CAD programs

[elbekko]

Many years ago I taught myself Solidworks on a less-than-legal version, and I loved using it. A couple of years ago I picked up Fusion 360 as they have a free version for hobbyists.

I've been trying to get along with it, but it just infuriates me constantly. The history is just one massive jumble of things, the joints never want to work, sketch constraints would rather change the meaning of a measurement than actually, you know, move something closer by...

It's probably just me. Maybe I need to learn it. But yesterday I saw that Solidworks now offers a hobbyist licence for €100/year. I'm just not sure it's worth it, but I've spent more to not be infuriated by something.
Has anyone tried the hobbyist licence of Solidworks? Does it do everything you need it to?

Opinions? Alternatives (must be parametric, I can't stand "stupid" CAD software like SketchUp)? I tried OnShape once when it came out, but it seemed very limited, sadly.

[Maverik]

3 hours ago, elbekko said:

Opinions? Alternatives (must be parametric, I can't stand "stupid" CAD software like SketchUp)? I tried OnShape once when it came out, but it seemed very limited, sadly.

Ouch - got to say I'm quite a fan of Sketch-up, used it from pretty much its original release, less so now due to the fee involved, but its a pretty powerful piece of software. Not quite in the same league as actual Autodesk products. - not sure what you mean by parametric but as far as I'm concerned sketchup is parametric - i.e. uses measures, scales and standard dimensions etc?

Dont worry I'm not offended 😜

[miketomcat]

The wife has been using nanoCAD the free version is 2D only but the subscribed (relatively cheap from memory, especially compared to AutoCAD) does 3D I believe. She's really impressed with it her words were it works just like AutoCAD, yes there are some differences but she just got on an used it rather than needing tutorial's to draw a square.

Mike

[elbekko]

2 hours ago, Maverik said:

not sure what you mean by parametric

When you draw a square with a hole in the center, and you change the size of the box, it should still be in the center. Simple explanation, but that carries across sketches, features and bodies.

As far as I've found when using SketchUp, it just draws things where you tell it to, but links nothing together.

2 hours ago, miketomcat said:

The wife has been using nanoCAD the free version is 2D only but the subscribed (relatively cheap from memory, especially compared to AutoCAD) does 3D I believe. She's really impressed with it her words were it works just like AutoCAD, yes there are some differences but she just got on an used it rather than needing tutorial's to draw a square.

Mike

I'll check it out, thanks. Looks alright at first glance, except for the cost for anyone other than students.

[Maverik]

53 minutes ago, elbekko said:

When you draw a square with a hole in the center, and you change the size of the box, it should still be in the center. Simple explanation, but that carries across sketches, features and bodies.

yeah you can do what you said, you just need to manage the "grouping" of components - I wouldn't write it off.

Happy to give some direction if you wanted.

A quick snap shot of some roll cage brackets I was toying with.

 

[Maverik]

Scale model of a ship a was drawing from some 2d autcad drawings

[elbekko]

1 hour ago, Maverik said:

yeah you can do what you said, you just need to manage the "grouping" of components - I wouldn't write it off.

Good to know, I'll check it out again.

[miketomcat]

Ben Teresa uses sketch up a fair bit but for accuracy she'll switch to nanoCAD (granted in 2D).

Mike

[volvotgb]

I have used Solidworks a long time ago, then fusion360. Now I have swapped to Freecad. There is a bit of a learning curve with it, but now I am very comfy with it and there are lots of things that I prefer to the commercial CAD packages. And as the name suggests, its completely free !

 

[landroversforever]

I'm another that can't stand Sketchup. Nothing is logical to me having come from Catia and a bit of ProEngineer.

If you can get to grips with Solidworks or other more grown up kind of CAD package they're FAR nicer to use than sketchup. I'd just look at what the limits are for a personal licence, is it a max number of items in an assembly? 

With any of the CAD packages, youtube tutorials are great for picking up how to do stuff.

One thing to check for those using the various non commercial versions is to see what files they can both open and save as. For example you might be able to save as a 2D DXF for sending something to be cut, but for example whilst my laser cutting chap can use a DXF, a step file (.stp) works best as it will bring in the thickness of the material too, along with stuff like the fold data (overall shape/bend angle/bend radius/material thickess). 

[Ed Poore]

I'm almost the opposite @elbekko used AutoCAD from back in the days when it was still on DOS and moved across to Inventor (full blown version of Fusion). My previous job we had Solidworks and I could just about manage it but I found it quite unintuitive coming from Autodesk products.

I remember discussing with the chap who was our main CAD guy (he ironically also came from Autodesk) and at the time there were things back then that Inventor had been doing for years that Solidworks still couldn't do. The one that sprung to mind was translational constraints (at least that's what I called them). For example I could model a hydraulic cylinder, model a digger using that cylinder and then directly whilst editing the model move the boom and so on with it being constrained by the hydraulic rams.

There was nothing close to that in Solidworks and the package we were using was about 5 years newer than the version of Inventor I was using. By the time I was leaving the company it had been added to Solidworks but it took a long time.

I guess it's down to what you're used to. For me the way of constrain things felt backwards in Solidworks but I think they overhauled it after I had any heavy involvement with it

[WeaselTrap]

A mate of mine who dropped out of engineering school has gone for the personal solidworks license, will ask how his experience is so far.

I've tried a couple of CAD packages, manly freecad, Fusion 360, Inventor and Solidworks (which I use professionally).

Freecad and Fusion I discarded as I just couldn't get my head around it. Inventor I could work with, but the list of (personal) negatives was quite a bit longer than the positives.

So I would definitely try the personal Solidworks license, but it van very much be a personal preference thing

 

[steve200TDi]

Onshape is another free package. Good enough for doing parts and basic assemblies.

A friend has used it, I have no direct experience.

Steve

[elbekko]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.

For the bumper build I decided to stick with Fusion 360, and trying to learn the tips & tricks. It looks like it takes a bit of a different approach, but once you get that approach down it isn't too bad.
It seems much more reliant on defining lots of planes and separate components. I'm still annoyed that you can create a lofted sheetmetal part, but it just throws errors when you try to create a flat pattern...

I signed up for the Solidworks trial, and played around with it for a few minutes. The sketching is a million times better, as I remember it. But assemblies are just as much of a mess, really. And it was running in an online VM, so not quite the same user experience as having it locally.

On 5/5/2023 at 8:07 AM, Ed Poore said:

I remember discussing with the chap who was our main CAD guy (he ironically also came from Autodesk) and at the time there were things back then that Inventor had been doing for years that Solidworks still couldn't do. The one that sprung to mind was translational constraints (at least that's what I called them). For example I could model a hydraulic cylinder, model a digger using that cylinder and then directly whilst editing the model move the boom and so on with it being constrained by the hydraulic rams.

Yeah, the joints in Fusion are powerful, but a right pain to set up (for me, anyway). It always tries to do exactly the opposite of what I want it to do, for some reason...