I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
curve.
Thanks,
Michael
You can pick up copies of CAD programs on EBay very cheaply....mjh
--
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:10:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote
(in message <170220042310029870%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>):
> I haven't played with it yet, but have a look at Design Intuition
> <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21980>
I've used it and like it. It's not without faults, but the developer is
working on fixing a few things, which should help.
Wayne
I like Micrografx designer. It is very intuitive for me. I am not sure if
they still make it, but I saw it on Overstock.com for $50.
Montyhp
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
> > I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
> yet
> > exist.
>
> Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a
steep
> part of the "learning curve".
>
> By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
shop
> drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
> simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/26/04
>
>
I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not yet
exist. Drawing for publication, I've settled for using Photoshop Elements
and more latterly, Paint Shop Pro V8 for 'inking in' pencil drawings made on
the drawing board and scanned into the computer.
This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work neatly on
ordinary drawing paper, smudges are easy to remove, and changes fairly easy
to make. Changing line widths is very convenient.
However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get with careful
freehand drawing.
Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.
Does anyone know of such an application existing today?
And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
Elements, and found they do not meet this need.
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net
In article <170220042048418003%[email protected]>, Brian
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
> (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
I haven't played with it yet, but have a look at Design Intuition
<http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21980>
And get used to the "switch" cracks... When it comes to this stuff,
windozers do have a lot more choice than we do. Encourage the folks
that are developing for Mac. If you like, buy!
djb
--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?
> > (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> > neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
>
> At least accept that it's a recommendation that you don't like. You need
> not perpetuate the idea that of all the Mac users, only the zealots are
> left...
While not a MacBigot (I hate those people, just as I do those who
espose the superiority of Windows, UNix, Linux, or anything else for
that matter) I would consider myself a diehard Mac user and evangelist
- it is the perfect machine and OS for what *I* want/need it to do... I
was merely trying to dissuade both well-meaning and non-well-meaning
suggestions to get a PC. Been there, done that, never do it again,
don't waste yer breath.
Thanks for the links - I've got some research to do! Design Intuition
looks like the only one that's intended specifically for woodworking,
which is more to my liking (I don't forsee me needing a full-on CAD
application, just the feature subset that applies to designing and
implementing woodworking projects).
Since I do already use Illustrator, tho (I am a graphic artist by
profession, amateur woodworker as a hobby) the AI plugins might also be
worthwhile.
Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!
Brian
In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
> > Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!
>
> You should try living in Linuxdom. At least you have the option of buying a
> program or three.
>
> (I've thought about getting a Mac for that very reason. Maybe being part of
> 3% would be better than being part of 1%. OTOH, I don't have any money
> anyway, and most of the Windows software I still occasionally miss doesn't
> run on a Mac, so I'd be in the same boat, only with one mouse button and a
> really goofy looking computer.)
Funny looking computer! FUNNY LOOKING COMPUTER! Why I outta .... ;)
Well, yea the grape iMac at home is a bit funny looking if you prefer
beige boxes but my titanium laptop is just cool looking. By the by I
have a Macally mouse attached to the work computer and both buttons are
functional. There are plenty of programable mouse or trackballs out
there also. While I'm a dedicated Mac guy I do a lot of work on
Windows architectures and as much as it pains me to admit neither Mac
nor Linux is ready to run a medium to large enterprise and meet the
requirements of the government (or at least the three lettered
government folks where I work) . On the other hand to build an
enterprise entirely out of Windows is a bad bad mistake.
Allen
Catonsville, MD
In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
You mean they finally decided Mac users are smart enough to deal with
the > stress of having a mouse with TWO buttons? I'm shocked! :)
Yep, Still that way on some. Apple seems to think that the one button
keyboard combo is faster. I frankly don't get it so I just buy a new 2
button mouse and it works fine.
>
> (They used to only have one big button smack in the middle of the mouse, but
> that was a long time ago. I haven't used a Mac since the early '90s.)
>
> I don't like some of the newer PCs either. That's what happens when you
> start letting twelve year old girls pick out computers.
Daddy can I get a matching iPod ???can I? Can I pleeeese, Huh Huh?
....... At least it lets us get cool IT toys because they're considered
fashion accessories! :)
If you haven't looked at a Mac since OSX came out you really owe it to
yourself to take a look. I dual booted a G4 with Red Hat and OSX and it
worked great. Then figured out I could do any Unix thing I wanted on
pure OSX and run Office and share files with Windoze losers so
reconfigured to just Panther. As much as they'd like us to believe I
just didn't find open office was that compatable with Wiondoze office.
With Office X I get all kinds of folks amazed that the files work fine
between the it and WIndows.
Allen
Catonsville, MD
"If they can put a man on the moon why can't they put a man on
Lifetime?" Colin Quinn
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
> The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
> (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
Being a dedicated Mac user at home and being forced to use Windoze at
work, I find that sometimes the best solution to this type of problem is
running Windoz software using Virtual PC on the Mac. If you have a G4
or better you probably won't notice much speed difference. I run the
Windoze version of Office 2000 on my Mac if I'm doing work stuff because
it assures compatibility ( I know the Mac and Windoze versions are
supposed to be cross compatible but when it comes to complex graphics
they are definitely not). I don't really notice a significant speed
difference with Office 2000 - that is using a 900+MHz Pentium 4 at work
and a single processor 867 MHz G4 at home.
--
To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:08:24 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>FWIW this guy uses CAD:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ywkqd
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3e2tc
>
><g>
>
> -- Mark
>
>
>
ah what does he know......
<G>
In article <[email protected]>, Sam Soltan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If you get a "Wacom Intous Tablet" it includes a pressure sensitve pen and
> it is recognized by "Paint", "Paintshop Pro", and others you can get the
> effects you want.
I'll echo that. We use the Wacoms at work. They're terrific.
djb
--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 12:06am [email protected] (Michael=A0Press)
claims:
I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
designing furniture.
Brain. Then if the plan gets complicated enough, add pencil and
paper.
This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like precise drawings of my
designs.
That sucks all the fun out of it.
I also imagine that it would be useful to generate a bill of materials,
a cutting list, maybe a "map" of cuts on a sheet of plywood. <snip>
No guts, no glory.
I'm a computer programmer, <snip>
I'd never have guessed.
JOAT
Georges Clemenceau supposedly said, "War is too important a matter to be
left to the military". If this is so, it is then obvious that peace is
too precious to be left to politicians.
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 19 Feb 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKEVOCALS/
Frank Shute wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:
>
>>Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
>>they have already read.
>
>
> Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
> that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
> broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
> piece of software.
>
I was going to try Outlook myself, I got it set up, found I couldn't delete spam
without opening it in some form, couldn't find the setting to put my sig file at
the end of the quoted text forcing me cut and paste it or condemning me to top
posting.
Might have been other problems but I wasn't going to stick around to find out.
>
>>Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
>>background when you wrote this?
>
>
> How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
> software...
On topic: I have AutoCad 2000 Lt., it's more than enough for square and round
structures. like all programs you need to know what a functions called to be
able to use it. TomAAto, TomAHto, ....
>
>>For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
>>Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.
>
>
> Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
> a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
> technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
> Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.
>
mayhaps he just lacks the ability to thin and see in three dimensions from a two
dimension format, so he needs a machine to do it for him.
As far as 'needing' 3d to design? I think of the thousands of years and millions
upon millions of items designed using paper and pencil, sticks in the sand, to
know 3d is not an absolute necessity.
Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
more detrimental.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:21:04 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
>>> then enter:
>>>
>>> @15,30
>>>
>>> or whatever.
>>>
>>> Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.
>>
>>
>>Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
>>have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
>>you know how it turns out.
>
>That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
>positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.
>
>You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:
>
>@6<45
>
>Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
>would go up to the right. To go up to the left:
>
>@6<135
>
or (i think) @6<-225
<G>
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:01:00 -0700, Bridger <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:51:26 -0600, [email protected] (p_j) wrote:
>
>>My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:
>>
>>http://www.gizmolab.com/software/
>>
>>Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix.
>
>
>nope.
>
>long ago, autocad was available for the mac. that is a thing of the
>past. now it's a windows only thing.
>
>eventually linux may get to the point where it can emulate all of the
>windows APIs or somethin and we can pitch bill's code, but for now if
>you want to play with acad you have to run windows.
>
>
>
>
>> If so, there are no
>>doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
>>the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.
I think Macs are really nice for graphics work. Windows is the O/S to
have to run just about anything. I just installed a Linux box and I'm
truly amazed at the speed and security, although Linux is not for the
faint at heart. I'd like to see more graphics applications for Linux.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:24:50 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>AutoCAD's days of being top of the line are long gone.
?
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
i agree that sketchup is great... but it's also $500.
gabriel wrote:
> Have a look at SketchUp (www.sketchup.com). I have been evaluating it and
> it works very very well for woodworking projects, and the learning curve is
> not big at all, I can use it and I'm a programmer too. :-)
>
> Anyway, I love this program already, I'm buying it.
>
In rec.woodworking
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
I use AutoCAD Lite and it works fine. I don't think you can get it for
under $100 though. I think I paid over $300, but I use it for work also. I
draw almost everything I make and for small patterns and such, I print full
scale. This weekend I made some bandsaw candle holders and just printed
out the patterns full-scale and glued them to the stock to cut. Works
great.
In rec.woodworking
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nothing wrong with ACLT but I wouldn't pay what they want for it.
>I use Turbocad Pro and Intellicad.
I would too if I was paying but my company pays and that is what they
chose. And, I don't have to convert to take to work and plot full-scale.
In rec.woodworking
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue
>to buy it on reputation.
>It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by the
>name.
Are you implying that performance is an issue in 2D CAD with today's
computers? I don't think so.
In rec.woodworking
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Are you implying that performance is an issue in 2D CAD with today's
>> computers? I don't think so.
>
>The ability, or lack thereof, of the software makes a lot of difference.
Please elaborate on what the hell you are talking about. You used the word
performance. I guess I'm not sure what your connotation is because a plain
jane PIII 700 can regen the most complex 2D AutoCAD drawings in seconds.
Now you use the word "ability" of the software. Ignoring the
personification of software, what "abilities" does TurboCAD or whatever
you're pushing have that AutoCAD doesn't?
In rec.woodworking
gabriel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>
>> Now you use the word "ability" of the software. Ignoring the
>> personification of software, what "abilities" does TurboCAD or
>> whatever you're pushing have that AutoCAD doesn't?
>
>The guy was just trying to say that whatever made AutoCAD top of the line,
>does not anymore. You can get pretty cheap products that do the same
>things.
>
>You don't need to get all defensive about it. Just keep using AutoCAD if
>you so please...
I will keep using it. The defensive one is him. I'm not promoting
AutoCAD, he is demoting it and pushing other products.
Design workshop lite (freeware) runs on classic and in the classic
enviroment under OSX. Not too bad for general visualization stuff.
http://www.artifice.com/free/dw_lite.html
Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) does a good job of translating the
Windows API into X11 for use of windows software on linux.
-Bruce
p_j wrote:
> My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:
>
> http://www.gizmolab.com/software/
>
> Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix. If so, there are no
> doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
> the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Speaking of art, it's probably worth pointing out that every
>individual has their own standard for what is beautiful to them
>(and what is not).
To a point but studies with babies have shown that babies prefer
"beautiful" people as commonly accepted by society and dislike ugly people.
In rec.woodworking
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
>> then enter:
>>
>> @15,30
>>
>> or whatever.
>>
>> Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.
