[rezcar]

Placed my orders for steppers and deluxe ballscrew kit...now to think about software.

I've seen many references to Mach, Rhino, Solidworks, etc. What about Autocad? We have it at work though I know nothing on how to use it. For someone going in with ZERO cad/cam experience, are some programs easier to learn than others?

I know this may not be the best forum, but I got totally lost looking at the software forums on the main page of CNCzone.

[hoss2006]

I've used Autocad for years but just for 2D DXF's to use with my CAM programs.
The new versions are fully 3D capable. Plenty of cheaper and easier to use programs.
The Vectric and Meshcam programs are very easy to use for CAM.
For CAD you have to decide if you need 3D capabilities or not.
DXF creation should be a must.
Hoss

[cyberpiet]

We use progecad for dwg/dxf design. Progecad has more bugs but the price is very good.
For Cad/cam we use alphacam.

[jalessi]

Rezcar,

What are you thinking about making?

Purchasing the wrong software can be a expensive learning experience.

Some software packages can be tailored to do specific tasks easier than others.

Give us a little more background on your direction,

Jeff...

[paul3112]

I also do my thinking in Acad. DXF to Cambam (http://www.cambam.co.uk/). The demo ver is free and it is easy to use coming from acad.

Paul

[ger21]

I draw my parts in AutoCAD and export G-code directly with a macro I wrote. No need for a 2D CAM program. http://cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8226

[fixtureman1]

Why not download the trial version of Aspire from Vetric and play around with it. ou can't get much better design software and the support is fantastic.

[NCPROG1]

Jelessi is correct. You really need to know what you want it to do. If you want to draw simple 2D holes @ lines Autocad is pretty powerful. (I've used it since Version 3) If you want complex solids for assemblies or FEA you would be better off with Autodesk Inventor (since I know it) or Solidworks (I don't know it). But for CAM with either of these you would still need another expensive program. As much as it bothers me to say it. If you want to do simple 2D drawings, some 3D & solid capabilities and a CAM package, BobCad Cam is an inexpensive all in one tool. Sure it has some issues, what software doesn't, but for the most part it will spit out good code. You can download a free version and try it out. You just won't be able to save files.

Best of luck to you

[Teyber12]

i use autocad at school, and dolphin at home and while i am pretty noobish at both i would say that dolphin is EASIER to make any part that you would want on a mill then autocad, yet dolphin would include cam and is quite a bit cheaper.

just my $.02
cheers

[ger21]

Whatever your familiar with will be the easiest to use.

Again, the types of parts you'll be making can influence the decision. But the best thing to do is always try demos of as many options as you can find time to try. And you really need to spend enough time to learn how they work. Once you understand the how to use them, then you can decide what's the best option for you.

[PMF]

rezcar,

There is some good advice already. I have used AutoCAD for a long time, and it is easy to learn for 2D work. For 2D dwg/dxf creation, I prefer AutoCAD. If your work is geared more towards 2D layouts then AutoCAD would be a good choice or AutoCAD LT (if you don't want to do 3D). Personally AutoCAD for 3D is very tedious. So if you are needing 3D, choose another program. I use SolidWorks and have found it very easy to use. There are many programs out there, and i would download trials and see what feels best.

[forrest39]

I have been using google sketchup for free. I upgraded to pro to export to .DXF. It's CAD for dummies....Especially if you have a mouse with a bunch of buttons.
between lazy cam and vectric cut2d, I can get what I need to generate gcode. Also with the wizzards in mach3.

Cheers,
-4ist

[mrehmus]

My personal opinion, is, if you are going to do 2D work only, then almost any drafting software will work that will export DXF. Just get a cheap one. AutoCAD is way overpriced for use on simple parts.

If you are going to build complex assemblies that have parts that interact with each other (like an engine) then a good 3D design tool is really a Very Good Idea. Products like AutoCAD are just too time-consuming to be of much help in this case. It is a drafting tool, not a design tool

Case in point. I started with AutoCAD before version 1 and kept up to date through 13. Then I stopped using any CAD for quite a while. In 2005 I started a magazine for builders of operating scale model engines, immediately purchased an AutoCAD LT 2005 license and started in on a semester's class on AutoCAD at the local community college. Published the first 2 magazines using this but during the makeup of the second issue, I had a fellow drawing a 5-cylinder radial for me. I'd ask him for a change and everything would be changed in a matter of an hour or so. Clearly, he was not using AutoCAD.

