Free CAD software recommendations and guides?

[nubbinator]

I have a pair of aluminum 60% case concepts I want to try out, but I am CAD incompetent.  If anyone has any guides that have helped them and/or good starter software, I'd love to see them.

Or, if you're CAD inclined and willing to help out, I can share the drawings with you.

[Melvang]

I have a pair of aluminum 60% case concepts I want to try out, but I am CAD incompetent.  If anyone has any guides that have helped them and/or good starter software, I'd love to see them.

Or, if you're CAD inclined and willing to help out, I can share the drawings with you.

As far as learning CAD software I started in Google Sketchup.  Don't use that crap.  It is garbage.  I have since moved on to real CAD software.  I am currently using student version.  I just started doing the tutorial that is built into the software.  Got about 75% through that and figured I knew everything I needed for getting my design from my head to proper pixels so I quit the tutorial and started building.

It can usually be had for between $100 to $150 for the student version but if you are a vet or know someone who is (must have a copy of DD-214, they will know what this is) and is willing to put their CC on the interwebz you can get a copy of the student version for $20.  This is perfectly legal and done right through their website.  If you want to go this route just google search Solid Works for veterans.

[elton5354]

AutoCAD is the only way to go.  You can definitely learn the basics off watching Youtube.

[nubbinator]

As far as learning CAD software I started in Google Sketchup.  Don't use that crap.  It is garbage. 

That might be my problem, I tried that and it was ****.  So unintuitive and horrible in so many ways.

I have since moved on to real CAD software.  I am currently using student version.  I just started doing the tutorial that is built into the software.  Got about 75% through that and figured I knew everything I needed for getting my design from my head to proper pixels so I quit the tutorial and started building.

It can usually be had for between $100 to $150 for the student version but if you are a vet or know someone who is (must have a copy of DD-214, they will know what this is) and is willing to put their CC on the interwebz you can get a copy of the student version for $20.  This is perfectly legal and done right through their website.  If you want to go this route just google search Solid Works for veterans.

Damn, some of my conservatees are veterans, but it would be fraud to use their info and could lose me my job.   I may just have to ask around and see if anyone I know is willing to help there in getting a cheaper version.

[Melvang]

As far as learning CAD software I started in Google Sketchup.  Don't use that crap.  It is garbage. 

That might be my problem, I tried that and it was ****.  So unintuitive and horrible in so many ways.

I have since moved on to real CAD software.  I am currently using student version.  I just started doing the tutorial that is built into the software.  Got about 75% through that and figured I knew everything I needed for getting my design from my head to proper pixels so I quit the tutorial and started building.

It can usually be had for between $100 to $150 for the student version but if you are a vet or know someone who is (must have a copy of DD-214, they will know what this is) and is willing to put their CC on the interwebz you can get a copy of the student version for $20.  This is perfectly legal and done right through their website.  If you want to go this route just google search Solid Works for veterans.

Damn, some of my conservatees are veterans, but it would be fraud to use their info and could lose me my job.   I may just have to ask around and see if anyone I know is willing to help there in getting a cheaper version.

If they are just using their credentials to get a product with a discount, and then turn around and sell it at cost, would that really be considered fraud?

[nubbinator]

They're literally crazy people, so it would be problematic.  I think I know some people who were in the military, so I'll ask around to them.

[CPTBadAss]

Autodesk Inventor. That's the CAD program I started with.

[yuktsi]

solidworks is easy to learn. very user friendly interface

[damorgue]

I'll just add Catia or Creo (formerly ProEnginner) to the discussion.

[E TwentyNine]

How are the OSS/Free options like OpenSCAD or FreeCAD or ?

[wcass]

If 2D is all you need, try DeltaCAD. It is by far the easiest CAD software out there and supports DXF/DWG file formats. The full feature free trial version is good for 30 or 60 days (i don't remember which) but you can then uninstall/reinstall to restart the clock. I did that for several years before I bought it for $50.

[swill]

I have built construction plans with google sketchup and for that it is ok. I tried building a case design with it and drove myself crazy.

