[cad-linux] Re: Wine intellicad
- From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:17:09 -0400
As a civil/structural engineer with 10 years of experience, I have to agree
with the concept that it is much more important to get a compentent 2d
drafting package than anything else, for the main reason outlined - you
can't build from 3d drawings
Any 3d software I've tried ends up being a battle to get the software to do
what you want - and isn't worth the time unless you're doing presentation
drawings for someone that can't read construction drawings (this can also be
accomplished with a sketch since accuracy isn't a concern in this case)
I have used 3d software to check some dimensions, but usually find that I
could have done it faster by calculation
I find that the CAD industry has made it seem that to be a compentent CAD
operator is enough of a goal - but what is often overlooked (and what hasn't
changed) is that a competent draftsman knows WHAT to draw, not just HOW to
draw - I don't see software that has replaced that knowledge
For anyone who cares, my thoughts on colour copies are also based on such
unpopular, practical considerations (how many of you have a copy system that
can mass produce colour drawings? Can they stand up to moisture? I'll
stick with my blueprinter)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cad-linux-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cad-linux-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Captain H. Bruce
> Hartgers
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:14 AM
> To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cad-linux] Re: Wine intellicad
>
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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? -.
>
> It is NOT, however, essential and need not prevent or burden
> the development of a
> Linux CAD program.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