>
>
>Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
>have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
>you know how it turns out.
That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.
You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:
@6<45
Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
would go up to the right. To go up to the left:
@6<135
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Frank Shute) wrote:
>These are known as polar coordinates rather than relative/rectangular
>coordinates. He's also using QuickCAD and not AutoCAD, so I don't
>know if that input notation will work with his software.
Relative coordinates refer to the origin and whether or not they are
rectangular or polar is irrelevant.
>> @6<135
>
>The post was about drawing a rectangle so polar coordinates aren't a
>lot of use in that situation....or I've never found them to be.
Actually, they will indeed plot a rectangle. If you do @6<45, it will draw
a square with 6" between opposing corners. OTOH, I was simply trying to
familiarize the gentleman with relative coords of all types. I did NOT
imply that they they were useful for rectangles. I humbly beg your
forgiveness for deviating from the subject by the nth degree.
Steve James wrote:
>
> Being a dedicated Mac user at home and being forced to use Windoze at
> work, I find that sometimes the best solution to this type of problem is
> running Windoz software using Virtual PC on the Mac. If you have a G4
> or better you probably won't notice much speed difference. I run the
> Windoze version of Office 2000 on my Mac if I'm doing work stuff because
> it assures compatibility ( I know the Mac and Windoze versions are
> supposed to be cross compatible but when it comes to complex graphics
> they are definitely not). I don't really notice a significant speed
> difference with Office 2000 - that is using a 900+MHz Pentium 4 at work
> and a single processor 867 MHz G4 at home.
>
Virtual PC emulates a rather poor video card, probably not up to snuff
for many CAD programs.
-Bruce
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
CW wrote:
> Someone walks up to you and says "hello, how are you doing?" and you respond
> hello, how are you doing? I'm good, how about you? Yeah, sounds natural to
> me.
LMAO.
You have confused an oral conversation with email.
You need to spend some time off line pal.
I shouldn't laugh, confusing the Web and computer relationships with true
socialization is a growing mental illness.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
I use DeltaCAD. It is inexpensive and very easy to learn. But it is
only a 2D application. No sketching, modeling, or advanced functions
of any kind. I use it to plan home projects. I bought mine about five
years ago for $20.00 (no manual). I think they now sell it for about
$40.00 including the manual. I've seen the CD in Staples for $12.99.
If you want down 'n dirty -- but useful, it's a pretty good product.
Glad you agree.
"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
> >Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People
continue
> >to buy it on reputation.
>
>
> Oh. I misunderstood. You must be right.
>
> UA100
David Zaret wrote:
> i agree that sketchup is great... but it's also $500.
Yeah, the only downside. I had a really good look at it, I made a sample
woodworking design and a sample bathroom remodel (with cabinetry, of
course) in the alloted tryout time.
It's amazing to me, that I could do three things in 8 hours of use (the
alloted tryout time): 1) Learn to use it with the online videos, 2)
Design a sample cabinet for my garage, and 3) Remodel a bathroom (toilet,
tub, shower, and cabinets) so that you could walk inside and see the
texture, color, and size proportions.
The really cool thing about SketchUp is that you can do a rough design
first, and then if you like it, you can refine it later. You do not need
to design stuff down to the millimeter at first. This is what frustrates
me about CAD. I need to see if it's a good idea first before I spend
hours and hours on details.
Even though I am not a pro, $500 is worth it because of the time and
material saved (I have made expensive design errors in the past), and
because I can use the program for our home improvements.
--
gabriel
I don't use a CAD program for my woodworking drawings. Instead I use
Micrografx Designer. It's a Windows technical drawing program. In
fact, it almost looks like a CAD program. At least version 9 and under
does. Since Corel bought out Micrografx they've changed the interface
to make it look more like CorelDraw. While Corel is a powerful program
it's interface never suited me and what I needed a drawing program
for. CAD programs are also very powerful, but but too "technical" for
me. Micrografx Designer fit the bill. Too bad the company didn't
market the product better and had to sell out to Corel. There are a
lot of die hard Designer users out there. If you look you can find
versions 9 and under for less than $70. Version 10 is when Corel
changed the interface. :-(
You can draw full scale and then re-size the drawing proportionately
to fit the page or several pages and print out. You can customize the
left side and top tool bar to have the tools you use most (and there
are a lot of tools). One of the ways I judge a program is how well I
can use it without resorting to reading the manual or help files and
just figure things out. Micrografx is just that...easy to figure out.
Click on one of it's many tools and see what it does. CorelDraw's
interface is so simple I couldn't figure it out!
I'm sure you could use Designer to map out your cuts on a sheet of
plywood. Should be really simple.
To do a cutting list I made up a simple Excel spreadsheet where you
list all the parts and their demensions and it will calculate the
total boardfeet and cost.
Don't know if this helped....
Layne
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:06:27 -0500, Michael Press
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
>inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
>designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
>precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
>useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
>of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
>I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
>point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
>http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
>I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
>curve.
>
>Thanks,
>Michael
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:49:18 GMT, Mark wrote:
>
>
> Frank Shute wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:
>>
>>>Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
>>>they have already read.
>>
>>
>> Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
>> that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
>> broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
>> piece of software.
>>
>
>
>
> I was going to try Outlook myself, I got it set up, found I couldn't
> delete spam without opening it in some form, couldn't find the
> setting to put my sig file at the end of the quoted text forcing me
> cut and paste it or condemning me to top posting.
That's it's main problem, it forces you to top post. Hence matey's top
posts which he excused on the grounds of laziness.
> Might have been other problems but I wasn't going to stick around to
> find out.
Used to be a pile of security problems with it but I believe it's
somewhat better now. I feel that since Microsoft have a monopoly,
there's nothing driving them to produce featureful and secure software
and you're best off looking elsewhere.
You might want to check out Thunderbird:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
I haven't used it but I use the Firebird/Firefox browser from the same
stable which I can recommend.
>
>
>>
>>>Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
>>>background when you wrote this?
>>
>>
>> How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
>> software...
>
>
> On topic: I have AutoCad 2000 Lt., it's more than enough for square and round
> structures. like all programs you need to know what a functions called to be
> able to use it. TomAAto, TomAHto, ....
>
>>
>>>For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
>>>Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.
>>
>>
>> Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
>> a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
>> technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
>> Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.
>>
>
>
> mayhaps he just lacks the ability to thin and see in three
> dimensions from a two dimension format, so he needs a machine to do
> it for him.
A lot of designers do nowadays (not that I think he's a
designer/draughtsman in any meaningful way).
>
> As far as 'needing' 3d to design? I think of the thousands of years
> and millions upon millions of items designed using paper and pencil,
> sticks in the sand, to know 3d is not an absolute necessity.
Exactly.
>
> Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad
> would be more detrimental.
CAD does. It's good for engineering design or architectural design
where your form is very much dependent on function. But with furniture
for example, there might not be very much function (I always think of
Krenov's cabinets) and one can't envision Sam Maloof sitting down at
his CAD station to design one of his rockers.
It's OK for me for designing furniture because I come at furniture
from an engineering aspect and I haven't got too many creative bones
in my body.
If I had the room, I'd prefer to draught by hand. I think I'd produce
more fluid designs and I'd enjoy getting all my old draughting tools
back into action. I don't think it would be very much slower either,
it's difficult to leverage CAD's speed advantages with one-off designs
when you're not using common componentry.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
Michael,
While I don't use it for my woodworking much I have been using QuickCad by
Autodesk recently. We are about to build a house and I've been using it to
generate ideas for inside the house and land placement. It works well for
me. It was well under $100. and will export in many of the popular Cad
files. Can even export into one file format then import into .jpg if need
be.
It will generate lists but will not create cutting lists. But the lists are
a simple database you might be able to export the list out to another sheet
cutting program.
As far as reviews. From what I remember on rec.woodworking this program is
not rated very high on the list. I don't know why because I've not used the
other programs. I suggest you do a search here to get some of the previous
discussions.
Roy
This isn't email.
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> You have confused an oral conversation with email.
>
If you get a "Wacom Intous Tablet" it includes a pressure sensitve pen and
it is recognized by "Paint", "Paintshop Pro", and others you can get the
effects you want.
"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
> exist. Drawing for publication, I've settled for using Photoshop Elements
> and more latterly, Paint Shop Pro V8 for 'inking in' pencil drawings made
on
> the drawing board and scanned into the computer.
>
> This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work neatly on
> ordinary drawing paper, smudges are easy to remove, and changes fairly
easy
> to make. Changing line widths is very convenient.
>
> However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get with
careful
> freehand drawing.
>
> Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
> computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
> gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.
>
> Does anyone know of such an application existing today?
>
> And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
> Elements, and found they do not meet this need.
>
> Jeff G
>
> --
> Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
> Email address is username@ISP
> username is amgron
> ISP is clara.co.uk
> Website www.amgron.clara.net
>
>
>
>
Brian wrote:
> Thanks again! The Mac community is small, keep sharing!
You should try living in Linuxdom. At least you have the option of buying a
program or three.
(I've thought about getting a Mac for that very reason. Maybe being part of
3% would be better than being part of 1%. OTOH, I don't have any money
anyway, and most of the Windows software I still occasionally miss doesn't
run on a Mac, so I'd be in the same boat, only with one mouse button and a
really goofy looking computer.)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On 2004/2/27 12:22 PM, "Jay Windley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
> | with careful freehand drawing.
>
> This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
> people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings.
Personally, I have no problem with the lack of character in machine
generated drawings. What does get in the way is the lack of any judgment as
to what details to include. With any complex design, there are parts that
are pretty obvious and other where I need more detail to understand what is
going on. When I view something using the electronic tools, I can control
those dynamically as needed, zooming in/out, turning on/off various
dimensioning, etc. But when a drawing is prepared, either electronically or
on paper, it locks in a certain level of detail that may or may not be right
for what I want to do. Humans, especially when they are familiar with their
audience, can make judgments about where to show more detail or to emphasize
certain parts. This is similar to the way that cartographers may distort
scale in some parts of a map in order to make significant objects show up
better.
"Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
> software...
Where? When?
>
> > Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
> > know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value.
The
> > only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This
is
> > done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy
the
> > full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say
the
> > least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
> > programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you
then
> > have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want?
>
> You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You don't need to
> hire a programmer (of any description) to make it into a 3D modeller.
> You just buy and install additional softs.
Hire it programmed or buy it from someone that has already done it doesn't
change anything. You buy a piece of software for way to high a price that
won't do what you want then throw money at it trying to make into
something. Kind of like buying a Ford Fiesta and adding/replacing parts
'till you have and Indy car. Do you work for the government?
>
> > For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
> > Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with 3D?
You brought it up and is a frequent reason that people give for buying the
full version (of AutoCAD) over LT. For things that are made predominantly by
hand, 2D prints are still the way to go. For the majority of manufactured
items (machinery, tooling, plastics, ect) 2D detail drawings are becoming
less relevant all the time. Why spend the time making a 2D print just so
when it gets to the manufacturer, he has to redraw it?
>I suspect it's because you don't know
> a first angle projection from a 3rd ie.
You're shooting in the dark and hitting nothing but air.
>You don't know anything about
> technical drawing nor how to draught.
Another couple of shots. Both misses.
>Done any design engineering?
Yep.
> Thought not.
I'm beginning to question your thinking ability.
Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.
Nope. Did without for many years but I wouldn't go back to those conditions
for anything.
>
>
Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue
to buy it on reputation.
It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by the
name.
"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
> >AutoCAD's days of being top of the line are long gone.