It is useless for precision work, but great for getting a quick visual together.

[damorgue]

Free for students I believe:
http://www.ptc.com/company/community/download/

I think Pro/Engineer Elements might be their free demo and it has a limit of like 60 parts or something which probably won't limit many hobby projects.

[vvp]

How are the OSS/Free options like OpenSCAD or FreeCAD or ?

I use both of them.

OpenSCAD is more like a scripting language. You write a script which builds your part. It is good for simple things which need to be highlly parametric. It works with meshes only. It has 2 rendering paths. One is internal (debug) and the other is CGAL. The internal path gets very slow for more complicated models (about 5000 triangles, which corresponds to about 400 lines of OpenSCAD script). CGAL path will be ok with bigger models, but you cannot "debug" with it easily. Here is an example of an OpenSCAD model which just starts to be more complicated:


FreeCAD looks more like a real CAD. It is somewhat buggy so it can be hard to use if you do not know python. If you know python you can work around the bugs (or detect that something is wrong) from the "python console". FreeCAD is built on OpenCasCade. Some of the FreeCAD bugs/limitations are actually OpenCasCade bugs/limitations. The way/history how your model was built is stored so if you need to modify some parameters in previous steps there is good chance you can change it in history and the later steps will rebuild appropriately. (I guess this is a common feature of big CADs.) It is good to save a lot (especially before deletions or changes in history) but saving gets really slow with bigger models. It is not such a problem of the model itself as the fact that also the whole history how the model was built is kept. When the history is kept then also not so big models can look big. Here is an example of FreeCAD model which starts to be big with history (when its history is kept the file has 32MiB and is saving for about 10 seconds):

You can always make things better by copy/paste the last model (without history) into a new FreeCAD document. But then you loose parametric behaviour when changing some parameters in history.
Things I miss most in Part/PartDesign workbenches is snapping ... and the occasional bugs. Please, notice that I use git version 0.r3069.ga7d297c-1 (from 30 Jan 2014) a newer version may behave much better. I guess I should update :-/

Are commercial CADs parametric enough? When you change some parameters in some historical operation will it rebuild all the later steps correctly? Will it rebuild them correctly even when the historical parameter change leads to a solid with different number of faces/edges? This seems to be a problem in FreeCAD. When a historical parameter is changed and the change leads to changes in number of faces/edges then the later steps typically fail and you need to redo them.

[CPTBadAss]

OpenSCAD is more like a scripting language.

FreeCAD looks more like a real CAD.

I've been doing a lot of 3D CAD in my day job for the last two years. I will say that in that time, I have done very little scripting or programming. There are of course opportunities to run tasks that may need this but overall, when you're deep in design work, you don't need the added work of trying to understand python or programming languages.

If you're coming from a coding background, that may work for you. If you're coming from an general engineering background or hobbyist background, I think that this is a poor approach. Design work is hard enough as is without tossing in coding in the mix.

Actually, FreeCAD kind of reminds of CATIA actually, at a glance. But I've never personally used FreeCAD.

I will say from my own point of view, I will not recommend any open source CAD softwares. Student and educational licenses are fairly easy to get a hold of.  And you won't run into the issues that you might with the open source stuff such as...

Are commercial CADs parametric enough?

So if I have 50 steps to make a keyboard, and I need to fix step 32, I can change step 32 in any commercial package (Autodesk Inventor, Pro Engineer, Solidworks, etc), the software will be able to adapt and change the future operations. Just like you describe vvp. You don't have to futz with the software as much, and it allows you to focus on the design work more. I also know that many shops prefer to have drawings or files in certain file formats. If you're planning on going to get work done with a shop, you may have a harder time with the open source stuff.

[swill]

Hmmm, interesting. OpenSCAD looks interesting. Being able to script my cad is totally in my comfort zone. I am a developer, I prefer to work in code if I can. I have not spent much time with cad (other than sketchup, which is not great) because I hate having to learn more user interfaces.

Is there any other good code based cad solutions?
 

