Simple cad/design software?

"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I quit upgrading my TurboCad at version 10, so I can't speak to
> version 16. If you'll take that into consideration, I'll echo
> Swingman. TC is a much more full featured 3D CAD system than SU. As
> such, I found TC's learning curve somewhat harder to climb but, once
> climbed, it's more versatile.
>
As a point of reference, the latest 2D - 3D TurboCAD 16 communicates well
with sketchup. It can import sketchup files and export to sketchup.
Sooooo. if you need to use a CAD program later, you can buy a new TurboCAD
16 2D - 3D for about $130 list. I am sure some one will give you a little
better price.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 20:26:19 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Prof Wonmug wrote:
>>>> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
>>>> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>>>>
>>>> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
>>>> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>>> I suggest trying the free version of SketchUp. If you find that it
>>> doesn't do everything you want, then find a package that can at a price
>>> you're comfortable with.
>>>
>>> For getting started, free should be fairly comfortable. :)
>>>
>> ...and get the sketchup cutlist plugin:
>>
>> http://lumberjocks.com/daltxguy/blog/5143
>
>...and with the sketchup cutlist plugin, you don't even have to put all
>the pieces in their proper place - just drag the appropiate number of
>each part to the layout screen, select all of them and render the cutlist.
>
>Just did this for the Rockler Murphy bed with bookcases. Saved a few
>sheets of expensive ply.

I'll get that as soon as I have a sense of the program. I've spent a
couple of hours watching video tutorials and drawing simple objects. I
think this going to be a very useful tool.

Thanks

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:51:11 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 23, 2:56 pm, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
>> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>>
>> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
>> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>>
>> My current project is a net for practicing golf shots in the backyard.
>> There are nets available from various manufacturers. I want to build a
>> frame out of PVC or wood or something to hold the net. It needs to fit
>> the available net sizes, fold up for temporary storage, and
>> disassemble for long-term storage.
>>
>> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
>> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being able to
>> see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>>
>> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+software+...
>>
>> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to SketchUp
>> Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how the free
>> version compares?
>
>You were on the right track, but you need to delve further. Operative
>search term, "comparison".
>http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html

Thanks. I found that page after poking around a bit.

"Swingman" wrote:

> Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.

A bit testy tonight, I see<grin>.

Lew

On May 24, 3:23=A0pm, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 24, 11:07=A0am, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
>
> >> >The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
> >> >pester you to upgrade.
>
> >> Have you used it? Would it be a good tool for designing my practice
> >> net? Will it let me design the "pieces" (support rails or poles,
> >> connectors, cross pieces, etc.) and then connect them?
>
> >> Can it print a materials list showing me what I need to go buy to
> >> build it?
>
> >> Do I get a 3D look?
>
> >I have a question for you. =A0Assuming that you are a professor and/or
> >have some teaching experience, what is your reaction when you give a
> >reading assignment and a student asks you questions the next day that
> >make it obvious that they did not do the reading?
>
> You sound annoyed. Sorry about that.

It happens. I'm funny that way when people ask questions like, "Do I
get a 3D look?" halfway into a thread about SketchUp. I dare you to
show me a single page on all of the internet that gives any sort of
overview of SketchUp and doesn't mention it's 3D capabilities. It is
what SU is all about!

Let's take a quick gander at what a bare-bones search of 'SketchUp'
offers up.

#
Google SketchUp
A 3D sketching software for the conceptual phases of design.
sketchup.google.com/ - 7k - Cached - Similar pages -
Downloads
3D Warehouse
SketchUp 7
Training

Pro
New features in SketchUp 7 and ...
Product Tour
Products
More results from google.com =BB
#
Google SketchUp
Google SketchUp Pro 7 is a suite of powerful features and applications
for ... Download Google SketchUp 7 and create, modify and share 3D
models for free. ...
sketchup.google.com/download/ - 8k - Cached - Similar pages -
#
SketchUp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many different 3D and 2D exporters are available in SketchUp for uses
such as rendering. This model was made in SketchUp and rendered in
Kerkythea. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SketchUp - 58k - Cached - Similar pages -

Does anything jump out at you? Anything that has a 3 followed by a D?
Either there is a major laziness problem or you have serious reading/
retention issues.

> First of all, this is a discussion group, not a classroom. No one is
> the student and no one is the professor. We're peers. One person may
> know more about one thing, someone else will know more about something
> else. We are trying to pool our knowledge so that everyone benefits.
> Different people will make different suggestions. The readers,
> including many who are mainly lurkers, will benefit from the entire
> discussion.

No one is the student? No one is the professor? Are you kidding me?
There are people on this group with skills I couldn't touch. I might
not agree with their diversions into politics, etc., but there's no
way that they are not 'giving a schooling'.

You are asking for a quick bring-me-up-to-speed education. Four out
of the first five replies all pointed to SketchUp and provided exactly
the information you were asking for and included links.

> Secondly, you seem to have assumed that I am too lazy to do any work
> myself. This is a little arrogant. I suggest you get more
> psychological training to help you read minds, because you're not that
> good at it. ;-)

You did not read the links that were posted as they answered your
questions. So, either it's laziness or...?

> Bert offered some information suggesting that he had experience with
> SketchUp. I responded to that as I would if we were face to face.
> Feedback from an actual user is worth its weight in gold. I have
> downloaded and installed SketchUp and am working my way through the
> tutorials, but I can easily get in 2 minutes from an experienced user
> what might take me days to stumble through on my own.

I see the confusion. You consort with people that offer advice
without ever having had experience with the item in question. I have
yet to find anyone on this newsgroup that does that. If they have no
personal experience, they say they have no personal experience. It
keeps things simple.

If you had Googled this newsgroup you would have known this, known
that there are plenty of people here with lots of experience in
SketchUp and that no one is intentionally trying to mislead you.

> Finally, my questions are very likely going to be beneficial to others
> who are following this thread now or might find it in the archives.
> Thje more complete it is, the better.

You mean the archives you didn't search? There are people on this
newsgroup who swear by SU and use it for all sorts of applications.
There are long running debates here on whether it is a panacea for all
things design, or an amazing niche product. You would know this if
you had done even the most basic Usenet search.

Since you are a 'nucular' physicist, Google "Sketchy Physics". Click
on a link - any one of them will do, then, here's the key part, _read_
the stuff. Then come back and tell us how _wonderful_ it is. I
promise to act surprised.

> >That's what everyone here is feeling at the moment. =A0Click the links
> >in this thread and read. =A0There are different versions of SketchUp
> >with different capabilities, and there are plugins that vastly
> >increase the capabilities.
>
> Now you are speaking for everyone? Did you take a poll or is this more
> of your intuitive skills?

I do not suffer fools gladly. Other people are more polite than I
am. If you need hand-holding and spoon-feeding you should probably
either grow thicker skin fast or seek out a touchy feely newsgroup to
help get your feet wet with Usenet.

