RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Posted by
John Craddock
on 2001-07-27 17:57:58 UTC
Marcus wrote
True, true.
But what an awful, counterintuitive, unfriendly program to have to learn!!!
For my money, the way of the future is solid modelling.
That means either Pro E or Solidworks. (There are others, but these two have
dominant market share and are likely to be the de-facto standards of the
future)
The advantages of solid modelling for any kind of design are many, and most
serious designers are going this route in order to tap into those benefits.
An additional benefit of solid modellers, is that the skill set learned with
one program is far more transferable to another modelling package than the
skills learned with a conventional drafting package.
With solids, the model construction strategy is the bulk of the skill, and
this is useful to know for any other solid modeller.
With a program like Autocad, the commands and how to manipulate them
efficiently is a far bigger part of what you learn, so a change of CAD
package puts you much farther back (to square one) than it does if you know
how to model in solids.
Not only that; a solid model gives you immediate access to a physical model
via stereolithography, whereas a CAD drawing gives you nothing in that
regard, and stereolith is a godsend for those who need a physical model but
don't have the skills to make one.
Last I checked, Solidworks is not much more expensive than Autocad; and you
have to consider that you are investing in your son's EDUCATION!!!
Why hobble him with a dinosaur, when the cutting edge is available.
Comments anyone??
Cheers
Marcus
Marcus,
You still have to go back to surfaces some way if you want to machine the
model or do rapid prototyping with stl files. That is why NURBS surface
modellers are superior for this function.
Regards
John C
Addresses:
FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
Post messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com, wanliker@...
Moderator: jmelson@... timg@... [Moderator]
URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
bill,
List Manager
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
True, true.
But what an awful, counterintuitive, unfriendly program to have to learn!!!
For my money, the way of the future is solid modelling.
That means either Pro E or Solidworks. (There are others, but these two have
dominant market share and are likely to be the de-facto standards of the
future)
The advantages of solid modelling for any kind of design are many, and most
serious designers are going this route in order to tap into those benefits.
An additional benefit of solid modellers, is that the skill set learned with
one program is far more transferable to another modelling package than the
skills learned with a conventional drafting package.
With solids, the model construction strategy is the bulk of the skill, and
this is useful to know for any other solid modeller.
With a program like Autocad, the commands and how to manipulate them
efficiently is a far bigger part of what you learn, so a change of CAD
package puts you much farther back (to square one) than it does if you know
how to model in solids.
Not only that; a solid model gives you immediate access to a physical model
via stereolithography, whereas a CAD drawing gives you nothing in that
regard, and stereolith is a godsend for those who need a physical model but
don't have the skills to make one.
Last I checked, Solidworks is not much more expensive than Autocad; and you
have to consider that you are investing in your son's EDUCATION!!!
Why hobble him with a dinosaur, when the cutting edge is available.
Comments anyone??
Cheers
Marcus
Marcus,
You still have to go back to surfaces some way if you want to machine the
model or do rapid prototyping with stl files. That is why NURBS surface
modellers are superior for this function.
Regards
John C
Addresses:
FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
Post messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com, wanliker@...
Moderator: jmelson@... timg@... [Moderator]
URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
bill,
List Manager
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Discussion Thread
Tom Eldredge
2001-07-26 17:36:34 UTC
Comparison of Cadd
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2001-07-26 18:25:52 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-26 19:05:44 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Chris L
2001-07-26 20:12:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Ian Wright
2001-07-27 02:18:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Fitch R. Williams
2001-07-27 06:54:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Marcus & Eva
2001-07-27 07:34:03 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-27 07:38:31 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-27 07:58:24 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Hugh Currin
2001-07-27 09:55:21 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-27 11:00:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-27 11:14:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Ian Wright
2001-07-27 11:25:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Craig Chamberlin
2001-07-27 11:48:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
blueveil@e...
2001-07-27 16:21:54 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd
Art Eckstein
2001-07-27 17:45:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
John Craddock
2001-07-27 17:57:58 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-27 18:21:57 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-27 18:28:34 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
John and Cindy Carey
2001-07-27 18:45:26 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
machines@n...
2001-07-27 20:15:27 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-27 20:22:24 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-27 22:36:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-27 22:38:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Comparison of Cadd
Smoke
2001-07-28 10:11:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
machines@n...
2001-07-28 14:35:04 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd - Solid edge Origin
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
2001-07-28 15:57:37 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
Scott A. Stephens
2001-07-29 14:47:29 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Comparison of Cadd
blueveil@e...
2001-07-30 10:05:39 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd (again)
Keith Rumley
2001-07-30 13:55:57 UTC
Re: Comparison of Cadd