[dorkvader]

Hmmm, interesting. OpenSCAD looks interesting. Being able to script my cad is totally in my comfort zone. I am a developer, I prefer to work in code if I can. I have not spent much time with cad (other than sketchup, which is not great) because I hate having to learn more user interfaces.

Is there any other good code based cad solutions?
 

Plenty: I would say they are more 3D modelling languages (some are more for raytracing) than computer aided design.

There's also PLaSM

I found one on Wikipedia called "HyperFun"

But they are often more CSG than CAD, and -as I said above- are less interactive than you want in a CAD program usually.

[swill]

Hmmm, interesting. OpenSCAD looks interesting. Being able to script my cad is totally in my comfort zone. I am a developer, I prefer to work in code if I can. I have not spent much time with cad (other than sketchup, which is not great) because I hate having to learn more user interfaces.

Is there any other good code based cad solutions?
 

Plenty: I would say they are more 3D modelling languages (some are more for raytracing) than computer aided design.

There's also PLaSM

I found one on Wikipedia called "HyperFun"

But they are often more CSG than CAD, and -as I said above- are less interactive than you want in a CAD program usually.

Cool, I will play with a couple and see if I can build some bottom plates for my minimal case design by scripting.  I would just be doing basic stuff like case and plate design, so it should be pretty easy for me to figure out.  Thx...

[dorkvader]

Hmmm, interesting. OpenSCAD looks interesting. Being able to script my cad is totally in my comfort zone. I am a developer, I prefer to work in code if I can. I have not spent much time with cad (other than sketchup, which is not great) because I hate having to learn more user interfaces.

Is there any other good code based cad solutions?
 

Plenty: I would say they are more 3D modelling languages (some are more for raytracing) than computer aided design.

There's also PLaSM

I found one on Wikipedia called "HyperFun"

But they are often more CSG than CAD, and -as I said above- are less interactive than you want in a CAD program usually.

Cool, I will play with a couple and see if I can build some bottom plates for my minimal case design by scripting.  I would just be doing basic stuff like case and plate design, so it should be pretty easy for me to figure out.  Thx...

I was just thinking that those binary shape ones for CSG might be pretty easy to make a plate with:

[The_Beast]

Autodesk Inventor. That's the CAD program I started with.

AutoCAD is amazing for 2D drawings, soldiworks is where it's at for 3D. Inventor is a pile of **** compared to solidworks.

Sketchup is OK, limited, but it's free, so you can't really complain too much.

[vvp]

Is there any other good code based cad solutions?

I'm do primary software too. OpenSCAD has (more or less) only transformations and boolean operations. You can script FreeCAD too from python console (or external python code called as macro from FreeCAD). FreeCAD gives you more operations than OpenSCAD (e.g. you have also fillet, chamfer, thickness, offset, loft, sweep). You can do it all from python or from GUI (if you prefer it more). For all this operations FreeCAD calls OpenCascade (you can call it also directly from C++).

But HyperFun may be fun to try too. I did not even know about it.

[CPTBadAss]

Autodesk Inventor. That's the CAD program I started with.

AutoCAD is amazing for 2D drawings, soldiworks is where it's at for 3D. Inventor is a pile of **** compared to solidworks.

I'd agree with that but I think if we're going the free route, Inventor is a solid option.

[swill]

Autodesk Inventor. That's the CAD program I started with.

AutoCAD is amazing for 2D drawings, soldiworks is where it's at for 3D. Inventor is a pile of **** compared to solidworks.

Sketchup is OK, limited, but it's free, so you can't really complain too much.

Ya, I have been using sketchup for my random stuff cause its easy and free.  I have built renovation plans for the city with it and I have done very basic stuff for my minimal case design.  It is good enough to give an idea of sizes and space, but I would not trust it for something like a plate.  Too easy to mess up the precision.

