Drawing projection, first or third?

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Although it sounds like the “Proffesionals” ganging up Neil, Corel draw really is a POS when it comes to drawing anything else other than Graphics.

 

  Before the howls, I used to have severe arguments with SWTSMBO who regarded Lotus123 as a do anything programme from accounts to letter writing etc. A BIT like “Works”. NO, it’s an accountancy based programme which does extra bits, but NOT a sectively dedicated “Fits all” suite.

 

 Go back to post No. (Oh sorry, we still haven’t got that one sorted yet David) re A/Cad being the generic tool, and yes it was and probably still is a b***h to master, but is STILL the industry standard, but like everything else, if Proffesionals need to talk to each other and interchange technical info without fear of data conflict, their employers will pay whatever to get the latest “Release” or issue or whatever AutoDesk now call it and CHARGE for it.

 

  All the spinoffs have had the “Edges” softened to try to make their own versions more user friendly and each have their own band of loyal followers who claim whichever is the best.  OK. to put this in easy terms, which CAR is the best???????

 

 While I have “Slagged off” Corel Draw, if you’re happy using it, why not?? There is no “One size fits all”, so one of the problems with generating a league table is who do you ellect to generate it?? Although I was taught how to use A/C and having both Release and Year issues of it, an extended lapse of use would create a long blip in picking it up again ALTHOUGH after downloading a free (Has to be) issue of DoubleCad (successors to TurboCad), it became obvious “who” the daddy programme was.

 

 To illustrate the way various programmes suit different users, a mate who is a non professional in engineering terms was quite happy to use Corel and had difficulty using A/Cad changed over to “Alibre” recently and found it a “Dream” to use as opposed to A/Cad and wondered why he’s been fooling with Corel for so long? A free trial version was the decider but he has gone on to buy the official version. I tried Alibre and can’t be bothered fooling with the 3D INITIAL layout proceedure.

 

   Get whatever you can as a free trial and see how the water suits you, BUT make sure, as we’ve already said, Make sure ANYONE can read and understand what you’ve drawn.

 

  Regards  Ian.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

A bit tongue in cheek here. Why, oh why, does everyone have to bow down to AutoCad. Is it because it was the first program that really worked? Or was because some big firm with an interest pushed it?

 

By all accounts not only is Autocad expensive, but it is difficult to understand, as is, in my opinion, TurboCad. And yet, the program I use, Design Cad 3D Max is reasonably cheap, dead easy to use and understand and it is capable of exporting data in a variety of formats, including Autocad dwg formats.

 

Circlip mentioned  Lotus 1-2-3. This leads me on to another hobby horse of mine. Until recently I used the Lotus suite of programs in preference to the expensive Microsoft Works or Office programs. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the majority of people use the Microsoft offerings, and when exporting data almost always  do so in Microsoft’s proprietery format, eg .xls or .doc etc. Which means that I have now had to switch over to Open Office as these programs are compatible with the Microsoft formats as otherwise I cannot exchange data.

 

If people were to realise that there are alternative universal formats which any program can use, then the likes of Microsoft would lose their stranglehold on the market which can only be a good thing. Similarly, when I sent a drawing into the Editor, I have to use one of a small number of specific formats, at least one of which was an Autocad format. 

 

Now I have to say that I don’t know what, or even if, there is a universal drawing format, but it seems wrong to me to enforce formats which are proprietary. It also seems wrong to me to hold up one very expensive program as the ultimate standard to aim for.

 

One final point about line thicknesses. Although I usually only use the one, my program is capable of producing many thicknesses although I have never tried it.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

I used to use AutoCad, but for the use we made of the ‘advanced’ features, it simply wasn’t worth the effort. And if we wanted more than one seat of it, that cost even more still. As it is, we have quite a bit of mission-critical software on a support basis, so anything that can be removed from that list goes down quite well. We tried a number of the free ones, including AutoSketch for a while – and so far the also DXF-exporting Solid Edge is winning, but as Ian says, that’s just a personal preference (well, two of us think it’s fine so far…).

