Absolute Beginner CAD Recomendations ?

[preventec47]

Naturally because of the new free Designer Express policy, a lot of
rookie CAD beginners are going to be looking at this program as their
first experience. That is my situation, but I read in some places
that it might be too much of a leap and that beginners should start
off with something far simpler although far less capable to master
so basic concepts. Can anyone recommend other simplistic
CAD programs suitable for introductory training > Probably
in 2D is what I am reading or is it possible/recommended to begin
CAD training in 3D ?
Thanks

 

[wathavy4]

Naturally because of the new free Designer Express policy, a lot of
rookie CAD beginners are going to be looking at this program as their
first experience. That is my situation,

Then why don't you just go ahead?
But as I mentioned, you cannot use Win98.

 

[DavidJ]

I think it depends what your experience base is - if you are truly a rookie, I don't see any problem with starting in 3D. In many ways it is easier as you don't have to perform the 2D->3D jump in your imagination.

If you have worked a lot in 2D previously (maybe manual draughting) then moving to 3D might give some more issues.

As a relative novice (basic draughting back at school, plus using 2D drawings in my job), my biggest problem was just understanding the basic tools in AD [that isn't a criticism really, I just wasn't familiar at all with 3D modelling]. Luckily somebody showed me some basics, then the tutorials started to make sense.

The guys here are very obliging if you get stuck on some point - so I'd say give it a go with AD!

 

[OTE_TheMissile]

Probably in 2D is what I am reading or is it possible/recommended to begin CAD training in 3D ?

You could go either way, it's two different disciplines. But lately it seems like 3D parametric CAD is what companies are looking for in a CAD tech, so maybe you'd even be better off learning that. Besides, even 3D CAD requires some 2D knowledge.

I've heard this phrase used over and over again in my work, and I've used it quite a bit myself: after awhile you realize all CAD software is pretty much the same. Going from one program to another, really all you have to do is learn where all the buttons are. The difference is the capabilities each program contains. If you can get yourself well-versed in Alibre, should you find yourself working with another parametric program in the future, the learning curves all get much shallower.

 

[JordanCClark]

Don't sweat it too much. As David said, learning 3D first, you won't have to deal with the leaning curve of transitioning to it. In fact, I was in the same boat.

 

[Dabble]

I Agree withe Jordan go ahead and jump into the 3D I have been doing 2d for five years professionally and trying to train my mind to think 3D is hard, but when I create my 2d drawings for my machinist on the floor the 3D models makes it allot easier to determine what dimensions the machinist must have and what dimensions can be marked as reference.

In other words I know what dimensions I needed to create my model so of course the machinist will need the same ones to create the real part. And with Alibres model to drawing it cuts my 2d work in half. I still export to Acad for final drawings and dimension in it due to the fact that I am one of 2 engineers out of 10 doing any 3D stuff and the rest of the company uses Acad.If it wasn't for that my 2d time would even be shorter.

If you are like me and have never machined anything it is a big help. :mrgreen:

 

[MikeHenry]

I started with Alibre back on Version 6 I think and had no experience with CAD other than trying (and failing) to learn DesignCAD and IntelliCAD. It took me less than a week with the tutorials to get productive with Alibre.

 

[robdavis]

Me too Mike!

In the early 90s it became apparent to me that CAD (2D, dominated by AutoCAD) imposed a huge structural change on the “Engineering Profession” - I realized that engineers had to acquire CAD skills.

I struggled with AutoCAD but found that that QuickCAD/AutoSketch were much more user friendly and adequate for my needs despite the demeaning names.

2 years ago I crossed over to 3D with Alibre and haven’t looked back. Like Mike I was generating usable designs within days thanks to Alibre’s excellent training facilities.

For beginners my advice is – forget 2D – jump straight into Alibre 3D. The 2D and 3D sketching tools are adequate – don’t be fooled by their simplicity.

Up until recently I have been using AutoSketch to establish geometry to use in 3D designs because I thought that Alibre’s 2D tools were inadequate – I was wrong and I am now using Alibre 2D to establish geometry for 3D designs – it is faster and more logical.

I am sure that Miles is right, where in a recent post he blames AutoCAD for the continual criticism of Alibre’s 2D facilities. AutoCAD has established a mind set of documentation output on a generation of users that is unhelpful to 3D designing.

