Autocad for 3D 1

[civeng80]

Ive been playing around over the last few days with autocad in 3D (autocad 2008) and have come to the conclusion that its not very efficient for 3D work. The reason I say this is because for example rendering is so tedious and there are so many different variables that autocad seeks.

Also the end result it seems to me is rather toyish.

Am I missing something ? I would lve to hear comments by 3D users who disagree and why?

Also Im toying with google sketchup for 3d work (my work is architectural mainly light commercial).

Ive been looking at Chief architect and archicad about 3D work are there any comments on this software by users?

Maybe Im just becoming a little frustrated.

 

[francesca]

AutoCAD is awful for real 3D design. It's better in recent releases with gizmos. (They are a mystery to me and the 3D tutorials on the Autodesk site don't mention them.) As near as I can make out, the 3D capability is the because AutoCAD is the platform for "real" 3D design tools like Civil 3D and AutoCAD Architecture, but it's not very effective unless you have the patience of a saint.

 

[WL123]

AutoDesk University was this week in Vegas, they had some stunning stuff to show. The newest 2010 versions of all their software is really improved. They will be placing the videos of the classes they had and demos on the Autodesk University website in the very near future.

 

[hemis]

civeng80

Glad to see that you are having a go at 3D: gets the brain all "spacial". I work for several architects and they are all going over to Revit for 3D. I designed a stair recently in 3D and I ran out of memory again (See attached). I could continue to add to the model in wire-frame but when I add the material to the model, the program begins to stall. I would love to go further and add light and shadow but not on my machine. I use Ecotect for my shadow work and the 3D facilities it offers are similar to sketch-up and I now note that AutoDesk have bought Ecotect.

 

[civeng80]

Ive been using google sketchup 7 over the last week (and even bought Google sketchup for dummies) and modelled a building I just finished. Its a surface modeller but quite impressive and it can be combined with Google earth.

I think autocad isn't really for 3d work at least for what Im doing.

 

[jobiewan99]

We build industrial machinery from the ground up, and up until a year ago EVERYTHING was modeled in 3D ACAD. It can actually work pretty well. It's a good way to get a quick and dirty model put together since you don't have all the constraints of mating, etc. It's also pretty easy to put together 2d drawings straight out of your 3d parts/assemblies.

By the way, we never used anything newer than ACAD 2004. I'm sure there have been enhancements since then to make it even easier.

Solidworks 2009 SP4.1
4GB Ram
Quadro FX3700
2.66GHz Core 2 Quad XP Pro SP2.0

 

[ishvaaag]

I think everything is a matter of practice. To be a good 3D modeler and renderer I read some private colleges in Argentina were developing the studies along 8 years. It doesn't sounds unrealistic for true professional renderers. Note that if you take 5 years career and 3 years to settle on something this is more or less what takes anything technically serious as well.

I think many of the users competent in 3D design simply don't find time enough to familiarize with the rendering tools because always in wait line for another nonrendering task.

Autocad is great for simple 3D designs; if you develop the required experience with the rendering parts you will get fancy results easily ... but after the frustrating period of learning. Most practicing designers have not the time to dedicate to learn the tool, say 2 or 3 years for realistic appearance and some generality, so renderers appear in the market, young people that have had the time and the training.

For more complex technical forms, use Inventor, and if free form targeted to technical use, likely Rhinoceros. For less technical and more art minded people, 3D Max and Maya are as good, but I don't see anyone making very good renders with less than 2 or 3 years on the back.

You can mimick such results with some other programs (Hypershot?) in a couple of days, but the real thing requieres study; like the difference between a good engineer and one that knows how to fill the input for some structural design program ... maybe less apparent difference but as big in reality.

 

[hemis]

ishvaaag
For 3D work, AutoCAD has no substitute. All of the tools of Sketchup, Ecotect, maya are in AutoCAD. AutoCAD is micro-millimetre perfect, no other program is. Other programs are for animation, media - not engineers. So why use anything else? civeng80 answered that question - its childish in its use. Solid objects have to built separately and then added to the model - cyberspace lego - very confusing with many objects and nearly impossible using line-drawn objects. Try to build a model using realistic entities and the computer stops: runs out of memory and I have over 3-gig. Which is a shame.

As for the time to learn how to draw in 3D, it takes a day, no, an hour (I did it in my lunch break - Dik will tell you, bet Dik did too) - but I knew what I wanted to build. Inventor, like VIZ and its replacement, are just plug-ins to AutoCAD and "I suspect" will be dropped by AutoDesk when Revit takes over. But I bet AutoCAD will get there in the end. At £3500 a program and £400 a year subscription I bet they will because if someone comes up with a fast accurate 2D into 3D program, it will be snapped up. AutoDesk cannot buy everything -can they?

