Could I realistically learn CAD on my own?

Yes it is possible learn the basics of most popular packages through tutorials you can find on the internet. If product design is your passion and form and function are more important than hard engineering and associative design, an industrial design software like Rhino or a surface modeler is your best bet. Packages like Solidworks, Inventor, and to a lesser extent AutoCad are more about capturing a lot of engineering details to use in other ways, such as associative design. But even these packages are fairly easy to learn the basics, as many of the more advanced features are related to automating the design and drawing process rather than creating the shapes.

If you have learned the basics of surface modeling in one package, it will probably be easier to learn another surface modeling package than trying to learn a parametric modeling package.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is associative design and parametric modeling? I saw a few mentions of Rhino’s Grasshopper plugin, but it wasn’t very clear what it actually does.

Parametric modeling refers to the underlying method in which an object is designed in CAD. Typically you start sketching a primitive (block, cylinder, sphere, etc) that has dimensions that are parameters, meaning that they are editable later on. Next you add more features on top of the primitive, be they more extrusions, cuts, holes, rounds, chamfers, etc. All these features are built in a tree structure, which could number in the many hundreds for real manufactured parts. These features have very complex parent/child relationships based on references which could sometimes be very problematic if you edit or delete a feature, you could damage all its children features if they cant find their parents. All these features are defined with their own unique dimensions with a unique parameter id. The basic idea of parameters is that you sketch out the basic shape quickly first, then worry about the specific sizes of things later. This concept is incredibly powerful because it gives your design flexibility, or “strechyness”. For example, you sketch out a plate 100mm by 100mm by 10mm, then put a grid of 5mm holes spaced every 20mm. With parameters you can make it such that later on you can increase the size of the plate to 200x200 and all the holes will strech out evenly, proportionally, instead of remaining in a clump in a random spot on the now bigger plate.

Associative design typically refers to the same concept of parameter but across different part files that are put together in an assembly. So for example if you edit the spacing between a series of holes in part A, then the matching threaded holes on part B will automatically adjust their position to match A.

The parametric concept was first popularized by PTC with their product Pro-Engineer back in the 80’s, and beat the pants off their competition until many years later they were able to catch up. In the last five years there has sparked another great design paradigm shift where parametric is replaced by synchronous modeling. Siemens PLM with their flagship product NX (fka Unigraphics) is leading the way with this new concept, which is, well, extremely cool and versatile.

Contrast all this with non-parametric modeling (such as AutoCAD) where you have to sketch all your lines and geometry with the correct dimensions from the beginning. Good luck if you change your mind and need to resize things later on. You have to delete what you sketched and draw the new things in their new place. You might as well be using pencil and napkin, it’s so useless.

After using parametric CAD, you will want to gouge your eyes out with a cheese grater if you attempt to use something non parametric. Likewise if you work with something with synchronous modeling (or active modeling), you will want to lobotomize yourself if you are forced to use something without synchronous.

So there you have it. The cutting edge open source CAD packages out there are basically 30 years behind the curve (not an exaggeration at all :smiley: ). So I think you will realize sooner or later that the initial investment will pale in comparison with the time investment learning anything.

Niply Elder, two points:

  1. For a lot of people in this world, even in the US, $500 IS a lot of money. If that is not the case for you you’re fortunate.

  2. I think you’re misunderstanding what Reply is after - he is not interested in cutting edge industrial tech, he’s interested in accessible tech, what’s accessible to ordinary, nontechnically trained people, including those for whom $500 is a major outlay of resources.

30 years behind the time? So what? What does it matter as long as it gets the job done? As noted, he’s not doing this to get into industry.

As noted, I would recommend caelinux as it’s a very complete package, easy to install, with decent documentation. The upfront money is no joke for some of these commercial packages. The accessibility issue is not only monetary but also there’s a learning curve. I think the FOSS does have a bit of a steeper learning curve, so considering the final cost one should take into account the longer training period.

Last project I did was a room addition on my place.

  1. Pencil Paper Sketch
  2. Rough 3d in Second Life (2x4’s ect. to get a count on spacing and doorways)
  3. Take “pic’s” at various angles and print it out.
  4. Open AutoCad, draw “pic’s” in sections with RL dimensions to determine details. Then RE-DRAW to hearts content. :mad:
  5. Lastly cringe at the expensive shopping list for Home Depot. :frowning:

We are getting new Haas CNC’s…someone has to program them. I didn’t see anywhere how CAD/CAM is being used. Seemed to be exclusively panel controlled other than some source of G and M code. :dubious:

Yea, they are making all the machines easier and easier to use, to the point no one will know how to actually make anything anymore…WITHOUT A MACHINE DOING IT FOR THEM. :rolleyes:

So where do I sign up? :wink:

Just wanted to say think you for your post explaining this. My experience was more on the 3D animation side, where things didn’t have to work if they looked good, but I did work with folks using the packages I supported for product design, and getting familiar with their needs.

Oh yes, thanks very much for that explanation, Niply :slight_smile: