learning autocad 3d mode?

What is a good learning resource for learning 3d cad, the learning disk
which comes with autocad ends a 2d, can anyone suggest a book, learning disk
which would help, i am using autocad 2002
many thanks
leon

 

There are a number of good resorces but first you need a serious 3D cad
program.

There is a good reason for that. AutoCAD's useful functionality ends with
2D.

can anyone suggest a book, learning disk

 

Hi all,

ACAD isn't a serious 3D program?
In the past weeks, I worked on a 3D project with ACAD and was quite
satisfied.
I've no experience with other programs, but with ACAD it was almost no
problem to import the drawings into 3D studio max for a rendering job.

Whats a more serious program in your opinion?

BTW: At the beginning I had a ACAD LT book to learn from ("ACAD LT in
24 hours"). Later on, I learnt it by my own.

Greets,
Roland R.
_______________________________________________________________________

"Phantasy is more important then knowledge, cause knowledge is limited"

Albert Einstein

 

what do you recommend for 3d then
leon

--
modulation in all things

 

Inventor, Solid Works, Solid Edge, Turbocad, Alibre Design, Rhinoceros,
ProEngineer, Prodesktop. Don't use any of those or you will not use AutoCAD
for anything again except what it was meant for, 2D. If one had never driven
anything but a Yugo, they might be very satisfied with it, put them in a
Porsche though, and they will never go back. The list above is just a small
sample. There are more.

 

I most often use Turbocad Pro myself. If you want to stick with an Autodesk
product, Inventor is very good.

 

I disagree - somewhat.
True, I have switched to MDT/Inventor for mechanical design, as simple
operations such as modifying the placement of a hole, or its characteristics
required a re-draw in AutoCad, however, for basic solid modeling, even complex
scene rendering AutoCad works pretty well. Use it with an add-on like
AccuRender and you can do surprising things.

I may agree with you if you were addressing someone ready to make a purchase,
who wants to do mostly 3D - AutoCad is perhaps not the most up-to-date
approach, but for someone who already owns an AutoCad license, is familiar
with its commands and wants to do some 3D - AutoCad is really more than
serviceable.

I rather strongly disagree with the implicit argument of the parametric
modelers' sales people, who seem to imply that mechanical design today
requires the most pictorially accurate rendering of the object, right down to
beautiful, 3D screw threads and realistic surface finishes. Having had many
mechanical designs implemented and manufactured over the years (mostly drawn
in AutoCad) my experience is that the prototyping and manufacturing shops want
2D orthographic drawings, and they pay a lot of attention to precise
dimensioning and tolerancing. They don't care a bit about the pretty 3D
rendering, which is mostly used to show a client or end-user what the product
looks like, but gives little useful information to the machinist. YES, it
helps in design to check interference and improve assemblies, but a perfectly
rendered picture of a screw gives less information than the simple text string
"3/8-16UNC-2A HexHead Cap Screw"



To answer to initial poster's question - I remember using a book that was
really written for R13, called 3Autocad - A Visual Approach" "3D Basics". The
author was Wilson, and it was published by Autodesk Press. The book is fairly
small, but really loaded with what you need to transition into 3D.

Good Luck,
Greg Faris

 

Correction : Not 3Autocad - A Visual Approach" "3D Basics",
rather "Autocad - A Visual Approach - 3D Basics"

sorry,
G Faris

 

: I disagree - somewhat.
: True, I have switched to MDT/Inventor for mechanical design, as simple
: operations such as modifying the placement of a hole, or its characteristics
: required a re-draw in AutoCad, however, for basic solid modeling, even
complex
: scene rendering AutoCad works pretty well. Use it with an add-on like
: AccuRender and you can do surprising things.
:
: I may agree with you if you were addressing someone ready to make a purchase,
: who wants to do mostly 3D - AutoCad is perhaps not the most up-to-date
: approach, but for someone who already owns an AutoCad license, is familiar
: with its commands and wants to do some 3D - AutoCad is really more than
: serviceable.
:
: I rather strongly disagree with the implicit argument of the parametric
: modelers' sales people, who seem to imply that mechanical design today
: requires the most pictorially accurate rendering of the object, right down to
: beautiful, 3D screw threads and realistic surface finishes. Having had many
: mechanical designs implemented and manufactured over the years (mostly drawn
: in AutoCad) my experience is that the prototyping and manufacturing shops
want
: 2D orthographic drawings, and they pay a lot of attention to precise
: dimensioning and tolerancing. They don't care a bit about the pretty 3D
: rendering, which is mostly used to show a client or end-user what the product
: looks like, but gives little useful information to the machinist. YES, it
: helps in design to check interference and improve assemblies, but a perfectly
: rendered picture of a screw gives less information than the simple text
string
: "3/8-16UNC-2A HexHead Cap Screw"

In a lot of cases a simple hand drawn sketch with relavent text and dimensions
is sufficient for real tradesmen to manufacture the finished article, but a
proper 2d drawing whether done by hand on a board or by AutoCAD (or similar) is
tidier.

