How much Cad/Cam do you need?

[EmGo]

Oracle Virtualbox running Cadkey 99.
Back in it's day it would get slow with a bunch of solids.
On todays computers if flies.

Ah. Newer cadkey version than I like, 99 is windows, dos uses the memory extender that most of the virtual machines can't handle

It flew in OS/2 as well, maybe I need to set up a whatever-they-call-it-now box

Windows sucks dick

 

[CarbideBob]

I was once a windows hatter so DR-DOS and OS2.
We built the first carbide tool vending machines.
Did it on OS2. That turned out to be a big mistake.
my theme song

 

[EmGo]

I was once a windows hater

Win2K and even XP were tolerable. They've become progressively worse since then. If Mac were not even worse, Mickey would be in big trouble.

That turned out to be a big mistake.

I've never done that. What's it like ?

 

[rootsandstones]

Win2K and even XP were tolerable. They've become progressively worse since then. If Mac were not even worse, Mickey would be in big trouble.



I've never done that. What's it like ?

He would be in trouble if less software was windows-only.

What's your prefered OS?

Everybody is always hating on all the operation systems but in my experience all of them run really stable. I have a Macbook, a desktop pc running Win 10/Linux and a server with multiple VM's. All of them have their pros and cons.

 

[EmGo]

What's your prefered OS?

Irix. That's why I'm stuck at Wildfire 2 (or an early NX but don't like those, I-DEAS was okay tho) but good enough for anything I do, so ees okay mon

A vm that ran dos well would be nice tho, I'd like a quick-n-dirty cad program as well ...

 

[SVFeingold]

How much CAD do you need? Most people don't need anything more than the free version of OnShape, which is quite nice.

The need-based argument is somewhat of a narrow view. Say your workflow involves taking in dumb solids (parasolids, STEP, whatever) and doing something with them. Maybe modifying them, or maybe making fixtures. Can you work with those in Solidworks? Sure. Can you work with them in NX? Yep. So you don't "need" NX since Solidworks does the same thing. Only the difference is that Solidworks feature-set for that kind of work is hilariously limited, whereas with NX + synchronous modeling you'll pretty much never miss the feature tree again.

What kind of thing do you want to do, how much do you have to spend, how much do you value tools that work well instead of just technically work, etc. If you're completely new to CAD, then get Fusion360 or OnShape and learn how to use them. Then you'll be in a much better position to determine what you do/don't care about when you're ready to spend money.

 

[Strostkovy]

I work in a sheet metal shop and use QCAD, Sketchup, a little bit of solidworks (use it a lot for side projects though), Sigmanest, and Radbend.

Sketchup is usable for sheet metal but with heavy caveats.

 

[empower]

Irix. That's why I'm stuck at Wildfire 2 (or an early NX but don't like those, I-DEAS was okay tho) but good enough for anything I do, so ees okay mon

A vm that ran dos well would be nice tho, I'd like a quick-n-dirty cad program as well ...

quick and dirty cad in dos?

 

[empower]

How much CAD do you need? Most people don't need anything more than the free version of OnShape, which is quite nice.

The need-based argument is somewhat of a narrow view. Say your workflow involves taking in dumb solids (parasolids, STEP, whatever) and doing something with them. Maybe modifying them, or maybe making fixtures. Can you work with those in Solidworks? Sure. Can you work with them in NX? Yep. So you don't "need" NX since Solidworks does the same thing. Only the difference is that Solidworks feature-set for that kind of work is hilariously limited, whereas with NX + synchronous modeling you'll pretty much never miss the feature tree again.

What kind of thing do you want to do, how much do you have to spend, how much do you value tools that work well instead of just technically work, etc. If you're completely new to CAD, then get Fusion360 or OnShape and learn how to use them. Then you'll be in a much better position to determine what you do/don't care about when you're ready to spend money.

been using NX for awhile now, i LOVE synchronous modeling, but it would be awful without the feature tree.

 

[Areo Defense]

been using NX for awhile now, i LOVE synchronous modeling, but it would be awful without the feature tree.

NX Synchronous modeling is such a great set of tools to work with unparametrized models! I don't recall if they were features when they were first introduced but who cares, it's such a nice modeling platform to work with. Modeling parts, fixtures and edm electrodes is a breeze and adjusting dumb versions of those from customers is nothing to worry about at all.

 

[empower]

NX Synchronous modeling is such a great set of tools to work with unparametrized models! I don't recall if they were features when they were first introduced but who cares, it's such a nice modeling platform to work with. Modeling parts, fixtures and edm electrodes is a breeze and adjusting dumb versions of those from customers is nothing to worry about at all.

no doubt, i just wanted to underline that having a feature tree is still very important, at least for design work, maybe not so much for pure CAM work. but i do a LOT of design work so to me its critical.

 

[Marvel]

no doubt, i just wanted to underline that having a feature tree is still very important, at least for design work, maybe not so much for pure CAM work. but i do a LOT of design work so to me its critical.

I'm one of the ones that is predominantly CAM first, and know quite a few people that could get by programming with very minimal CAD needs. But for me I am the same, CAMWorks runs in SolidWorks and most of my customers send me SW native files and I find having the feature tree very useful from time to time.

If I get into a complex part that requires quite a bit of surfacing on features that have pockets randomly through the surface, on occasion with a surfacing tool path I will do some goofy movements over a cut out and in some cases instead of patching the cut out, I find it a lot simpler to roll the feature tree back and create a offset surface and utilize that surface with no interruptions.

On occasion I get a print that is missing a call out on a hole, threaded, reamed, whatever it may be, I can look at the feature tree and see how it was designed.