New To CAD? No, but....

Well I could do, Hans, but it would be a complete waste of time.

Martin.

I don't know if that's meant as a sneer, as it reads, but like the Spice Girls, I know what I want.

And that is to use the system I have effectively, be it TurboCAD or SolidEdge, not keep starting yet another! (I'd not even heard of MOI until someone mentioned it here.)

.

That would be Martin, on page_1 of this thread.

MichaelG.

Because you have tried TurboCAD, SolidEdge and Alibre, with little success and have repeated that CAD in general is hard to learn, I ventured to show on multple occasions, that MoI might well help you on your way.

You have given zero feedback for that effort and casually state that you'd never heard of MoI until now.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a complete waste of time.

Martin.

We may all be guilty of assuming Nigel's read the Cotton Reel Shoot-Out and other recent threads!

The shoot-out asked members to explain how they would use their CAD package to develop a simple object, to whit a Cotton Reel. The purpose was to compare how they did it. From memory, apologies for any I've forgotten, the thread shows Alibre, AutoCAD, FreeCAD. Fusion 360, MOI, Solid Edge and Solid Works. Be really good if Nigel were to add a TurboCAD expose!

All the software passed the cotton reel test without breaking a sweat. However, I was impressed enough by SolidEdge to give it a go, and am doing well with it. When I have time, I'm going to give MOI a go because, of the software demonstrated, it appears to be the easiest to learn. It takes a different approach that might not satisfy all my Mechanical Engineering needs and I'm not going to look at it until I've explored SolidEdge thoroughly.

Dave

.

There is much to be said for choosing software that is easy to learn, and I place great value on intuitive programs.

In the 3D modeling world though, I have found that "easy to learn" does not necessarily translate into "the program will do everything that I need it to do".

So perhaps make sure the program will satisfy all your needs, as well as being easy to use.

.

I'm sorry if you felt that, Martin, but that was not my intention at all.

I wanted something of a view of several different makes, because I was becoming bogged down; and that is what happened.

I stuck with TurboCAD for a long time because having bought it and advanced so far with it, it seemed silly to switch to a completely new one like Alibre or Fusion - though I did give them a brief go.

I had however hit something of a brick wall with TurboCAD because the more you advance in it the harder it does become to make each step further. Even some of its basic functions like printing the image is a minefield. Also, finding help with it is not easy.

Gordon has given me an introduction to Solid Edge _ I printed the instructions he sent me - and though it looks very different from TC it does seem a more logical programme to use, and it is easy to seek advice. Gordon's introductory exercises also didn't assume prior CAD experience, as the Siemens web-site seems to do; though Siems do seem to have put a lot explanatory material on it as well.

Plus, plenty of users! Indeed I think it was one of the "Solid"-stable that one my own club fellow-members used to teach, in a school. Possibly a "student edition" of SolidWorks: a crafty piece of salesmanship by the makers!

I will try SE further, and may well switch to it. From what I have seen of it so far, it does have some very good features reasonably easy to grasp.. It also appears to have a relatively much more straightforward approach to representing solids than TC's two or three methods. Though those are the programme's' internal functions they affect how you use it, and in TC they can present a lot of hidden traps for the unwary..

So "waste of time" no - I was trying to find something within my ability to learn to sufficient level to use practically.

I may well never find or use every last bell and whistle, but who uses all those in Microsoft's 'Office' programmes? Instead, what I want, is to learn a CAD programme that will help and support my model-engineering.

Dave -

A challenge, eh?

Draw a cotton-reel in 3D, using TurboCAD.

Obviously that is dead easy for TC, but for me?

I didn't try to copy the original but invented one in the same spirit. The two black lines are the original X and Y axes markers I had to make, and left in place after I had deleted the other construction lines.

How I created this, I describe below.... Along with why I had to omit the recesses in the ends.

First was open a "Normal Metric" template. That worked. And to turn on the Grid. That would not work - I think IMSI must have set the template grid-free, for whatever reason.

First mistake but not realised then. Oh well, nothing ventured...

Draw two (X, Y) axis lines (those shown) and various construction / outline rectangles. All in one Layer, Layer 0 allegedly we are not suppose to use. Why is it available then?

Intersection snap on, four circles to give the rims each a nice neat radius.

Tangent-tool: the sloping lines to generate the two conical frustra.

Lots of Trimming and deleting, join what's left as a Polyline.

Revolve that about the X-axis. Smooth the surface (TC develops cylinders as 14-sided prisms and leaves you to edit their appearance). Delete the generating polyline.

