An odd thing about CAD...

mustanger wrote:
Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
design, and full size aircraft components.
After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I bought a
copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was amazed at
how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small program.
I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects. For
all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
AutoCad installed on my computer.
The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
corrected in later versions.
Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting for
aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of cockpit
labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration work we
are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
found. If you don't believe me, try the demo. http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
the word when something works this well for so little cash.

Norm,

This is a timely post! I'm looking for a low-cost program to draw
simple dimensioned objects for a structural engineering course that I am
taking. I want to use MathCAD for my homework assignments, but it has
no drawing capability and most of the problems I need to solve need
text, equations AND drawings/diagrams.

All I have to do now is confirm that MathCAD is able to import the files
that DeltaCAD creates. If it does, I'll be a happy camper and the $40
seems very reasonable.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
mustanger wrote:

Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
design, and full size aircraft components.
After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I
bought a
copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was
amazed at
how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small
program.
I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects.
For
all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
AutoCad installed on my computer.
The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
corrected in later versions.
Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting
for
aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of
cockpit
labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration
work we
are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
found. If you don't believe me, try the demo.
http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
the word when something works this well for so little cash.


Norm,

This is a timely post! I'm looking for a low-cost program to draw
simple dimensioned objects for a structural engineering course that I am
taking. I want to use MathCAD for my homework assignments, but it has
no drawing capability and most of the problems I need to solve need
text, equations AND drawings/diagrams.

All I have to do now is confirm that MathCAD is able to import the files
that DeltaCAD creates. If it does, I'll be a happy camper and the $40
seems very reasonable.

Matt

Before you do that check with your school bookstore. As s student you
can buy AutoCad or MicroStation for a fraction of the usual price. My
MicroStation cost me about $200 when the commercial version's price was
a few kilobucks. The academic versions are full function. The only
difference is you get a nag screen reminding you it's the academic
version every time you log on. The books alone are worth the price in my
opinion. I do feel I have gotten my money's worth.

I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my
unscientific observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than
Microstation which might be a consideration.

As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I'm an AutuCad guy and I'm sorry...

In article ,
karel wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:

...

And we were talking about
CAD software instead of how many kangaroo hops there are in a nautical
mile :-)


One nautical mile is the arc length of one arc-minute at the equator.
or along any other great circle

*NOT*EXACTLY*.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere. it is, technically, an 'oblate spheroid'.

The 'equatorial circumference' of the Earth is *NOT* the same as the
'polar circumference'. The two figures differ by _26_ miles.

Want to explain one great circle can be 26 arc-minutes shorter than another
great circle? *e*v*i*l* grin

A Nautical mile was origially defined in terms of the _equatorial_
circumference of the Earth.


Useful for navigation, do you suppose?
yes, quite
especially as meridians are great circles

Like you, I had used AutoCad for years but when I retired from that job,
I still needed a good CAD program but couldn't justify Acad anymore.
So while I don't want to come across as a champion of the product, I
would suggest that former Acad users take a look at CMS Intellicad. The full
3D version in less than a couple hundred dollars, but the most significant
feature about it is that it feels almost exactly like AutoCad in most
respects. Additionally, you can customize it to work virtually exactly like
AutoCad.
It can open and save ALL of the AutoCad versions which is one of the
things that really ticked me off about Acad 2002 that IT couldn't. Having
used Intellicad exclusively for a couple of years now, I can honestly say
that I don't miss using AutoCad at all.
Check it out.
http://www.intellicadms.com/products...al-pricing.asp

MJC

"mustanger" wrote in message
news:ynkmf.616362$_o.406487@attbi_s71...
Coming to R.S.'s defense. I've used AutoCad in various versions for
years and have had projects from RC aircraft, home construction, parts
design, and full size aircraft components.
After already investing a lot of learning time into AutoCad, I bought a
copy of DeltaCad 3.0 at a discount store for $10 years ago. I was amazed
at
how simple it was to learn and how powerful it was for such a small
program.
I've kept that program through three computers and dozens of projects. For
all projects I now use DeltaCad to work up my drawings. I no longer have
AutoCad installed on my computer.
The only drawback I've seen with DeltaCad is my old version doesn't
properly save multi-point spline curves in .dxf files. I know this was
corrected in later versions.
Currently, I use DeltaCad to create templates for aluminum cutting for
aircraft components, and reproduction of gauge faces and decals of cockpit
labels and such. All of this is in conjunction with the restoration work
we
are doing on a WWII vintage North American Aviation P-51H Mustang at the
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum in Rantoul, Illinois.
In my experience, there is not a better entry-level Cad program to be
found. If you don't believe me, try the demo.
http://www.dcad.com/demo.html
I'm certainly not a salesman for DeltaCad, but I don't mind spreading
the word when something works this well for so little cash.

Norm Meyers
Project Director
Mustang Restoration Project
http://home.insightbb.com/~p51h/index.htm
Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum
www.aeromuseum.org

I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my unscientific
observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than Microstation which
might be a consideration.

As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sorry I'm so late jumping in on this thread.

Autocad USED to be the system that EVERBODY used.

They fell way behind the curve when Solidworks was introduced. If you can
afford it, look into 3d modeling packages like solidworks. You should be
able to get it with your school discount too.

LCT Paintball wrote:
I prefer MicroStation for a number of reasons. Based on my unscientific
observations I have seen a lot more A-Cad users than Microstation which
might be a consideration.

As for the A-Cad users reading this, I forgive you

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Sorry I'm so late jumping in on this thread.

Autocad USED to be the system that EVERBODY used.

They fell way behind the curve when Solidworks was introduced. If you can
afford it, look into 3d modeling packages like solidworks. You should be
able to get it with your school discount too.


I am not a student anymore and am quite happy with my MicroStation
running on my old 486 computer.

I gave up on A-Cad 10 years ago. One of the things I didn't like was
file size. The local printer only accepted A-Cad drawings for their big
plotters. When I went to get something printed it had to be in that
format. A MicroStation file on the order of 1meg would be 1.6meg or so
when converted. I also found I used about 2/3 as many operations in
MicroStation to accomplish the same thing in A-Cad. The list goes on,
but you get the idea.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Apropos of almost nothing, I just rediscovered my favorite article on
the tenuous relationship between CAD and design:

http://www.seqair.com/CADArticles/CADMalarky.html

Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
latches and my aunt's espresso machine...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Apropos of almost nothing, I just rediscovered my favorite article on
the tenuous relationship between CAD and design:

http://www.seqair.com/CADArticles/CADMalarky.html

I like the article The main reasons I use CAD is I am a klutz with a
pencil and I prefer storing the drawings on CD-ROM. One of my pet peeves
with a lot of CAD users is they have no idea how to sensibly dimension a
drawing.


Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
latches and my aunt's espresso machine...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24


There's always my preferred method: visualize, make a part, make one
that w**ks,
if needed make a pretty one THEN make the drawing. This way you can be
assured the
drawing will make a w**king part. The question could arise whether the
part serves
a practical purpose, but I think we can forgo that discussion for now.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote

Gotta get over to the lathe now and make some parts for my canopy
latches and my aunt's espresso machine...

Give latchless Larry a call. I think he might have some latches you could
use! (ducking and running) g
--
Jim in NC