>
> Actually this isn't entirely true. At least not in the
> architectural woodwork business.
>
> UA100, cabinet drawerer...
"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
> I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
yet
> exist.
Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a steep
part of the "learning curve".
By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured shop
drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04
whatsa Mac? burger and fries?
Leslie
--
She's got tools, and she knows how to use them.
The legs aren't too bad either!
"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:170220042048418003%[email protected]...
> The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
> (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
>
> TIA!
> Brian
The ability, or lack thereof, of the software makes a lot of difference.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People
continue
> >to buy it on reputation.
> >It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by
the
> >name.
>
> Are you implying that performance is an issue in 2D CAD with today's
> computers? I don't think so.
CW wrote:
> Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
> already read.
Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having to
scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.
Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following what your
addressing.
> Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
> background when you wrote this?
See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to
mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would warrant
this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no one
should have to guess.
Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.
Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW wrote
parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very poor
form.
(normally I would remove all the following text)
> "Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:
>>
>>>
>>Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
>>you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
>>virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
>>in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
>
>
> NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
> numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in
> it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
> hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
> high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
> that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
> peiced together?
>
>>Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
>>and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
>>sells.
>
>
> The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
> that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
> yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.
>
>>Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
>>security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
>>there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
>>applications for it.
>
>
> I thought you said that people only bought the best?
> In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
> automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
> nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
> the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
> what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
> they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The
> majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
> desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
> quality CAD programs.
>
>>As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
>>his price bracket
>
>
> If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of
> the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
> only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
> costomize, go with Pro.
>
> and I think he'd get most of the function from
>
>>TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
>>or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
>
>
> There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you
> want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user
> groups I have ever seen.
>
>
>
>>I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
>>would be another bonus if it could.
>
>
> It can, in addition to other usefull formats.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>--
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/
>>
>
>
>
--
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
Squiggle. http://www.residential.com/squiggle.html
"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Some years ago I recall seeing a computer application that can take a
> computer drawing that emulated handwork and introduced irregularities that
> gave a line a pleasant slightly uneven character.
>
> Does anyone know of such an application existing today?
>
> And yes, I have tried the 'effects' and standard plug-ins for Photoshop
> Elements, and found they do not meet this need.
>
> Jeff G
>
> --
> Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
> Email address is username@ISP
> username is amgron
> ISP is clara.co.uk
> Website www.amgron.clara.net
>
>
>
>
gabriel wrote:
> David Zaret wrote:
>
>>i agree that sketchup is great... but it's also $500.
>
> Yeah, the only downside. I had a really good look at it, I made a sample
> woodworking design and a sample bathroom remodel (with cabinetry, of
> course) in the alloted tryout time.
>
> It's amazing to me, that I could do three things in 8 hours of use (the
> alloted tryout time): 1) Learn to use it with the online videos, 2)
> Design a sample cabinet for my garage, and 3) Remodel a bathroom (toilet,
> tub, shower, and cabinets) so that you could walk inside and see the
> texture, color, and size proportions.
>
> The really cool thing about SketchUp is that you can do a rough design
> first, and then if you like it, you can refine it later. You do not need
> to design stuff down to the millimeter at first. This is what frustrates
> me about CAD. I need to see if it's a good idea first before I spend
> hours and hours on details.
>
> Even though I am not a pro, $500 is worth it because of the time and
> material saved (I have made expensive design errors in the past), and
> because I can use the program for our home improvements.
I'm not familiar with sketchup - but I noted that there's a
version 3 package on eBay - current bid: $70.
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
background when you wrote this? Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The
only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is
done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the
full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the
least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then
have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want? For half that cost,
modelling software is availble that make Autocad's 3D capabilities look like
a toy.
"Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:
> >
>>
> Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
> you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
> virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
> in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because, in
it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
peiced together?
>
> Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
> and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
> sells.
The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.
>
> Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
> security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
> there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
> applications for it.
I thought you said that people only bought the best?
In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block? The
majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
quality CAD programs.
>
> As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
> his price bracket
If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys one of
the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
costomize, go with Pro.
and I think he'd get most of the function from
> TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
> or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if you
want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull user
groups I have ever seen.
>
> I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
> would be another bonus if it could.
It can, in addition to other usefull formats.
>
> --
>
> Frank
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/
>
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Nothing wrong with ACLT but I wouldn't pay what they want for it.
> >I use Turbocad Pro and Intellicad.
>
> I would too if I was paying but my company pays and that is what they
> chose.
If I'm working for somebody that uses something different, that's what I
use.
And, I don't have to convert to take to work and plot full-scale.
Neither do I.
>
There was a time when AutoCAD was top of the line in CAD technology. As with
any technology, success breeds competition. There are enough choices of good
products now that what is "best" is a subjective thing. It depends on what
you want to do. 2D only? Your choices are many. Have specific tasks for this
package that will require customization? AutoCAD shines here and, in the
lite version, is a good value for the money. Think 3D will be more your
thing? AutoCAD starts looking worse. There are far more capable programs.
There are a lot of choices and things to consider when putting what could
potentially be a lot of money into something like a CAD package. A lot of it
is personal preference. There is no point in having something technically
superior if you hate using it.
What I use: Turbocad Pro. Very good 3D/2D package with the emphasis on 3D.
Intellicad. So much like AutoCAD, if you can run one, you can run the other.
Are either of these the best? Yes, no, maybe, it depends.
BTW, of the programs mentioned, the only one that fits the original criteria
of about $100.00 is intellicad in its lite version.
"gabriel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The guy was just trying to say that whatever made AutoCAD top of the line,
> does not anymore. You can get pretty cheap products that do the same
> things.
>
> --
> gabriel
In article <%XrYb.49524$jk2.117758@attbi_s53>, [email protected]
says...
> You can pick up copies of CAD programs on EBay very cheaply....mjh
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> > inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> > designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> > precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> > useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> > of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
> >
> > I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> > point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> > http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
> >
> > I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> > curve.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
>
>
Fine if they are new but remember that Autodesk are reknown for their
vicious attacks on illegal users and autodesk licences are not
transferable....
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
I would definitely go with MSC.Patran to do the solid modeling. You can
then link in other modules to do finite element analysis, thermal analysis,
etc. Oh, wait, did you say $100 or $100K? An average person can probably
pick it up in a couple of weeks. Since you're a programmer, I'd allow a
month.
todd
CW wrote:
> This isn't email.
Mayhaps not, but it's much closer to email than speech.
Here's a clue, when you reply, and I choose to acknowledge it, will I be
listening with my ears or reading with my eyes.
Understand the difference. ??
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
Wooun't know. I use a number of them. Tell me where I ever claimed anything
was the best.
"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
> us what the best plotter is...
You should go to http://www.ecabinetsystems.com/ and link to the
software
page It is a free software program I have been using it in my shop for about
a year you do have to have some knowledge of joinery though. I think this
would suit your needs very well
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
Lastweek I purchased Autodesk QuickCad 8 at Staples for $53
w/tax. I am pleased with the program, and have used it to lay
out the next couple of projects. The learning curve isn't too
bad as it seems pretty intuitive. There's features I would like
have included...but for the money, I won't complain.
Good luck!
Darwin
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program
> that's inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100)
> and useful for designing furniture. This is purely weekend
> hobby work, but I'd like precise drawings of my designs. I
> also imagine that it would be useful to generate a bill of
> materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map" of cuts on a sheet
> of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
> woodworking point of view. (This article is what got me
> thinging - http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep
> learning curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
Mark wrote:
> Welcome to last year.
>
> Since it's been so long you could at least include a bit of whatever
> your referencing so we know what you mean. ?
It was 1 1/2 months ago. Sorry for the short memory or do you always get
into arguments?
It was the first time I checked out this newsgroup as I converse in many
others. I didn't even realize how long ago that post was made because of
this. I'm suprised of the amount of unfriendly posts I've read so far since
it's such a specific topic.
--
-=SW=-
Jay Windley wrote:
> "Jeff Gorman"
>
> | However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
> | with careful freehand drawing.
>
> This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
> people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings. It's
> ironic because of the agonizing practice many of us went through to start
> and stop our lines precisely where they were supposed to start and stop, and
> to keep the line weights consistent from start to finish. The goal was a
> drawing that looked like it had been made by some kind of machine. Now that
> machines make most of the drawings, we long for the hand-drawn ones.
You have me laughing out loud.
In the late 70's I took drafting/ mechanical drawing. I did the best I could but
the best I could manage was a C.
Twenty something years later I wanted to take a CAD class and figured I could
use a refresher so I took the basic drafting class.
I was getting 'A's on work that twenty years prior would have gotten me thrown
out of class. (I'm able to 'draw' better but twenty years before a student would
be in deep siht if the teacher saw compressed paper after an erasure, or if the
construction lines weren't *just so*, and God help you if there was any type of
smudge.)
To give this class it's due, it's point was more to teach the mechanics of
drawing and teach us to see what we were drawing and less turning out proficient.
I've seen people who can pick up a pad and pencil and freehand working drawings
that are better than what I can do on a table. I am in awe of this talent. But
is there a difference between their CAD and my CAD? Not really. I think that's
one of my problems with CAD, it diminishes the value of true talent.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
SWalters wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>
>>Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S.
>>Clemens, A.K.A. Mark Twain)
>>
>
>
> Although you are right about this...you should remember your signature
> before continuing conversations like these :)
Welcome to last year.
Since it's been so long you could at least include a bit of whatever your
referencing so we know what you mean. ?
>
--
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, don't read it (I suggest a few
reading classes). You might want to seek a little help for that fading
memory while you're at it.
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> CW wrote:
>
> > Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they
have
> > already read.
>
>
>
> Try not to top post. It's poor form and it wastes peoples time by having
to
> scroll up and down to see what's being addressed.
>
> Instead edit what your not replying to then write your reply following
what your
> addressing.
>
>
> > Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
> > background when you wrote this?
>
>
>
> See? I have to scroll down to read what this remark is referencing, not to
> mention having to guess what he's referencing. I don't see what would
warrant
> this type of remark. mayhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Point being no
one
> should have to guess.
>
>
> Top posting is sloppy. Makes work for many at the convenience of the one.
>
>
> Not to mention how the rest of this mail is confusing, I don't know if CW
wrote
> parts, if Frank wrote parts, or if there was a third person involved. Very
poor
> form.
>
>
> (normally I would remove all the following text)
>
>
> > "Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
> >>you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
> >>virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
> >>in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
> >
> >
> > NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
> > numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad. Why? Because,
in
> > it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM
program,
> > hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have
a
> > high price kluge. Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM
package
> > that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
> > peiced together?
> >
> >>Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
> >>and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
> >>sells.
> >
> >
> > The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a
business
> > that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough
emplo
> > yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.
> >
> >>Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
> >>security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
> >>there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
> >>applications for it.
> >
> >
> > I thought you said that people only bought the best?
> > In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to
an
> > automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
> > nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system,
on
> > the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
> > what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized
that
> > they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block?
The
> > majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than changes to
> > desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are available in most
> > quality CAD programs.
> >
> >>As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
> >>his price bracket
> >
> >
> > If he buys new, Turbocad is out of his price range too unless he buys
one of
> > the lower capablity versios. Since he stated a desire to do 2D only, the
> > only thing he would be giving up would be customizabiliy. If he wants to
> > costomize, go with Pro.