 

There has been some muttering about modelling some of the stuff we do in 3D, so if I get a couple of spare days (!!!) I will at least try Alibre, I think. And if we ended up buying it, at least it’s on the affordable side – but there again, compared to AutoCad, just about everything is.

 

Even if a league table of different offerings was to be prepared, then the only thing one could do without prejudice would be a feature comparison list, and even that would need extensive notes. Everything else is problematic, although a basic benchmark test might at least remove a few from any real contention. The sort of thing I have in mind is a standardised drawing – how long does it take to create it from scratch on each program, and what were the difficulties involved for a new user? Trouble is, you’d almost want to give the task to several people per package, in order to arrive at any sort of consensus at all, I suspect. This is beginning to look like a serious effort would be required – is it worth it?

 

Absolutely the worst thing I ever tried, years ago, was a couple of DOS-based draughting programs. It was those that persuaded me to stay with pen and ink for quite a bit longer than I might have done otherwise. AFAIK, these pre-dated AutoCAD, although didn’t this start out the same way?

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

One of the more useful CAD links, in terms of what’s available for free and with a few useful comments too is Peter Eland’s CAD page.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

One thing to watch if anyone does go down the Alibre road is that the first upgrade from free allows you to use a 3D and auto 2D converter that was previously free for a “Limited” (30 day) trial period. After that, an “Offer” price is introduced.

 

  When I first tried it, the Dollar rate was nearly 2 to the pound so as the American site was offering $99 for the intro price, the British arm offered at £99. When I challenged this, I was given the robbing out of the vendors kids mouths tale but they would reduce it to a lower figure although it still didn’t meet the American figure and mumbled about VAT charges.

 

  Sadly (For the British arm) many purchased via paypal and the American site and got a good deal. So be warned. Where this, and many others, profit is from the extras and tutorial packages that cost whatever more.

 

  Regards  Ian

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 28/02/2010 12:01:37:

A bit tongue in cheek here. Why, oh why, does everyone have to bow down to AutoCad. Is it because it was the first program that really worked? Or was because some big firm with an interest pushed it?

 

Historically, Autocad was not only one of the first CAD programs but was also pirated a fair bit in the early days. Autodesk put on a good show of jumping up and down about the pirating but it did create a good few people who were experienced with Autocad at a time when CAD was just being taken up by the companies … encouraged by the people who were able to use it. So naturally they went for Autocad and established it as the de facto leader (not that it had much competition then anyway).

 

Although Autodesk’s market share was eroded a little when alternatives like Pro/Engineer, Unigraphics, CATIA, Solid-Edge, Solid-Works etc came along, they have still managed to maintain that mystique of being “The” CAD program … despite the fact that some of their development history has been abysmal. They had so many false starts at 3D before they got it right.

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I’m not defending Corel for tech drawings; I just use it because I was used to it for what it’s intended  DTP, and inherited a V10 cd when it was upgraded.

 

There will be howls when you discover I’ve used it to lay out double sided PCBs…

 

I looked at Peter Elands site, and what with the chorus of voices championing different solutions it emphasises the need for a simple overview!

 

Neil

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Neil on 28/02/2010 21:59:43:

 

There will be howls when you discover I’ve used it to lay out double sided PCBs…

 

I looked at Peter Elands site, and what with the chorus of voices championing different solutions it emphasises the need for a simple overview!

 

 

Corel Draw for PCBs? Hehe! I bet it does really good design rule checking! Seriously though, anybody who’s learned to do drawing the hard way should be able to produce perfectly competent drawings with it. When there were only very expensive CAD alternatives, it looked like quite an attractive proposition if you were in that position. Nowadays though, it, er, does not…

 

Whilst I agree that a simple overview of what’s available in basic CAD terms would be an excellent utopian ideal, the one message that I get from Peter Eland’s site is that this ideal gets further and further from being realisable…

 

 

 

Edited By Steve Garnett on 28/02/2010 23:03:36

[RILEY COMBSParticipant @rileycombs69381]

To anyone who has an opinion:

 

I am an Engineering Standards writer for a large US furniture company . Our product drawigs created in North America are drawn in 3rd angle projection. Our product drawings created in parts of Europe are drawn in 1st angle projection.

