For discussing the merits of alternative 3D CAD programs.

Maybe your CAM package is a bit more upmarket than mine, but it's fairly easy to extract edges & intersections from a model to get something similar from MoI and then export them as DXFs.

I must say though, I can't remember when I last needed to do a real 3d milling job, almost everything I get can be handled with profiles and pockets etc.

Martin.

I've got version 11 but I haven't used it for a long while. It was just about the only affordable CAM package with lathe capabilities for quite some time, meanwhile others have caught up and overtaken it.

Martin.

I don't think John drew much in 3D as he got me to draw up stuff from his 2D drawings so he could print the items.

It is interesting the comments about 2D, 2.5D and 3D CAM, if I were to get a CNC then it would be for things that I can't do manually on the mill which is full 3D such as flywheels with nicely shaped spokes and engine cylinders that I want to look like castings that can't easily be fabricated.

I also don't see that you must have a 3D Printer or CNC machine to get an end product from 3D Cad. I use mine to design in and then print off 2D drawings that I can manually machine from or if I want some flat plate cut can e-mail off the file for laser or waterjet cutting or simply send a nice looking rendered perspective to a client who will be able to understand that rather than being presented a set of 2D black and white drawings.

I'm using DesignCad because I've used the 2D version for years. Now upgraded to 3D as a means of 'future proofing'.

I've tried Fusion 360 but gave up when I couldn't work out how to put a line of a given size into a specific area!,

The other advantage of continuing to use DesignCad is that all the drawings I've done over the last 25 years are still available without having to redraw them.

I've had a play at 3D and managed to draw a traction engine hind wheel so I will use 3D for my next model and take 2D drawings off for manufacture.

Brian

[This posting has been removed]

I have been using Dolphin CAD/CAM for many years and am very pleased with it. I find the CAD a bit basic and tend to do all my drawings in Autocad 2006 and then import them into Dolphin. The only thing I cannot do with Dolphin is tabs for machining sheet metal components so I have recently purchased Vectric Cut2D which has a tabs feature that allows you to position the tabs very easily and also define the type of tab required for the job.

I just gave Fusion 360 a go and my brain exploded, they don't even have a grid on the opening screen you can draw with and there's a billion options

Will stick with designspark for the moment, perhaps my intelligence will increase as I age and I can try again later

A bit of a pain, the only reason I got 64bit windows was for CAD

Edited By Ady1 on 28/10/2018 09:18:04

Quite so. Of course a lot of what I machine is stuff I've designed, so how I'm going to machine it is taken into consideration during the design process. As an estimate I reckon 65% of my CNC work is 2.5D, 15% 3D and 20% 4th axis.

Andrew

The main reason that I'm keen to try this Alibre, is that I hoping that LESS options etc will make it easier to use. I'm OKish with Fusion, I struggle with full Autocad (just too advanced for me).

I'm going to wait until the paper copy of MEW arrives before I have a go!

Jim

Whilst this thread is specifically about "alternative 3D CAD programmes" - some mention has also been made of 2D earlier - which is all I currently use.

Like Neil, I've used TurboCAD Deluxe for many years. Unlike Neil, I've never managed to do anything useful in TC 3D. I'm now a great fan of Paul the CAD and I took his advice that 3D was not really a viable option with the Deluxe TC version (he says you need the Pro version) - and I've just stuck to 2D.

Having said that - TC/DL has been a reliable 2D tool for me over many years at very little cost (my first version TC/DL v4 was free - and last year I migrated to TC/DL v2016 (from v9) for £20 (purchased at the Midlands show). I have complete (local) control of my drawings and DXF files from them have been used to get laser cut parts made by third party companies without any issues. I don't currently own any CNC or 3D printing machines.

This is not to say I don't understand the benefits of parametric 3D CAD, I certainly do. However, I also have F360 sat on my desktop and 'fiddled' with it when first downloaded. I'm sure it's an excellent product but definitely needs a very different mindset to use from 2D and I'm not sure I have the need (or patience/persistence) to make good use of it. I don't like the cloud nature of the product either quite frankly. So, there it sits (unused) besides TC2016 - which I draw with regularly...

However, I shall read the Alibre articles with great interest and may (or may not) trial the product as suggested. My experience with TC was that although I managed to use it fairly well for many years (on a self-taught basis), working through Paul (the CADs) YouTube tutorials greatly improved my TurboCAD experience - in terms of speed, ease and quality.

Maybe this will be true for 3D too. Whether I have an actual need to invest £200 at the end of the trial period is another question all together of course - and one that I guess only time will tell. When I spend several hundred pounds on a lump of metal I generally expect it to last my lifetime (admittedly that's not as long as it used to be these days) - but I know that software needs renewing/updating - and that's when cheap (and simple) has a distinct advantage...

Regards,

IanT

You might be surprised how much you can do in 2d & 2.5d on a CNC mill before having to do it in 3d.

Say you have a flywheel with curvy 'S' shaped spokes and these taper and/or have some kind of profile, then if you have a reasonable CAM package, you should be able to do that in 2.5d without too much worry.

