I used TurboCad for years, even beta tested for versions 6 and 7 -- a waste of time, they don't fix the bugs. Finally I had to exchange files with vendor companies, and that forced an upgrade to AutoCad LT. Turbo's .DWG and .DXF files just didn't work. After the months of un-learning and re-learning, I'm glad that happened. AutoCad is far more stable, and has a much better user interface. I get more done with fewer mouse moves and clicks. For instance, to make a line perpendicular to another, in Turbo you have to go to the tool bar and click on perpendicular mode. In Auto, you stay in plain old line mode, and when your cursor gets close to where perpendicular would be on the existing line, it gives you the option to click, and you're done. Likewise for endpoints, midpoints, etc.
The full program with architectural addons is extremely powerful and almost infinitely full of options, but for many of us, that is like spending a hundred rand to get a work truck that will let you change the tires while you are driving down the road and not only haul your tools but build them on the way to the job. Un-necessary.
TurboCAD.Professional.v17.1.Build.49. With Serial Full Version
It seems like many of you really don't understand Acad. I've been fooling with it since 1989 R9. I worked in a cabinet shop that had a full blown add on LISP program call KicthenCad. To date I haven't worked with a better cabinet software package.Acad is simply a "drawing engine", it gives you everything to draw anything in 3d space.With its accompanying programming language LISP it's pretty much infinite as to what "specific" task you wish to draw about.Acad is like having any type vehicle you want for whatever the road condition you might have today. Albeit you will have to tell it which one you what it to be today.
Started off in R12 for DOS and have used R13 (a dog imho), R14 and 2000. I've done some solid modeling and a little bit of animation importing 3D drawings into 3D Studio Viz. I've had access to AutoCAD at school and work till about a year ago. I figure that $650 could be saved towards ACAD 2002. I tried it out and it seems to be the best version yet. I like 3D ......... pretty rusty at it at the moment. I've found it useful. I was working with precast concrete ........ solid models made it easy to calculate volume. Use it or lose it ........ IntelliCAD seems the best bet at the moment to keep doing CAD work. Ed McMahon still has hasn't shown up with that check he keeps promising on tv so 2002 will have to wait for awhile.
This stuff about compatability has to be taken with a grain of salt....the implication is Autocads .DWG is a constant...it's not. They change it all the time, and that's one of the big complaints from Autocad users (and check out the user boards....not everyone loves the program. To put it mildly). Even using the same version, drawings change from computer to computer, and between versions, it gets worse. Same as all the other programs. At one point, I had Autocad 14 and 2000, Turbocad Pro 7, and Intellicad all on my computer, and I did a fair bit of testing just to see what the results are, using drawings (.dxf and .dwg) I had done, and drawings sent to me from a buddy using Autocad. It wasn't scientific, and I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff, but I found going between Acad versions and between different programs to throw up about the same level of difficulty....some stuff changed, some didn't. The biggest issues I ever saw were related to text, which sometimes took some cleanup. The actual drawings and dimensions interchanged pretty well, but these weren't extremely complex drawings either. The other issue I found was that 3d objects drawn in Turbocad or Acad didn't translate well to Intellicad....sometimes they were there, sometimes not. That was the free version of Icad available a few years ago, and I'm not up on what is current there. John Sprung has had bad experiences with Turbocad; I haven't with the later versions (I'm not at the most current level though, and for various reasons, I'm concentrating on Autocad now),and it still gets a lot of recommendations from some serious CAD/CAM types on the pro woodworking boards.
Here are some thoughts which hopefully, will be helpful. I use the full blown AutoCAD in my engineering business because it does everything I need and I can communicate readily with other engineers, fabricators, etc with it. LT is a 2D version of the full blown program and does everything in 2D identically (I think). However, it does not have LISP. I have never used Softplan but did look at it on their website. It costs about $995 for their LITE version vs. $725 (maybe even less) for AutoCAD LT.
The $600 sounds a lot better. I was in a CompUSA mall store the other day when I saw the $725 and couldn't believe it! I had bought an LT a few years ago from a mail order house and it seems like it was only $350 then. I updated my copy of LT about a year ago, it seems like for $150+/-. However, I have not updated to 2002 LT yet as I now use the full version of 2002. Thanks for the better information!
Ease of integration and scalability, straight jacket approach to become an expert modeller (simulation and optimisation), best drafting, measurement accuracy, integration with BIM, coordinated design, easy to interface with utilities and MEPI, 3-D model plugging in, dynamic updating, design collaboration - one size fits all approach (subject to the context), great tool for 3PM (portfolio, programme and project management), structural (mesh) analysis with BIMSome misfits as below:Often crashes for complex configurationGranular mesh analysisNot very compatible with isometric viewLacks comprehensive and compatible 3D commands (inadequate)Operational complexities of different versions of AutoCAD filesLacks comprehensive simulation and optimisation capabilityGeneral purpose vs BIM collaborationBackwards compatibilityEasy to forget the many command functions Limited choice (not always clear) of materials and beam simulation (simulated environment)
From basic shapes and sketches, almost anything can be created using a variety of tools and templates that every CAD program provides. If you're new to a 3D modeling program, most will have introductory tutorials so that you can get familiar with the software. I'll primarily be using Autodesk Fusion 360 to show some CAD functionality, but nearly all of the procedures I'll be showing you can be found in many CAD programs. This isn't a Fusion 360 tutorial, I'm just going to show the basic functionality of 3D CAD software so that you can get started in any program you want. Some programs are a bit different than the one I'll be using, because they are set up differently, but don't be alarmed! Hopefully you'll still be able to figure them out. Your first step should be to find a 3D modeling program that suits your needs. There are a few below that I've listed. Try them out and lets start designing!
In some programs, if a sketch feature is fully defined and can no longer move, it will turn a different color to let you know that it no longer able to move. While it is important to fully define your sketches when finalizing your model both to convey to others the dimensions, and to ensure you wont accidentally change something about your part, you may want to leave a sketch unconstrained so that you can play around with its size and shape and see how it affects your 3D model.
Assemblies are 3D files that contain multiple parts or other assemblies. In assemblies, you can connect parts together with mates or constraints to build up a 3D model of an entire system. The assembly of the computer above is a combination of many parts and sub-assemblies needed to build the computer. Assemblies allow designers to visualize how their entire product will fit together once it is fully assembled. Within the 3D modeling program, an assembly will automatically document its bill of materials, a list of all of the components and their quantities required to build the project. If the cost of each part is known, then designers and engineers can adjust and redesign the assembly to reduce the manufacturing and assembly cost of the entire product. Engineers can use their assemblies to document the steps required to build the final product once its components have been manufactured. Working with an assembly is a little bit different than working with a part, because different tools are available to help you through the design process.
You may not want to fully constrain every single part in your assembly, in fact, you may have built your assembly specifically to visualize the motion of your design. There are some mates that can help you create the motion you want; for example, most mate types allow you to put limits on the mate so that you can restrict the motion of the part to a certain area. For example, the box cutter above uses a slider joint with limits to allow the blade holder piece to slide along the slot in the handle. Some software can also analyze where there are contact points between bodies, so that parts can only move until they contact other parts. Some programs will incorporate 2ff7e9595c
Comments