> It's probably best that you avoid any teaching roles. It sounds like
> you don't have the patience for it. ;-)

As I said...

R

Prof Wonmug wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>
> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.

I suggest trying the free version of SketchUp. If you find that it
doesn't do everything you want, then find a package that can at a price
you're comfortable with.

For getting started, free should be fairly comfortable. :)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Prof Wonmug wrote:

> You sound annoyed. Sorry about that.

It's all too easy to assume that people with questions are familiar with
the search tools. A Google groups search of rec.woodworking would turn
up a number of threads with long and detailed discussions (complete with
links to SketchUp models) by the folks here.

Here's a Google search link for SketchUp and SU on rec.woodworking
(watch out for possible line wrapping):

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_oq=SketchUp+SU&as_ugroup=rec.woodworking

Hope you find this helpful.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

I was off the wreck for a while and I came across this thread.

In case anyone is looking for something more, Carrara 6.2 Pro, and Hex
v? can be gotten for about $20 at http://www.daz3d.com/ (but their web
site is down today, so I can't post a link to the exact product).
The two are included on the CD ROM of a book they are selling for $20.

Carrara is a 3d animation program used to make photo-realistic or
cartoon animations, or just pretty pictures. But it also includes a
vertex modeller which is more than sufficient for doing CAD design.
The only issue is that there is a quite steep learning curve to it. I
personally model with Cararra, because I'm used to the interface, but
from what I've heard, Hex is even better, and is likely easier to
learn. (There's a learning curve to both of course). Here's some
preliminary designs of a table I designed with Carrara (it was REALLY
helpful for this project -- for planning the length and dimentions of
the legs, slides etc. My first few models ended up having pieces
colide with each other when the table folded/unfolded, but after a few
adjustments I got a working model and I was able to take my
measurements directly from the program).

http://www.ulvr.com/john/animations/XTableDesign.jpg
http://www.ulvr.com/john/animations/XTable4.jpg

Note: My final table design is actually a bit different than the
picture -- I reduced it to having a single gear, and reduced the
number of pieces significantly. I also got VectorStyle Plug in since
then, and can publish much nicer diagrams, but I'm at work, and my
files are at home, so I can't post anything except what's already on
the web.

John

Swingman wrote:
> Prof Wonmug wrote:

> Check here for some additional information on SketchUp and woodworking:

And another:

http://www.srww.com/google-sketchup.htm

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On May 24, 11:07=A0am, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
>
> >The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
> >pester you to upgrade.
>
> Have you used it? Would it be a good tool for designing my practice
> net? Will it let me design the "pieces" (support rails or poles,
> connectors, cross pieces, etc.) and then connect them?
>
> Can it print a materials list showing me what I need to go buy to
> build it?
>
> Do I get a 3D look?

I have a question for you. Assuming that you are a professor and/or
have some teaching experience, what is your reaction when you give a
reading assignment and a student asks you questions the next day that
make it obvious that they did not do the reading?

That's what everyone here is feeling at the moment. Click the links
in this thread and read. There are different versions of SketchUp
with different capabilities, and there are plugins that vastly
increase the capabilities.

R

On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:18:04 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:10:41 -0700, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Do you know how it compares to the free version of Google SketchUp for
>>fairly simple woodworking projects? I think I'm going to download and
>>try SketchUp first, since it's free, but if I need something more, it
>>would be good to know what TurboCad can do that SketchUp can't.
>
>I quit upgrading my TurboCad at version 10, so I can't speak to
>version 16. If you'll take that into consideration, I'll echo
>Swingman. TC is a much more full featured 3D CAD system than SU. As
>such, I found TC's learning curve somewhat harder to climb but, once
>climbed, it's more versatile.
>
> A specific item I recall is the dimensioning, formatting and
>production of shop drawings. I wouldn't call it a "piece of cake" in
>TC, but it does a fairly nice job. If you need dimensioned shop
>drawings, SU is somewhat cumbersome, and the dimensioning package
>isn't nearly as versatile as TC. If you don't need or use shop
>drawings, then that's a non-issue.

All of my projects are fairly simple and for my own use. I watched the
dimensioning tutorial. I think it will be good enough for me.

>Another specific that I remember TC having the edge of SU is in the
>category of non-rectilinear sections. The set of curves and 3-d
>geometry operations, addition, subtraction, etc. is more general with
>TC. SU makes many assumptions about what it thinks you want to do.
>Many time, SU is right, but there are times I find myself going from
>Chicago to New York by way of Atlanta because of those "I know what
>you want" assumptions.

A lot of software is going that way lately. It's great when it guesses
correctly. Not so much when it doesn't, especially if it isn't nice
about letting me take over.

>I'd almost compare the two as similar to a comparison between Visual
>Basic and C++. Visual Basic (SU) does a lot of things for you behind
>the scenes that C++ (TC) doesn't. You may not want those things done
>by default in a particular application, but, if you do, developing the
>application can be faster in VB/SU than in TC/C++.
>
>I'd like to give you a more detailed, point-by-point comparison, but
>I'm way non-current both in version and recent experience with TC (and
>VB and C++ also for that matter). My last use of TC was designing my
>Gazebo several years ago. It did a fine job with a lot of weirdly
>shaped, non-square, components. For something of like complexity, I'd
>reinstall TC and refresh my expertise. For simpler tasks and
>conceptual modeling of furniture and cabinetry items, my go-to is SU.
>I'm currently working on an 80x28x20 walnut wine cabinet for my oldest
>son and SU is the tool I'm using for the conceptual layout and design.
>
>One thing I really like about SU is a wide variety of plugins. One I
>find very useful is an interface to CutList Plus that exports an input
>file for Cut List. The SU model has to be made with that in mind, but
>that pair, CL and SU, does the vast majority of the things I need for
>my shop projects.

Thanks for the insight.

On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:25:15 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:01:51 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Typcially it takes about three tries with SU to get into doing
>>> woodworking. Some patience is required, but much less than with most CAD
>>> programs, so don't give up.
>
>> Well, I'm probably halfway between try #1 & #2. It's not any harder
>> than Visio and a lot more powerful for what I am trying to do.
>
>I think you are still on try #1. After you play with it for a week,
>quit for a month or year, and re-start... then you will be on try #2.
>It took me 4 tries, not 3 but I think you skipped try #1, which is
>normally to install it, and see what you can do with out RTFM.

You may be right -- either that or I am on 1.5, but it will take me 5
tries. ;-)

>Regardless of number of tries, Sketchup is almost perfect for the
>hobbyist wood worker. You can quickly draw up cabinets, shelves, work
>benches, chairs, tables, pencil holders and golf net frames to scale and
>with 3D graphics, color the designs with wood types or paint so you can
>get a nice look at what your project will look like before you build it.