> >
> > and I think he'd get most of the function from
> >
> >>TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
> >>or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
> >
> >
> > There are a lot of good tutorials available (free). Complete courses if
you
> > want to pay for it. They also have one of the most active and helpfull
user
> > groups I have ever seen.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
> >>would be another bonus if it could.
> >
> >
> > It can, in addition to other usefull formats.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> --
>
> Mark
>
> N.E. Ohio
>
>
> Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A.
> Mark Twain)
>
> When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense.
> (Gaz, r.moto)
>
Jay Windley wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:jR2%[email protected]...
> | Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless.
>
> I would tend to agree, but CAD provides another target for the
> blame.
Perhaps - but I don't think the problem lies with that target.
> | I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems;
> | but the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software -
> | it goes to the designer in every case.
>
> No argument whatsoever. It has been my experience -- and I
> have a fair amount of it -- that good CAD cannot substitute
> for bad design. And it has also been my experience that
> people who are good at CAD are also good at pencil-and-paper
> design. The most adept CAD users I've seen are engineers from
> the Apollo era, and they can pretty much design freehand if
> they need to.
>
> CAD is not a substitute for design skill.
I absolutely agree.
> Nevertheless it's true that CAD can limit a design. CAD gives
> you a set of tools to work with, and heaven help you if
> there's no tool to do what you want. I remember the olden
> days before NURBS and Bezier curves where if you wanted
> anything besides straight lines and circular arcs out of your
> CAD system you were just out of luck. Those of us constrained
> to use straight lines and circular arcs produced unexciting
> designs.
I still agree. It was a serious problem. Back in 1975 I became so
frustrated with available tools that I went out and bought my own
Houston Instruments DP-1 plotter, hooked it up to my IMSAI-8080,
and wrote my own software. I realize that not everyone can do
that kind of thing; but this is 2004 and there're much better
tools available off the shelf. My outdated DesignCAD package even
allows me to write "macros" in a version of BASIC.
> CAD as a method of creating a drawing is putrid. I can
> produce much more exciting designs in dimensioned freehand
> than on any CAD system, and I have used CAD for years and even
> programmed high-end CAD systems for others to use. CAD is a
> tool aimed at the *professional* designer. That's not to make
> it sound snooty. It's to say that a professional designer
> (individual or design group) has other concerns to worry
> about, chiefly about efficiency and cutting down on design
> overhead for accommodating change. CAD speaks to those needs,
> which aren't necessarily the same as the needs of the hobbyist
> woodworker, or even the small-scale professional.
Well, I still have my T-square and drawing table; but I really am
more productive with the CAD tools. That doesn't mean that I
don't do a lot of pencil sketches along the way - but most of
what I would have sketched on paper I now sketch on the screen.
Just for fun, I'll post two of this morning's sketches on a.p.b.w
under the subject of "Inlay Sketches". I'm thinking of a deep,
rich-grained wooden box with this pattern inlaid in mother of
pearl - as a July birthday present for someone special. I don't
think I could have managed the design with pencil and paper only.
The left sketch is the inlay plan; and the right sketch is the
tool path. They aren't quite on the same scale; but they /are/
just sketches. It's an ancient middle-eastern geometric construct.
/I/ think the end result will be better than bland. I don't know
if it's good art or not - although I like it. I only care that
the recipient likes it. These two sketches represent about an
hour of effort. I guarantee that I couldn't have managed them in
an hour (or even five) with just pencil and paper.
>
> | What seems bland for one person may be even gaudy to
> another.
>
> Right, but that's not necessarily what Mark is talking about.
> CAD encourages "cookie cutter" design for two reasons: it
> allows easy cutting and pasting to reuse elements of a design,
> and it gives you a limited set of tools.
Hmm. The tool set isn't bad at this stage; and it's getting
better all the time. Less expensive too.
Re-use of design elements isn't necessarily bad - I had the old
350 engine in my old C20 pickup, a GM van, and a Buick sedan. On
the other hand, I'm glad they didn't cut 'n' paste the C20 cab
into the Buick.
> My sister, who is an architect, can drive down a street and
> point out which houses were designed on AutoCAD, which were
> designed on some other CAD package, and so forth. Why?
> Because they display the features to which those systems lend
> themselves.
I've noticed the same effect in the publishing world. I probably
got as sick of seeing Adobe layouts as she did AutoCAD.
> Is this bad? No, not really. There will always be a market
> for cookie cutter designs because they're inexpensive, fast
> and easy to produce, and are functionally refined to
> perfection over time. In the industrial world that's a win.
> Sometimes that's a win for professional woodworkers. Usually
> it's not for hobbyist woodworkers.
I think that needs to be considered on a case by case basis. I've
always produced at least partial drawings for my projects; and it
seems to me that the projects have turned out better for my
having taken the time and effort. Part of my reason for feeling
that way may be that I've always tried to reach further than I
had before. Another part may be the enjoyment I find in
experimentation with joinery techniques.
> | I recall how ugly I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass
> (sp?) | speakers were (no wood!), even as I admired the sound
> they produced.
>
> Sure, there's an aesthetic. Look at the other end of the
> spectrum: Frank Lloyd Wright. His stuff looks great, but no
> one wants to sit in his chairs or duck under his low ceilings.
Me me me! I do! (-: I don't know about his chairs; but I get
quite a buzz from his approach to design. I once spent a couple
of weeks in the old Imperial Hotel in Tokyo. I wouldn't trade the
experience for anything.
> Something can look good, or it can function well, or both.
> Often optimizing for one tends to sacrifice the other. But
> CAD introduces a new dimension to that problem -- can I design
> it using this particular tool? How much time have I got to
> design it? How much do I have to learn about this tool before
> it's useful to me?
Yabbut that's true of all new tools. My first workshop tool was a
radial arm saw. I learned on the first day that power tools could
be a big time and labor saver; but that they could also ruin
perfectly good wood /very/ much faster than hand tools. From that
time on, I didn't buy a power tool until I'd come to speaking
terms with the hand tool equivalent. My then-wife thought I was
nuts; but I discovered that by taking time to learn how wood
behaved/responded to hand tools, I learned a lot about how and
when to use which power tools.
I will argue (forever) that learning to understand the materials
and the tools is a necessary step; and that there is no magic
that will allow a mere mortal to consistantly produce a good
result without climbing the learning curve associated with the
tools used.
> I recommend to hobbyist woodworkers, and small-scale
> professionals (i.e., lone wolves with at most one or two
> assistants) that they use paper designs. If your joy in
> woodworking is to produce a thing of beauty that springs from
> your imagination unfettered, then fancy design tools won't
> help. One of my more exciting clock projects started as a
> slab of turning stock that I grabbed at random and slapped on
> the band saw table. I didn't draw anything; I didn't even
> have a good idea what it was going to look like until four
> cuts or so into the stock.
This may be where we differ most. I prefer to have all design
issues resolved before I start making sawdust. I won't claim that
either approach is better than the other; but I strongly prefer
to pack the creativity into the front of the project.
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Bruce wrote:
> Now you use the word "ability" of the software. Ignoring the
> personification of software, what "abilities" does TurboCAD or
> whatever you're pushing have that AutoCAD doesn't?
The guy was just trying to say that whatever made AutoCAD top of the line,
does not anymore. You can get pretty cheap products that do the same
things.
You don't need to get all defensive about it. Just keep using AutoCAD if
you so please...
--
gabriel
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:48:41 -0500, Brian wrote:
> The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
> (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
>
> TIA!
> Brian
http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html
--
-Doug
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jR2%[email protected]...
|
| Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless.
I would tend to agree, but CAD provides another target for the blame.
| I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems;
| but the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software -
| it goes to the designer in every case.
No argument whatsoever. It has been my experience -- and I have a fair
amount of it -- that good CAD cannot substitute for bad design. And it has
also been my experience that people who are good at CAD are also good at
pencil-and-paper design. The most adept CAD users I've seen are engineers
from the Apollo era, and they can pretty much design freehand if they need
to.
CAD is not a substitute for design skill.
Nevertheless it's true that CAD can limit a design. CAD gives you a set of
tools to work with, and heaven help you if there's no tool to do what you
want. I remember the olden days before NURBS and Bezier curves where if you
wanted anything besides straight lines and circular arcs out of your CAD
system you were just out of luck. Those of us constrained to use straight
lines and circular arcs produced unexciting designs.
CAD as a method of creating a drawing is putrid. I can produce much more
exciting designs in dimensioned freehand than on any CAD system, and I have
used CAD for years and even programmed high-end CAD systems for others to
use. CAD is a tool aimed at the *professional* designer. That's not to
make it sound snooty. It's to say that a professional designer (individual
or design group) has other concerns to worry about, chiefly about efficiency
and cutting down on design overhead for accommodating change. CAD speaks to
those needs, which aren't necessarily the same as the needs of the hobbyist
woodworker, or even the small-scale professional.
| What seems bland for one person may be even gaudy to another.
Right, but that's not necessarily what Mark is talking about. CAD
encourages "cookie cutter" design for two reasons: it allows easy cutting
and pasting to reuse elements of a design, and it gives you a limited set of
tools.
My sister, who is an architect, can drive down a street and point out which
houses were designed on AutoCAD, which were designed on some other CAD
package, and so forth. Why? Because they display the features to which
those systems lend themselves.
Is this bad? No, not really. There will always be a market for cookie
cutter designs because they're inexpensive, fast and easy to produce, and
are functionally refined to perfection over time. In the industrial world
that's a win. Sometimes that's a win for professional woodworkers. Usually
it's not for hobbyist woodworkers.
| I recall how ugly I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass (sp?)
| speakers were (no wood!), even as I admired the sound they produced.
Sure, there's an aesthetic. Look at the other end of the spectrum: Frank
Lloyd Wright. His stuff looks great, but no one wants to sit in his chairs
or duck under his low ceilings.
Something can look good, or it can function well, or both. Often optimizing
for one tends to sacrifice the other. But CAD introduces a new dimension to
that problem -- can I design it using this particular tool? How much time
have I got to design it? How much do I have to learn about this tool before
it's useful to me?
I recommend to hobbyist woodworkers, and small-scale professionals (i.e.,
lone wolves with at most one or two assistants) that they use paper designs.
If your joy in woodworking is to produce a thing of beauty that springs from
your imagination unfettered, then fancy design tools won't help. One of my
more exciting clock projects started as a slab of turning stock that I
grabbed at random and slapped on the band saw table. I didn't draw
anything; I didn't even have a good idea what it was going to look like
until four cuts or so into the stock.
--Jay
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b78%[email protected]...
|
| Well, I still have my T-square and drawing table; but I
| really am more productive with the CAD tools.
As are many designers. If you have good CAD tools and you know how to use
them, by all means use them. I looked at your sketches and they're quite
appropriate for the tool, and presumably for the task. Most importantly,
you get things like offset lines for free. Those are tedious to draw. And
if you have patterns that can be described algorithmically, you can get more
done quickly if you're allowed to do that. You mention that your tool is
scriptable. AutoCAD is too. The systems I've helped build are consummately
scriptable, having been built upon a full-featured procedural programming
languages.
For example, to create a radial pattern of holes, such as for a flange, you
could say:
outerFlangeBoundary := circle( centerPt, flangeOuterRadius );
innerFlangeBoundary := circleConcentric( outerFlangeBoundary,
-flangeLipWidth );
draw( outerFlangeBoundary, innerFlangeBoundary );
prototypeHole := simpleBore( holeDiam, normalDir( outerFlangeBoundary ),
HOLE_THROUGH );
holePattern := radialPattern( centerPt,
flangeOuterRadius - (flangeLipWidth / 2),
numHolesNeeded,
prototypeHole );
Or you could use the GUI. But the textual representation allows you to
capture the geometric relationships so that there's a basis for generating
the portions of the drawing that are defined as dependent upon the other
parts according to arbitrarily complex geometric and algebraic constraints.