 

[NCCGRAD]

I use AutoCAD strictly for 2D work and creating .pdfs

I use Pro/Engineer for all my 3D work and print generations, then ill transfer into AutoCAD to add all the notes and dimensions. Allthough Pro/E does have a simple and easy ot use 2D program, the 3D is their bread and butter.

 

[civeng80]

Well I must admit that Ive fallen in love with Google Sketchup. Although theres many questions I have on it, at the end of the day it produces pretty spectacular results better than autocad in my opinion.

Together with Google earth its a very powerful design tool. And a free one at that !

 

[Gurjjeet]

Not to insult anyone but I think

Using AutoCAD (instead of other programs like SolidWorks) for 3D is like

.......fitting a motor to a pushbike(Bicycle) when you can buy a Honda Motorbike from around the corner.

 

[IFRs]

I duuno - I use AutoCAD for 3D work and I can create drawings pretty quickly, but of course I have many 2-letter macros that make my work easier. My work is mostly mechanical structures...no rendering / shading / lighting / materials, etc.

 

[MikeHalloran]

I started using AutoCAD at version 9, and went to working mostly in 3D solids around version 14. I have mostly done mechanical stuff like mechanical components in lots of places, and pipes in cramped enginerooms.

I've done very little rendering in AutoCAD, because there was little need for it, for me, and Rhinoceros is better at it anyway.

I've been using Solidworks for about 2-1/2 years, and I'm just getting so I can get concepts down in Solidworks faster than I can in AutoCAD. But bare Solidworks against bare AutoCAD is not exactly a fair comparison. Bare AutoCAD, all I've ever used, is cheaper and more primitive. Inventor, or whatever they now call the deluxe superset of AutoCAD these days, is more equal in capability, and in price, I'm told.

One of the things I still like about doing 3D in AutoCAD is that solids just lay there where you build them. You have to manually move or change them.

By contrast, Solidworks can cause objects to move and change shape depending on how you 'push' them with 'mates'. Until you get used to it, it's like building stuff with wet soapy balloons.
One other thing that's hard to get used to is that a 'regen' equivalent sort of dumps all the primitives in a pile, and then stacks 'em up again, based on what you've told it to _not_ do. ... and it's easily confused about how you want thngs restacked, even when you just want everything back where it was.

On the other, other hand, once you begin to understand how Solidworks thinks, or doesn't think, you can with relative ease make it do things that would be very tedious in AutoCAD.


IOW, no matter what you do, you face a learning curve...


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[trainguy]

I'm with Gurjjeet.

Inventor has nothing to do with AutoCAD, except that they're both sold by Autodesk. Inventor is very similar to Solidworks, and is entirely constraint driven and parametric.

That means that if you change a certain dimension in a 2D sketch, your 3D part / assembly and related drawings will automatically change.

Try moving a hole with AutoCAD 3D. Hell, try making a hole with AutoCAD 3D.

We have been an entirely 3D Inventor-based office for 7 yrs now. If anyone wants reliable Inventor info, you should check out the Autodesk:Inventor forum, not the misinformation posted above.

tg

 

[civeng80]

trainguy

Do you use inventor for structural work ? Because I always thought it was for mechanical engineering.

 

[trainguy]

civeng80,

We use it in a mechanical engineering context, exclusively. We're modeling entire locomotives and other rail vehicles with it.

tg

 

[pqphillips]

civeng80, Inventor, like any other 3D program, can be used for any application you want. I have a buddy that uses it to create and render sci-fi starships in his spare time.

With the assembly features and animation capabilities, Inventor is, if you'll pardon the pun, more geared toward mechanical engineering.

 

[IFRs]

TrainGuy -

"Try moving a hole with AutoCAD 3D. Hell, try making a hole with AutoCAD 3D."

I do this all the time in AutoCAD 3D, with simple macros, some simple shareware and a few commands. Inventor must be super to work with, but then again, AutoCAD has the tools and one can get them to work.

 

[civeng80]

Try making a hole with Google sketchup !

No macros !
No problems !

Easy !

 

[trainguy]

IFRs,

You should take an introductory Inventor course, maybe a 1 or 2 day thing, and then I suspect you'll realize just how powerful these parametric modelers are, no macro, no shareware, and 1 command.

Then, as often as you like, you can change the location of that hole (or that 300 part sub-assembly) by editing 1 dimension, and the change will be reflected in your 3D solid and your 2D drawings.

It has to be seen to be believed, when coming from an AutoCAD line of thinking, which is what we used to use.

Definitely agree that it takes some getting used to, to ensure that your models don't shift unexpectedly.

tg

tg