Re: Software options

> Philip Burman wrote:
>
> > I thought TurboCad was pretty much a fully featured CAD system. What
> > do you see it is lacking.
>
> Main problem is there are just too many packages to 'try'.
>
> I've used Autocad since release 2 something - I still have the dongle -
> and so you get used to the way things happen. So much so that I can't
> get on with Autocad after R13 but probably because I don't have the time
> to learn the new stuff. The problem with many of the alternatives is the
> lack of facilities to tidy up dimensioning - that is the thing that has
> got me with Dolphin, and why I've had to drop back to Autocad.
> I understand that TurboCad has a similar limitation on moving dimension
> lines around to make a drawing readable.
> But I stand to be corrected on that.
>
> The main reason for starting this thread was to start to pull together
> the plus and minus points on packages since I do not have months to play
> with each, and there is not a 'single option' that stands out :(
>
> --
> Lester Caine -

Lester,
You have opened a can of worms here because there is no definitive answer.
On one hand you have personal choice and then you have legacy issues.
People have spent time and effort to learn a program, no matter how good or bad and getting them to change won't work.

If you are looking at this from a newbie point of view then this doesn't apply but getting a newbie to spring out on two or even three pieces of software after just buying a machine is going to be hard.
On cost alone this outlay could be more than the machine.

Most cost effective are the combined CAD-CAM programs like, and in no order Bobcad, Dolphin, TurboCadCAM and Vector.
All these allow you to draw then code from that drawing, some better than others, some 3D some only 2-1/2D.
The problem with this type of program is that they are written from the CAM point of view and not CAD.

There is a suttle difference.
In CAD you need clear concise drawings to present to a customer, this means you need a lot of editing tools like, to use your example, moving dimensions.
In CAM all that is needed is a shape that can be converted into a contour / toolpath and to be honest these combined programs reflect this simplist approach to CAD
Lets face it you never program and cut a dimension do you ?

Because CAM is so precise and needs to be for the G Code it's very rigid in how it works. Snap points are usually automatic and very firmly defined like end points, circle centre etc.
A good example of a CAD program and and CAD-CAM program is take two shapes like the capital letter D with a G at the side, now you want to see if a tool can get thru the gap between the the two curves.
In a CAD progarm you can click on the two points in question and get an answer either in text or place a dimention depending on the program.

In CAD-CAM you can't as the only points clickable are the start of the arcs as that's all the CAM side needs to know and it ignores anything it feels is extra.

This is why many people use a third party CAD program and import in but now we are talking about an extra program and learning curve.

You post ended with

"The main reason for starting this thread was to start to pull together

> the plus and minus points on packages since I do not have months to play
> with each, and there is not a 'single option' that stands out :(

And I'm afraid that the way it is , what works for one doesn't always work for another.
You have a legacy of using Autocad, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, but that's just personal choice.
If I was to name the progarm I use your reply would be the same.


John S.

John S.