In plain English, the above would read, "Drill a set of evenly spaced holes
halfway between the inner and outer flange boundaries."
These tools are incredibly powerful and enable modern engineering. But they
have daunting learning curves for newcomers. If you're going to run a
professional shop, regardless of the material you work in, you need that
kind of flexibility and power to stay competitive. But if you're just
putting cabinets in the bathroom and you don't already know how to design
this way, you're better off with pencil and paper.
Most people already know how to use a pencil, and it doesn't take much to
realize that you can draw a little dimension arrow that says, "5/8 inch" and
that keeps track of how big something has to be.
| I don't think I could have managed the design with pencil
| and paper only.
Perhaps, but see below.
| /I/ think the end result will be better than bland.
Definitely. It's not at all bland. I like it.
| These two sketches represent about an hour of effort.
Well, yes and no. It took you that long to produce the drawing, but you
first had to learn the system in order to make it do that. That's the
essence of my point. If you merely want to make one inlay, learning a
software system is overkill. If you plan on making many, many overlays,
learning a design system is a wise investment. Most people already know how
to use a pencil and a straightedge, so if that's all they need then that's
all they should use. The question is whether or not you're happy with your
tools. You shouldn't dive into CAD simply because it's there. You should
dive into it if it's going to get you what you want.
| I guarantee that I couldn't have managed them in
| an hour (or even five) with just pencil and paper.
It would probably take me half an hour to do the tool path with traditional
instruments. I can already see the construction lines, etc., that I'd have
to draw. The double-lined version would take longer. But that's taking
into account seeing what it's supposed to look like. I certainly could do
it in far less than five hours. But then again I was trained in the
traditional methods of geometric construction on paper, so perhaps when I
recommend pencil and paper it's with that knowledge in mind. It would be
fair to say I'm adept in it because I've invested time to learn *that* mode
of drawing too.
| Hmm. The tool set isn't bad at this stage; and it's getting
| better all the time. Less expensive too.
I agree. Especially with various parametric curves and interpolating
techniques you can leap ahead of many pencil techniques. We were just
talking about old shipwrights and splines and ducks. These days
interpolating through points or drawing freeform curves of appropriate
"bendiness" is drag-and-drop. A while back we had a discussion about
scribing free form contours such as in making boat bulkheads. It's much
easier to instruct a CAD system to extract the appropriate curve from a
freeform surface.
CAD has distinct advantages over paper design. I'm just wondering how much
of that helps the novice designer who just wants to make a chair or two.
I've seen motivated people bog down in the limitations of their tools.
| Re-use of design elements isn't necessarily bad
In the functional sense, it's absolutely essential. If your design library
already contains a bracket or a caster assembly or an inlay pattern --
complete with tool paths and assembly steps -- you should use it. It will
save you time and money.
But where aesthetics are important, such as in residential and furniture
design, re-use isn't always good. It leads to the "bland" look if you're
not careful. Sometimes re-use is good if you want a product line -- a
dining room table and its associated chairs, for example -- to have some
sort of dinstinctive look and feel. You might duplicate the table's center
inlay on the back of each chair. But that doesn't always translate to a cut
and paste in a CAD system.
| I think that needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
I agree. Some people enjoy the design aspect more than the production
aspect. Some people would rather spend time making sawdust than pushing
mice or pencils. Some people need everything spelled out for them in order
to have confidence to actually do it. Some people don't need to know just
how big a pilot hole is going to be or how deeply a screw will penetrate.
You can underdesign, and you can overdesign. Again, my advice to the novice
is not to design any farther than you think you need to go. And so don't
get wrapped up in the mechanism of expressing the design. If you don't need
a full layout plus isometric, don't worry about making it. If you make a
design from a dimensioned sketch and it looks like a Picasso, spend a bit
more time on paper.
| Me me me! I do! (-: I don't know about his chairs; but I get
| quite a buzz from his approach to design.
Don't get me wrong; I admire Wright immensely. The point is that someone so
well known for design can merit legitimate criticism. Wright's chairs are
unquestionable works of art. But they don't fit the human body. Many of
his early chairs have straight vertical backs. To sit in one is
excruciating. I'm only 5'4" (basically no taller than Wright himself) so I
feel quite at home in Wright rooms. My good friend is 6'4" and can't speak
about some Wright ceilings without using profanity.
Grumble all you want, but time has proven that Wright's ideas about varying
the ceiling height are right on the mark. His ideas about using native
materials are right on the mark. Many of his ideas, which he fought hard
for during his career, are now commonplace in architecture.
And there can be no question that Usonic design and CAD would go hand in
hand. Wright wanted design reuse and spent a large portion of his career
advocating it and practicing it. He never got it quite right, but the
notion of "parameterizing" a design in order to hold down its cost -- a
feature of most modern CAD systems -- would have appealed greatly to him.
But if the hobbyist merely wants to create an attractive picnic table or
jewelry box as a gift, or a writing table to fit a custom space in his home,
then the overhead of a parameterized design may be too much work.
| I will argue (forever) that learning to understand the materials
| and the tools is a necessary step...
Yes.
| This may be where we differ most. I prefer to have all design
| issues resolved before I start making sawdust.
As do I. My point in bringing up design on the fly is that it was
surprisingly effective in that one case. It's wasteful and dangerous as a
general method of design. My clock could have just as easily turned out as
a pile of odd maple burl scraps. I took that risk. Not everyone should,
nor certainly on every project. But there's a certain freedom in "drawing"
with a bandsaw blade on wood.
The true path, I believe, lies somewhere between extremes. What I want to
instill in the minds of design novices is neither recklessness nor anal
retentativity. I believe that some people looking for a CAD system are
really looking for guidance on how to approach the problem of design. I
would want to warn them away from CAD if their thought is that it's a magic
bullet. The best thing I believe I can offer people is confidence in their
innate design ability, regardless of the tools used. I want people to look
for design expertise where it really lies, not in some shrink-wrapped
package.
--Jay
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| "Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
| > I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things
| > that do not yet exist.
|
| Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being
| a steep part of the "learning curve".
That's one of the points I was trying to make, thanks. I'm not anti-CAD.
Having worked with and built CAD systems for years, I like to think of
myself as a CAD evangelist. But I tend to believe that the learning curve
is less favorable for CAD than for basic pencil techniques. If learning
curves are a problem for what you want to do, then simply do what works best
for you with the effort you're willing to put in and the innate individual
talents you have.
Technically if you consider the learning curve as a graph of expertise
acquired (vertical axis) against time taken to learn (horizontal axis) then
you want it to be as "steep" as possible. But I know what you mean. :-)
Some people -- like me -- must use CAD because we have to get designs out
quickly and be able to modify them easily and store them compactly. And
other people have to build what I design, so I can't just send them off a
sketch with a few dimensions scribbled on it and hope they can read my mind.
There are reasons for using CAD that have nothing to do with whether you're
best with a pencil or a mouse.
But as one person clearly stated, not everyone is good with a pencil. It's
probably better to drag out a rectangle with a CAD program than to agonize
over straight lines and right angles on paper if you're not good at that.
The point is to get to a usable design by the most comfortable and helpful
method. It's equally fallacious to say "design = pencil" as it is to say
"design = CAD". The situation I hope to avoid is someone who bought a $500
piece of software and then sits waving a fist at the screen saying, "I just
want a *%$&%-ing ellipse, you @$$#^ piece of @&&%$!" For less than five
bucks you can have a pencil and an ellipse template, and if that's what gets
you making sawdust faster, more power to you.
--Jay
"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| This I find less tricky than getting Rapidograph pens to work
| neatly on ordinary drawing paper...
Urg. I remember back in the 1970s cursing blue streaks at my Rapidograph
pens that either refused to deposit ink at all, or got most of it on my
fingertips. I use Micron felt-tip technical pens now, but then again I
don't do many ink drawings by hand anymore.
| However, the lines can lack some of the 'character' one can get
| with careful freehand drawing.
This is so ironic. You're not the only one who feels this way. A lot of
people rebel against the austerity of computer-rendered drawings. It's
ironic because of the agonizing practice many of us went through to start
and stop our lines precisely where they were supposed to start and stop, and
to keep the line weights consistent from start to finish. The goal was a
drawing that looked like it had been made by some kind of machine. Now that
machines make most of the drawings, we long for the hand-drawn ones.
My various wood project books that have plans in them vary between pure CAD
drawings and those which are either drawn by hand or have been
post-processed as you suggest. Maybe it's because woodworking is built more
on traditional hands-on techniques than other forms of engineering. But I
think the hand-drawn project plans look better. It makes me feel like the
person who drew them really cared about the project. Dunno if that's
irrational or not, but that's what came to mind.
--Jay
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XqM%[email protected]...
|
| I was getting 'A's on work that twenty years prior would have
| gotten me thrown out of class.
Many industries have relaxed their formalisms. Engineering used to be all
about consistency. And to a certain extent, and when the stakes are high,
it still is. But it used to be a lot more formal than it is now. We have
become more pragmatic. A drawing is still good even if it has chocolate
smudges on it.
As I said, my "shop drawings" consist usually of something drawn free-hand
on an engineer's pad with dimensions indicated (so I don't have to draw it
to scale). That works for me because the drawing is meant only as an
accumulation of my design ideas, and a guide to remembering details as I
work. I'm the only one who sees those drawings. If I had to show them to
someone else, say to convince them to buy it, I'd obviously want to spend
more time on the drawings. Whether I did them freehand or with CAD would
depend on whether I expected to have to regenerate the drawings.
I know people who use CAD to generate basic perspective or other views of
objects, then trace over them with pen and ink to make color renderings.
This is good because it preserves the desirable look and feel of
hand-rendered drawings, while avoiding the tedium and error of scale
drawing. And often CAD must be used on these projects for other reasons.
I still work in the mode where the designs I produce have to be made by
someone else. And though I use CAD for these, because I have to change them
periodically, I can't just send off the digital model computer file to the
manufacturer. His fabrication techniques (sheet metal stamping, etc.) don't
often benefit from 3D CAD models. He needs drawings. Thankfully I can
generate the drawings he needs, but until this sort of thing is remedied
we'll still need to communicate by means of standard drawings.
This is what would happen in a more production-oriented woodshop. More
formalized communication from designer to craftsman, or from foreman to
operator, is necessary.
| I've seen people who can pick up a pad and pencil and freehand
| working drawings that are better than what I can do on a table. I am
| in awe of this talent.
I studied under these sorts of people. I know what you're talking about.
| But is there a difference between their CAD and my CAD? Not really.
No, and I've seen these people get very disgusted with CAD. CAD, done well,
requires a new way of thinking about drawing.
Let's say you want to build a chest of drawers. You lay out the outer
dimensions of a face frame and then want to know the size of the openings
for the drawers. There is an algebraic relationship between the thickness
of the pieces for the face frame, and the width of the drawer openings. If
you have material on hand for the face frame, you can think of the face
frame parts having a maximum width determined by that on-hand stock, minus
material removed in squaring and surfacing.
You may have selected material for the drawers, and the dimensions of that
raw stock may suggest a minimum or maximum dimension for the drawers. You
can navigate through those constraints and come up with a suitable design.