I haven't even started looking at colors and textures, but I did watch
an amazing video showing how to model a structure from a photo:

http://www.aidanchopra.com/tableofcontents/chapter-8/modeling-by-photo-matching

BTW: This site, which is a companion to the book, has a ton of
excellent videos:

http://www.aidanchopra.com/Home

> You can print out the design with dimensioned drawings to make
>building it a snap. This is all FREE, so it's impossible to beat the
>price. The pro version is like $500 and has about no features the free
>version doesn't have. The few things the pro version does would not be
>of much value to the average home hobbyist woodworker, or even a small
>shop professional. You probably can design, draw and build (and pay for)
>an entire kitchen for your loved one with the free version faster than
>you can learn to use (and pay for) Autocad.
>
>If you are designing a launch pad for NASA, or hooking your drawing up
>to a $500,000 CNC water jet/laser cutter, you probably want to look into
>going to school for a few years and getting familiar with AutoCad types
>of programs that cost as much as most wood shops.

That's for sure. A full-scale CAD program was never an option. ;-) If
something like SketchUp was not available, it would be pencil and
paper.

>Otherwise, let us know how many tries it takes you to figure out how
>good free can get.

I think I've figured that out already.

I googled Sketch up and go this ...

Google SketchUp - Free software downloads and reviews - CNET ...
Google SketchUp is a free, easy-to-learn 3D-modeling program with a few ...
Google SketchUp is a great way to discover if 3D modeling is right for you.
...
download.cnet.com/Google-SketchUp/3000-6677_4-10257337.html - 90k - Cached -
Similar pages

yields ...this

http://download.cnet.com/Google-SketchUp/3000-6677_4-10257337.html





"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c6f7c51d-7cfc-4259-8c54-6fc5c29fa275@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 2:56 pm, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>
> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>
> My current project is a net for practicing golf shots in the backyard.
> There are nets available from various manufacturers. I want to build a
> frame out of PVC or wood or something to hold the net. It needs to fit
> the available net sizes, fold up for temporary storage, and
> disassemble for long-term storage.
>
> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being able to
> see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>
> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+software+...
>
> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to SketchUp
> Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how the free
> version compares?

You were on the right track, but you need to delve further. Operative
search term, "comparison".
http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html

R

evodawg wrote:

> I'm curious about the face frame on the casework jpg. Why didn't you
> continue the top rail all the way across, instead you divided it twice. You
> do beautiful work and this wasn't intended to criticize, just wondered.
> Kinda caught my eye right away.

Good eye ... and normally I would not do it that way, but that method
did not lend itself to this particular design due to the necessity of
the interor casework sides, the size, the small shop, and the method of
work.

It's a long story ... also I was not sure whether I wanted to build the
two side components of the hutch first, then using the curved rail and
top rail to join them into one piece ... much easier to handle in a
small shop and working alone.

I build face frames first, then assemble the casework in grooves dadoed
in the face frames. I use pocket hole joinery (in the face frames only),
and the pocket holes would have interfered with the installation of
interior casework sides in the interior stiles.

Once the face frame and casework is joined and glued, the extra joint
becomes moot, except in appearance, but keep in mind this in going in a
kitchen and the stile appearance in the hutch is reflected in the run of
the other cabinets.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

evodawg wrote:

> Ok, I'm a one man shop to, but I think I'd still would have made that rail
> continue across without intersecting it. I usually build the case then the
> face frame. I also use biscuits and pocket holes to join my face frames.
> Can't imagine doing it any other way.

Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Prof Wonmug wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:52:00 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> TurboCad does a nice job and it isn't near that price. Might get last years
>> low or no cost.
>> http://www.turbocad.com/ TurboCAD 16 Deluxe is 129.95 on the web site.
>>
>> They have been doing 3D of one sort to another since Win 95 and floppy.
>
> Do you know how it compares to the free version of Google SketchUp for
> fairly simple woodworking projects? I think I'm going to download and
> try SketchUp first, since it's free, but if I need something more, it
> would be good to know what TurboCad can do that SketchUp can't.
>

Turbo CAD is CAD software, SketchUp is 3D modeling software.

There are a number of folks here who use SketchUp for woodworking
endavors. Do a google news group search on "Sketchup" and you will find
a world of discussion on the program and its uses.

Check here for some additional information on SketchUp and woodworking:

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/blog/design-click-build

There are also quite a few here willing to answer your questions about
using SU in your woodworking endeavors.

Typcially it takes about three tries with SU to get into doing
woodworking. Some patience is required, but much less than with most CAD
programs, so don't give up.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being
> able to see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
> This site has a brief review of some programs.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+softwar
> e+for+woodworking+review&aq=0&oq=&aqi=
> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to
> SketchUp Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how
> the free version compares?

The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
pester you to upgrade.

-MIKE- wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> .....the size, the small shop, and the method of
>> work.
>>
>> ... much easier to handle in a small shop and working alone.
>>
>
> So, I'm not the only one who has to deal with not having enough room. :-)

Is it ever possible to have "enough" room? That's kinda like saying you
already have enough clamps, isn't it? :-)

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On May 26, 8:32=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >> Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.
>
> > A bit testy tonight, I see<grin>.
>
> Yeah, with well over five hundred cabinets under your belt you tend to
> get that way with the smug who "can't imagine doing it any other way",
> yet have no clue as to why it was necessary to do it differently then
> they would given the circumstances.

When I read Evo's second post, the one after the one where he was
complementing you on your work and saying that he wasn't trying to
criticize, I knew that it would be misconstrued. There should have
been some space between the comment about the top rail of the face
frame, and the pocket- hole-couldn't-imagine part.

> I build entire kitchens at a time, therefore I set up to produce parts
> for 20 to 40 cabinets and their components ... you can't always do that
> the same way that you can when you have the luxury and time to do a one-o=
ff.

Of course shop conditions influence design - it can be no other way.
Same with experiences. If both of Evo's posts were combined into one,
you probably wouldn't have taken issue. Next time he'll know to put
the part about "I'm not criticizing" in the post where he's
criticizing. ;)

> That said, I do hereby apologize for my "testiness".

I'll have to look up the etymology of the word testiness. I wonder if
it's derived from testes. Maybe in olden days people would get miffed
if they got kicked in the balls. Thankfully we've evolved.

R

On May 23, 2:56=A0pm, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>
> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>
> My current project is a net for practicing golf shots in the backyard.
> There are nets available from various manufacturers. I want to build a
> frame out of PVC or wood or something to hold the net. It needs to fit
> the available net sizes, fold up for temporary storage, and
> disassemble for long-term storage.
>
> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being able to
> see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>
> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&num=3D20&newwindow=3D1&q=3Dcad+softw=
are+...
>
> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to SketchUp
> Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how the free
> version compares?