:
: To answer to initial poster's question - I remember using a book that was
: really written for R13, called 3Autocad - A Visual Approach" "3D Basics". The
: author was Wilson, and it was published by Autodesk Press. The book is fairly
: small, but really loaded with what you need to transition into 3D.
:
: Good Luck,
: Greg Faris
:

 

It's kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. It feels so
good when you stop.

Pictorially accurate, no. Geometrically accurate, yes though the
representation of threads and finish are of no importance. That's what
drawing call outs are for.

Having had many

On the contrary, if you're having parts machined, modern manufacturing
methods are dependent on having a good, accurate 3D model. Either you supply
it or they will draw one from your 2D prints (unless you are in the UK were
technology is lagging). Nothing like paying someone else to do your job, eh?

 

A true draftsman only needs a stone tablet, chisel and hammer. Is that what
you use? No? Why not? Could it be that you realize that time is money and
someone has to pay for it. Do yourself, and your employer, a favor by
looking past your little piece of the process and realize this is the case
all along the line. Supply the best tools to do the job. It is cheaper in
the long run.

 

The original contributor did not state he was having parts machined though.
He may be doing mostly architectural work, with the occasional 3D scene to
render. Or his 3D needs may not be sufficient to justify the cost and learning
curve of an entirely new program. For one familiar with AutoCad, its 3D
capabilities are at once easy to learn and apply, and effective for many types
of work.

I agree with you that significant amounts of mechanical design surpass the
capacity and effectiveness of AutoCad, since more suitable programs are
abundant on today's matket.

G Faris

 

I may not have read the whole thread, but making a solid model of i.e. a
flat of houses seems ridiculous and surely kills my computer. I can still do
comprehensive 3d-models in AutoCad using 3d-faces and regions, rendering
them in Viz to the visual perfection.

 

Architecture challenges the 3d limits of acad all the time.
(It's not all boxes, you know.)

 

*I* wasn't arguing with you. As someone who has tried some 3d work,
my feeling is that if you have it (acad) and nothing else, then use it if
you
have to. If you can afford something else, and do 3d a lot, you should
probably look for something else.

How different is turbo?

 

"The best tools to do the job" has more than one qualification.
The draftsman is not the only person effected by the use of this
tool. Also count the fabricator and many of the other functions
alan the way. Given that AutoCAD is the largest selling CAD
system (last time I checked, by a large amount) and that most fab
houses use it, the use of some other CAD system can be highly
non-productive and expensive.

But, if you have an axe to grind, then go with some other CAD
system.

 

thanks gentleman for your imput,
I am learning autocad 3d in order to make 3d landscape images to show
clients, i have been through the process of doing a 2d autocad course and
have just started a3d course however the instruction leaves abit to be
desired or i am a slow learner!
I have ordered wilsons book for autocad 2002.
Its a pity that the autocad tutorials end with autocad 2d. The program is
sold as 3d capable!
thanks again
leon

 

I have yet to figure out what planet you live on. Machine work is my
business. Has been for near 18 years. In that time, I have worked for a
number of shops and with hundreds. In these shops, AutoCAD is as common as
hen's teeth. Have seen everything from Turbocad to Pro Engineer. AutoCAD?
They wouldn't waste their time with it.

 

I realize that and I didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought
you were.

I have done considerable 3D work with AutoCAD. There was a period of about a
year that that's what I had to use. There were times though that I would
leave a complex part to be done at home on Turbocd (helixes, lofting, ect).
We ended up switching to Inventor. Much, much better.

Alot of the basic operation is much the same as AutoCAD but procedures are
different. It also has no command line so you are stuck searching for icons
until you get used to it but it's 3D capabilities are quite good. Helixes
are fast and easy, complex curves and lofting are no problem. For those that
do tube frames, the tube tool is for them. Lots of features I miss when
using AutoCAD. I had been using Turbocad for some years before AutoCAD. I
found AutoCAD to be fairly easy to learn mainly due to the command line. I
already new what I wanted to do so the easiest way was to learn the commands
and type them. To this day, I still don't know what half the icons in
AutoCAD do. I never use them. While I prefer Turbocad for 3D, I prefer
AutoCAD for pure 2d drawing, mainly, I think, due to the command line. It's
fast.

 

hey CW .. would you mind defining "lofting" ?
TIA
Rob