 

We are having problems with getting each part of the world to understand both systems. We would like to choose one system (I prefer 3rd angle). Do you know of companies that have this problem and how are they dealing with it?

 

Thank you.

Riley Combs

[Bill DawesParticipant @billdawes]

I woked in a DO in the 60’s and we allways used 1st angle. It seemed logical at the time, eg. if you looked down at a physical object, turned it 90 deg. to the right and the new view you saw is what you put on the drawing. However can also see the logic of 3rd angle in that the view appeared next to the face in question.

Bill D.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

As a self-taught amateur with no formal training in engineering or technical drawing, I found 3rd angle to be much easier to understand than 1st angle, using the concept of the object in a box, like a Dinky toy. The projections are then as if the box is opened out with, assuming the car is facing from right to left, the plan view in the middle, the rear view to the right, front view to the left etc. Exactly as if you are looking at it on the table in front of you. To my relief, all the drawings I look at in my industry are in 3rd angle.

 

Rod

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by RILEY COMBS on 02/09/2011 17:26:12:

 

We are having problems with getting each part of the world to understand both systems. We would like to choose one system (I prefer 3rd angle). Do you know of companies that have this problem and how are they dealing with it?

 

 

Unfortunately I suspect that there’s only one realistic solution to this, if you want manufactured product without too many mistakes, and on a realistic time scale. That’s to find out what the people actually manufacturing the goods can work most effectively with. I say unfortunate, because it’s not necessarily going to be the standard you’re happiest with… but however you do this, somebody’s going to suffer from a bit of in-house training, aren’t they?

 

If you want to know definitively though, then doing a bit of critical path analysis to come up with the answer may be the way to go. You have to work out where the longest delay is going to be in a project. Is the drafting delay going to be greater than the manufacturing delay when using each standard exclusively, or vice versa?

 

Even though I said ages ago that I don’t really have a preference as to which standard to use, I have to say that if you are going to produce drawings ‘after the event’ of smallish pieces, it’s way easier to do this in first angle than third, if you have the article with you. Turn it 90 degrees to the right on its right-hand edge, stand it on its end, and that’s where you draw what you can see, in the gap it just left.

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Steve Garnett on 05/09/2011 21:51:41:, I have to say that if you are going to produce drawings ‘after the event’ of smallish pieces, it’s way easier to do this in first angle than third,

If the drawings are being produced in North America, that simply isn’t true. The US and (mostly) Canada are, and have been, pretty much exclusively 3rd angle and don’t have the 1st/3rd history that I understand has existed in the UK and many parts of Europe.

 

It is way easier for North American draftsmen and engineers to see things in 3rd angle – it’s the way they’ve been trained – and foisting 1st angle on them is not likely to be well-received. And if the drawings are to be used for manufacturing purposes in North America, giving it to them in 1st angle would be a recipe for disaster. They simply have no background in it.

 

If the drawings are being produced and parts manufactured in the UK or perhaps elsewhere in Europe, then first angle may be viable.

 

(The 1st versus 3rd dialogue simply doesn’t exist in North America).

 

Edited By Sid Herbage on 05/09/2011 23:24:19

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Sid Herbage on 05/09/2011 23:20:31:

If the drawings are being produced in North America, that simply isn’t true. The US and (mostly) Canada are, and have been, pretty much exclusively 3rd angle and don’t have the 1st/3rd history that I understand has existed in the UK and many parts of Europe.

 

 

I think you may have missed the point I was making – this isn’t about how you were trained at all. It’s simply about how you handle the part when visualising it. One 90 degree turn to the right is way easier to do than a 270 degree one! It’s a short twist in the direction your hand actually wants to go in. Same thing with your left hand.