You were on the right track, but you need to delve further. Operative
search term, "comparison".
http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html

R

On May 25, 2:45=A0am, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:11:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Will you be posting the SU file online? =A0I'd like to see it. =A0Finish=
ed
> >product, too, of course.
>
> I hadn't though about it, one way or the other, but there's no reason
> not to. It may be a while before it's published since I just started
> looking at it yesterday when he sent me the dimensions (yes, inches,
> BTW)

Glad to hear it's inches - I was worried about his liver. ;)
Obviously there's no rush on the thing, but I would like to see the
process as it moves along. Pixels to pouring as it were.

> We've a ways to go before the model looks like much more than a
> coffin standing on end. I'll have to take some pictures of finished
> walnut to use for the SU material image.

http://www.johnlabraham.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/Co=
ffin1982.jpg.w300h461.jpg
http://www.coffinitup.com/kitchen/uppers.htm

> The walnut was given to me by a neighbor. He's a building contractor
> who was remodeling a house for some physician. They stripped out a
> bunch of paneling and was hauling it to the dump. On the way, he
> stopped by my house to see if I might want to try to salvage it.

I'm guessing the drool coming out of the corner of your mouth tipped
him off that you would be willing to save him the trip to the dump. I
think that neighbor is a keeper.

> The bed of his pickup was loaded with 3/4" walnut T&G boards about 6"
> x 9 feet. After ripping off the damaged edges and planing down the
> reliefs on the back of the boards, the actual surfaced dimensions
> calculated out to about 120 board feet. Would have been more except
> they didn't take any pains to preserve the wood while they were
> tearing it out and quite a bit was too damaged to be worth trying to
> save. Still, some pretty boards that were headed to the burn pile,
> didn't quite get there.

Damn! A literal drive-by gloat and I walked right into it! You are
the suck meister!

R

Prof Wonmug wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:58:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Prof Wonmug wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the pointers.
>> An example of the usefulness of the program for some woodworking projects:
>>
>> Current ongoing project, designed in SU, presented to the client for
>> approval in SU in 1, casework built on dimensions in 2 and 3, and actual
>> casework just finished last week in 4:
>>
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch2.jpg
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-FF.jpg
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-BaseFF.jpg
>
> Are images 2 & 3 extracted from #1 or are they separate SU objects?

> I'm asking if image #1 is made up of all of the pieces or just an
> image of the final product and the actual pieces are drawn separately.

Every rail, stile, end panel, trim, part, etc (including the hardware).
is a separate "component", some of them "grouped" into sub
assemblies(like the doors).

For woodworking, you will want to get in the habit of doing all your
models as separate "components", them "grouping" them as needed, just as
you would do when making the piece in the shop.

There are many reasons for this, the least of which is that you can
extract a parts cutlist from the model, it helps to work out the joinery
details, and part dimensions can be easily changed (change the dimension
of one "component" and all the copies of that "component" change
accordingly).

> Do the doors open in #1?

Using animation, they can certainly be made to do so, but IMO that is
just "eye candy" and not all necessary to this particular project, which
didn't need a "wow factor".

>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-Casework.jpg
>
> Nice work. I wish I had that kind of talent (and patience).
>
>> Original client lives 150 miles from shop and SU played an instrumental
>> part in both design, fabrication, and selling of additional copies of
>> the project.
>
> Yes, I can see how that would be a powerful sales tool.

"Presentation" is a big part of designing, and then selling your client.

On this particular project, only the free version of SU was used,
although I have subsequently purchased the "Pro" version, which has many
more "presentation" options. Being a custom home builder, I needed those
additional options when recently presented a house to build that was
designed solely with the free versions of SU.

YMMV, but SU, because it is readily available for free to any client
with an Internet connection, is especially valuable in this regard for
obvious reasons ... an option perhaps not easily available to your
client were you using other CAD software, although most programs have
"viewers" that can be used by the client to view the project.

As in most endeavors, using any tool may have compromises gladly made
for convenience of use and implementation.

SU is certainly not the end all solution to woodworking design, but it
can certainly be made to suffice for many woodworking projects with a
little facility with the program.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On May 25, 12:18=A0am, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm currently working on an 80x28x20 walnut wine cabinet for my oldest
> son and SU is the tool I'm using for the conceptual layout and design.

Unless those dimensions are in inches, your son is drinking _way_ too
much wine! ;)

Will you be posting the SU file online? I'd like to see it. Finished
product, too, of course.

R

On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:58:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointers.
>
>An example of the usefulness of the program for some woodworking projects:
>
>Current ongoing project, designed in SU, presented to the client for
>approval in SU in 1, casework built on dimensions in 2 and 3, and actual
>casework just finished last week in 4:
>
>http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch2.jpg
>http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-FF.jpg
>http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-BaseFF.jpg

Are images 2 & 3 extracted from #1 or are they separate SU objects?

I'm asking if image #1 is made up of all of the pieces or just an
image of the final product and the actual pieces are drawn separately.

Do the doors open in #1?

>http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-Casework.jpg

Nice work. I wish I had that kind of talent (and patience).

>Original client lives 150 miles from shop and SU played an instrumental
>part in both design, fabrication, and selling of additional copies of
>the project.

Yes, I can see how that would be a powerful sales tool.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> SU is certainly not the end all solution to woodworking design, but it
> can certainly be made to suffice for many woodworking projects with a
> little facility with the program.

I guess in the best case scenario, you introduce a potential customer to the
free version of SU, get him to design his project in SU and then he pays you
to build it. Being familiar with SU as you are, if there's a problem with
the customer's design, you can modify it and get him to approve the
alterations.

On May 26, 10:43 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 26, 8:32 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That said, I do hereby apologize for my "testiness".
>
> I'll have to look up the etymology of the word testiness. I wonder if
> it's derived from testes. Maybe in olden days people would get miffed
> if they got kicked in the balls. Thankfully we've evolved.

TESTY
Word History: To the casual eye testy and heady seem to have no
connection; a more thoughtful examination reveals that both words
refer to the head. The head in heady is easy to see in both the form
and meanings of the word. The earliest sense, first recorded in a work
composed before 1382, is "headlong, headstrong," which is clearly a
"head" sense; but so is the better-known current sense "apt to go to
the head, intoxicating." To see the head in testy, we must look back
to the Old French word testu, the source of our word. Testu is derived
from the Old French word teste, "head" (Modern French t=A8=BAte). In
English testy developed another sense, "aggressive, contentious,"
which passed into the sense we are familiar with, "irritable."

