCAD is
> the "Modern Desk" PDF tutorial from Textual Creations. His method was to
> create a 2D front drawing and extrude out the members into 3D. (200+
> pages of step by step for dummies for $30 - strongly recommended!)
>
> I'd like to keep with my method if possible - building and assembling 3D
> members vs extruding a 2D drawing. After working through his tutorial,
> I'm not sure which way is "right" - or what the trade-offs are between
> the two approaches.
>
> Yes, I wholly understand this is a CAD question - but I figured I'd be
> speaking to folks with similar experiences and needs vs getting
> responses from draftsmen that I wouldn't even understand.
>
> Guess Who, I'll be needed help on creating that "O" (converted to an
> "H") in about 3 more months at this rate...
>
> Regards,
>
> -JBD in Denver