Acad2000 vs. Acad2005

Huh?

I have never used 2005 so couldn't comment on it but if it's 3D tools you want, switch to something other than AutoCAD. I once spend a few months were I had to use AutoCAD, doing 3D. This, after using serious modelers for years. I can't see why anyone would waste their time with it if 3D was a serious part of their work. Autodesk has serious modeling software available. Why would they bother developing modeling capabilities in AutoCAD? Of course, there are the people that will say they can model anything in AutoCAD. You can excavate a foundation with a tablespoon too but would you? The last version of AC that I did any modeling with was 2002. It was using ACIS 4 for it's modeling kernel. That was four or five version obsolete. I bet they are still using it.

I other words they are doing what others have been doing for years.

Brian

| I other words they are doing what others have been doing for years. | | Brian | |

That's what I was thinking also ...

Alex

Of course that assumes you draw in 3D. Significant numbers still draw only in 2D.

Can you elaborate on that ? I'm curious to know what applications would be 2D only. I can imagine that in land survey, for instance drawing the route for a pipeline through the country, 2D might be the simpliest way to go, but whenever you're dealing with real life objects you start with 3D. At least that's what I'm thinking of it.

Alex

Thousands and thousands of engineering companies still use 2D only. After all, engineering and architectural drawing survived quite well for 100s of years without 3D.

There is no doubt (to my mind) that a 3D representation is very useful to show the nature of a design to someone not used to relating plan views and elevations, but it is not essential. A lot of that could be done using simple isometric views.

Apart from that, 3D drawing in Acad is, I find, a long-winded process. I think there are better systems out there for doing it!

Buildings tend to be built from paper copies, which are 2D. For the types of projects I work on (electrical) the fees I can charge won't allow for the extra time drawing in 3D would take, and the architects don't provide 3D drawings for backgrounds. Even if they did, the 3D would only have value if it was assured that the structure would be built exactly as drawn. They never are. If I was designing an airplane I'd want to use 3D, but I don't see much value for most architectural design.

Mart> "designer" schreef in bericht

The Importance of 2D CAD

And the decline in standards and quality of information provided in computer generated drawings from both Architects and Engineers alike!

Below is a link to a letter I sent in to the verulam pages of ?the structural engineer? the journal of the Institution of Structural Engineers. It was published in the 5th June 2002 : Volume 90 : Number

11 edition.

The response to this article was quite staggering, Indeed it was an email from a member in France that alerted me that it had been printed.

Alan (Cadalot)

I see others have already responded. My pennyworth is that I see hundreds of companies in mechanical engineering that only use 2D. Drawings used to MAKE things are 2D.

3D models can make pretty pictures but to date in my sphere of mechanical engineering there is NO productivity gain in 3D. 2D drawings produced from 3D are almost always inferior to those produced straight in 2D, not least because 2D draughting is a skill in its own right and 3D designers aren't 2D draughtsmen (we might have an argument over that). Once had a subbie who spent 2 weeks doing some 3D drawings. They were wrong, so a good 2D CAD draughtsman redrew them from scratch in 3 days! AutoCAD is not the best 3D CAD system (or even the best 2D CAD system ??). Why use AutoCAD, "people use AutoCAD because people use AutoCAD"

engineering

Only if that is the only thing available.

You need to get out of the office and into the shop. If you have parts machined, send them a 2D print and the first thing they will do is redraw it in 3D so they can use it to program their machines. You are paying for this.

You assume that any given individual has only the capacity to handle one or the other. Not the case though many (most) do one or the other. Some 2D prints made from 3D models are quite bad but others may appear to be and be quite adequate. You have to know the intended purpose. Many designs these days are drawn directly in 3D, testing being done directly on the model. This model is then sent to the machine shop for manufacture. As it is already a 3D model, there is no need for the programmer to redraw it. He can generate a program directly. This model can also be used to program the coordinate measuring machine to inspect the part. In a system such as this,

2D drawings of the part are generally supplied with basic views and dimensions only, lacking the detail that would be needed if the part were to be manufactured from it. Great detail in the 2D print is not necessary and just wastes time. To someone not familiar with this type of process, the 2D drawing would seem rather badly done but, in fact, it is quite suited to it's purpose.

I'm sure you realize that the guy was lousy at 3D.

Yes, and some of us like it (for 2D only).

What other CAD systems are there that work to give 3D drawings easier than AutoCAD? Just a simple question from a newbie, I have no opinions at this stage :)

Cheers Mike the Kiwi

I am very interested in this thread, I draw shopfits where I work, and normally draw the existng building in 2D.

Cabinets and the like that go in the shop are all drawn in 3D, but this was primarily to give good perspective views for the client, who generally couldn't picture a box from the 2D drawings. This has enabled me in turn to produce working drawings for the lads on the shop floor from my oroiginal drawings, as I now draw them as built, including part drawings. This makes the specifier quite happy, as I involve him from the very beginning. If there are any amendments, then I find them not that hard to do, but then I may be the only person using Acad that finds the 3d environment quite fluid and easy to use. BTW, I also have a background in engineering, seven years spent programming CNC milling machines, as well as the manual side, milling, turning, setting autos, surface grinding, wleding arc & mig) site installations of structural steel, and digging holes. Lots of holes. I never really did any drawing back then, but it was here I used my first cad program. Easymill from bridgeport, and that put me on the road to learning Acad. I still go back every now and again to sort some littl eproblem thay have, and they are still using the same version of Easymill, on the same 286, with Windows 286 Plus. :)

Bigjobs

Nobody has ever asked for a 3D model, only 2D drawings

Not so, what they actually do is give them to a guy to make the parts and being skilled he can read 2D drawings

It appears your sphere of work is quite different to mine. 15% of drawings go to machine shops ALL of which employ skilled machinists. The remainder go to sheet metal fabricators and steelwork fabricators. The comon thread is all the guys can read 2D drawings and 3D models would not help them.

He was just lousy then, full stop.

Try downloading 'Blender' for modelling. Free. As a start.

Then there's Rhino, which is very good and expensive...

No doubt others will recommend ones that they use.

These days I am mostly asked for the 3D model if it is a machined part. The drawing which is automated in SW is just for annotation of tolerancing etc.

Times... they are a changin' :)

Good to see some live in th modern world.