[vvp]

I have a few questions for real CAD users.
Notice the cuboid on the picture (a screen shot from FreeCAD). It was created using two operations. The 1st was extrusion of a rectangle (Pad) and the second one was creation of a circular hole in it (Pocket). Notice that the pocket location is constrained to the position of the magenta edge of the cuboid. If the magenta edge changes so does the position of the hole.

FreeCAD can typically redo all your operations without any input from user if the new version of the object they operate on and the old version of the object are perfectly isomorphic (e.g. dimensions changed, position of some features on the object changed but number of vertices/edges/faces did not change and they are all connected the same way). I suppose this will work the same way with all commercial CADs.

Now the problems start when some new edges appear in the new version or some edges disappear from the new version of the object on which a operation is based:

• Lets say the original cuboid creation (Pad) would be modified so that  its vertical edge A is chamfered. This adds 2 vertices, 3 edges, and 1 face to the solid which is the source of the second operation Pocket (which "drills the hole"). In FreeCAD, this typically results to a situation when the magenta edge cannot be properly located and the Pocket faills (since the circle defining the hole is positioned relatively to the magenta edge). The user now needs to tell FreeCAD where the new "magenta" edge is (and often redefine some constrains in the sketch). Then FreeCAD continues OK.
  The question is: Can comercial CADs find the magenta edge themselves after such a change to the source solid? (Notice that the magenta edge was not directly affected.)
• Now imagine a situation when we would chamfer edge B when creating the cuboid.  This directly affects the magenta edge on which the hole is based. The change to the isomorphism from the old base object (of the Pocket operation) to the new one is just at the location where the magenta edge is too. FreeCAD in this situation cannot find the best candidate for the new magenta edge and the user must define it. How would commercial CADs behave in this situation? Do they find the best candidate automatically?
• FreeCAD does not allow you to insert a new operation into a list of already created operations. (At least I do not know how to do it.) You can only modify the parameters of the existing operations (e.g. dimensions, shape of sketches etc). Can commercial CADs insert new operations in history and redo the following operations appropriately?

[dorkvader]

I'd agree with that but I think if we're going the free route, Inventor is a solid option.

'cept inventor isn't free for a lot of people (like me).

I even tried to get it with my student email address and ID back in college and wasn't able to. It was unfortunate, indeed.

[CPTBadAss]

'cept inventor isn't free for a lot of people (like me).

I even tried to get it with my student email address and ID back in college and wasn't able to. It was unfortunate, indeed.

I just signed up for it for free with a normal gmail account.

[CPTBadAss]

(Attachment Link)
I have a few questions for real CAD users.

More

(Attachment Link)
I have a few questions for real CAD users.
Notice the cuboid on the picture (a screen shot from FreeCAD). It was created using two operations. The 1st was extrusion of a rectangle (Pad) and the second one was creation of a circular hole in it (Pocket). Notice that the pocket location is constrained to the position of the magenta edge of the cuboid. If the magenta edge changes so does the position of the hole.

FreeCAD can typically redo all your operations without any input from user if the new version of the object they operate on and the old version of the object are perfectly isomorphic (e.g. dimensions changed, position of some features on the object changed but number of vertices/edges/faces did not change and they are all connected the same way). I suppose this will work the same way with all commercial CADs.

Now the problems start when some new edges appear in the new version or some edges disappear from the new version of the object on which a operation is based:

• Lets say the original cuboid creation (Pad) would be modified so that  its vertical edge A is chamfered. This adds 2 vertices, 3 edges, and 1 face to the solid which is the source of the second operation Pocket (which "drills the hole"). In FreeCAD, this typically results to a situation when the magenta edge cannot be properly located and the Pocket faills (since the circle defining the hole is positioned relatively to the magenta edge). The user now needs to tell FreeCAD where the new "magenta" edge is (and often redefine some constrains in the sketch). Then FreeCAD continues OK.
  The question is: Can comercial CADs find the magenta edge themselves after such a change to the source solid? (Notice that the magenta edge was not directly affected.)
• Now imagine a situation when we would chamfer edge B when creating the cuboid.  This directly affects the magenta edge on which the hole is based. The change to the isomorphism from the old base object (of the Pocket operation) to the new one is just at the location where the magenta edge is too. FreeCAD in this situation cannot find the best candidate for the new magenta edge and the user must define it. How would commercial CADs behave in this situation? Do they find the best candidate automatically?
• FreeCAD does not allow you to insert a new operation into a list of already created operations. (At least I do not know how to do it.) You can only modify the parameters of the existing operations (e.g. dimensions, shape of sketches etc). Can commercial CADs insert new operations in history and redo the following operations appropriately?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

