What they don't rule, and never have, is the CAM business. Autocad is still a major program, but it's essentially a drawing program
There are good reason for this. There are converters which transform
3d data into CAM compatible format. It is a good thing to keep it
separate.
Leonid Surpin
But because they have been around for a long time and are heavily in represented in large corporate clients they are the 800 lb gorilla. But not the best, AutoCAD is bloatware like Microsoft Office.
Not to pound away at it, but the question is about CAD programs,
after all. To my knowlege, the biggest users of Autocad - at least
one sector that has traditionally used it - is architecture, which is
almost what it was designed for, in a way. In any case, the output
of Autocad is printed paper…
I would agree with Jim’s assessment of Autodesk but for one
exception. As I wrote yesterday, Maya was bought by Autodesk from
Alias Wavefront. Maya is state of the art, go-to software for
computer modeling, lighting, camera, dynamics and animation.
Lucasfilms, Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks ALL use it daily and wouldn’t
have it any other way. The program is a wonder to behold and takes a
few years to even get marginally good at using. Just FYI. But
Autodesk didn’t make it, they bought it because it was their
competitor. Unfortunately, it is one of the worst choices for CNC
jewelry making…Take a look just for fun, if you like:
John,
I have to disagree. I don’t like mesh modelers, seems like typing
with mittens. I use rhino for all modelling to house renovation. MOI
might be close but I have just played with it. (same author as rhino
I think that I have made a solid model maybe 2 times in the past 7
years and hated ever minute of it ( I needed volumeteric weight
estimations). I use MeshCam and it doesn’t care if the model is even
close to solid. I suspect a building machine is a different story.
But I don’t have one of those.
John is right, listen to folks who use the stuff not people think
they know the theory and are never wrong.
True it is an expensive game but oh so much fun and so usefull.
jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand
I have worked on TYPE 3, MATRIX 6.0,and RHINO. I believe that TYPE 3
is the best. Also, according to my opinion, of course a CAD/CAM
solution doesn’t make you a designer and doesn’t make you a good
technician because only good model makers can make perfect jewels
with this. Only good technicians can fit the right dimensions.Once I
met someone who made a bracelet 3.5 cm. width without make it empty
inside.The bracelet was 337gr. and of course the customer run out
when she hear the price.
There are good reason for this. There are converters which transform 3d data into CAM compatible format. It is a good thing to keep it separate.
Leonid spend a few years using CAD/CAM then come back and lecture us
on it.
James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
I would agree with Jim's assessment of Autodesk but for one exception. As I wrote yesterday, Maya was bought by Autodesk from Alias Wavefront.
I do not ! He is out of his area of expertise by a mile. When I
mentioned Autodesk, I did not mean Maya. Maya is a great program, but
for goldsmith it is a waste of money.
I have a friend, who’s primary business is evaluating CAD packages,
and other software. It takes him 6 to 9 months of testing, before he
can either recommend, or reject particular software.
I do not work for Autodesk, nor do I represent them in any way, but
nobody even comes close on the basis as a total cost of ownership
metric. The reason that most large corporation using it, is
precisely because of that.
Leonid Surpin
Andreas,
It’s far from useless. While it’s true the 3DESIGN Designer version
does not export STL or other formats there are no lack of service
bureaus that accept the native file for doing RP or milled wax. It’s
a non-problem.
Bob
The VN Guy
Never underestimate the power of an entrenched market place. The
best CAD program may not the the one that is the most used by larger
companies. As an engineer, I work with many different CAD tools.
Everyone has their favorite, usually the one they started with.
Often a company would like to change tools, but that can be very
costly. Old files have to be migrated, users must be retrained, new
software (sometimes new computers) must be purchased. I have seen
designers attempt to revolt from one system only to have their
finished design recoded in the company standard tool set. Sometimes
the recoding will take longer and cost more than the original design.
I have heard that some of the major CAD design tools encrypt their
data files to prevent others from moving to a new tool.
My favorite CAD tool is SolidWorks. Why? It was the one that I stared
with and know the most about. Is it the ideal tool for jewelry
design? The ideal tool has yet to be invented. I have used
SolidWorks to engineer complex assemblies like John describes above,
and I also used it to design jewelry. The needs are indeed very
different. The best engineering design tool may not be ideal for
jewelry. Can it be used? You bet. If you think of a ring in terms of
a size 6.5 being a 16.913 mm inside diameter cylinder with a
thickness of 1.3 mm, and a 0.5 fillet, then you will like engineering
based CAD. If you think of a ring shank as interleaving vine flowing
around a finger, you will need to lower your expectations for
engineering based CAD.
