Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Teaching CAD
Posted by
Marcus & Eva
on 2001-07-29 09:56:41 UTC
Hi All:
I am going to wander off topic a bit here, and slip in some of my
personal opinions on education in general and the issue of learning to be a
skilled designer in CAD in particular.
We have, in a solid modeller, a marvellous opportunity to ease the learning
of beginner designers by simply flipping the "accepted" curriculum on its
end and following a more intuitive path.
Solid modelling is easy; far easier than 2D drafting of 3 dimensional
objects, because beginners can see what they're creating in a far more
realistic illusion of 3D.
I say this with confidence, having taught a fair number of people in both
disciplines.
When I take a Solidworks model and then create a 2D print from it, the
little light goes on behind their eyes and they immediately "get the idea"
of how the standard drafting views relate to the model.
Solidworks in particular, can be easily set up to follow accepted drafting
conventions, so it functions as an excellent reference to generate proper
projections etc etc.
Once this stuff is well assimilated, the advantages of 2D CAD drafting can
be explored far more easily without all the pedantic weight of tedious
convention holding back the learning process.
While I respect the fact that the traditional curriculum has produced, and
does produce competent draftsmen, I believe very strongly, that it is
anachronistic in not taking maximum advantage of all the marvellous new
tools that we now have available.
Snip from Hugh Currin:
opposite end, and teach basic model construction first.
Then I would introduce a set of exercises in board drafting and hand
sketching using the output from the solid modeller as the primary teaching
tool to establish and reinforce the principal drafting conventions. Then I'd
go back to the modeller and make my students model from a standard
engineering drawing and from a perspective sketch.
My next step would be to introduce a decent (sorry guys...I just can't
overcome my loathing of that awful Autocad!) conventional CAD package and
teach the advantages of it over solids and board drafting. (yes, I
acknowledge that there are advantages)
Finally, I would thoroughly explore all of the options and their advantages
by setting time-limited exercises (just like the real world) in which the
principal objective would be to get an adequate job done on time. Board
drawing, hand sketches, conventional CAD and solids would all be acceptable
options to choose from. The guys in the machinist's course could try to
build what was drawn. The grades go down if the communication is ambiguous.
I think, with an approach more like this, we'd start to see some more
competent graduates out there than some of the pitifully unprepared poor
sods that I've had to deal with all too frequently. (whole 'nother story!!)
So that's my rant, and I'm sticking to it!!!! :)
Cheers
Marcus
PS: to "Smoke": I never intended to disparage your design skills with my
comments.
I was merely pointing out that MOST (but by no means all) serious designers
have made the switch to solids in order to take advantage of the new
capabilities.
MC
Snip from Smoke:
I am going to wander off topic a bit here, and slip in some of my
personal opinions on education in general and the issue of learning to be a
skilled designer in CAD in particular.
We have, in a solid modeller, a marvellous opportunity to ease the learning
of beginner designers by simply flipping the "accepted" curriculum on its
end and following a more intuitive path.
Solid modelling is easy; far easier than 2D drafting of 3 dimensional
objects, because beginners can see what they're creating in a far more
realistic illusion of 3D.
I say this with confidence, having taught a fair number of people in both
disciplines.
When I take a Solidworks model and then create a 2D print from it, the
little light goes on behind their eyes and they immediately "get the idea"
of how the standard drafting views relate to the model.
Solidworks in particular, can be easily set up to follow accepted drafting
conventions, so it functions as an excellent reference to generate proper
projections etc etc.
Once this stuff is well assimilated, the advantages of 2D CAD drafting can
be explored far more easily without all the pedantic weight of tedious
convention holding back the learning process.
While I respect the fact that the traditional curriculum has produced, and
does produce competent draftsmen, I believe very strongly, that it is
anachronistic in not taking maximum advantage of all the marvellous new
tools that we now have available.
Snip from Hugh Currin:
>In Mechanical Engineering Technology at Oregon Institute of Technology weIf I were responsible for this curriculum, I would approach it from the
>require our students to take drafing/modling related courses as 1) Manual
>(board) Drafting, 2) 2D and wire frame modeling (AutoCAD), 4) Geometric
>Dimensioning and Tolerancing, 3) Solid Modeling (I-Deas), 4) Applied FEA
>(I-Deas). We also offer an elective CAD course using Pro-E which most
>students take.
opposite end, and teach basic model construction first.
Then I would introduce a set of exercises in board drafting and hand
sketching using the output from the solid modeller as the primary teaching
tool to establish and reinforce the principal drafting conventions. Then I'd
go back to the modeller and make my students model from a standard
engineering drawing and from a perspective sketch.
My next step would be to introduce a decent (sorry guys...I just can't
overcome my loathing of that awful Autocad!) conventional CAD package and
teach the advantages of it over solids and board drafting. (yes, I
acknowledge that there are advantages)
Finally, I would thoroughly explore all of the options and their advantages
by setting time-limited exercises (just like the real world) in which the
principal objective would be to get an adequate job done on time. Board
drawing, hand sketches, conventional CAD and solids would all be acceptable
options to choose from. The guys in the machinist's course could try to
build what was drawn. The grades go down if the communication is ambiguous.
I think, with an approach more like this, we'd start to see some more
competent graduates out there than some of the pitifully unprepared poor
sods that I've had to deal with all too frequently. (whole 'nother story!!)
So that's my rant, and I'm sticking to it!!!! :)
Cheers
Marcus
PS: to "Smoke": I never intended to disparage your design skills with my
comments.
I was merely pointing out that MOST (but by no means all) serious designers
have made the switch to solids in order to take advantage of the new
capabilities.
MC
Snip from Smoke:
>I AM a serious designer. I use Rhino for my 3D program and the only thingI
>need it for is to convert my 2D drawings when I need to print a "photo" for
>those lacking the ability to visualize in 3D from a 2D drawing.
>Smoke