I'm not trying to be facetious but those are the actual answers. I can explain more if you like

[vvp]

Cool. Thanks.

[The_Beast]

Autodesk Inventor. That's the CAD program I started with.

AutoCAD is amazing for 2D drawings, soldiworks is where it's at for 3D. Inventor is a pile of **** compared to solidworks.

I'd agree with that but I think if we're going the free route, Inventor is a solid option.

Inventor Vs Sketchup: It would depend on what I'm doing. Sketchup is great, like swill said, to quickly get out a rough idea before I forget it. Inventor, not so much (I will say that I haven't used Inventor in 3 years, and before that, 2 years before that). If I'd be doing something to machine, I'd go for inventor simply because a shop is more likely to support it's output files.

I will say that I like sketching in inventor more mostly because it mimics AutoCAD. Solidworks, I know I want this line to be 12", please just let me put in my intended dimensions (and constraints like parallel with this line....)without requiring me to do a smart dimensions after drawing a line.

God, I just realized that I've been using Solidworks on and off (between work and school) for 10 YEARS! That's nearly half my god damn life......

[CPTBadAss]

For me, it's all about hand sketches and then 3D modeling. I'd rather not use sketchup. I like doing that at work as well as my own stuff.

[The_Beast]

For me, it's all about hand sketches and then 3D modeling. I'd rather not use sketchup. I like doing that at work as well as my own stuff.

I can't sketch for ****, I need something to model an idea in.

[precision]

U can go to Autodesk website, create a student account and get a free 3-year licence student edition of AutoCAD or Inventor. And there are many tutorial on Youtube

[CPTBadAss]

Yup, they don't really check if it's an .edu account. I just said I was an alumni of a school and got a license.

[dorkvader]

U can go to Autodesk website, create a student account and get a free 3-year licence student edition of AutoCAD or Inventor. And there are many tutorial on Youtube

That must be why I can't do it. I did that three years ago for class. I'll make a new account then.

[JackMills]

If it doesn`t have to be parametric per say, then you can give this a try http://www.ptc.com/product/creo/elements/direct-modeling/express
You can also try to pretend to be a student and get a one year licence for Creo Parametric (1.0, 2.0 or the old Wildfire 5).
Even if it is the competition, Autodesk does a great deal on it`s 3-year (used to be 5) licences for students. Just sign-up with any email account and download any software you like (Inventor, AutoCAD, give Inventor Fuse a try as well [it`s a copy of Creo Direct Modeling, giving you the opportunity to do some non-parametric design on your parametric design. It`s the future in CAD ;-)] )

[CPTBadAss]

giving you the opportunity to do some non-parametric design on your parametric design. It's the future in CAD

Hm? Can you elaborate on why you'd want to do non parametric CAD with parametric CAD?

[damorgue]

giving you the opportunity to do some non-parametric design on your parametric design. It's the future in CAD

Hm? Can you elaborate on why you'd want to do non parametric CAD with parametric CAD?

Probably to make organic shapes or quicker modeling of complex surfaces.

[JackMills]

because sometimes it is easier to do something without thinking about design intent.
Direct modeling its strength is that you can focus on geometry. It has a 'just do it'-kind of approach to designing. I have a friend who likes to 3d-sketch using direct modeling and then translate it into parametric design. Both approaches are being offered in the same package, giving more freedom to a designer. For one-off designs the direct approach is more logical. If you want scalability you choose parametric. And if necessary, you can mix and match. 

[Candyflip]

Edit: This is an old post I'm dumb.