RE: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] 3D graphics or CAD software
MCAD=Mechanical Computer Aided Design.
First time I have seen that term used.
Andy Wander
From:
CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of editor@...
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013
1:36 PM
To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO]
3D graphics or CAD software
One of the main rules of going for new hardware and
software is to first chose the software and then the hardware to support it.
Workstations are always to be preferred IF you want the ultimate in reliability
in both the hardware and operation. Workstations should, for example, always
have error correcting memory. This is a really good idea if you are using
number crunching to design things because non-corrected memory has been known
to cause problems in calculations. The disks are usually more rugged and faster
too.
The big-end 3D MCAD software packages are nice but for most of us, the lower
end products like Alibre/Geomagic are as functional and have the added benefit
of not locking up if you don't pay their annual maintenance fees. In fact,
Geomagic's (ex-Alibre) license fee is just about the same as the annual
maintenance fee of the big packages. I've been using Alibre since 2006 and find
it works well in my work which is magazine publishing for people who build
operating model engines.
MCAD can be divided into several categories with regard to hardware needs.
Pure MCAD almost always uses just a single processor, regardless of how many
cores may be available. Multi-threaded software code is either difficult to
write or does not help speed much. So a fast single core computer will outclass
a slower multi-core unit. 64 bit operation with lots of memory does help here.
So does very fast hard disks with solid state drives winning by a large margin.
In my case, since I also render 3D designs for the magazine, multiple cores and
lots of memory do make a difference.
And I run the full gamut of Adobe software, spending a lot of time in InDesign,
Illustrator and Photoshop. None of those use multi-cores in their work AFAIK so
memory is important and their latest products generally do demand 64 bit
memory.
I also use high-end video editing sofware and while the software is single-core
during the editing phase, the real-time and rendering functions do use
multi-core processors. More memory is always useful.
In general, the high-end video cards make very little difference in the
Geomagic MCAD performance and in fact, they recommend a lower end engineering
card. I have a fairly low-end video card ($150) that drives two high resolution
displays at full capacity with no problems.
I don't know of a MCAD system that uses raster for anything but output. At
heart, they are databases with stored coordinates for the drawings and they
generate vectors which are converted to raster for display and printing
purposes. Basically, raster information has no machine readable attributes
unless you want to go through either OCR or raster to vector conversion, both
of which are error prone.
Main System:
Geomagic Design, Adobe CC software, Edius video software from Grass Valley
Group
FlashCut CNC, MeshCam, AlibreCAM
Older Intel motherboard with 4-processor 2.6 Ghz micro, 4 gigabytes of memory,
2 displays, 5 terabytes of rotating memory. The processor and memory can be
overclocked to around 3.5 Ghz but I find that not as reliable as I'd like.
---In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, <cad_cam_edm_dro@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Hi "hanermo,"
You wrote:
> I use Rhino 3D.
I'll add it to my list of
possibilities.
> My main PC is a custom one built in the UK, ...
I've been assuming I'll
need custom building as I
am thinking of both more advanced photography (a
Nikon D800e will give me some really big files to
process) and also doing some 3D work. (I am not a
machinist but the engineers at work do CAD in 3D
and have a 3D printer to do prototypes.)
> ... overclocked at 4GHz, 16 GB, Win7 64 bit,
...
Yes, I have gotten some
recommendations for 16GB of
RAM and, AFAIK, that needs an OS on 64-bit mode to
address it.
> ... with Nvidia card for 2 x 2600x1900
resolution
> on two HP 32 inch monitors.
My graphics card thoughts
are wide open. Which card
do you have? I have been googling on this and have
seen a number of recommendations. Most thoughts are
based on high-level gamer cards and so far I haven't
seen specs showing the bit-depth (more important for
photos than for CAD and CAM or even games) but I did
see a disclaimer that certain models were "not for
commercial use. That's not a very informative bit
but does stand out as a sort of red flag.
Apparently graphics cards suited for that commercial
use are better described as work-station graphics
cards. Of course those cards would involve a higher
price level so I'm wondering at what point "better"
becomes "overkill."
> BUT..
> Many of my models are 300-900 MB in size.
>
> Rhino will run fine in XP with 1-2 GB, and do 3D
> work just fine.
So, quite possibly I
could develop simple ideas with
out placing unusual stress on whatever system I
choose. Does Rhino use a vector system to describe
things? Of course, I know that screen representation
(and most hard-copy methods) would have to be redone
in a raster image format. It does seem unwieldy to
use raster graphics to design and store 3D images.
--
Thanks for your patience,
Gene Falck
gfalck@...
>
> A small model is a screw mount.
etc.
> About 1 MB on size.
>
> A model for me, might have 200-400 3D assemblies in it. Some might be
> near this 1 MB each.
>
> Many will be simplified - for example I made a 3D ballscrew semi
> accurately (I did not do the special arch of the ballscrew, but
> approximated it as a circle).
> A simplified ballscrew is about 50MB iirc.
>
> Import 3 ballscrews, with mounts, and build the structure, sheetmetal,
> and supports.
> Thats a gigabyte model.
> Its about the same size in solidworks, as used industrially.
>
> So - what do you do ?
>
> I build stuff, and use the 3D tools to make stuff better.
> Its a lot better to make sure stuff works on the screen, than in metal.
>
> Rhino is one of the fastest, lightest and easiest solutions out there.
> Biggest drawback is lack of associations (there is a plugin - gotta try
> that) in geometry.
>
> There is no right answer.
> Rhino is about 100x better than any 2D (auto ;( )cad, for one thing.
> I´m experienced in 3D with almost 30 years experienece.
> (Started w. CATIA in 1986 or so on IBM dedicated hw).
> Rhino has a free 3D cam. Freemill.
>
> I know that inventor is good, but expensive.
> Soliworks is too expensive.
>
> And it depends on if you want cam, 4th axis, plasma (and if with THC),
> If you wanna link to excel (really should !) and so on..
>
> I believe alibre might be good for something. No personal experience.
>
>> What do you other list members use for design work and "how much
>> computer" would I need?
>
>