TurboCAD – Alibre File Transfers.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

When I observed there is little about Fusion and SolidEdge “here” I meant on the Forum as a whole, not this thread.

What I now observe on this thread is a lot of engineering using CAD, CNC, 3D-printing and the rest. Very impressive, I have great respect for its creators, but far beyond me.

I can only work with the tools I have, including the one most important to all us of: own ability.

I undertand my work-rounds may be “wrong”, but if the only way I can progress a project, what matters is that they work.

If I could use either Alibre Atom or TurboCAD Deluxe properly I would use only that one. I took up Alibre because it appeared easier than TurboCAD for me to learn, and it is easier than TC’s 3D system. I found for me, Alibre’s 3D modelling and TurboCAD in 2D mode, of comparable difficulty, compounded by two aspects.

The first is the project entailing designing complicated “works” from virtually no prior information.

The second is my natural learning limit for any given subject. I am not a neuroscientist so can only guess it’s a matter of individual brain physicality.  I cannot advance in CAD to the level illustrated here. That’s not its fault, nor mine, because I cannot help it.

.

So my original question, transferring drawing files from system to system to enable me to design what I want to build, is to make the best of what I can do.

.

I have created Alibre part images for my engine but cannot assemble them properly in Alibre. Also I repeat, I am designing from scratch an engine whose original version is invisible! I have almost no original material beyond the overall appearance and size of the vehicle. Far less than anyone else here for their own projects.

The gubbins in my wagon are all hidden in boxes, below superstructures, or deep in shadow and very difficult to interpret and scale. No drawings to copy; no full-size survivor to visit. The photographs show only partial exteriors whose details differ from photo to photo.

So: while an orthographic general-arrangement in TurboCAD and part-drawings in either TurboCAD 2D or Alibre 3D is not the best way, it’s the only way I can do it.

.

Others can design something of similar complexity in just Alibre Atom: fine! I can only envy their skill. In the end what will count is I get the bloomin’ thing built and working – there is no guarantee it will. If I need overlap two CAD programmes because I cannot learn either of them fully, well, I can’t help that but at least I attempt the thing.

 

I am NOT trying to put anyone off CAD, or any particular CAD make, as I see I was accused of doing.

I cannot learn Matrices or the pianoforte either – but others do, and even become professional Finite-Element Analysts or performers of Rachmaninov concerti.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

 I have almost no original material beyond the overall appearance and size of the vehicle. Far less than anyone else here for their own projects.

Suggest you read my previous post again, a fag packet sketch is a lot less material than you have to go on.

[John HinkleyParticipant @johnhinkley26699]

Nigel,

You are no more “in the dark” with your lack of basic information about the vehicle of which you are making a model than the original designer(s) of the lorry itself were.  They had no drawings or dimensions to manufacture from, either, just an idea of what their end goal would look like and how large it could or should be.

If someone asked you to build, say, a table, you might just go ahead and screw some pieces of wood together and achieve a passable result.  More likely, I suggest, you would sit down and make a drawing of what the finished product should look like.  Would you then plough straight in and try to carve it out of one massive piece of tree? No, of course not.  You would break it down into top and legs and then think about how to join them together.  The same applies to your lorry. Take it one assembly at a time and split that assembly into its constituent parts (analogous to Atom terminology) before bringing those parts into one finished assembly.

Use the same approach to Atom and you can’t go far wrong, can you?

I just re-read that and it sounds somewhat pretentious and condescending.  It’s not meant to come across that way and if it offends, then I apologise.

John

 

[Author]

Posts