 

[Adam_N]

Perhaps some of the criticism of the 2d drawing is in regards to people trying to use the Drawing sheet to generate "schematics", Layouts and the like. THAT could be blamed on Autocad mentality as Alibre is not a 2d package. Even Solidworks includes a copy of Intellicad for Autocad "compatibility". Though I do personally find the 3d to 2d drawing side of Alibre lacking in how and what it can do. There have been a lot of improvements in the last release and hope that will continue.

For example, in AD I have to give forethought in what views I want in the drawing, versus other packages allowing me to place one view and use it as my base view to generate other views (including iso's). In other packages, I can easily spin a model into ANY position I want and generate either a line drawing or shaded view on the paper while in the drawing (not just standard iso view angles). In AD, when you place a view and decide you want to take out centerlines (like in an iso view), you have to delete them, you can't go into that view and just say "turn off centerlines". I know you can turn layers on and off and delete the lines in a group but this is not the best way to handle this. Ordinate dimensions are not as adjustable after placement like other packages. etc..etc.. I know a lot of these are "pickey" items, but they all add up to a whether a package can get the job done or a package that can get the job done efficiently.

All this being said, and as I always say, AD is a surprisingly powerful package (yes for the money). BUT, things could be addressed so that it could be a much better and efficient package for getting work done and appease pickey people like me

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

AutoCAD has gotten themselves in quite the pickle. Not sure where I read about his but it makes 100% sense. They would probably like to abandon the 2d AutoCAD and get everyone to buy their Inventor. But here is the problem: They are the leader of 2d, but only one of many well known 3d packages (and as far as I am concerned: last version of Inventor I used it seamed like more of a ripoff of Solidworks than it previously was.) so if they stop making AutoCAD and force everyone to 3d then they could potentially loose many customers to their competition.

 

[MilesH]

In other packages, I can easily spin a model into ANY position I want and generate either a line drawing or shaded view on the paper while in the drawing (not just standard iso view angles).

I don't find this much trouble to do, in AD (no shaded view, of course).

 

[Adam_N]

Miles,

We all know we can't do shaded views (too bad). But perhaps I am ignorant to being able to place a view at any angle while in the drawing. Don't you have to predefine a "view angle configuration" in the part file and then use it in the drawing, much like a exploded view? You can't do it while in a drawing. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me.

 

[MilesH]

Hi Adam,

No, you're not missing anything - there's no way to do it from within the drawing. But it's not that much trouble to save the views first, is it? You can insert them after starting the drawing, too. Sure, things could be more convenient with Drawings but, compared with creating structural frames in an assembly, for instance......

 

[flacustom]

Hey, I never knew that you could save specific views in a part/assembly. I looked through the book and could not find any references to this but after your post I started poking around in an assembly and figured it out. I have wanted to do this on more than a few occasions.

Again, I learn something new from Miles.

Thanks mate...
Dusty

 

[Adam_N]

Miles,

Yes, my point is being efficient as possible. When I am in the part file, I am thinking about part modeling, not what the best view is to show a detail. I think about documetation when I am in drawing mode. Other packages allow me to do the view real time during the drawing. That's my point. It can seem trivial but when you have dozens of little "workarounds" you have to do, that tends to slow your overall progress.

For example: maybe I think, "hey I need to make a view for the drawing", if I am in a drawing and need to make a quick change to the part model (say add a view), there is no easy quick way to get the part file. One of the ways for other packages is that I can just double click on any view and the model instantly pops up in part model mode.

Like I said earlier, AD can do a lot of things and is a pretty powerful package, but it could be oh so much better, just by addressing some of the little things.

 

[wathavy4]

Adam.
This is one of those example, one can add additional View from within the drawing.
It's handy.
The model is not even saved to file system with this case.(Which of course not a big deal, because it does not freeze.)

I hope Alibre would come out with this sort, too.

 

[MilesH]

One of the ways for other packages is that I can just double click on any view and the model instantly pops up in part model mode.

I'd certainly vote for this.

My only point was that, basic things which can't be done at all should perhaps be given some priority over things which are implemented but in a less than ideal way. It all depends on individual frequency of use, I guess.

It's often said that Alibre 3D is powerful but 2D is lacking. A few versions back, maybe, but now they need to crack on with core 3D stuff, as well. There are too many holes in 3D... :mrgreen:

 

[indesign]

I think the reason most newer people have not seen the already vast improvements is due to the dotnet change. Alibre concentrating so much of their programming time on that cuts thier time from doing some of the other changes.


However this will improve the one biggest complaint from most of us. Speed.

We should see a nice improvement in speed with the change to dotnet.

 

[Adam_N]

Miles,
I have many more opinions All in hopes of seeing more improvements!

Cheers