If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
I'm an AutuCad guy and I'm sorry...
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
An odd thing about CAD...
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bertha Thing blogs | Tony Lance | Owning | 0 | November 22nd 05 02:13 PM |
A Sure Thing | [email protected] | Soaring | 5 | January 8th 05 12:16 AM |
The Most Beautiful Thing Ever | Grantland | Military Aviation | 37 | October 28th 03 05:10 AM |
Is a static port a precision thing? | Larry Smith | Home Built | 8 | August 12th 03 10:26 PM |
SUV thing | Fastglasair | Home Built | 4 | July 12th 03 05:32 AM |