advice on the method of execution of a technical design: better in 2d or 3d?

[woodok]

Hello, everyone. :

I open this discussion about the method of execution of a technical drawing.
I'll explain better. I can use autocad both in 2d and in 3d, then I wondered if in the execution
of a design would be better to create a piece in 3d and then make the computer generate views in 2d
orthogonal projections that serve, or draw individually the views that serve
without passing by 3d? which are the cases in which the 3D should be exploited and in which cases it should be
remain in 2d, even at the level of running time?
2d orthogonal projections of the piece? ).

waiting for answer, greeting. :

 

[meccanicamg]

depends on your speed and ability not to miss the projections. a washer pipi make it also 2d....all the rest 3d

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you have to compare how much time you use to do the particular in the two modes, how much you have to make changes that will affect the design update times, how complex the detail is, need to have a three-dimensional view to make better understand the geometry, if you have other needs in addition to the drafting of the table such as plate development, weight calculation, encumbrance checks or assembly interference.. .
made this evaluation you have the answer automatically

 

[Tristus]

personally autocad adopero with the technique used with the old tecnigraph. You go faster. Anyway, pulling up the 3d walls of a building in the plant is a moment. It takes more time to quote and retinate him. a little time is necessary for those bolean operations of subtraction of solids. Then I put them in, then cover it. 3d can help in understanding the design when this is complex, and obviously when a three-dimensional representation is required, such as a photorealistic simulation.

 

[woodok]

Thanks for everything!!

 

[Tristan]

Are we talking about design or design? because if we talk about simple design of something that will not so much change, I am more or less in agreement with tristus; otherwise (forgive Frenchism) with the dick that I do it in 2d and especially with the dick that I use autocad

 

[woodok]

we are talking about simple design.

 

[Cristallo]

Are we talking about design or design? because if we talk about simple design of something that will not so much change. . .

depends on the type of design.
If you are designing concrete armor (for example) where you need to fall into a geometry of the element in cls a series, sometimes complex, of bars with overlaps etc and in the end you need a series of polylines (the distinct) , forgive the Frenchism, with the dick I do it in 3d and especially with the dick that I do not use autocad.

 

[Tristus]

a few days ago I intervened in a discussion where a user wanted to know how to build a roof at 2 falde with autocad architecture. I imagine it was at the very first weapons, otherwise it would be serious for a 3d modeler. This happens because you expect a cad to make you the design you want with 2 only cliks. It's not like that! I would recommend to all those who want to try with the 3d, to start with the autocad, to learn the basics of the modeling (draw solids, move with the ucs etc.) and then maybe move to something more 'parametric'. It is important to understand the basics of modeling 3d, and not to mind at all the "pumps" offered by the program, which pappe could prove useful, but it is not said that they solve the case that arises in your project, and therefore it is necessary to know how to handle it equally. if you don't have the basics (which autocad certainly offers) you will hardly solve a complicated modeling case.

autocad is phenomenal. despite me the cables egregiously even with 3ds max, when I have to model a building beginning with the autocad. then I pass it on 3ds max for small touches and for the preparation of the scene and the final rendering.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I don't see what changes start to model in 3d with car to or other modeler.
logical ia is always the same, change the commands and sequence to get the result.
I started 3d with solidworks and I think I can handle it well despite not having previous experience of autocad 3d in educational design studies.
if you can't see in the head the model you can try with how many cads you want but you will never evolve beyond drawing lines and extruding solids pedissequamente

 

[Tristus]

I don't see what changes start to model in 3d with car to or other modeler.
logical ia is always the same, change the commands and sequence to get the result.
I started 3d with solidworks and I think I can handle it well despite not having previous experience of autocad 3d in educational design studies.
if you can't see in the head the model you can try with how many cads you want but you will never evolve beyond drawing lines and extruding solids pedissequamente

I agree that you have to understand the "philosophy" of a program, just to understand how to handle solids. I believe that in many, especially those who approach the 3d for the first time, expect that with few mouse cliks the program do everything.
autocad was born above all as "techniographer" 2d (unbeatable from this point of view, according to my opinion). Compared to the antidiluvian version 10 (with which I started many years ago, and which was entirely in 4 floppy disks) the new versions offer unthinkable solid management functions at the time.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I believe that in many, especially those who approach the 3d for the first time, expect that with few mouse cliks the program do everything.

but this one has both with autocad and with solidworks and with any other cad.
It is the same thing to think that autocad is easy because it is enough to use four commands to pull up a wall or make a carpentry then open drawings with dozens of unnecessary nested blocks, dozens of layers used randomly, explosive odds and non perpendicular lines as they should be. but above all quoted as gross.
cad is a means, if you do not know what you are doing and what you want to get 2d, 3d, tecnigraph, chalk and floor are always misused also knowing its philosophy and every single passage

 

[Tristus]

autocad and solidworks are 2 very different philosophies, as it is easily noticeable by these videos.
with autocad you make a lot of use of references such as lines, points etc etc., and this "sporty" design and therefore you are forced to review everything because they do not remain in the design, but they are eliminated easily. solidwork is perhaps more 'parametric' (because the term is accurate, at least judging by the video).

c

 

[stefanobruno]

try to pass from 17 steps to 18 with autocad and see if using the 3d autocad makes sense.

