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