CAD can help. You can "program" your design so that the drawer opening
width must be the total width of the piece minus twice the width of the face
frame pieces. Or similarly you can program the design so that the final
width is the predetermined width of the drawers plus twice the face frame
width. This is what we call parametric design. Old-hat designers do it
too, but you have to get them used to encoding the relationships between
design parameters in the computer model instead of keeping them in their
heads or on notepads. That's where the real power of CAD begins to shine.
Then of course there are people who just want a quick rendering tool and who
are still quite comfortable keeping the design parameters in their heads or
scribbled in notebooks. They may need to make "presentation" copies of the
plans without erasures or chocolate smudges, and so the "draw once, print
many" paradigm helps. Or they may want to go back later and change the
design. Or they may just not like hand rendering as much as mousing.
I've worked with many talented designers, and I see some who say, "Forget
this mouse crap; just give me my drawing table back." And I see others who
look at the parametric design features of modern CAD systems and say, "Where
have you been all my life?"
-- Jay
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:50:39 -0600, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>CW wrote:
>>Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue
>>to buy it on reputation.
>
>
>Oh. I misunderstood. You must be right.
>
>UA100
Do you prefer the old irony to the newer sort?
I've been told that the old irony was allowed to sit around and season
for a good bit before being cleaned up and put into the game whilst
the newer stuff is thrown into the game full of unresolved stresses
that can result in severe deformation and pockets of brittleness.
Of course, when dropped from a twenty story building, both will have
approximately the same impact and to one so impacted, they would
appear to be very nearly indistinguishable.
That is, if they have any impact at all.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Brian wrote:
> (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
At least accept that it's a recommendation that you don't like. You need
not perpetuate the idea that of all the Mac users, only the zealots are
left...
--
gabriel
Tom Watson wrote:
>Do you prefer the old irony to the newer sort?
I'm still out with the new, in with the old which is usually
new to me.
>I've been told that the old irony was allowed to sit around and season
>for a good bit before being cleaned up and put into the game whilst
>the newer stuff is thrown into the game full of unresolved stresses
>that can result in severe deformation and pockets of brittleness.
Yahbut, they tell us that with all the new teknologee that
the new irony is, well, I've never seen the werds superior
used, just that it's "just as good". I think they were
specifically citing the amount of time it takes to rust
clear through.
>Of course, when dropped from a twenty story building, both will have
>approximately the same impact and to one so impacted, they would
>appear to be very nearly indistinguishable.
That one is called the "falls on foot/foot hurts like hell"
test. From shorter heights there's no discernable
difference.
>That is, if they have any impact at all.
Oh! It has impact though what happens is, and this from an
arm chair injineering background mind you, as it falls some
of the Chiwanese cheese sheds itself. This is called the
"Chiwanese Cheese Shed Factor" (CCSF). It'll lighten up by
a pound or two dependent upon the height of fall/wind
speed/barometric pressures and let us not forget, the all
important wind chill (side of licked finger that freezes
first).
In all seriousness, there's a kewl write up on the subject
of Duck Tile Irony in the most recent Lee Valley
Catalogette. I got mine yesterday along with the newest
issue of the Dumbed Down Fine Wooddorking and a whole 10%
coupon (not worth pulling on socks for) from Woodcraft.
UA100
"Michael Press" wrote in message
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
I have both TurboCAD and QuickCAD 8. I settled on the latter for measured
shop drawings and to use as a basis for a developing a cutlist. It fits
you're criteria for inexpensive +/- $50.
For cutlists, I use CutList Plus from Bridgewood Design and _highly_
recommend it. As a programmer you will appreciate the professionalism of the
author and his responsiveness to his customers input.
I am a rank amateur when it comes to CAD, but if you want to see a paltry
example of what a newbie can do with the program in a few minutes, check out
page 5 of my projects page, "708 style writing desk" ... just two simple
views, and not exhaustive by any means, but serves multiple purposes for me
for planning and execution of projects as I normally work without plans.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/13/04
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:33:17 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>>Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
>>more detrimental.
That's really stoopid, so we'll just pass right on by.
>(1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
>Can't get that with the jet plotters today.
Ya need to lay offa the hash brownies at work. They have the ability
to rot your mind, as well as your teeth.
>
>sigh...
>
>UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
>us what the best plotter is...
It's too late for CadWanker. His teeth are entirely gone.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -0800, CW wrote:
>
> Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht
> they have already read.
Don't pretend that it's because you're thick and lazy (you established
that earlier in your post) when the real reason is that you're using a
broken news client which in your ignorance you think is a kick-ass
piece of software.
> Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
> background when you wrote this?
How very droll. Now he gives me a lecture on what constitutes kick-ass
software...
> Autocad is an excellent 2D package. I don't
> know anyone that disputes this. The LT version is quite a good value. The
> only down side to it is that the LISP function is left out of it. This is
> done for a reason. Autodesk knows that this is the main motivator to buy the
> full vesrsion is LISP. It's 3D capabilities are sverly lacking, to say the
> least. Sure, you can make it into a repectable modeler with additional
> programming but why would you pay over $3000.00 for software that you then
> have to hire a programmer to make it do what you want?
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You don't need to
hire a programmer (of any description) to make it into a 3D modeller.
You just buy and install additional softs.
> For half that cost, modelling software is availble that make
> Autocad's 3D capabilities look like a toy.
Why are you so obsessed with 3D? I suspect it's because you don't know
a first angle projection from a 3rd ie. You don't know anything about
technical drawing nor how to draught. Done any design engineering?
Thought not. Clue: To do design you don't necessarily need 3D software.
> "Frank Shute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:
>> >
>>>
>> Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
>> you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
>> virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
>> in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
>
> NC? That has been my line of work for 15 years now. I have worked for a
> numbe of shops in that time. None of which used Autocad.
Because you can punch in a few M codes and turn out a plain shaft
doesn't mean you know diddly about NC, engineering, or anything about
CAD/CAM unlike this mech/man engineer (if you really want to get into
a pissing contest).
> Why? Because, in
> it's stock form, it won't do the job. Buy Autocad, buy an ad on CAM program,
> hire a programer to turn it into a serious modeler. In the end, you have a
> high price kluge.
Again, this `programmer' bollocks. You might need a programmer to
install & use software on your machine but I don't. Us engineers can
generally figure out a lisp routine to generate a gear, it's why we're
engineers and you're down on the shop floor getting your hands dirty
along with the other brain-dead plebs.
> Why not, for the same or less money, buy a CADCAM package
> that has all that, stock, and is a seamless system rather than something
> peiced together?
See below.
>>
>> Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
>> and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
>> sells.
>
> The familiearaity issue is some thing to think about if you have a business
> that needs no more than Autocad can delever and you have a high enough emplo
> yee turnover that minumum training is an advantage.
You don't know what you're talking about. Leave it to us engineers to
decide what businesses need, you stick to the brainless grease monkey
work. Remember, you're there because thinking isn't your strong point
and you're not clever enough to become an engineer let alone expound
on business requirements.
>>
>> Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
>> security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
>> there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
>> applications for it.
>
> I thought you said that people only bought the best?
You thought wrong. If you didn't post all over the place you'd be able
to quote me properly and not make things up.
> In any case, comparing Windows to Autocad is like comparing gasoline to an
> automobile. Windows is bought with the knowledge that it, by itslf, does
> nothing but allow you to run the programs you want to run. A CAD system, on
> the other hand is bought with the expectation that it will, by itslf, do
> what you need it to do. How many people need something so specialized that
> they need to buy a $3000.00 + program as a first stage building block?
Lots.
>The majority of users use Autocad with no more customization than
>changes to desktop layout or a custom toolbar, all of which are
>available in most quality CAD programs.
Since you've never worked in a shop that uses AutoCAD, how would you
know? You don't and you've no idea about the broad depth of
applications and fields that AutoCAD is used in with add-ons. You're
so ignorant about it that you think you need a programmer to make it
usable. FYI, you don't.
It's all very well indulging in idle speculation as to what AutoCAD may or
may not be used for but unless you've worked with it it's just that -
idle speculation and in your case, entirely wrong speculation.
Stick to your grease monkey work - it sounds like you're
underqualified but you've managed to blag your way into a number of
jobs spouting forth shit anyway.
Oh, and don't post to Usenet about things you clearly know fuck all
about ie. software, whilst simultaneously using a broken news client
and top posting.
Instead, try soiling your pants whilst down at the BORG, you'll find it
a good deal less humiliating.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
"Frank Shute" wrote in message
> I downloaded the manual from Autodesk. You want to look at the stuff
> about relative coordinates on p.105 of your manual. It looks like you
> pick the first corner of your rectangle and then press R and punch in
> where you want the opposite corner relative to the first point in the
> dialog (you will be able to use negative values also).
>
> Absolute coordinates are another feature you want to get familiar with
> if you haven't already.
<snip>
> It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
> then enter:
>
> @15,30
>
> or whatever.
>
> Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.
Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
you know how it turns out.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04
Mark wrote:
>Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
>more detrimental.
I dunno. Once upon a time, back before the earth cooled,
and all we had were pen plotters...
God were they awful or what? Ever spend twenty/thirty/forty
minutes watching a plot (1) and seeing the pen rip the paper
on the last line? What did we have, three line weights?
Anyway, with plotter teknologee being what it is a skillful
user can craft a pretty fine looking draring which is half
the battle of wonderment and indecision.
God bless Al Gore for inventing thinner line weights and
half-tones.
sigh...
ObWW: I use the plotter for making pitchers of woodwork so
the guys in the shoppe know what to make and what it is
that's paying our salaries this week/month/year.
(1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
Can't get that with the jet plotters today.
sigh...
UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
us what the best plotter is...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:51:26 -0600, [email protected] (p_j) wrote:
>My hardware is too old to use OSX, but here is one you can check out:
>
>http://www.gizmolab.com/software/
>
>Also, I wonder if Autocad is available for unix.
nope.
long ago, autocad was available for the mac. that is a thing of the
past. now it's a windows only thing.
eventually linux may get to the point where it can emulate all of the
windows APIs or somethin and we can pitch bill's code, but for now if
you want to play with acad you have to run windows.
> If so, there are no
>doubt people using it on OSX now and it will become more practical in
>the near future. Ditto for other unix CAD software.
Tom Watson wrote:
>
>>Mark wrote:
>>
>>>Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
>>>more detrimental.
>
>
> That's really stoopid, so we'll just pass right on by.
Tom, it's spelled stupid.
No, Tom, it's not stupid but maybe it is too broad of statement.
CAD allows the design and production of more complicated and intricate items,
but they also look less natural, and more bland.
Or am I the only one who has noticed this?
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:30:13 GMT, "Leslie G" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>whatsa Mac?
Like a Barbie, only with less pink.
I use Visio... Works well and free from work... Not the best program I
realize... but it does get the job done.
Unisaw A100 wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>>Also I've said it before: Cad inhibits creativity. I imagine 3d Cad would be
>>more detrimental.
>
>
>
> I dunno. Once upon a time, back before the earth cooled,
> and all we had were pen plotters...
>
> God were they awful or what? Ever spend twenty/thirty/forty
> minutes watching a plot (1) and seeing the pen rip the paper
> on the last line? What did we have, three line weights?
>
> Anyway, with plotter teknologee being what it is a skillful
> user can craft a pretty fine looking draring which is half
> the battle of wonderment and indecision.
>
> God bless Al Gore for inventing thinner line weights and
> half-tones.
>
> sigh...