TESTES
Word History: The resemblance between testimony, testify, testis, and
testicle shows an etymological relationship, but linguists are not
agreed on precisely how English testis came to have its current
meaning. The Latin testis originally meant "witness," and
etymologically means "third (person) standing by": the te- part comes
from an older tri-, a combining form of the word for "three," and -
stis is a noun derived from the Indo-European root st=A8=A1- meaning
"stand." How this also came to refer to the body part(s) is disputed.
***An old theory has it that the Romans placed their right hands on
their testicles and swore by them before giving testimony in court.
***
Another theory says that the sense of testicle in Latin testis is due
to a calque, or loan translation, from Greek. The Greek noun
parastat=A8=A5s means "defender (in law), supporter" (para- "by,
alongside," as in paramilitary and -stat=A8=A5s from histanai, "to stand").
In the dual number, used in many languages for naturally occurring,
contrasting, or complementary pairs such as hands, eyes, and ears,
parastat=A8=A5s had the technical medical sense "testicles," that is "two
glands side by side." The Romans simply took this sense of parastat=A8=A5s
and added it to testis, the Latin word for legal supporter, witness.

I swear by my balls I'm not testy. ;)

R

On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:01:51 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:52:00 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> TurboCad does a nice job and it isn't near that price. Might get last years
>>> low or no cost.
>>> http://www.turbocad.com/ TurboCAD 16 Deluxe is 129.95 on the web site.
>>>
>>> They have been doing 3D of one sort to another since Win 95 and floppy.
>>
>> Do you know how it compares to the free version of Google SketchUp for
>> fairly simple woodworking projects? I think I'm going to download and
>> try SketchUp first, since it's free, but if I need something more, it
>> would be good to know what TurboCad can do that SketchUp can't.
>>
>
>Turbo CAD is CAD software, SketchUp is 3D modeling software.
>
>There are a number of folks here who use SketchUp for woodworking
>endavors. Do a google news group search on "Sketchup" and you will find
>a world of discussion on the program and its uses.
>
>Check here for some additional information on SketchUp and woodworking:
>
>http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/blog/design-click-build

That's an excellent resource.

>There are also quite a few here willing to answer your questions about
>using SU in your woodworking endeavors.
>
>Typcially it takes about three tries with SU to get into doing
>woodworking. Some patience is required, but much less than with most CAD
>programs, so don't give up.

Well, I'm probably halfway between try #1 & #2. It's not any harder
than Visio and a lot more powerful for what I am trying to do.

Thanks for the pointers.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.
>
> A bit testy tonight, I see<grin>.

Yeah, with well over five hundred cabinets under your belt you tend to
get that way with the smug who "can't imagine doing it any other way",
yet have no clue as to why it was necessary to do it differently then
they would given the circumstances.

I build entire kitchens at a time, therefore I set up to produce parts
for 20 to 40 cabinets and their components ... you can't always do that
the same way that you can when you have the luxury and time to do a one-off.

That said, I do hereby apologize for my "testiness".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Prof Wonmug wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:01:51 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Typcially it takes about three tries with SU to get into doing
>> woodworking. Some patience is required, but much less than with most CAD
>> programs, so don't give up.

> Well, I'm probably halfway between try #1 & #2. It's not any harder
> than Visio and a lot more powerful for what I am trying to do.

I think you are still on try #1. After you play with it for a week,
quit for a month or year, and re-start... then you will be on try #2.
It took me 4 tries, not 3 but I think you skipped try #1, which is
normally to install it, and see what you can do with out RTFM.

Regardless of number of tries, Sketchup is almost perfect for the
hobbyist wood worker. You can quickly draw up cabinets, shelves, work
benches, chairs, tables, pencil holders and golf net frames to scale and
with 3D graphics, color the designs with wood types or paint so you can
get a nice look at what your project will look like before you build it.
You can print out the design with dimensioned drawings to make
building it a snap. This is all FREE, so it's impossible to beat the
price. The pro version is like $500 and has about no features the free
version doesn't have. The few things the pro version does would not be
of much value to the average home hobbyist woodworker, or even a small
shop professional. You probably can design, draw and build (and pay for)
an entire kitchen for your loved one with the free version faster than
you can learn to use (and pay for) Autocad.

If you are designing a launch pad for NASA, or hooking your drawing up
to a $500,000 CNC water jet/laser cutter, you probably want to look into
going to school for a few years and getting familiar with AutoCad types
of programs that cost as much as most wood shops.

Otherwise, let us know how many tries it takes you to figure out how
good free can get.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Swingman wrote:

> Prof Wonmug wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointers.
>
> An example of the usefulness of the program for some woodworking projects:
>
> Current ongoing project, designed in SU, presented to the client for
> approval in SU in 1, casework built on dimensions in 2 and 3, and actual
> casework just finished last week in 4:
>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch2.jpg
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-FF.jpg
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-BaseFF.jpg
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-Casework.jpg
>
> Original client lives 150 miles from shop and SU played an instrumental
> part in both design, fabrication, and selling of additional copies of
> the project.
>
I'm curious about the face frame on the casework jpg. Why didn't you
continue the top rail all the way across, instead you divided it twice. You
do beautiful work and this wasn't intended to criticize, just wondered.
Kinda caught my eye right away.


--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Swingman wrote:
>
> .....the size, the small shop, and the method of
> work.
>
> ... much easier to handle in a
> small shop and working alone.
>

So, I'm not the only one who has to deal with not having enough room.
:-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Swingman wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>> I'm curious about the face frame on the casework jpg. Why didn't you
>> continue the top rail all the way across, instead you divided it twice.
>> You do beautiful work and this wasn't intended to criticize, just
>> wondered. Kinda caught my eye right away.
>
> Good eye ... and normally I would not do it that way, but that method
> did not lend itself to this particular design due to the necessity of
> the interor casework sides, the size, the small shop, and the method of
> work.
>
> It's a long story ... also I was not sure whether I wanted to build the
> two side components of the hutch first, then using the curved rail and
> top rail to join them into one piece ... much easier to handle in a
> small shop and working alone.
>
> I build face frames first, then assemble the casework in grooves dadoed
> in the face frames. I use pocket hole joinery (in the face frames only),
> and the pocket holes would have interfered with the installation of
> interior casework sides in the interior stiles.
>
> Once the face frame and casework is joined and glued, the extra joint
> becomes moot, except in appearance, but keep in mind this in going in a
> kitchen and the stile appearance in the hutch is reflected in the run of
> the other cabinets.
>
>
Ok, I'm a one man shop to, but I think I'd still would have made that rail
continue across without intersecting it. I usually build the case then the
face frame. I also use biscuits and pocket holes to join my face frames.
Can't imagine doing it any other way.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Swingman wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>> Ok, I'm a one man shop to, but I think I'd still would have made that
>> rail continue across without intersecting it. I usually build the case
>> then the face frame. I also use biscuits and pocket holes to join my face
>> frames. Can't imagine doing it any other way.
>
> Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.
>
>
Geeeez. The can't imagine doing it any other way had to do with using pocket
holes and biscuits, not the rail dispute. You do really nice work and
didn't mean to piss you off. I'm German, so I see things a little
differently then most, thanks to my father, God rest his perfectionist
soul! Anyway Ive been to your website and like I said in the last 2 posts,
you do really nice work.