 

[Tristus]

try to pass from 17 steps to 18 with autocad and see if using the 3d autocad makes sense.

I have never used solidworks, nor any other program dedicated to parametric modeling, but I imagine that just click 18, replacing it at 17, to find you with the modified spiral staircase without too many problems, unlike autocad, with which you are forced to cancel and return daccapo. on this I do not discuss. It's two different philosophies, though.

 

[New Rider]

I have never used solidworks, nor any other program dedicated to parametric modeling, but I guess just click 18, replacing it at 17, to find you with the modified spiral staircase without too many problems

In fact, just see in what state are some archives, on which I am working, to understand that a work of 4/5 years must be thrown because it is irrecoverable. ....

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

So if you learn the 3d with autocad and ooi you go to a 3d specific for this type of modeling and you do not have a support behind (which does not always happen) ,instead that change the 17 in 18 you delete everything to do it again.
I repeat that in my opinion to learn it does not have to do it with a program or another and do it does not bring advantages or less than another

 

[Tristus]

So if you learn the 3d with autocad and ooi you go to a 3d specific for this type of modeling and you do not have a support behind (which does not always happen) ,instead that change the 17 in 18 you delete everything to do it again.
I repeat that in my opinion to learn it does not have to do it with a program or another and do it does not bring advantages or less than another

always giving me the example of the scale... if you make a ramp with autocad and you realize that at the end lacks a step, the only reasonable option you have is to delete the solid to remake it. It doesn't rain on this, unless someone wants to try a Carthonian job that would definitely take him more time than make it happen again. for other operations, instead, the change could be less osticated, but everything depends on what you are modeling. benignly, we're talking about extra step, clearly if I just have to widen the insole of the scale everything will be easier to change and I won't need to remake it all over again. definitely autocad is not parametric like solidworks (but you can do the same things that makes solidworks)
the only things you can store by autocad is the memory of some bolean operations on solids. once you join solids, or betray them, or change them somehow, even that little memory disappears.

 

[Tristus]

In fact, just see in what state are some archives, on which I am working, to understand that a work of 4/5 years must be thrown because it is irrecoverable. ....

a job is irrecoverable only in 2 cases:
1- when the work file ends up in some damaged hardisk cluster
2- when we despair because the change would take too long and perhaps we do not know the whole program.
Ultimately, the question of "cleaning" of the design could also be added when excessive amounts of information are accumulated no longer useful (which most of the times are weighted but do not damage irreparably). autocad from this point of view sins a little, but there are commands like the helimin (the old purge) that come to us and carry out their work optimally.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

What I context you is your statement

I would recommend to all those who want to try with the 3d, to start with the autocad, to learn the basics of modeling

I think it's not true.
I am not comparing autocads and solidworks or other cads because each of them is born to carry out certain works and some of these software can be similar and others deeply different while being able to do (almost) everything with each of them. remaining on the subject, only for love of clarification, if you know how to use well autocad you probably put less to remake from scratch a scale to which you have to remove a step that I have to change one already made with catia (to say one of the many that I do not know) to which I only have to change a value.
the 3d learns it with any cad, but none of these is propedeutic to another nor is it more suitable to create the minds form of those who use it.

2- when we despair because the change would take too long and perhaps we do not know the whole program.

I don't agree here either.
the work can be irrecoverable because it was handled badly, because those who developed it was not competent to use the tools available had not been properly trained to carry out the work in question.
I bring you the example of a work I had done a long time ago in which I had to integrate a project of an industrial plant with carpentry. all the machinery of the plant was already designed and completed and served only as a footprint and reference for the new design so they were placed on a dedicated layer that was printed in thin. who had prepared this layout had not been worthy to clean it from hidden lines, tangents, and other leaving only a few axis and lines of the geometry in sight, but had done a nice select everything and put everything on the thin layer that then had become a block on vatelapesca layers (in fact something was not printed because it was finished on an unprintable layer).
if you consider that there were machines on multiple levels of height you can imagine what was to have a black area of hundreds of incomprehensible lines and a file that weighed an enormity in comparison to what could be. such a design does not recover even if you know all the autocad commands and use them as a god.
therefore the claim of new rider is not said that it is not true and not even that it exaggerates because it does not possess the ability to be objective