I'd needlessly drawn both "sides" of the generating elevation. I'd not thought of that until I was deleting all the temporary constructions. Oh well, no harm done.

Lo and behold, the basic reel with a 6mm dia axial hole through it. That disappears in rendering more deeply than the hidden-lines level shown there.

The end recesses?. . .

Errrr...

The original had 6 radial recesses in the ends, I believe. Certainly most moulded plastic real reels do, though not wooden ones. So mine is wooden - painted blue if rendered.

I had worked out how to create these recesses, 6 per end, from 12 extruded pie-portion plugs. That itself is not too hard, IF the grid and snaps work as they should. They didn't, I think because I was using a template rather than a "New" file with raw "Model Space".

I would have had to create the two plug sets concentrically to the reel (on the invisible X-axis), sink them the required depth then Subtract them to leave the cavities.

Now, the so-called "Inspector Bar" was all active, showing the sizes and co-ordinates of any selected entity, and allowing its move in any (X, Y, Z) direction - and angular rotation in those planes if you want - by your entered values.

The plugs would have had mid-length Reference Points. So if each was 20mm long and shown as 20mm from the end of the reel, moving it 10mm would make it touch the reel; 15mm would sink it 5mm. The reel's mid-point of known length is at (X=0), so I know where the reel face lies. Fine so far.... provided the rose pattern of "negative recesses" is concentric to the reel. Might not be the "official" method but it will work.

So: draw 2 plug sets, identify each plug X-co-ordinate and move it in X to sink the few mm into the reel end. Then subtract it to leave the recess. TurboCAD does not have "negative" extrusions, only negative co-ordinates and distances. All its extrusions are solids; hence needing subtracting to make a hole.

Only, with no grid as a guide, at this stage in the drawing the grid-snap fails so you cannot create those extrusions. Or if you can, I don't know how. Besides, despite the values displayed, trying to visualise where things are in that open space would have taxed Escher!

I should have made the plugs' base figures at the same stage as the Revolve figure. Even then I might have run into co-ordinate and entity-type difficulties.

Clearly I go no further with that drawing, so I show what I had produced. It's a cotton reel but with a solid body apart from the spindle hole!

At least I rose to the challenge even if it partially defeated me.

Sorry, Martin, but I have to come back to that. What I didn't tell is that I have the three months free trial of MOI on my computer, and up to now I couldn't find out how to do what I asked above.

It is true that MOI can do things which are difficult to do with any other CAD program (e.g. that 'Sunburst' in the example video, https://youtu.be/1B8g42hHJqg ). But for an all-purpose mechanical CAD I think it's not the right choice. You may have another opinion, that's your right.

I will be very interested to hear what SOD (Dave) says when he gets the round tuit!

Kind regards,
Hans

I'm not sure what your definition of an all purpose mechanical CAD is, but although MoI doesn't have constraints such as in Alibre, Fusion 360 and SolidEdge, it is highly productive for me.

Here's a simple workshop drawing of a part I just made, drawn & dimensioned in MoI.

Give me an example of something you think might be unsuitable to be drawn in MoI and I'll check it out.

Martin.

Hi Martin, thanks for this, I will see if I can recreate something similar.

Meanwhile, something which I think would be difficult to do. To be honest, I'm not sure if I added enough dimensions to copy it exactly, but some guesses would be good enough...

Kind regards,
Hans

Hans.

I'll give a go.

Martin.

From what I have seen of MOI that should not be a problem, easy enough in Alibre

making it would be more of a challenge with those two sharp cornered triangles and where the 6.8mm radius ends and the small rectangular hole time for an EDM me thinks.

Edited By JasonB on 26/05/2022 15:49:58

Not bad to do Hans, just a little fiddly with the stepped areas. I haven't added dimensions, but could copy those of yours without much problem.

Martin.

Fantastic, Martin, I'm really surprised and pleased!

Btw, this part was 3d-printed, it is for mounting and centering a small stepper motor. So no problem with the sharp corners. Well, the print was maybe not of the highest quality, but sufficient for the purpose.

Regards, Hans

Hans.

If you don't need or want to get involved with Assemblies & Constraints, then MoI can be quite productive for engineering drawings and is probably more powerful in some ways than other popular hobby CAD packages when it comes to producing more unusual surface shapes. It also has a 'soft' look to its interface which may lead some to overlook its capabilites.

You've come up with a nice solution for that part. Is the groove for the wiring? If so, it is a very neat way to route it and makes for a tidy job.

Martin.