Computer programs in general can suffer from Jet Pilot Syndrome. The
software is so complex that users must be retrained when they leave
the tools for a couple of months. The use it or lose it is true for
software. For CAD programs, users often have to use the tool daily to
maintain their proficiency. At one point about 10 years ago, one of
my colleagues at work estimated the number of buttons in one of the
major CAD packages at somewhere over 140,000. What a puzzle maze.
For a cost effect CAD tool with an engineering graphics like
interface, you may want to try Alibre Design. It only costs $199.
How long will it be before objects can be scanned and then be
imported into the design? Some would like to have a 3D tool that
works like photoshop. The beginnings of such tools are starting to
emerge. My dentist can take a photo with a 3D camera that fits in my
mouth and have the output sent to a CAD program for design, then mill
a crown while I wait. Will these types of tools be available to
jewelry designers? I guess you could use the same tools as your
dentist, but your designs might look like teeth. The jewelry industry
has borrowed much from dentistry in the past. These tools will
migrate with time. I have been searching for an economical 3D
scanning solution, and I imagine that I will be searching for a while
longer. My goal is to simply scan carved stones so that I can used
the scanned outline as a starting place for a design.
Will we get to the point that designs are printed directly in metal?
This is possible to a limited extent today, and I expect the trend
to continue. Search youtube for “Art of Bathsheba Grossman 3D
Printing”, you will be impressed.
Computer power is opening more doors for design tools. Tools that
treat the designs more like clay are starting become more powerful.
Be careful when approaching some of these tools, as they may lead to
unplanned computer upgrades due to their demands for 64 bit
addressing and 16 to 32 Gb of RAM.
Has digital photography and PhotoShop put professional photographers
out of work? Not hardly. Would you trust your wedding photos to some
newbie who has the latest 18 M pixel camera? Owning an expensive
camera and photoshop does not make you a wedding photographer. Will
CAD/CAM put jewelers out of work? We will see. One thing is for sure,
the computer, software, and RP tool vendors will not be out of work.
While I agree with most of what John has to say on this subject, he’s
got it slightly wrong on the solids issue. While solids, where the
inside of an enclosed surface is defined as filled with material, are
handy for some purposes, they aren’t necessary for doing CAM work
(machine -carving). All that’s required is a surface with no holes
bigger than the smallest tool that’s being used. Additive building
processes, or “3D printing” are a bit more particular than that - an
enclosed surface must be “water-tight”, or the software can’t tell
what’s the outside and what’s the inside of an infinitely thin
surface layer - the “balloon” John refers to. But as long as there’s
a mesh surface presented that’s more or less intact, most CAM
programs will have no problems constructing toolpaths over it.
Rhino, by the way, is a surface modeling program, not a solids
modeler. While it can construct enclosed surfaces which it can
internally treat as solids in certain circumstances, if, for
instance, you subtract a cylinder from a cube, you will get a hollow
cube with two holes in it, not the tunnel which a solids modeler
would produce. I’m pretty sure Matrix, which is a jewelry-specific
extension of Rhino, works the same way.
Andrew Werby
I have a friend, who's primary business is evaluating CAD packages, and other software. It takes him 6 to 9 months of testing, before he can either recommend, or reject particular software.
Leonid if your friend is evaluating AutoCAD for engineering
drawings, architecture or even schematic capture then it would be one
of the potential good platforms for such tasks or others of a similar
nature. When I was working as an engineer 15 years ago it was one of
our tools so I am familiar with it. It is my opinion that it is
bloated with features. It is however the “industry standard” in many
areas in large part due to its huge installed base. However AutoCAD
is not primarily a modeling program it is a technical drawing program
with some modeling features and its most useful features are not
geared for the work we do as jewelers/goldsmiths. So your friends
recommendation may be valid for a particular industry or even several
industries but is either uninformed in regards to the jewelry
industry or his recommendation is being taken out of context by you.
James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
Leonid:
I spend most of every day hand hacking G-Code to drive a CNC milling
center. When I get stuck, Jim’s one of the guys I have on speed
dial. Believe me when I say that his demonstrated depth of knowledge
with CAD/CAM is vast. Certainly greater than a mile or two from Maya.
Speaking of which, I once lived about a mile from Alias Wavefront’s
offices in Santa Barbara. They shut them down several years ago,
after they were bought out by Autodesk.
Regards,
Brian Meek.
Bob,
[...] there are no lack of service bureaus that accept the native file for doing RP or milled wax. It's a non-problem.
Yes, I guess you would like that to be true: Every RP and wax miller
must have 3design. Truth is, not everybody has it.