Turned out he was using Alibre Design, a Parametric 3D design tool. By the 3rd issue, I too had Alibre and had completed a single-cylinder engine with about 40-50 parts in less than 2 weeks from start to finish and this included fully assembled engine cross-sections. Way faster than AutoCAD.

I am not pushing Alibre but the speed difference between it and AutoCAD is unbelievable. And it really helps to be able to check out complex designs with the tool kit it offers. Most of the other 3D packages are like this, I think (but have no personal experience with them).

I also have BobCAD and that is the slowest CAD to work with I think I've ever experienced. My experience is very limited with the software...I inherited a TAIG CNC mill with Flashcut and BobCAD. Ran through the tutorials in BobCAD and it is clear I'll use it only to convert the Alibre files to Flashcut.

Understand I am not a BobCAD expert so a person with some familiarity with the software can probably obtain a fair turn of speed. But from what I've learned, it is not a good tool with which to develop complex assemblies.

Other folks may legitimately disagree.

[laszlozoltan]

you can look at turbocad; it is very cheap; and you can download a free trial from them.

[D.L]

I would recommend finding a used copy of any older cad based on the unigraphics engine. These cads have circles drawn as 'vectors' whearas autocad is based on 'scalers'. Basically, an autocad circle is a whole bunch of lines, if you draw a .2 dia circle and scale it up 1000 times you will not have a true circle, but rather an octogon or hexagon. UG based cad does not have this error, microstation, solid works, catia, solid edge and many others are based on UG. Check out a second hand office equipment supplier, or ebay, I use microstation J from 1995 for all my 2d work and I would'nt have it any other way. The snaps are dead accurate.

[ger21]

..............These cads have circles drawn as 'vectors' whearas autocad is based on 'scalers'. Basically, an autocad circle is a whole bunch of lines, if you draw a .2 dia circle and scale it up 1000 times you will not have a true circle, but rather an octogon or hexagon.

I don't believe that, but can't say for sure, as I have no idea how to check?? I scales a circle by a factor of 2000, and didn't see what you're saying. Internally, AutoCAD stores circle info as centerpoint and radius. When you export a .dxf from AutoCAD with a circle, the .dxf contains the centerpoint and radius, and has no line info. When you convert a circle to gcode, you'll get G2's and G3's, not lines. So I don't see any basis for that statement.

[D.L]

Maybe autocad fixed the problem, I'm thinking back to the days of R13 and R14.
I remember having to use keyed in commands and being generally unimpressed with the circle snap limitations.
But R13 was 1996 and R14 98???? a lot must have changed since then.
I distinctly remember circle errors for trimming as scale was changed, the tolerance of the arcs varied with scaling and were not an absolute figure such as in UG based cad.
I've being wrong before, and I could be wrong again, certainly in regards to autodesk's current product.

[rdowns]

Which version of Acad are you using?

[rezcar]

Lot's of great replies! I wasn't expecting any one solution but I will definitely check out many free trials as possible.

I can make use of Autocad (ver.?) on a work laptop, it's about 2 years old (the program). But I'm also interested in Mach3 as it seems to have a large user base. Someone used the word "tedious", and that's key for me. Don't wanna take forever to make a little part.

What I plan to make initially are for cars, aluminum intake manifold flanges for custom manifolds, emblems, decorative engraved plates, and various functional/decorative brackets, maybe pulleys also, (but am worried about the strength of the material to use.)

I need to go back and read the definitions of 2D, 2.5D, 3D, etc.

[rezcar]

Cost is also an issue! Hence my desire to use the Autocad laptop at work. ger21's solution sounds good (from what little I know so far), I just don't want a steep learning curve right away...I am very familiar with Photoshop and Autocad's environment made me dizzy