Here's another I get inspiration from.
http://www.daviddecristoforo.com/
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

RicodJour wrote:

> On May 26, 8:32 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> > "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, it wasn't _your_ decision, so kiss my ass.
>>
>> > A bit testy tonight, I see<grin>.
>>
>> Yeah, with well over five hundred cabinets under your belt you tend to
>> get that way with the smug who "can't imagine doing it any other way",
>> yet have no clue as to why it was necessary to do it differently then
>> they would given the circumstances.
>
> When I read Evo's second post, the one after the one where he was
> complementing you on your work and saying that he wasn't trying to
> criticize, I knew that it would be misconstrued. There should have
> been some space between the comment about the top rail of the face
> frame, and the pocket- hole-couldn't-imagine part.

Guess I could have used other words and constructed my sentence structure
better. Think the last thing I said was he does beautiful work, which
should have qualified the paragraph. But thanks for sticking up for me.

>
>> I build entire kitchens at a time, therefore I set up to produce parts
>> for 20 to 40 cabinets and their components ... you can't always do that
>> the same way that you can when you have the luxury and time to do a
>> one-off.
>
> Of course shop conditions influence design - it can be no other way.
> Same with experiences. If both of Evo's posts were combined into one,
> you probably wouldn't have taken issue. Next time he'll know to put
> the part about "I'm not criticizing" in the post where he's
> criticizing. ;)

I'm just going to stop while I'm behind. Although I have built plenty of
kitchens I didn't want to get alienated in this newsgroup like I have in
Home repair. It's funny when I answered questions in there, it was answers
I have run into myself and the solutions. They would jump on you if they
didn't agree. For example the Refrig line freezing when water gets turned
off. This has happened to me on at least 10 times where I turned the water
off for a length of time, (shower builds, vanity builds, kitchen builds)and
sure enough the customer would complain the water dispenser stopped working
in the frig. After a few of those you kind of get it.

>
>> That said, I do hereby apologize for my "testiness".
>
> I'll have to look up the etymology of the word testiness. I wonder if
> it's derived from testes. Maybe in olden days people would get miffed
> if they got kicked in the balls. Thankfully we've evolved.

Hopefully it doesn't come down to that.
>
> R

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

evodawg wrote:

> Anyway Ive been to your website and like I said in the last 2 posts,
> you do really nice work.

> Here's another I get inspiration from.
> http://www.daviddecristoforo.com/

When I first started woodworking, I got very lucky and bought an entire
shop full of old Rockwell Delta tools from the 50's. I had little clue
of how to use any of them, and began a search for how to books. At the
local library, I ran into a million books from the 1920-40's, most
looked like the same book with the same stuff, none were what I
wanted... How to build a book shelf, how to build work bench and so on.
I was starting to wonder if home workshops no longer existed.

Then, I stumbled over R.J.Chrstoforo's Complete Book of Power tools...
PERFECT. This book got me started in a very good way. He shows how to
use and set up all your tools, how to make jigs and fixtures to build
most anything. He is my woodworking hero, and I would expect his son to
be great.

Nice to see his name still floating around.
--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

RicodJour wrote:

> An old theory has it that the Romans placed their right hands on
> their testicles and swore by them before giving testimony in court.

I'm still unclear as to where "testy" comes from, but at least I have a
better idea where "don't get you're balls in an uproar" is rooted. :-)
--
Jack
Go Penns!
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:


>
> When I first started woodworking, I got very lucky and bought an entire
> shop full of old Rockwell Delta tools from the 50's. I had little clue
> of how to use any of them, and began a search for how to books. At the
> local library, I ran into a million books from the 1920-40's, most
> looked like the same book with the same stuff, none were what I
> wanted... How to build a book shelf, how to build work bench and so on.
> I was starting to wonder if home workshops no longer existed.
>
> Then, I stumbled over R.J.Chrstoforo's Complete Book of Power tools...
> PERFECT. This book got me started in a very good way. He shows how to
> use and set up all your tools, how to make jigs and fixtures to build
> most anything. He is my woodworking hero, and I would expect his son to
> be great.
>
> Nice to see his name still floating around.

He's also a contributor on Saw Mill Creek web forum
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
>> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being
>> able to see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+softwar
>> e+for+woodworking+review&aq=0&oq=&aqi=
>> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to
>> SketchUp Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how
>> the free version compares?
>
>The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
>pester you to upgrade.

I found the video tutorials on the SketchUp support site.

http://sketchup.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96868

These tutorials are just what I needed both to assess the tool and to
get started using it.

You are right. It looks like this tool can do everything I'll need for
a long time.

TurboCad does a nice job and it isn't near that price. Might get last years
low or no cost.
http://www.turbocad.com/ TurboCAD 16 Deluxe is 129.95 on the web site.

They have been doing 3D of one sort to another since Win 95 and floppy.

Martin


Prof Wonmug wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>
> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>
> My current project is a net for practicing golf shots in the backyard.
> There are nets available from various manufacturers. I want to build a
> frame out of PVC or wood or something to hold the net. It needs to fit
> the available net sizes, fold up for temporary storage, and
> disassemble for long-term storage.
>
> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being able to
> see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>
> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+software+for+woodworking+review&aq=0&oq=&aqi=
>
>
> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to SketchUp
> Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how the free
> version compares?

On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
>> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being
>> able to see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+softwar
>> e+for+woodworking+review&aq=0&oq=&aqi=
>> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to
>> SketchUp Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how
>> the free version compares?
>
>The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
>pester you to upgrade.

Have you used it? Would it be a good tool for designing my practice
net? Will it let me design the "pieces" (support rails or poles,
connectors, cross pieces, etc.) and then connect them?

Can it print a materials list showing me what I need to go buy to
build it?

Do I get a 3D look?

On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:52:00 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>TurboCad does a nice job and it isn't near that price. Might get last years
>low or no cost.
>http://www.turbocad.com/ TurboCAD 16 Deluxe is 129.95 on the web site.
>
>They have been doing 3D of one sort to another since Win 95 and floppy.

Do you know how it compares to the free version of Google SketchUp for
fairly simple woodworking projects? I think I'm going to download and
try SketchUp first, since it's free, but if I need something more, it
would be good to know what TurboCad can do that SketchUp can't.


>
>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
>> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>>
>> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
>> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>>
>> My current project is a net for practicing golf shots in the backyard.
>> There are nets available from various manufacturers. I want to build a
>> frame out of PVC or wood or something to hold the net. It needs to fit
>> the available net sizes, fold up for temporary storage, and
>> disassemble for long-term storage.
>>
>> It would be great to have a program that I could use to at least
>> sketch out the project and print up a list of materials. Being able to
>> see it in 3D would be great, but not required.
>>
>> This site has a brief review of some programs.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=20&newwindow=1&q=cad+software+for+woodworking+review&aq=0&oq=&aqi=
>>
>>
>> It mentions Google SketchUp, but I think it is referring to SketchUp
>> Pro, because it says it costs $500. Does anyone know how the free
>> version compares?

On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:11:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Will you be posting the SU file online? I'd like to see it. Finished
>product, too, of course.

I hadn't though about it, one way or the other, but there's no reason
not to. It may be a while before it's published since I just started
looking at it yesterday when he sent me the dimensions (yes, inches,
BTW) We've a ways to go before the model looks like much more than a
coffin standing on end. I'll have to take some pictures of finished
walnut to use for the SU material image.

The walnut was given to me by a neighbor. He's a building contractor
who was remodeling a house for some physician. They stripped out a
bunch of paneling and was hauling it to the dump. On the way, he
stopped by my house to see if I might want to try to salvage it.

The bed of his pickup was loaded with 3/4" walnut T&G boards about 6"
x 9 feet. After ripping off the damaged edges and planing down the
reliefs on the back of the boards, the actual surfaced dimensions
calculated out to about 120 board feet. Would have been more except
they didn't take any pains to preserve the wood while they were
tearing it out and quite a bit was too damaged to be worth trying to
save. Still, some pretty boards that were headed to the burn pile,
didn't quite get there.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On 2009-05-25, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Current ongoing project, designed in SU.....
>
> Using animation.......

Are you using SU or SU Pro?

nb

On Sun, 24 May 2009 13:40:33 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 24, 3:23 pm, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 24, 11:07 am, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
>>
>> >> >The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
>> >> >pester you to upgrade.
>>
>> >> Have you used it? Would it be a good tool for designing my practice
>> >> net? Will it let me design the "pieces" (support rails or poles,
>> >> connectors, cross pieces, etc.) and then connect them?
>>
>> >> Can it print a materials list showing me what I need to go buy to
>> >> build it?
>>
>> >> Do I get a 3D look?
>>
>> >I have a question for you.  Assuming that you are a professor and/or
>> >have some teaching experience, what is your reaction when you give a
>> >reading assignment and a student asks you questions the next day that
>> >make it obvious that they did not do the reading?
>>
>> You sound annoyed. Sorry about that.
>
>It happens. I'm funny that way when people ask questions like, "Do I
>get a 3D look?" halfway into a thread about SketchUp. I dare you to
>show me a single page on all of the internet that gives any sort of
>overview of SketchUp and doesn't mention it's 3D capabilities. It is
>what SU is all about!
>
>Let's take a quick gander at what a bare-bones search of 'SketchUp'
>offers up.
>
>#
>Google SketchUp
>A 3D sketching software for the conceptual phases of design.
>sketchup.google.com/ - 7k - Cached - Similar pages -
>Downloads
>3D Warehouse
>SketchUp 7
>Training
>
>Pro
>New features in SketchUp 7 and ...
>Product Tour
>Products
>More results from google.com »
>#
>Google SketchUp
>Google SketchUp Pro 7 is a suite of powerful features and applications
>for ... Download Google SketchUp 7 and create, modify and share 3D
>models for free. ...
>sketchup.google.com/download/ - 8k - Cached - Similar pages -
>#
>SketchUp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>Many different 3D and 2D exporters are available in SketchUp for uses
>such as rendering. This model was made in SketchUp and rendered in
>Kerkythea. ...
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SketchUp - 58k - Cached - Similar pages -
>
>Does anything jump out at you? Anything that has a 3 followed by a D?
>Either there is a major laziness problem or you have serious reading/
>retention issues.
>
>> First of all, this is a discussion group, not a classroom. No one is
>> the student and no one is the professor. We're peers. One person may
>> know more about one thing, someone else will know more about something
>> else. We are trying to pool our knowledge so that everyone benefits.
>> Different people will make different suggestions. The readers,
>> including many who are mainly lurkers, will benefit from the entire
>> discussion.
>
>No one is the student? No one is the professor? Are you kidding me?
>There are people on this group with skills I couldn't touch. I might
>not agree with their diversions into politics, etc., but there's no
>way that they are not 'giving a schooling'.

Whst can I say. We have a different mindset.

>You are asking for a quick bring-me-up-to-speed education. Four out
>of the first five replies all pointed to SketchUp and provided exactly
>the information you were asking for and included links.
>
>> Secondly, you seem to have assumed that I am too lazy to do any work
>> myself. This is a little arrogant. I suggest you get more
>> psychological training to help you read minds, because you're not that
>> good at it. ;-)
>
>You did not read the links that were posted as they answered your
>questions. So, either it's laziness or...?

Now we know that my mind-reading skills are better than yours.

>> Bert offered some information suggesting that he had experience with
>> SketchUp. I responded to that as I would if we were face to face.
>> Feedback from an actual user is worth its weight in gold. I have
>> downloaded and installed SketchUp and am working my way through the
>> tutorials, but I can easily get in 2 minutes from an experienced user
>> what might take me days to stumble through on my own.
>
>I see the confusion. You consort with people that offer advice
>without ever having had experience with the item in question.

Wow. You not only read minds, but you are also able to infer from that
pretty much everything about your victim's while life. That would be
an amaxing skill -- if only it worked.

>I have
>yet to find anyone on this newsgroup that does that. If they have no
>personal experience, they say they have no personal experience. It
>keeps things simple.
>
>If you had Googled this newsgroup you would have known this, known
>that there are plenty of people here with lots of experience in
>SketchUp and that no one is intentionally trying to mislead you.
>
>> Finally, my questions are very likely going to be beneficial to others
>> who are following this thread now or might find it in the archives.
>> Thje more complete it is, the better.
>
>You mean the archives you didn't search? There are people on this
>newsgroup who swear by SU and use it for all sorts of applications.
>There are long running debates here on whether it is a panacea for all
>things design, or an amazing niche product. You would know this if
>you had done even the most basic Usenet search.
>
>Since you are a 'nucular' physicist, Google "Sketchy Physics". Click
>on a link - any one of them will do, then, here's the key part, _read_
>the stuff. Then come back and tell us how _wonderful_ it is. I
>promise to act surprised.
>
>> >That's what everyone here is feeling at the moment.  Click the links
>> >in this thread and read.  There are different versions of SketchUp
>> >with different capabilities, and there are plugins that vastly
>> >increase the capabilities.
>>
>> Now you are speaking for everyone? Did you take a poll or is this more
>> of your intuitive skills?
>
>I do not suffer fools gladly.

And you get to decide who that is, right?

>Other people are more polite than I am.

Clearly. The question really ought to be: Is anyone less polite?

>If you need hand-holding and spoon-feeding you should probably
>either grow thicker skin fast or seek out a touchy feely newsgroup to
>help get your feet wet with Usenet.

