Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] 3D graphics or CAD software

Hi Hanermo


You wrote:

> Raster and vector and redenrs work perfectly well
> together in modern programs.

I guess they should--I thought, for storage and for
the basic of the "work" of the program, things would
be in some kind of vector format. (If I speak in very
general terms, I imagine a 3D image made up of 2D
"panels" at a resolution of, say, 1000x2000 pixels
each might need anything from just a few to hundreds
or thousands of such panels; that implies, to me, a
lot of extra work and larger files in raster format
than vector.)

> Internal 3D Bit depth is about 32 or 40 bits, iirc.

That is about what I would think for satisfactory
work and sounds OK for photographic applications,
too.

> Graphics card memory shows up as 8GB in Win7.

Sounds good.

> Current costs for the NVIDIA 2000 are about 400$-500$
> iirc. Well worth it.

The Quadro 2000 has shown up as a possibility, but there
is nothing to beat user satisfaction. Googling, I see a
lot of quotes, but that looks like it follows a pattern.
It's good to know that value exists without springing
for a 4000 or 5000.

> I run off a solid state drive, and performance is
> phenomenal.

I am hoping for SSD--It does depend on availability at
a large enough size.

> ... as I make some of my income from use of my PC,
> cost is irrelevant ...

I can't quite make such a sweeping statement for my
costs but part of my looking into this is related to
employment.

> Second hdd, std, 2TB, has mostly data and install
> files and movies.

That's a lot like what I've seen in a photographic
context.

> Essentially, lack of know-how results in paying too
> much for mediocre results, generally, over here.

Same here in the US, of course.


--


Regards and Thanks,


Gene Falck
gfalck@...