>
> ObWW: I use the plotter for making pitchers of woodwork so
> the guys in the shoppe know what to make and what it is
> that's paying our salaries this week/month/year.
>
> (1) One thing I do miss is being mesmerized by the plotter.
> Can't get that with the jet plotters today.
>
> sigh...
>
> UA100, who will step aside now and make room so CW can tell
> us what the best plotter is...
Allen Epps wrote:
>> button and a really goofy looking computer.)
>
> Funny looking computer! FUNNY LOOKING COMPUTER! Why I outta .... ;)
No, no, let's take a step back here and take note of the adjective I
actually used. To be precise, I said it's a GOOFY looking computer. :)
> have a Macally mouse attached to the work computer and both buttons are
> functional. There are plenty of programable mouse or trackballs out
You mean they finally decided Mac users are smart enough to deal with the
stress of having a mouse with TWO buttons? I'm shocked! :)
(They used to only have one big button smack in the middle of the mouse, but
that was a long time ago. I haven't used a Mac since the early '90s.)
I really do think their hardware is goofy looking though. Computers should
be blocky and beige, dammit.
I don't like some of the newer PCs either. That's what happens when you
start letting twelve year old girls pick out computers.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Mark wrote:
> CAD allows the design and production of more complicated and
> intricate items, but they also look less natural, and more
> bland.
>
> Or am I the only one who has noticed this?
Mark...
Sturgeon's Law is both universal and timeless. Most of what's
/ever/ been made hasn't been all that beautiful. CAD technology
neither enhances nor detracts from the beauty of the object being
designed.
I've seen some (IMO) beautiful work designed on CAD systems; but
the credit for that beauty doesn't go to the software - it goes
to the designer in every case. Art doesn't originate in the
computer; but the right computer and the right software in
combination with talent and skill can expedite the realization of
an artist's vision.
Speaking of art, it's probably worth pointing out that every
individual has their own standard for what is beautiful to them
(and what is not). What seems bland for one person may be even
gaudy to another. Sometimes it's a mixed bag - I recall how ugly
I thought the tiny Bose Accoustimass (sp?) speakers were (no
wood!), even as I admired the sound they produced.
[For those not familiar with Sturgeon's Law - it states that
"Ninety percent of everything is crud."]
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I use two CAD programs. Turbocad Pro and Intellicad. Turbocad will do an
excellent job for you and the 2D version is free. It's relatively easy to
learn (no CAD is easy but this one is better than most). No bill of
materials though. The other is Intellicad. An AutoCAD clone, it is, like
AutoCAD, harder to learn but has the advantage that tutorials for AutoCAD
are prevalent all over the net and are applicable to Intellicad. It will
also run LISP routines (automation). Free LISP routines are all over the
web. There are additional bill of material add ons available for it.
http://www.intellicadms.com/store/default.asp
http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0002.16
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
Phisherman wrote:
> I think Macs are really nice for graphics work. Windows is the O/S to
> have to run just about anything. I just installed a Linux box and I'm
> truly amazed at the speed and security, although Linux is not for the
> faint at heart. I'd like to see more graphics applications for Linux.
I'd like to see more of everything for Linux, for free or not. I just don't
LIKE Windows. After a few years in Linuxdom, I can't even stand to use a
Windows box anymore. It's just so crappy looking and difficult to
maintain.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
When I use a CAD it is Turbocad. However I find it more a pain in the ass
and time consuming for general projects and only use it for specialized
situations or when I want to play what if.
Now cut lists, sheet layouts, pricing, and pick lists are a different story
and I highly recommend Cutlist plus http://www.bridgewooddesign.com/. They
have a limited trial version and three levels of working models.
As a side note on cut list plus. A lot of people I recommend the program too
are interested in many of the functions but indicate that pricing a project
isn't something they worry about because they do it for fun. We all run into
friends and relatives who want something built for them and will "give you a
little something for it". I strongly suggest that they run the job through
cut list plus. You'd be absolutely amazed at what that "little something"
actually comes out too, even without labor and overhead figured in. And,
when you quote what that "little something" might be, it's nice to have it
in black and white. Even nicer to have the job also run with overhead and
labor charges figured in so you can show them both.
--
Mike G.
[email protected]
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> curve.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
Take a look at this site. I haven't tried any of them (dont have a Mac).
http://www.caddepot.com/dcd1/CAD_Demos/Mac/CAD_Programs/
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:170220042310029870%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <170220042048418003%[email protected]>, Brian
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The subject line pretty much speaks for itself. Any recommendations?
> > (And before the inevitable wisenhiemers jump in, "switch to a PC" is
> > neither a recommendation nor is it ever gonna happen.)
>
>
> I haven't played with it yet, but have a look at Design Intuition
> <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21980>
>
> And get used to the "switch" cracks... When it comes to this stuff,
> windozers do have a lot more choice than we do. Encourage the folks
> that are developing for Mac. If you like, buy!
>
> djb
>
> --
> Is it time to change my sig line yet?
"Elizabeth Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You should go to http://www.ecabinetsystems.com/ and link to the
>software
>page It is a free software program I have been using it in my shop for about
>a year you do have to have some knowledge of joinery though. I think this
>would suit your needs very well
But you need to be using it in a professional cabinet shop
environment. They won't give it to you if you tell them you are just a
weekend woodworker. at least that was my experience about a year ago.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Michael Press wrote:
> I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program
> that's inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and
> useful for designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby
> work, but I'd like precise drawings of my designs. I also
> imagine that it would be useful to generate a bill of
> materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map" of cuts on a sheet of
> plywood.
>
> I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
> woodworking point of view. (This article is what got me
> thinging - http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
>
> I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep
> learning curve.
Given Mike Hide's suggestion, you may be able to find a bargain
price for a professional-level package.
I use DesignCAD (a 3D package) for my woodworking. I export DXF
files that are, in turn, imported into my CNC control software so
that I can make the drawing and produce the parts more or less
seamlessly.
Unless you're planning to use the package only for tables and
boxes (drawers, kitchen cabinets, and all things with
rectangular, flat sides) you would do well to consider a 3D
capability and features to deal with curved surfaces.
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Jay Windley wrote:
> The true path, I believe, lies somewhere between extremes. What I want to
> instill in the minds of design novices is neither recklessness nor anal
> retentativity. I believe that some people looking for a CAD system are
> really looking for guidance on how to approach the problem of design. I
> would want to warn them away from CAD if their thought is that it's a magic
> bullet. The best thing I believe I can offer people is confidence in their
> innate design ability, regardless of the tools used. I want people to look
> for design expertise where it really lies, not in some shrink-wrapped
> package.
We're in a lot closer agreement than I'd originally thought.
You're dead on with your comment about CAD neither being a magic
bullet nor a substitute for a fully engaged intellect. My
personal approach would be to tell 'em so - then give all the
encouragement I could to master /some/ CAD package (along with as
many other tools as possible).
One of my discoveries was that being able to use a CAD package
boosted my self confidence quite a bit because I could do
somewhat of a "dry run" in advance of every project. When I began
the actual work I felt as if I'd "been here before." I'm not sure
if it would work that way for everyone though.
Back in my early wodworking days I'd have given almost anything
for access to a resource like rec.woodworking - a lot of things
are getting better.
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
Works just fine. I used one for a while that defaulted to the bottom. That
was the first thing I changed.
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> you're using a
> > broken news client which
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
> "Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
>> I Have tried TurboCad, and found it too difficult for things that do not
> yet
>> exist.
>
> Sometimes it is the simplest things that escape us and end up being a steep
> part of the "learning curve".
>
> By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured shop
> drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension a
> simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?
You draw all your objects 1:1 and let CAD generate the dimensions for
you.
When you do a plot, the CAD programs I'm familiar with allow you
to layout views of your drawing on a `canvas'. In AutoCAD this is
called `paper space' and you can end up with various views of your
drawing plotted on your bit of paper to different scales. ie. you
might want to `blow-up'/do a partial view of an intricate bit of the
drawing.
More basic CAD programs might not allow you to do that. I'm afraid I
don't know about QuickCAD. If it doesn't, then you have to do more
than one plot at different scales.
You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
(automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
BruceR wrote:
> Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) does a good job of translating the
> Windows API into X11 for use of windows software on linux.
A "good" job? That's kinda like saying my Skil 3400 (anemic benchtop saw)
does a good job of ripping 12/4 osage orange. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Turbocad's license agreement states that it is transferable. AutoCAD's days
of being top of the line are long gone. Technological advancements have seen
to that. You can get far higher performance for far less money. Turbocad, in
various versions, shows up on Ebay all the time. Version 8 Professional
(they're up to 9.5 now) can often be had for less than $100.00 and has
capabilities that you will probably never take full advantage of. Be aware
though that Turbocad comes in three packages: Designer, Standard and
Professional. If 2D is all you want, any of them will do. If 3D is in your
future, Professional is the one to get.
Done in version 8 Professional:
http://www3.imsisoft.com/turbocad/community/galleries/v8gallery/index1.html
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zkvYb.49817$yE5.203228@attbi_s54...
> I am not talking about anything illegal . I am talking about copies of
> turbocad. Ihave an old version 6.5 that Ibought from turbocad . From that
I
> learned the basics, enough to do my basic drawings, for a room I was
> paneling . then I realized even with this version it would be years before
I
> could take advantage of the total program. CAD programs are so extensive
> there are no end of stuff you can do with them . simple two dimensional
> drawing doesnt even scratch the surface Autodesk is probably the rolls
royce
> of cad priograms and of course it comes with a rr pricetab, turbocad in my
> opinion is a good alternative,and as Isaid earlier versions can be found
on
> ebay...mjh
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> "Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <%XrYb.49524$jk2.117758@attbi_s53>, [email protected]
> > says...
> > > You can pick up copies of CAD programs on EBay very cheaply....mjh
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> > > > inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> > > > designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd
like
> > > > precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> > > > useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a
"map"
> > > > of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
woodworking
> > > > point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> > > > http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
> > > >
> > > > I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> > > > curve.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > Fine if they are new but remember that Autodesk are reknown for their
> > vicious attacks on illegal users and autodesk licences are not
> > transferable....
>
Someone walks up to you and says "hello, how are you doing?" and you respond
hello, how are you doing? I'm good, how about you? Yeah, sounds natural to
me.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:21:04 GMT, Bruce wrote:
>
> In rec.woodworking
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
>>> then enter:
>>>
>>> @15,30
>>>
>>> or whatever.
>>>
>>> Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.
>>
>>
>>Thank you very much, Frank! ... if it isn't precisely the same, at least I
>>have a trail, and ideas, to follow. I'll play with it this evening and let
>>you know how it turns out.
>
> That is correct, the first coord being the X axis, which is left to right,
> positive moving to the right. The next is the Y axis, positive being up.
>
> You can also draw a line at an angle with relative coords like:
>
> @6<45
These are known as polar coordinates rather than relative/rectangular
coordinates. He's also using QuickCAD and not AutoCAD, so I don't
know if that input notation will work with his software.
>
> Draw a 6" line at 45 degrees. ) degrees is flat left to right so this line
> would go up to the right. To go up to the left:
>
> @6<135
The post was about drawing a rectangle so polar coordinates aren't a
lot of use in that situation....or I've never found them to be. Useful
for lines as you indicate and Swingman can find out how to use them on
p.107 of his manual.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
CW wrote:
> Try not to bottom post. It wastes peoples time scrolling past waht they have
> already read. Did you have your official Hail Autocad cd playing in the
Top posting ruins the natural flow of a conversation and confuses things. Now,
how much scrolling have you had to do here? Quoting is supposed to give a
reference point to your answer; not a restatement of the entire conversation. A
quick editing to delete the unnecessary crap takes care of scrolling. I never
quote more than two paragraphs, MAX. Most of the time it's less, like here.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
The December issue of Practical Woodworker has an excellent article on
getting started with CAD written by Dave Mackenzie and is based on Turbocad.