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide what I do or don't do. I know
that's a big disappointment.

>> It's probably best that you avoid any teaching roles. It sounds like
>> you don't have the patience for it. ;-)
>
>As I said...

Indeed you did. How is all this working out for you?

I'm done now. You can have the last word.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:49:26 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>
>> You sound annoyed. Sorry about that.
>
>It's all too easy to assume that people with questions are familiar with
>the search tools. A Google groups search of rec.woodworking would turn
>up a number of threads with long and detailed discussions (complete with
>links to SketchUp models) by the folks here.
>
>Here's a Google search link for SketchUp and SU on rec.woodworking
>(watch out for possible line wrapping):
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_oq=SketchUp+SU&as_ugroup=rec.woodworking
>
>Hope you find this helpful.

There's a lot fo good information there. Thanks.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 24, 11:07 am, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:48:55 -0500, Bert Byfield
>>
>> >The free version does nearly everything. It's not broken and doesn't
>> >pester you to upgrade.
>>
>> Have you used it? Would it be a good tool for designing my practice
>> net? Will it let me design the "pieces" (support rails or poles,
>> connectors, cross pieces, etc.) and then connect them?
>>
>> Can it print a materials list showing me what I need to go buy to
>> build it?
>>
>> Do I get a 3D look?
>
>I have a question for you. Assuming that you are a professor and/or
>have some teaching experience, what is your reaction when you give a
>reading assignment and a student asks you questions the next day that
>make it obvious that they did not do the reading?

You sound annoyed. Sorry about that.

First of all, this is a discussion group, not a classroom. No one is
the student and no one is the professor. We're peers. One person may
know more about one thing, someone else will know more about something
else. We are trying to pool our knowledge so that everyone benefits.
Different people will make different suggestions. The readers,
including many who are mainly lurkers, will benefit from the entire
discussion.

Secondly, you seem to have assumed that I am too lazy to do any work
myself. This is a little arrogant. I suggest you get more
psychological training to help you read minds, because you're not that
good at it. ;-)

Bert offered some information suggesting that he had experience with
SketchUp. I responded to that as I would if we were face to face.
Feedback from an actual user is worth its weight in gold. I have
downloaded and installed SketchUp and am working my way through the
tutorials, but I can easily get in 2 minutes from an experienced user
what might take me days to stumble through on my own.

Finally, my questions are very likely going to be beneficial to others
who are following this thread now or might find it in the archives.
Thje more complete it is, the better.

>That's what everyone here is feeling at the moment. Click the links
>in this thread and read. There are different versions of SketchUp
>with different capabilities, and there are plugins that vastly
>increase the capabilities.

Now you are speaking for everyone? Did you take a poll or is this more
of your intuitive skills?

It's probably best that you avoid any teaching roles. It sounds like
you don't have the patience for it. ;-)

On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:10:41 -0700, Prof Wonmug <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you know how it compares to the free version of Google SketchUp for
>fairly simple woodworking projects? I think I'm going to download and
>try SketchUp first, since it's free, but if I need something more, it
>would be good to know what TurboCad can do that SketchUp can't.

I quit upgrading my TurboCad at version 10, so I can't speak to
version 16. If you'll take that into consideration, I'll echo
Swingman. TC is a much more full featured 3D CAD system than SU. As
such, I found TC's learning curve somewhat harder to climb but, once
climbed, it's more versatile.

A specific item I recall is the dimensioning, formatting and
production of shop drawings. I wouldn't call it a "piece of cake" in
TC, but it does a fairly nice job. If you need dimensioned shop
drawings, SU is somewhat cumbersome, and the dimensioning package
isn't nearly as versatile as TC. If you don't need or use shop
drawings, then that's a non-issue.

Another specific that I remember TC having the edge of SU is in the
category of non-rectilinear sections. The set of curves and 3-d
geometry operations, addition, subtraction, etc. is more general with
TC. SU makes many assumptions about what it thinks you want to do.
Many time, SU is right, but there are times I find myself going from
Chicago to New York by way of Atlanta because of those "I know what
you want" assumptions.

I'd almost compare the two as similar to a comparison between Visual
Basic and C++. Visual Basic (SU) does a lot of things for you behind
the scenes that C++ (TC) doesn't. You may not want those things done
by default in a particular application, but, if you do, developing the
application can be faster in VB/SU than in TC/C++.

I'd like to give you a more detailed, point-by-point comparison, but
I'm way non-current both in version and recent experience with TC (and
VB and C++ also for that matter). My last use of TC was designing my
Gazebo several years ago. It did a fine job with a lot of weirdly
shaped, non-square, components. For something of like complexity, I'd
reinstall TC and refresh my expertise. For simpler tasks and
conceptual modeling of furniture and cabinetry items, my go-to is SU.
I'm currently working on an 80x28x20 walnut wine cabinet for my oldest
son and SU is the tool I'm using for the conceptual layout and design.

One thing I really like about SU is a wide variety of plugins. One I
find very useful is an interface to CutList Plus that exports an input
file for Cut List. The SU model has to be made with that in mind, but
that pair, CL and SU, does the vast majority of the things I need for
my shop projects.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Prof Wonmug wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
>>> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>>>
>>> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
>>> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>> I suggest trying the free version of SketchUp. If you find that it
>> doesn't do everything you want, then find a package that can at a price
>> you're comfortable with.
>>
>> For getting started, free should be fairly comfortable. :)
>>
> ...and get the sketchup cutlist plugin:
>
> http://lumberjocks.com/daltxguy/blog/5143

...and with the sketchup cutlist plugin, you don't even have to put all
the pieces in their proper place - just drag the appropiate number of
each part to the layout screen, select all of them and render the cutlist.

Just did this for the Rockler Murphy bed with bookcases. Saved a few
sheets of expensive ply.

Prof Wonmug wrote:

> Thanks for the pointers.

An example of the usefulness of the program for some woodworking projects:

Current ongoing project, designed in SU, presented to the client for
approval in SU in 1, casework built on dimensions in 2 and 3, and actual
casework just finished last week in 4:

http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch2.jpg
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-FF.jpg
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-BaseFF.jpg
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/KitchenHutch-Casework.jpg

Original client lives 150 miles from shop and SU played an instrumental
part in both design, fabrication, and selling of additional copies of
the project.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Prof Wonmug wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a simple cad-like program for making simple 3D
>> designs? It doesn't need to be free.
>>
>> From time to time I want to build something for home use. I usually
>> use paper and pencil, but that has limitations.
>
> I suggest trying the free version of SketchUp. If you find that it
> doesn't do everything you want, then find a package that can at a price
> you're comfortable with.
>
> For getting started, free should be fairly comfortable. :)
>
...and get the sketchup cutlist plugin:

http://lumberjocks.com/daltxguy/blog/5143