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

[Tristus]

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).

Was it a job done with autocad? a normal office plotter or a printer would have had no problem. It is clear that when industrial machinery comes into play, the speech changes. Anyway, I never said that autocad is free from small sins. If then the error arrives for too much imperative of the designer, then any file can be a problem regardless of the program that created it. autocad perhaps requires a little more attention due to construction lines, points, etc. etc. all stuff that should be placed in a dedicated layer to freeze or erase altogether. in the case of that designer, it was not noticed, especially in consideration of the machinery that had to interpret the elaborate.

about catia, in the case of the example made before, that of the ramp of stairs, in case you notice that the number of steps does not return, the program really allows you to change only the number of steps (i.e. simply a numerical operation) to return the modified solid? I repeat and reiterate, I have never used such parametric programs, even though I have seen some tutorials. I felt like a very powerful program.

 

[stefanobruno]

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.

I was lightning with autocad, even in 3d.
when I tried inventor, I found myself in huge difficulty, just because I had in mind the autocad process.
the technician who did the course to me, bought with the licenses, first said: " Forget autocad ".

autocad requires perhaps a little more attention due to construction lines, points, etc. all stuff that ....

with autocad I never used neither construction lines nor points.

Was it a job done with autocad? a normal office plotter or a printer would have had no problem. ... in the case of that designer, he was unconscious, especially in consideration of the machinery that had to interpret the elaborate.

? the “machine” was massivonweizen

about caia, in the case of the example done before, that of the ramp of stairs, in case you notice that the number of steps does not return, the program really allows you to change only the number of steps (i.e. simply a numerical operation) to return the modified solid?

Yes, like all 3d parametric cads, if you set the operating mode well.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

It seems to me that you read what you want and not what it says.
the work was done in autocad since the central theme of the discussion is that. What the plotter has to do with it I have no idea where you pulled it from since I never talked about printing, but about understanding the design and management of the same.

It is clear that when industrial machinery comes into play, the speech changes

you fix yourself on buildings, the main user of the discussion was generic and never specified what it should draw, maybe a wind turbine or garden furniture.
I have written that I don't know him so I can't answer for sure, but given the high profile he would say he does it, and consequently I don't understand why you're asking.
or you miss the juice of the speech or ignore it beautifully because you do not have objective data to give an answer to the simple question that aleggias:
as arguments 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

?
lets you lose buildings, stairs, catia, solidworks, quays and points and give an objective and valid answer

 

[New Rider]

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.

a work done with a parameter is irrecoverable for example when:

- do not just use the various functions that the sw has available. (e.g. drawing sheets without using the appropriate ''lamiera' functions, but using ''extrusion'' functions. . )
- draw a particular, which in reality is a set of more particular, as a single part. in this way it goes to be blessed the parameters of the system. I saw transmission trees drawn as part rather than as a set of more things. they designed in the part even the spheres of the bearings. . .
I have seen groups of machines designed in this way. of course the distinguished hand created on word....


it is not always to write 18 and give '' enter '' that the system updates. It takes a logical scheme like all things....

the bigger ''rogne'' I always found them where, first you were drawing in ''autocad'', then you found installed a parametric and without proper training continued with the same philosophy.

 

[Tristus]

with autocad I never used neither construction lines nor punt

I use it wide, (with autocad) and with the experience I also learned to make active a layer dedicated to them, so I avoid going to look for them to delete them at the end. But I'm sorry, making a statement like this is a little generic. depends on what you're creating. I've been working on a construction with a very elaborate perimeter and an equally complex cover. with lines and points of reference you help a lot. Why do you demonize this technique? Why is it an old system? Well, there's no parametric way that with a few cliks you get that cover. if you do not "arrampichi" on solids, going to work on polygons, edges and vertices, even creating lines and points of reference, do not leave. If you have to do a box, you don't need to do all that work. with the max 3ds create a box and on the right you will find all the parameters. If the client asks you something more complex then you will have to select that box and do "convert to editable poly" at that point all the parameters of that box go to be blessed and you will have to work that box on the polygons, on the vertices, on the edges etc. (the old and "hated" way).

 

[Tristus]

lets you lose buildings, stairs, catia, solidworks, quays and points and give an objective and valid answer

mine was simply an example. I started building a stairwell, posting those videos. We are always talking about building solids, I think, and approach techniques for their management. we also compared the different philosophies of approach of programs such as autocad, catia and moneydworks. I don't think I went off the subject.

in any way, what I want to say is this, essentially, so we break the table from misunderstandings: despite there are programs able to realize a complex 3d with a few cliks, despite, I make an example, 3ds max give you the possibility to realize a complex 3d scale with a thousand parameters to manage (all beautiful and all cool, click on the scale and on the right you will appear all the parameters) At that point, you don't have anything to do with you that can meet you, and you'll only have to rely on your modeling experience.
I have noticed, in many discussions, that many of those who are in the first arms with 3d are very embarrassed because obviously they have no basic modeling experience. in fact I immediately said that I did not expect a program (even the most 'parametric' of this world) to solve the case with a few mouse cliks. and my advice was to hang with the basic modeling, so, parametric or not, you can always take it. I don't think saying these things is going out of theme. and it is not even my intention to demonize any program. They are all valid. change the philosophies, this yes.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you can model any object with any parametric cad by making simple basic modeling.

I have noticed, in many discussions, that many of those who are in the first arms with the 3d are very embarrassed because obviously they have no basic modeling experience.

this does not depend on the cad with which they started, but from gaps in their education and knowledge.

and my advice was to hang with basic modeling

this, as mentioned above, you do it with any cad; the fact that maybe it is parametric is an extra thing but you can safely ignore how in autocad you can ignore the levels and draw everything on layer 0 forcing each time colors and type line

 

[Tristus]

as in autocad you can ignore the levels and draw everything on layer 0 forcing each time colors and type line

in fact the usefulness constituted by the layers is begun to appreciate only after a little experience... (talk for personal experience)
no, but the "parametric" speech is relative. what I want to mean by "relativity" is this, even 3ds max is parametric, but if I design a rectangular spline, initially I can manipulate it with the window to the right, going to vary width and height numerically. but if I begin to add modifiers on modifiers to that spline, at some point I will be forced to transform the resulting 3d entity into a editable poly by merging all the modifiers I used. at that point I lose the initial parameters of the original spline and if I have to widen it I will have to select the points and move them. even if I did not merge those modifiers between them, going backwards to the original spline, I would find the original parameters, but if I change them, being the rectangular spline that became something else, a slaughter would happen.

 

[Tristus]

If you know how to use autocad well 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 I don't know) to which I just have to change a value.

If it's only one step you do faster than I do, but in case you find yourself in the need to change the direction of a tot-degree ramp (let the case that the stairwell is not rectangular) if this possibility of change is not included among the parameters, then you will also be forced to work solids.
first I called them "made pipes" (which could prove to be very useful, undiscussed). but these " utility" are more things than programs offer. autocad is more scattered from this point of view.