I'm anxioius to see the next edition which will have Part II.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael Press wrote:
> > I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program
> > that's inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and
> > useful for designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby
> > work, but I'd like precise drawings of my designs. I also
> > imagine that it would be useful to generate a bill of
> > materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map" of cuts on a sheet of
> > plywood.
> >
> > I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
> > woodworking point of view. (This article is what got me
> > thinging - http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
> >
> > I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep
> > learning curve.
>
> Given Mike Hide's suggestion, you may be able to find a bargain
> price for a professional-level package.
>
> I use DesignCAD (a 3D package) for my woodworking. I export DXF
> files that are, in turn, imported into my CNC control software so
> that I can make the drawing and produce the parts more or less
> seamlessly.
>
> Unless you're planning to use the package only for tables and
> boxes (drawers, kitchen cabinets, and all things with
> rectangular, flat sides) you would do well to consider a 3D
> capability and features to deal with curved surfaces.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> West Des Moines, Iowa USA
> C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
> Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
>
Nothing wrong with ACLT but I wouldn't pay what they want for it.
I use Turbocad Pro and Intellicad.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I use AutoCAD Lite and it works fine. I don't think you can get it for
> under $100 though. I think I paid over $300, but I use it for work also.
I
> draw almost everything I make and for small patterns and such, I print
full
> scale. This weekend I made some bandsaw candle holders and just printed
> out the patterns full-scale and glued them to the stock to cut. Works
> great.
>
"Frank Shute" wrote in message
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> > By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
shop
> > drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension
a
> > simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?
> You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
> preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
> x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
> (automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
> inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.
Thanks, using the "rectangle tool" and _drawing a rectangle to units_ with
the mouse is the way I currently do it, but that's not quite what I was
tallking about. Doing it this way is dicey according to how you have "snap
to" set, at least with this program, and requires any adjustments to the
length and width of a rectangle/square to be done via mouse.
In QuickCAD, a straight line has a length dimension which can be
input/edited with a keyboard entry once the line is drawn.
A rectangle/square has two of these dimensions, one for height and one for
length. In QuickCAD, inputting the line length via keyboard was not that
hard to figure out, but inputting the rectangle/square dimensions still
escape me.
I've used programs in the past where it was possible to input the two
lengths of the sides of a rectangle.square via keyboard, so figured that
QuickCAD would allow this ... I could be wrong, or it could be simple and
staring me in the face and I just haven't "snapped to" it yet. If it's in
the Help file, it's well hidden!
As woodworkers, we use mostly rectangles in our drawings, so being able to
edit/adjust/input the length and width of say, a rail or stile, quickly by
keyboard, without the mouse, would be handy, at least in the admittedly
amateur way I use the program.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply.
... still wondering.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/26/04
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:32:50 -0800, CW wrote:
>
[AutoCAD]
>
> Yes, it is if you look at it from a performance standpoint. People continue
> to buy it on reputation.
> It's the same as any other brand name product. It sells. Many people by the
> name.
Try not to top post as it makes it difficult to quote you in context.
Peformance has little to do with it, for 2D work there is not a lot
you can't do with it. With the hundreds of add-on packages there is
virtually nothing you can't do with it in terms of technical drawing
in the 2D, 3D/solid modelling sphere and NC.
Most draughtsmen cut their teeth on AutoCAD and are familiar with it
and it can be tailored to specific needs with add-ons which is why it
sells.
Reputation has nothing to do with it. Windows is bug infested and a
security nightmare but millions use it nevertheless because people know
there way around it - or think they do - and there are thousands of
applications for it.
As to the original posters question, I use AutoCAD LT but it's out of
his price bracket and I think he'd get most of the function from
TurboCAD. He should make sure he gets a decent manual or book with it
or he'll likely be lost despite being a programmer.
I don't know whether TurboCAD can import and/or export dxf but it
would be another bonus if it could.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:31:39 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
> "Frank Shute" wrote in message
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> > By trial and error I've gotten fairly handy with QuickCAD for measured
> shop
>> > drawings ... but still have NOT been able to figure out how to dimension
> a
>> > simple rectangle with my own typed in dimensions?
>
>> You should always draw 1:1 whatever happens and then scale it when
>> preparing the plot. ie. if the dimensions you want to type in are 30"
>> x 15" then just draw a 15 x 30 unit rectangle, dimension it
>> (automatically) and when you plot, you might plot 4 drawing units per
>> inch of paper (4:1) so you can get it to fit on your bit of paper.
>
> Thanks, using the "rectangle tool" and _drawing a rectangle to units_ with
> the mouse is the way I currently do it, but that's not quite what I was
> tallking about. Doing it this way is dicey according to how you have "snap
> to" set, at least with this program, and requires any adjustments to the
> length and width of a rectangle/square to be done via mouse.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
>
> In QuickCAD, a straight line has a length dimension which can be
> input/edited with a keyboard entry once the line is drawn.
I've got the picture now :)
>
> A rectangle/square has two of these dimensions, one for height and one for
> length. In QuickCAD, inputting the line length via keyboard was not that
> hard to figure out, but inputting the rectangle/square dimensions still
> escape me.
I downloaded the manual from Autodesk. You want to look at the stuff
about relative coordinates on p.105 of your manual. It looks like you
pick the first corner of your rectangle and then press R and punch in
where you want the opposite corner relative to the first point in the
dialog (you will be able to use negative values also).
Absolute coordinates are another feature you want to get familiar with
if you haven't already.
>
> I've used programs in the past where it was possible to input the two
> lengths of the sides of a rectangle.square via keyboard, so figured that
> QuickCAD would allow this ... I could be wrong, or it could be simple and
> staring me in the face and I just haven't "snapped to" it yet. If it's in
> the Help file, it's well hidden!
It's a bit more involved than AutoCAD. I just pick my first point and
then enter:
@15,30
or whatever.
Might be worth trying that to see if it's an undocumented feature.
>
> As woodworkers, we use mostly rectangles in our drawings, so being able to
> edit/adjust/input the length and width of say, a rail or stile, quickly by
> keyboard, without the mouse, would be handy, at least in the admittedly
> amateur way I use the program.
Sure.
>
> Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply.
No worries.
>
> ... still wondering.
>
Hope the above helps.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| There are others of us, who while quite capable of
| visualizing in 3D and can do rudimentary sketches, fail
| miserably when it comes to producing a design as if "shaken
| from our sleeves".
Fair enough, but a design is not necessarily a drawing. If you can see it
in your head in 3D, you don't necessarily need to have good drawings in
order to build it. As I said, I build stuff from rudimentary sketches all
the time. But if you need or want to record it for later, or need to
communicate it to others, and you find CAD systems easier or faster than
pencil, then use CAD.
Keep in mind that I'm not anti-CAD, nor do I assume that everyone is an
artist, nor do I assume everyone can see designs in 3D in their heads. My
point is simply not to work the formalisms of the design process any
farther, or make it any more complicated, than you have to. Rather than
leap ahead for the complex tool, see if a simpler tool will work first.
Brilliant designers aren't brilliant because they use some particular tool
or method.
For most people, pencil and paper are simpler tools than AutoCAD. That
doesn't automatically make them suitable for all design tasks. Whatever you
choose should enable your imagination, not restrict or frustrate it.
--Jay
I just checked Ebay there are versions on ebay for $30 you cant go wrong.
when I did the last library I used a local millwork company's moldings .
Their brochure had their molding shown full size and drawn to scale .I just
added this to my Turbocad library so I could add their moldings into my
drawings ..... If nothing else get a TC version just to learn on .
These programs not only have CNC applications but the later programs have
rendering features that show designs in almost any aspect with photographic
quality . Thjere are not that many customers that understand
blueprints/drawings but most do comprehend pictures...mjh
--
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zkvYb.49817$yE5.203228@attbi_s54...
> I am not talking about anything illegal . I am talking about copies of
> turbocad. Ihave an old version 6.5 that Ibought from turbocad . From that
I
> learned the basics, enough to do my basic drawings, for a room I was
> paneling . then I realized even with this version it would be years before
I
> could take advantage of the total program. CAD programs are so extensive
> there are no end of stuff you can do with them . simple two dimensional
> drawing doesnt even scratch the surface Autodesk is probably the rolls
royce
> of cad priograms and of course it comes with a rr pricetab, turbocad in my
> opinion is a good alternative,and as Isaid earlier versions can be found
on
> ebay...mjh
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> "Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <%XrYb.49524$jk2.117758@attbi_s53>, [email protected]
> > says...
> > > You can pick up copies of CAD programs on EBay very cheaply....mjh
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> > > > inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> > > > designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd
like
> > > > precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> > > > useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a
"map"
> > > > of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist
woodworking
> > > > point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> > > > http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
> > > >
> > > > I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> > > > curve.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > Fine if they are new but remember that Autodesk are reknown for their
> > vicious attacks on illegal users and autodesk licences are not
> > transferable....
>
CW wrote:
> If you aren't smart enough to figure it out, don't read it
I'm smart enough to figure your too lazy to post properly. That is, by convention.
Or is there some other excuse you chose to use? Other than blaming others for
your lack of initiative. ?
Sorry, Bud, can't blame me.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
I am not talking about anything illegal . I am talking about copies of
turbocad. Ihave an old version 6.5 that Ibought from turbocad . From that I
learned the basics, enough to do my basic drawings, for a room I was
paneling . then I realized even with this version it would be years before I
could take advantage of the total program. CAD programs are so extensive
there are no end of stuff you can do with them . simple two dimensional
drawing doesnt even scratch the surface Autodesk is probably the rolls royce
of cad priograms and of course it comes with a rr pricetab, turbocad in my
opinion is a good alternative,and as Isaid earlier versions can be found on
ebay...mjh
--
"Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <%XrYb.49524$jk2.117758@attbi_s53>, [email protected]
> says...
> > You can pick up copies of CAD programs on EBay very cheaply....mjh
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I'm looking for opinions/suggestions for a 2D CAD program that's
> > > inexpensive (yeah, that's vague, but figure <$100) and useful for
> > > designing furniture. This is purely weekend hobby work, but I'd like
> > > precise drawings of my designs. I also imagine that it would be
> > > useful to generate a bill of materials, a cutting list, maybe a "map"
> > > of cuts on a sheet of plywood.
> > >
> > > I'd also appreciate links to CAD reviews from a hobbyist woodworking
> > > point of view. (This article is what got me thinging -
> > > http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/cad.shtml)
> > >
> > > I'm a computer programmer, so I'm not afraid of a steep learning
> > > curve.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> Fine if they are new but remember that Autodesk are reknown for their
> vicious attacks on illegal users and autodesk licences are not
> transferable....
Mark wrote:
>CAD allows the design and production of more complicated and intricate items,
>but they also look less natural, and more bland.
There were/are "guys" who could do a hand drawing that was
bland and lifeless and there are "guys" who can do a hand
drawing that looks like a plate from some ancient text on
architecture. The same applies to CAD.
>Or am I the only one who has noticed this?
Get a jet printer/plotter. Makes all the difference in the
world.
UA100