[cad-linux] Re: Wine intellicad

Captain Hartgers,
        First let me say that the below is not meant as a flame, but only to 
voice 
my perspective. I stand in awe of an Engineer that can design an auto or a 
printing press or any equally complex machine with pencil and paper. I guess 
the bottom line is that as as an engineering manager, I'm not looking to be 
awe struck. I'm looking to be as productive as I possibly can.

On Tuesday 16 July 2002 07:13 am, you wrote:
> Some very interesting comments, definitely more than two cents worth; but!
>
> A journey starts at the beginning not the end.
>
> A suggested approach to "a good CAD program" begins with defining the term.
>
> Having been there at the beginning ( I am 67, and graduated my first
> engineering degree in the 1950's) and learned to design and draft with pen,
> pencil, paper and waxed linen (before mylar), participating (eagerly) in
> the evolution from triangle's and T-squares, through Leroy Lettering Sets,
> Plastic templates and drafting machines, I may have something to
> contribute.

>I'm about to turn 53 and I also have tee squares and plastic templates in 
storage ( a slide rule too)

> I firmly believe the 'D' on CAD stands for drafting NOT design.  Even the
> younger architects and engineers to whom I now consult, prefer to design on
> paper. Although it may have something to do with our age, I don't think so.
>  There is just something about the connection between hand and mind that
> serves the creative process better than keyboard, even tablet, and monitor.
>  Note that I rarely use the marketers preferred abbreviation CADD.
>
I agree! Design is an intuitive operation. A computer can help me draw a 
screw but it doesn't know that the design needs one where I put it. I tend to 
doodle on coppier paper before turning on the computer, but most work happens 
electronically 

> So although marketers like AutoDesk hype their 3-D (they have been doing it
> long before it was a true reality) and other bells and whistles, the real
> task is 2-D drafting.

True to a point. A real value of a true 3D solid modeling application is that 
one can visualize the finished part or assembly and see interferences and 
other errors that could be missed with 2D drawings
>
> So THAT is the beginning.  Add to that the computer's capabilities for
> eliminating repetitive tasks, creating reusable blocks and the
> extraordinary precision of drawing in real measurements eliminating the
> constant errors of working with scales where pencil points are inches
> thick, you have already achieved the first major virtue the computer can
> give.
>
> There is no denying the awesomeness(?) of using the computer to generate -
> and rotate - a true three dimensional model of what you are designing; but
> to make that a limiting parameter is a bit philistine.   I say philistine
> with some degree of comfort because of being there before even the
> computers were capable of 3D except with primitives.   I have therefore the
> confirmed conviction that the 3D hype is as much the work of salesmen as of
> engineers.

3D is just plain COOL! If I only wanted cad for generating part drawings it 
would almost be simpler to revert to pencils
>
> Again, don't get me wrong 3D is extremely valuable, especially to those
> less gifted who can not visualize their work properly - did Frank Lloyd
> Wright have 3D? -.

Come now! Gifted or not, 3D is extremely valuable if only because we "gifted" 
humans are not nearly as smart as we would like to think.
>
> It is NOT, however, essential and need not prevent or burden the
> development of a Linux CAD program.

Perhaps, but 3D SHOULD be the ultimate goal
>
> I suspect, some of you young computer drafting wizards will be shocked at
> these words.  But do not lose sight of the fact that the purpose is to
> create construction documents.  Drawings are a means to an end, the
> building, machining, making of physical things, not an end in themselves
> (although they might be were they still done by hand and representing
> talent, rather than agility, you CAD drafters MUST miss that).

I too like to assert my age and experience at times too,  but if my goal is 
to design an intricate optical device and fit it all in a stylish package 
conceptualized by someone with an art degree who works for a marketing MBA., 
solid modeling surely helps me avoid parts sticking out through the damned 
covers.

>
> The instance of three dimensional computer modeling really contributing to
> the design process IS on the rise, particularly for complex machine parts,
> but it is still a VERY small part of the CAD real world application or
> need.

Here I disagree. Though most machined parts ARE made from paper drawings CAM 
is rapidly changing the whole ball game. Take for instance the "stylish 
package" above. This package became a structural mounting system and cosmetic 
cover for a Visual/IR microscope. The 3D drawing files were used to machine 
casting patterns and to do finish machining on the castings.
>
> In my experience the folk who emphasize 3D images are trying to razzle
> dazzle their way round their shortcomings.  I had trained a few of my more
> talented drafters to generate 3D CAD drawings in the late eighties, and we
> all agreed they needed `hand work' before they were suitable for
> presentation, to get away from that machine look.  That has nothing to do
> with the state of the art but it does have everything to do with the state
> of the mind.
>
> It might be a benefit for the young comers up to learn to visualize before
> having the computer do it for them.   Kind of like exercising your brain by
> doing math in your head without the calculator once and a while (my trick
> was to tally the grocery bill as fast - faster - than the cash register (of
> course it got more difficult when they started using scanners!-))
>
> In retrospect, my thoughts may be worth more than two cents but to many
> they may seem in foreign coin!-)
>
> A suggestion.  Create a good 2D Linux program and export the finished
> drawings to a stand-alone bootleg copy of R-14 to generate the 3D.
>
> Bootleg he says!   Ah yes, we'll talk about copyright, intellectual
> property rights, and ethics according to Gates, another time;  the way it
> is, the way it was, and the way it ought to be.   Bootleg, he does say.-)
>
> AJBIBB@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/15/2002 10:35:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> >
> > mrjive@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > hi everyone!
> > >
> > > it seems great to get cad applications work fine with wine or similar,
> > > but to me it does make not sense in the long run...
> > > it could be useful for time to time jobs, but how can you think to use
> > > this seriously in your everyday work?
> > >
> > > and then, is it possible that no one can write a really good cad
> > > application running on linux? or a good port?
> > > i heard of a linux port of archicad, but only in japanese (at the
> > > moment and cannot find the URL...)
> > >
> > > if our future destinated to be painful? ;-))
> >
> > My own opinion (probably not worth much more than two cents, but here it
> > is anyway).  As long as most computers come installed with MS windows
> > what software company in its right mind is going to support another
> > operating system?  I don't think it is so much a matter of no one can
> > port a cad program to linux, but rather no one thinks they can make money
> > at it.
> >
> > Another real problem is the definition of "good cad program".  I know
> > full well that my definition of good; 2D drafting, user programming
> > capability, the ability to read (and only read) acad 3d drawings is
> > wholly unacceptable to many subscribers to this list.  Autodesk has its
> > way with the technical community because they are serving a fairly small
> > user base and I believe that few (if any) companies are willing to make
> > the investment necessary to grab a piece of this market for a reward that
> > can only be a small piece of a small pie.  I am afraid that there are
> > even fewer Linux users looking for cad applications.  With a relatively
> > small user base I believe that to be successful it would be necessary
> > that a CAD program include every feature that every potential user could
> > possibly want.  It makes no sense to market to a niche of what is already
> > a niche market.  If you accept my premise then your CAD program would
> > need to be both very large and very complex - which of course translates
> > to expensive.
> >
> > My own opinion is that if Linux users want a cad application we are going
> > to need to do it ourselves.  The problem of course is that we all have
> > day jobs, families and other interests.  I truly hope I am wrong, but I
> > believe that our future is indeed destined to be painful.  It dosen't
> > mean we can't try though.
> >
> > Andy

Other related posts: