TurboCAD Query: Maintaining Rendering Acrss File-types?

(I don't know if this is peculiar to TurboCAD but a common CAD problem.)

I can, just, produce very simple, rather poor, 3D drawings in TurboCAD 2012.

I can then apply basic rendering to the wire-form drawing to make it look solid. The tool for doing so, signified rather bizarrely by a tea-cup and saucer, is quite straightforward at its basic level.

However a TurboCAD drawing, 2D or 3D, default is a .tcw file, but sometimes, as with putting them on here, you need a secondary .bmp or (here) .jpg image version of that.

Unfortunately either the saving or the conversion removes the colouring to leave the default wire-frame original.

I am sure it is possible to save the finished appearance, but can anyone please tell me how to do so?

I have succeeded previously but by sheer luck, probably in the TC2019 I had originally; without really knowing what I did! The official "manual", such as it is, does not help here.

Probably easier to just use a snipping tool or screen shot and save that as a .jpg, that's how I post all the images from Alibre on here

pres PrintScreenSysRq on your keyboard and dump it into MS paint, save as .jpg

Reading around the issue, there seems to be more than one rendering mode available, ranging from draft to advanced to photo-realistic. A wild guess here, but if you are rendering it in draft mode, that might not, as you say, remain when you want to save a jpg. It might be necessary to use one of the other modes.

Thankyou Chaps....

Jason - That, or similar, might be best and simplest although I am not sure that's very reliable either.

DC31k - you could be right there. The rendering options immediately offered imply simply differences in resolution and lighting effects. I'll have to try it.

.

So time to experiment. I left this open, turned on TC and the drawing I made. I don't know if Alibre, SolidWorks etc have an equivalent, but TurboCAD has two worksheets, Model Space and Paper Space. The former is the virtual drawing-board. The latter is for preparing the selected view(s) from that drawing (2D or 3D), for printing to definite paper sizes (if you know how!). The copying is via something called "Viewports".

.

The original drawing, of a simple wire "reel" comprising two flat bars cross-connected by two round bars, is in wire-form. I rendered it again but this time chose the "Quality" setting, to test that suggestion.

I fed that to the Paper Space as a single Viewport, and as soon as it opened there, it lost the rendering!

'

So is it possible to render the Paper Space copy? NO! The render tool is shown as Off (pale).

You can apply a few dimensions but they reflect the Viewport scaling (which can be set at 1:1... somehow). You can add text-blocks. You cannot render it though.

'

Copy the Model Space image into Paint? NO.

Paint is entirely reactive - opened only by selecting a photograph, and with no means to open a blank file from it (as in 'Word', 'Excel', or indeed TurboCAD). It is also unreliable, opening some .jpg images but refusing to recognise others of the same type. So that's a non-starter.

I used to have some good photo-faffing programmes but WIN 11 has only this feeble Paint, more hogwash than whitewash, and I don't know if I can put these older programmes on here.

.

I tried copying the image directly to a "Word" blank, by 'Paste Special' - 'TurboCAD Drawing Object'. To my surprise, it picked up only the 2D outline for generating the 3D representation. That though merely converts the image to a 'Word' document component.

.

Finally I tried saving the Model Space drawing as is - no selecting the area or anything - but as the File menu offering, "TurboCAD 2021 for Windows JPEG"; and among my photos.

That at last, worked! Yippee! I did not know if it would, and there was nothing obvious to guide me. It's certainly not using TurboCAD properly, as IMSI has designed it to be used.

.

So the problem is more fundamental than file-type. Not only the conversion to a photo-type file, but also an internal effect in 'Viewports', and obviously a TurboCAD area beyond my knowledge.

One thing all this bars me from doing, is producing a correctly-dimensioned orthographic workshop drawing from a 3D "model", with a reduced, coloured copy of the model in the corner to help visualise the finished part. I encountered that first on drawings I saw at work (drawn in SolidWorks, I think), and later on Hemingway Kit drawings.

This is what I used to do, using Win10 and recently lost the Snipping Tool App and unable to download and install the app from MS store, did try another non MS app but that failed to work after a few days.

Now using Screen shot which does paste to the Clipboard which appear as a thumbnail but I can't access and use the clipboard items. Must be something in settings I guess but can't find anything obvious.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Emgee

I don't recall downloading anything for the Snipping tool (but my memory isn't what it was I'm afraid)

Shift + Windows Key + S works fine for me...

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 04/04/2023 09:36:09

I think the snipping tool was part of W10 so no separate download. I prefer it to Shift+Win+S as you get the option to scribble or highlight on the image which I often use.

One other thing Alibre has is that if I go to "Export" there is an option to export the image on screen as a jpg and at a higher resolution than snipping allows.

Hi Graham,

I use Win11 and it has the snipping tool. Try clicking on the four pane window icon in the task bar, click on all apps, scroll down to the S section where you should find the snipping tool. I also have Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8 on my computer. The programme dates from 2003 and runs fine.

Like others who have posted I use Printscreen to save the screen image, go into PSP8 and paste as new image, carry out the work I want to do to the image and then export it as JPG etc.

Ah yes - I see the Snipping tool in the alphabetical index.

Since first asking, and following ideas from various suggestions, I have found I can save the Model Space image directly in a .jpg format.

I need now see if I can install the edition of Paint Shop, or some other photo-editor, I might still have. I forget its name but I did have another that had a lot of useful features and was not too difficult to use.

Doesn't Printscreen save the whole lot including all the borders and things?

Printscreen does save the whole screen. If I use it I will zoom to what I want to grab and use PSP8 to remove the bits I don't want. Most paint or graphics programms (apps?) seem to have a crop feature. My cad programme, Designspark Mechanical, doesn't export to JPG, so printscreen or snipping are my only options.

Nigel,

The key combination of Alt + Printscreen copies only the active window, not the whole desktop. If the copied view is pasted into paint, you can select part of the picture and use the "Crop" command to delete the unwanted area.

Gordon

"Since first asking, and following ideas from various suggestions, I have found I can save the Model Space image directly in a .jpg format. "

Can the JPG file saved by your cad programme be displayed properly on a modern computer? There may have been improvements made to the format of JPG since your programme was released. It could be worth doing a side by side comparison with an image exported from the cad software and a printscreen/snip.

Can you create a colour print on a bubble jet, etc.

If so, install a virtual printer application that saves the output as a pdf or jpg file. This can create a higher resolution image than a screen capture.

Nigel's question is a example of the dreaded XY Problem, in which the question is about the failure of an attempted solution rather than the actual issue. Nigel says "I can, just, produce very simple, rather poor, 3D drawings in TurboCAD 2012. I can then apply basic rendering to the wire-form drawing to make it look solid." Doesn't sound like TurboCAD is being used properly to me.

My analysis is that Nigel has discovered a way of making TurboCAD produce a coloured-in drawing that doesn't follow TurboCAD rules: in consequence the model's internal structure is faulty. (Note CAD produces Models, not Drawings.) When CAD program rules are followed, 2D images become available as a simple by-product. Straightforward. To me the complexity Nigel has encountered is a strong clue TurboCAD is being driven incorrectly. A lot of hard work getting a drawing to look right, and then nothing works properly because the underlying model has broken geometry.

In general "Maintaining Rendering Across File-types" isn't a CAD problem, and it's unlikely TurboCAD is the exception. Not impossible, because image formats have their pros and cons, but unlikely.

The workaround is to use PrintScreen, Snip or an equivalent to capture what's been rendered on screen. They copy the operating system's frame-buffer, which is the graphical lowest common denominator. What you see is what you get. Frame-buffer images are basic and know nothing of the complex vector and bitmap formats used by applications - nothing special to go wrong.

I think the real problem is Nigel's struggle to learn CAD. I sympathise; it's not easy! I've crashed Fusion360, Solid Edge and FreeCAD whilst learning them. Reason - sending the software a series of commands that made sense to me that the software eventually gagged on because one or more of my orders were wrong. Like getting lost in an unknown city, the driver only realising things are badly wrong when he ends up on a car ferry. Pilots do it too - losing situational awareness in cloud and crashing due to preferring their instincts to the instruments. Bad mistake, and it happens despite being trained not to do it!

Nigel needs to go on a course, or to find a mentor. Does the forum have a TurboCAD expert? We seem to use anything but.

Dave

Well, yes, I find any trade-standard CAD system very hard to learn- at least TurboCAD allows using it in its far easier orthographic mode directly. Its 3D mode is much harder and its manuals are poor.

That was not my question though.

I asked how to preserve a "model" as a picture-file type.. Various answers gave me me clues to finding the solution within TurboCAD itself, by exploring its "Save as" menu more deeply. It proved I don't need external software like Snipping and screen-copying; totally new to me. I'd missed that you simply save the model as a bitmap or JPEG file rather than .tcw file! (It also offers several CAD-standard options like .dwg.)

So that answered the problem.

'

Interesting point about struggling to learn these things. I have tried Fusion, Alibre and SolidEdge too. The loss of awareness, and over-reliance on faulty instincts, probably explains at least some of the "Bermuda Triangle" disappearances, but at least being bogged down in impenetrable software used within one's hobby, will only frustrate you.

.

Why "we seem to use anything but" ?

I can see why, but I doubt you as a Moderator would like the reason!

It is purely commercial, nothing to do with the relative abilities and merits of differing CAD brands, nor really with individual users' tastes; but the latter is influenced by the brand differences.

.

TurboCAD was the first trade-quality engineering-based CAD available to private users, as a complete package by one-off payment at reasonable price, not by costly "subscriptions". It still is. Its UK agent, Paul Tracey, used to advertise it in ME and MEW, and had stands at the major exhibitions.

He also created an introductory .pdf manual, sold initially on a CD along with the programme CD itself. This starts with simple orthographic drawing but its last couple of ten exercises do introduce 3D models. He designed the CD box label for us too: the sample drawings are of locomotive sub-assemblies.

'

Then Fusion360 with a horribly loud American "in your face" approach; offering "hobby" or "student" editions that were free at least at first; but you needed be able to learn from it videos, not static manuals; and it seemed to need at least some previous CAD experience.

.

Followed by Alibre, but this time with a disingenous sales campaign using free software and a tutorial serial in MEW. "Free" only until it had given enough readers enough time to learn it to a reasonable level, and even make the scribing-block example.

I cannot help but wonder if there is any link between Alibre's campaign and Paul Tracey's advertisements ending.

Unfortunately, having bought the first instalment in the magazine, when I ordered a subscription the publishers ignored my requested starting edition so created a gap. Hints of future subscriptions to the software, plus this hiatus, made me realise I should stick with my fully paid-for TC in which I had made some progress anyway. I had thought Alibre and later, SE, might be easier to learn. They aren't!. I did not renew my MEW subscription but maintain that to ME.

.

Finally, Siemens' offered its free "Community Edition" of SolidEdge, but with no proper teaching material. The tutorials on its labrynthine web-site seem aimed at already-CAD users converting to SE; but at least this material is in static .pdf form, and even quite well written. Its weakness was the exercises are not easy to find, in no coherent order, and giving no coherent skill progression. SE also uses inexplicable and unexplained terms for its own draughting modes, adding to the confusion.

.

Last year I bought a new PC capable of handling WIN 10 (it's now WIN11) for Internet reasons, and for the TurboCAD 2021 I now use. With hindsight I should have stuck with TC2019, though the main functions are the same!

Nigel - The Alibre Atom3D promotion to MEW readers was very clearly stated to offer a 6 month extended trial. Only the trial was free, and there was never any attempt to suggest otherwise.

The thinking behind the extended trial was simply to recognise that the standard 30 day free trial isn't always long enough to make decent headway for those totally new to 3D modelling. The series of articles running alongside were specially produced to try to help new users (the series of articles is still available as a PDF tutorial). The overall aim was to remove the time pressure to make any purchase decision, and allow readers plenty of time to conclude whether or not Alibre Atom was something they wanted to purchase.

As for your speculation about some link between the Alibre promotion and another product ceasing to be advertised, there was no linkage as far as Ailibre or Mintronics were concerned.

Thank you for explaining it.

I appreciate Mintronics and MEW had to give readers a fair trial of Alibre, and it was generous to do so, but I tend to be very wary of this way of selling anything. For from Mintronics' point of view that was the whole aim.

At least the trial edition ofAlibre was evidently comprehensive. Around the time the major companies like IMSi, Mintronics, Fusion and Siemens realised there was a market among hobby and student users, a raft of CAD packages from small publishers appeared on-line, but most were either very basic or were very heavily stripped- down "trial" versions.

Of several I examined only one offered anything useful in mechanical-engineering, if you bought the whole lot. Some were electrical, some merely let you create fancy flow-charts for building the garden designed on others!

.

On the point of learning CAD, much of the difficulty stems from its publishers thinking you already know CAD principles on top of understanding engineering drawings. Though they offer tutorial materials of highly variable quality, there are few if any books to help the raw beginner know what they mean by non-engineering terms like layers, groups, snaps, extrusions, etc. not seen in manual drawing methods.

To this end I have two CAD primers (thank you TEE Publishing!).

1 )

D.A.G. Brown's CAD For Model Engineers, covers orthographic drawing only, probably based on "AutoCAD" as that was one of the few engineering CAD makes available in 1999. Its cover photograph of the author's state-of-the-art PC now just so last Century, may deter some buyers, but that would be a pity because the contents do clearly explain the main ideas; and you could use his drawings of model locomotive parts as exercises.

I quote from his introductory chapter, on choosing the software, in which he suggests you ask yourself questions starting with, is the package's manual "... written in understandable English or in the usual gobbledegook that is associated with most computer programmes?" Well, let's be fair Mr. Brown, those who write the IT manuals would probably say that of your excellent book, which I understand, on making injectors! The point is that most operating manuals assume readers who already know the appropriate "gobbledegook".

Brown dedicated this book to his friend who inspired it, Tom Walshaw (alias Tubal Cain).

.

2)

More up-to-date, but I wish the English author and publisher both knew the difference between a meter and a metre, is Neill Hughes' CAD For The Workshop.

This covers the principles of both orthographic and pictorial ("model" ) CAD drawing as in modern packages like Alibre, TurboCAD, etc.

Valuably, it also summarises the main technical drawing principles, before you come to the CAD tools themselves, including good dimensioning practice, tolerances and fits (shafts etc.). Brown assumes your prior understanding of these in his book, but Hughes' inclusion of them illustrates more closely the relationship between message, method and the point of the message; and helps you create drawings that are not only right for making their subjects, but right as technical drawings.

.

It is of course not possible to write a coherent manual covering all CAD programmes. It would be ridiculously large, and out-of-date very rapidly. The object of Brown's and Hughes' works is to show the important areas common to all, and what they do, prior to learning any individual programme's own features and foibles. It is this sort of literature that we need before even knowing where the CAD writer has hidden the "Snap" menu!

('Snaps' live in [Modes], in TurboCAD. Naturally!}

Edited By Nigel Graham 2 on 05/04/2023 15:58:51

Edited By Nigel Graham 2 on 05/04/2023 16:02:09

Nigel, Alibre (not Mintronics who are just a reseller) have been doing a hobby version for years, I first used Alibre PE (Personal Edition) back in 2012 and it was available before that so not part of the raft you mention.

I had no prior CAD experience back then and just used a few videos to get me going as most other people seem to be able to do

Hi Nigel. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I did spot your post a couple of days back but I've been busy with work and I didn't get a chance to reply. I'm an avid TurboCAD user of thirty years. I like it because of the way it works but I also recognise that the 3D capabilities can sometimes be frustrating.

I'm not so keen on constraints based CAD, and I much prefer the faceted Euclidian approach that you get with TuboCAD. I'm told I'm a dinosaur, but it's fine - I will be dead soon so perhaps they're right.

The thing to understand about TurboCAD is that it is two modelling systems that have been merged. IMSI have their own 3D system, but it has some limitations, so the full 3D capability is a Dassault (I think) technology called ACIS. The two schemes are merged in the software so you don't notice unless something goes wrong.

The ACIS part is where all the cool stuff like 3D fillets, meshes, 3D boolean operations happens. If you have the cheaper "lite versions" you dont get ACIS and it feels like your skills are lacking. Actually, you can confidently blame the tool! Once you use the expensive version, the difference is known, and you realise all the cool stuff you wanted to do without difficulty.

You don't need a 3D mouse, and it won't work with earlier versions (mine is 2016). The 3D mouse helps though because you don't find yourself "scrabbling" with the mouse all the time.

I got the licence for mine (Platinum Pro) second hand on e-bay which was a considerable saving over new, but it was still a couple of hundred quid. At the time I bought it I wondered if it was wasted money, but I find I have no limitations on how I can use my 3D printer (aside from the printer itself), so I think it was well worthwhile. I was worried that the licence might be pirated, but I did some research and it was clear that it came from a defunct design outfit up in North Kent.

In specific answer to your question I was able to create a box. Then I switched on the shading with the teacup. Then I created a view looking on the corner at an angle. I created a viewport in the paper space looking at the corner of the box. The picture on the printed page was a wireframe. I selected the viewport and went to properties. In the "rendering" item of the tree control in the properties dialog, I changed the option from "wireframe" to "quality" and I got a shaded box in the viewport on the printable page. I hit print and sent the job to a PDF writer, and got a PDF with a shaded box.

Because of the age and the limited nature of your software version (not pro) you may not have the "quality" option that it sounds like you want.

Edited By Andy Ash on 05/04/2023 16:50:03

Edited By Andy Ash on 05/04/2023 16:53:49