I tend to think of 3d machining as being more suitable for things shaped like computer mice, car bodies and the like.

A picture of what you have in mind might prompt some suggestions to help you decide.

Martin.

I don't recall anyone saying you do? I reckon 90% of the parts I create in Alibre are machined manually. One big advantage of 3D CAD is the assembly function. Being idle I expect to machine parts once and I also expect all the parts to fit together afterwards. This saves a huge amount of time on my traction engines as the drawings are poor, a lot of things are not detailed, and some of those that are would never fit together. I've never needed to use the render facility in Alibre.

I've been trying to get my second bathroom and kitchen refurbished recently. After many months of bullsit builders, patronising electricians and incompetent kitchen designers I'm almost at the point of giving up. The kitchen "designer" was incredibly naive if he thought I'd sign up on the basis of a few pretty isometric views. In fact they weren't truly isometric as the cupboard widths were badly distorted from view to view. I asked for proper 2D drawings; he claimed the CAD system wouldn't let him do that. I suppose I'm just awkward, but if I don't understand what I'm getting for a not inconsiderable sum I'm going to walk away.

I'm old enough to have started on drawing boards with pen and pencil. Anyone remember Rotring pens? I've used 2D CAD but it's really only an electronic drawing board, and rather more of a PITA than using pen and paper. After an initial failure with 3D CAD using ProEngineer I took to Alibre very easily. It doesn't always do what I want, but that's another matter. I'm rather surprised how many people say they can't deal with 3D? Certainly some of the interfaces are a bit iffy, but I would have thought that thinking in 3D was almost an essential requirement for engineering. My general approach to design is as follows:

Rough out the design and assembly, if required, in my head

Make some rough sketches on paper to flesh out details

Create 3D parts and assemblies and add exact dimensions and details such as threads, fillets and chamfers

Create a 2D drawing if required

Fire up the machine tools!

Andrew

Edited By Andrew Johnston on 28/10/2018 10:16:58

Semi sussed out my problem

My old video card can only create invisible drawings, even with the most "recent" w64 driver from 2009

I can see a single plane on a box if I mouse over it lol

This is what I was refering to Andrew, my bold

Blowlamp, a couple of examples. Both drawn with Alibre BTW

The flywheel has curved, tapering oval section spokes all filleted into the hub and rim.

This cylinder has a single helical fin that is tapered in section, rounded on the edges and filleted at it's route. Expect this to need 4th axis

As Andrew says the ability to assemble parts is good, you can check for any clashes, make a quick adjustment to a part and then back to the assembly which will have that alteration, I used it a lot on this one to make sure the conrod did not foul the guides which is easy to you by holding the mouse on say the flywheel and turning the whole engine over to see the parts move.

Edited By JasonB on 28/10/2018 10:43:57

Ooopsie, must have missed that.

I'd rough the flywheel using 2.5D commands and finish the spokes using 3D. I'd agree that the cylinder would need a 4th axis, although as drawn it's impossible to machine. The ends of the helical fin need filleting, or else you need a zero diameter cutter.

Andrew

Thats what I thought andrew two basic 2.5D to first make it like a solid fluwheel and then remove six bits of waste and a third using a ball nose tool.

Well spotted on the fillet, I am playing around with ways to do it manually ( 7.2mm pitch and a 72:1 rotary table) though which would allow me to slip the helix over the central cylinder so no fillet needed but would prefer it from solid which will mean having the cutter diameter at each end where the helix runs into the flat.

I'd machine the flywheel slightly differently. I would machine the OD, bore and recesses on the lathe to ensure everything runs true. Then I'd rough and finish the spaces between the spokes followed by the ballnose mill to finish the spokes. I might drill a hole in the waste area between two of the spokes to act as a locator when turning the flywheel over to finish the spokes on the second side. Because of that hole I may not completely clear the material between the spokes from the first side. If I did do that I'd predrill some holes in the middle of the waste to allow the swarf to be washed away when machining the first side of the spokes.

Andrew

For the cylinder fins :-

If you do not have a 4th axis and could be bothered to make a form cutter? You could helically mill it in the vertical plane. Several basic cam programmes have this facility. i.e. Estlcam.

How to fail at 3D CAD:

• Install it on an old computer, ideally 32-bit with an unsupported operating system, insufficient memory, a slow processor and antiquated graphics.
• Assume that software should work the way you expect it to and refuse to change your ways when it doesn't
• Don't waste time looking at Web Tutorials or money by buying a book.
• Never read the manual, specification or terms and conditions.
• Learn by being grossly over confident in yourself. Begin by modelling something really complicated, preferably with a tricky construct that would challenge a professional.
• Expect instant results, after all patience is a vice

I'm of the opinion that most people would get on with 3D CAD if they started with an hour's hands-on with an expert. Faced with a complex interface and incorrect notions of how it works, it's all too easy to crash the learning process at the outset.

One big advantage of the Alibre offer is that you're not going to be on your own learning it. MEW are printing a series on how to use Alibre that can be studied carefully. And what's written in the series can be questioned and discussed on this forum if you get stuck.

Dave