I am a studio goldsmith and new to the forum. I would like to add my
2 cents ( cheap perhaps ) in that we have been using the Matix plug
in for Rhino for several years and we are quite happy with it. It
seems to be the most popular program of this type in our specialty
of fine jewelry design. I think it is not only cost effective, but
easily supported by sub-contractors who can do the CAM growing or
milling. This is in fact a critical advantagein that an easily
communicated dialog is essential for the inevitable mistake or
glitch that will turn a project into a problem.
Christopher Duquet Fine Jewelry Design
The best CAD program may not the the one that is the most used by larger companies. As an engineer, I work with many different CAD tools. Everyone has their favorite, usually the one they started with.
In mathematics there is a procedure calls “normalization”. It is
what in everyday’s life we call “apples to apples”. Trying to
determine which CAD is the best, first we have to define these
apples, and since everybody have different opinion for the best
recipe for apple pie, here lies the problem.
For this discussion to have any meaning, it would be helpful if you
like a particular feature of some CAD implementation, than say what
it is, and how it compares to others.
Leonid Surpin
There are good reason for this. There are converters which transform 3d data into CAM compatible format. It is a good thing to keep it separate.
There are very good reasons for exporting a cam friendly file from a
cad program. Far fewer chances of shooting your self in the foot or
both. Converters are weird and tend to do strange things. I have
more of them than you have fingers and toes and use any of them as
only a real last resort. While you might be a fine goldsmith you
excel at spreading miss and half formed thoughts.
jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand
At one point about 10 years ago, one of my colleagues at work estimated the number of buttons in one of the major CAD packages at somewhere over 140,000. What a puzzle maze.
For a cost effect CAD tool with an engineering graphics like interface, you may want to try Alibre Design. It only costs $199
Steve sums up, I guess, what I’ve been fumbling to say. I thought
about mentioning Solidworks, too, before. Part of Catia, I believe -
made by Dassault, at any rate.
I studied Maya for a few years, thinking I might do something with
it. It has at least 100,000 buttons except they’re not buttons,
they’re sliders. Everything can be shades of gray… People
specialize in the modules because the total package is pretty
overwhelming - lighting, rendering, rigging… Plus it’s art, at
it’s best.
The point, as Steve as much as says, is that the best jewelry CAD
program is not going to be “The Best” CAD program. You don’t need to
do elevations or wiring harnesses or pipe fittings. For the cost of
Solidworks you can buy Matrix AND 3Design and have jewelry specific
programs. Buy Rhino (Alibre DOES have a good rep, I’ve never used
it) and save 80% over buying Autocad, which does essentially the same
thing for jewelry purposes. In short, in this case the best tool is
a more modest program than what big designers and manufacturers need
and use. You’re not building a jet turbine engine.
It's far from useless. While it's true the 3DESIGN Designer version does not export STL or other formats there are no lack of service bureaus that accept the native file for doing RP or milled wax. It's a non-problem.
Actually 3design does export and support STL files. Stl files are
exported and used with the DWS machines daily here at Rio Grande.
Actually 3design does export and support STL files. Stl files are exported and used with the DWS machines daily here at Rio Grande.
Phillip I think you guys have the full version of 3Design not the
reduced feature set “Designer” version.
James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
Actually 3design does export and support STL files.
Bob was talking about the 3design Designer version at $2000, which
needs an additional full blown version to output STL.
Converters are weird and tend to do strange things. I have more of them than you have fingers and toes and use any of them as only a real last resort. While you might be a fine goldsmith you excel at spreading miss and half formed thoughts.
A perpetual question in philosophy - when flee rides on elephants
back and flee wants to go to the right, and elephant does turn to the
While you ponder on that little problem - let me give you a short
lesson in CAD/CAM and in general. First is never assume that because
someone does not use something, that someone does not know about the
subject. Very good advice to remember!
About CAD/CAM conversions. When theoretical basis for CAD was
developed many years ago, ( incidentally Autodesk contribute a lot
to the process ), one of the results was the set of constrains is
imposed on the completed CAD object, and it was shown that a CAD
object must be a manifold ( and I do not mean car engine ), where a
path must exist between each and every point. ( admittedly rough
generalization ) Some modelers enforce this better than others, and
some do not. I suspect they got tired of explaining what all error
messages pertaining to it. It still shows in renders, if one knows,
where to look.
If CAD operator is not trained well in foundations of 3D, it is
almost a guaranty that an unconstrained object will result. So
companies started incorporating CAM converters, to troubleshoot and
fix the objects. When outside converter is used, it obviously
expects fully constrained object, and if not than what you call
“weird behavior” will be the result. But the fault is not with a
particular converter, but with CAD operator.
Leonid Surpin