 

And we never had a first/third angle history here at all. Until the Americans insisted on doing it differently, we simply used first angle, and there was no issue about it. And whilst I haven’t researched the history of this very thoroughly, I suspect that the American decision to use 3rd angle was as much to do with simply wanting to be different as anything. Doesn’t make it better, though… In fact I look at it very much like the VHS/Betamax videotape thing – Betamax was technically better, but VHS won out by marketing, etc. Admittedly there isn’t anything inherently ‘better’ about either drawing standard – it’s just that when you look at how it came about (which is essentially what I described), it perhaps makes more sense as to why we use it.

 

There’s a good chance that we’ve been doing drawings longer like this than the Americans have, as well. After all, it was in the UK that the Industrial Revolution started…

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

Sorry I keep repeating this, but. It does not matter what projection is used, so long as all views are clearly labelled. Many drawings are made using any and all projections, some things can’t be drawn just using 1st or 3rd angle.

[Trumpet / FlugelParticipant @trumpetflugel]

I seem to recall a fairly recent thread in which there was some debate about whether some artricles in MEW on the subject of engineering drawings and the interpretation of them would be of interest.

 

As an untrained hobbyist engineer I would appreciate any contributions from skilled and experienced engineers / draughtspersons which would help in the basic interpretation of drawings. Besides the differences between first and third angle there are other aspects such as the standardisaton of dimensions which often cause me to scratch my head.

 

In another life I work as a trumpet player. It’s great to be able to play by ear, but to become really competent being able to sight read music is a given!

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Peter.

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Peter

 

I recommend Workshop Practice Series No 13 – Workshop Drawing by Tubal Cain

 

available here. ( I mean from myHobbystore)

 

It should answer many of your needs.

 

regards

 

Norman

 

 

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Steve Garnett on 06/09/2011 10:32:36:

 

I think you may have missed the point I was making – this isn’t about how you were trained at all. It’s simply about how you handle the part when visualising it. One 90 degree turn to the right is way easier to do than a 270 degree one! It’s a short twist in the direction your hand actually wants to go in. Same thing with your left hand.

Steve, I was responding to the comment that I quoted “if you are going to produce drawings ‘after the event’ of smallish pieces, it’s way easier to do this in first angle than third,“

 

If you’ve been exclusively trained in 3rd angle it isn’t going to be easier to do it in first angle whatever gyrations you perform. If you are just being trained, one or the other projection systems may be perceived as easier to learn but there are as many advocates for 3rd angle being easier to “see” as there are 1st angle.

 

And frankly, all this turning such-and-such 90 deg then twisting your head around here etc that people come up with leave me a bit cold. Sure, beginners receive that kind of advice early in their training but I’ve never seen professionals (engineers, designers or draftsmen) resort to those gyrations. They simply look at the part and visualise it. And when drawing a part, if they want a view on a particular side they just put it “where it goes” according to the projection system they use.

 

And we never had a first/third angle history here at all. Until the Americans insisted on doing it differently, we simply used first angle, and there was no issue about it.

 

I left the UK in 1968. At school I was taught technical drawing and at university, engineering drawing. I both cases the emphasis was equally divided between 1st and 3rd. Industry at that time was similarly divided. That’s what I meant about the history. I wasn’t referring to ancient times.

 

And whilst I haven’t researched the history of this very thoroughly, I suspect that the American decision to use 3rd angle was as much to do with simply wanting to be different as anything. Doesn’t make it better, though…

 

Absolutely. And I didn’t imply that. I was simply making the point that there is only one defacto standard in NA – 3rd angle. – and anyone wanting to produce drawings with NA labour or for use in NA plants would be asking for trouble to go with 1st angle. And Riley did state that he worked for a US manufacturer (although he was unclear where the drawings would be produced or used).

 

 

There’s a good chance that we’ve been doing drawings longer like this than the Americans have, as well. After all, it was in the UK that the Industrial Revolution started…

Please believe me Steve, I wasn’t trying to get into a NA vs UK peeing contest.

God I hate this editor!

[Author]

Posts