DSK wrote:

Well, you're both wrong... or maybe it's just that you've been using
the cheap set of AutoCad tools.

What, exactly, is "the cheap set of AutoCad tools"?


AutoCad will do a large number of
design calculations including area, volume, centers of mass, and
moments of inertia.

AutoCAD is a drafting tool - it's used to produce drawings so that people
can make things. It's far too generic to be truly useful as a design tool in
the sense that you're alluding to. Contrast it with the software that's used
to simulate electronic circuits - they are true design tools because they
allow you to test and iterate complex designs to the point where the result
can be manufactured and pretty-much function as intended. You draw a
schematic, and it does output analysis and PCB routing for you.

To acheive the same in AutoCAD requires a far greater degree of effort and
input from the user, and stock AutoCAD just isn't used in that way in any
proliferate sense at all. For AutoCAD to reach similar effectiveness in a
real-world situation, it needs to be enhanced with the various AutoDesk and
3rd-party add-ons that do far more sophisticated calculations and procedures
(ie, vertical enough for their intended purpose).


It will also extract a bill of materials

Generating a BoM has nothing to do with designing something - design is when
you start with the problem and come up with a solution. The BoM comes after
you have the solution designed and want to build it. I've never met anyone
who actually uses AutoCAD's BoM - it's too cumbersome and requires the user
to draw in a specific way that's conducive to making the BoM work. AutoCAD
is a great drafting tool, but it's a **** database and a **** scheduling
tool. By and large, people just don't draw like that, mainly because they
don't have time to - it's less hassle to schedule semi-manually
(spreadsheets and the like), or to generate BoMs from vertical tools
designed for the purpose.

For instance, I could use AutoCAD to find out exactly what size the windows
are in a building, but to get a parts list, those sizes are entered into a
BoM tool provided by the maker of the particular window system - tell it the
size, how many panes, opening lights, etc, and it'll spit out a list of
everything to the last nut and bolt, inlcuding a cutting list to be fed
straight to the saw that chops up the extruded ally profiles that will
become the window frames.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally wrote:
What, exactly, is "the cheap set of AutoCad tools"?


The minimum installed module set that doesn't do any of the fancy math
for design work.



AutoCad will do a large number of
design calculations including area, volume, centers of mass, and
moments of inertia.


AutoCAD is a drafting tool - it's used to produce drawings so that people
can make things.

Yep


... It's far too generic to be truly useful as a design tool in
the sense that you're alluding to.

That depends what what you're designing. Certainly no engineer is going
to sit down in front of AutoCad and whack out the parameters for
whatever he's thinking about. That's a job for pencil & paper at first &
then some specific math-heavy program.

But the bottom line is that AutoCad *does* include the tools to both
ensure that a given design is within design parameters, that it's
physically possible, and tweak it into better shape.


... Contrast it with the software that's used
to simulate electronic circuits - they are true design tools because they
allow you to test and iterate complex designs to the point where the result
can be manufactured and pretty-much function as intended. You draw a
schematic, and it does output analysis and PCB routing for you.


Sure. Did I say that AutoCad was for designing circuits? But it can be
used to design all sorts of other stuff.

To acheive the same in AutoCAD requires a far greater degree of effort and
input from the user, and stock AutoCAD just isn't used in that way in any
proliferate sense at all. For AutoCAD to reach similar effectiveness in a
real-world situation, it needs to be enhanced with the various AutoDesk and
3rd-party add-ons that do far more sophisticated calculations and procedures
(ie, vertical enough for their intended purpose).


That's true, too... and it's a difficult program to work IMHO. Probably
because I'm too old and finicky, and not enough interested to do the
hard work of learning it thoroughly.

For instance, I could use AutoCAD to find out exactly what size the windows
are in a building, but to get a parts list, those sizes are entered into a
BoM tool provided by the maker of the particular window system - tell it the
size, how many panes, opening lights, etc, and it'll spit out a list of
everything to the last nut and bolt, inlcuding a cutting list to be fed
straight to the saw that chops up the extruded ally profiles that will
become the window frames.


It's AutoCad, not AutoCam or AutoCAE.

I still say that it includes some design tools but I understand your
objections. You get full credit for making much more intelligent &
meaningful contribution to the subject than Mooron.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Capt. Mooron wrote:
There is nothing false in that statement.... autoCad is a drafting
application


I guess figuring centers of mass and IMM or IXX is a drafting job. Silly
me.

How would you go about it without the application? Now think hard. Is
design/drafting involved?... are there calculations? .... are there
parameters? Take your time Doug.

CM

"DSK" wrote in message

You get full credit for making much more intelligent & meaningful
contribution to the subject than Mooron.

Yeah Doug...you're right... maybe I should have gone into a detailed
explanation of Eagle Point and the basics of highway design for you.

CM

Mooron is such a child that he can't ever, ever admit he's wrong. Maybe
he'll tell us again how he's right and the NIH and NASA are wrong.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Capt. Mooron wrote:
Oh **** off Doug..... nothing stated was in any way wrong! If you need
to elevate yourself due to some inferiority complex... which seems to
be the case... so be it... but do try to come up with a better
methodology than stating we are wrong and then substantiating what we
just said.


???

Oh, please excuse me. It seemed to me that you were saying that AutoCad
did not include any *design* tools, which is wrong.

Always remember, never forget... some people have inferiority complexes,
others are just plain inferior.

DSK

you guys are splitting hairs
design decisions are made thruout the DESIGN process, which includes
drafting.

drafting is the working out of design ideas
it is design at a specific scale of resolution.

what would you call this?
http://www.stereolithography.com/

gf.

gonefishiing wrote:
you guys are splitting hairs

I agree, I was just pointing out that AutoCad *does* include design
tools. They may not be the best or most effective tools, but they're there.

what would you call this?
http://www.stereolithography.com/


PFM


DSK