SGI: Computer Graphics

That sounds pretty clumsy. In Bobcad, for example, if you want to copy a line or set of features, you'd select them then chose "copy" then "parallel" and it would ask you how far. Enter the number then click the mouse on whichever side you want to copy it. All magically lined up perfectly. Then if you want to move you'd use "translate" again with a discrete number. I am not a big fan of snapping .... I could do your drawing above in about thirty seconds, honestly. And I'm no longer in practice.

Bobcad does not have a Big League reputation but for things like that, boy is it fast. Whoever Bob is, he did a heck of a job of getting exactly what you need into the program instead of a bunch of junk you have to sort through to get what you want. (Also it is a DOS program. When these programs went Windows they went Shit. The Windows interface is not convenient or speedy for that kind of work.)


Hmm. I've never cared for Autocad but it's been 3d for decades. I understood that it was popular with architects and builders because of a lot of built-in features specifically for the building trades (doors, windows, walls, ducting, landscaping, that kind of thing.)

I know Pro/E has an entire package of piping tools but that seems like it would be way overkill for a builder.

That can be done with ProCAD+ also, but I find mouse+keyboard combination more natural than having to visualize everything in my mind. Also with isometric grid and angular constraints to isometric angles it is very easy just to draw some lines directly at right places. I am more of a mouse generation myself than a oldskool hardcore user.

I remember testing older AutoCAD R13, or something and it had that awful rectangle around the cursor where you could define the snap area and it would only snap to things inside that area. No need to say it always snapped to wrong places and was very tedious to constantly change the settings for the thing. At the place I studied there was AutoCAD 2000 and it was so much better in every way possible.

You won't get any argument from me about how awful Autocad is. I hate that thing

That's a sprocket, by the way. And the teeth need a totally different shape if you plan to run roller chain on them

Always good to learn new english words. (Most of my english comes from the movies and computer magazines.)

There actually is an example drawing that came with the program and was drawn by someone who makes those in real life, so I knew mine was not very accurate. But as always I went where the fence was the lowest and skipped the filleting, as it was only meant to give an illusion of something that could work instead of working in reality.

Is this one any better?

Have you had a look at rpcemu? Performance does depend on your graphics card, but any recent laptop will provide ample CPU power, RAM, HD space and transfer rates. The emulator itself is free (there are others, including a commercial "VirtualRiscPC"), and a ROM image can be had for free (version 5.xx, with "issues") or GBP5.00 (version 4.02, from http://www.e-junkie.com/43789/product/5 ... Version%29 - there is a more expensive download with most versions from 0.30 to 3.71, but you need a different emulator for anything earlier than 3.50).

Much !

I would try it in aras of fun, because I never tried a RISC OS box, and this would take me close... but not real need at all. I mean, I already solved my design requirements with a bunch of fixed apps since several years now.

But yeap, some RISC OS trial would be fun!

Exactly! A world of difference!

Maybe in a more detailed objects, but for simpler objects not really a big deal.

You can always cheat and use combination of several programs to make things easier to visualize. Below an example, where early Archimedes 3D-program was used to export as vector image and then dropped to ProCAD+ for finishing, and from there to Compo for final image. I quite like that retro look, and when I have more time will make complex scene using graphics like that.

Looks very nice, I like it a lot!

They do look nice but here's the problem : for a CAD program, you need to show top view, left view, right view, front and back view. The isometric is a frippery added on when the plan views could be confusing and usually isn't even included. And "complex scenes" ... you're not talking CAD here. Visualizations of buildings, artist's "renderings", whatever but not CAD.

CAD is intended to create drawings from which to make parts (or in the case of Autocad, buildings.) It really isn't meant for artistic renderings of anything. There are times when 2d is nicer - e.g., a layout of frame geometry for a bicycle or motorcycle. But in general you will need to have the requisite views for manufacture. If you create the model in 3D then all you have to do at the end is choose the views and arrange them on the drawing. If you do it in 2D then you have to create every single view separately. One other advantage to 3D is that in most cases you can change the model and all your views will update. "Oh crap, that protrusion should be two inches longer !" ... one change instead of five.

I don't mean to say you can't create good drawings in a 2d program but it's a lot more work and a lot more prone to errors. If you are doing it for fun that's cool but if you are trying to design something to be built, you'd rather avoid errors and extra work and potentially wrong parts that you get to eat. Steel and aluminum are not nourishing and they're hard on the teeth.

I still like wireframe better than solids a lot of the time though

Sure Hamei, relax, I'm not leaving the trenches!
...my actual state is that the work from theinonen looks very nice, without considerations of what he uses to do it.

In fact, for my own case I consider my requirements for CAD/CAM/EDA/Etc... all of them solved for now. I think there are about six F.O.S.S. apps, and a couple commercial apps, that combined are more than enough power for my workflow; or at least for the major part of it.

The theinonen's approach is powerful and simple for many cases, and I used something like that quite a lot years ago; but right now I need the flexability of 3D. And I don't care if it is new or old; in fact I consider 'Inventor View' one of the biggest time saver at the time of preview to check the inside/outside of a model. I can zoom-in and zoom-out, inside and outside the model, rotate, translate, change perspectives, etc... no matter how hard you worked to get a wonderful model done, if it is relatively complex, your mind can loss some details and there you have 'IVVIew' and 'Scene Viewer' to tell you everything on a blink. And that's a big loss to consider if you work plainly 2D, generating your own hand-made perspectives, of course!

But sometimes, if you need to arrange an "Owner's Manual" or a "User Guide" to illustrate the use for a single issue product, I think the theinonen's way is very handy and more than useful.

So, everybody happy!

Oh well, time to back to work!
All the best,
Diego

Some rounded corners...

Not accurate copy as I have no iPhone myself and was mostly made as fun exercise.

Could have been made to look more realistic, but somehow I like this style more than the photorealistic one. Everything is kept more or less the way it came out from the CAD program.

Hello there!



Always liked your graphic work, looks perfect por all kind of manuals, technical brochures, user guides, and all the rest. I could not handle 2D so well like you, you can take it for sure!

Anyways, I'm progressing every day a little bit with FreeCAD, you know: it is very user-friendly, I'm pretty used to it, and it is cool to discover every week one or two new features built into the latest update. I'm very happy with it, I could not say the opposite. Of course there are things I can't do yet... but I think it is just matter of time, and probably some bigger box!

Oh well... I miss Nekochan. Too much work lately, and no time for computer talking and all the rest... but I'm here... heheh!

Have a great night!
Diego

Another phone.

This is actually made from my own phone without reference picture, so not 100% accurate but pretty close I would say.

Comes straight from a CAD program without any fancy shading and just light+shadow added in Compo. (Screenshot of Android was taken from internet and was the first picture returned by Google.)

Very nice work, looks well! So, is it another one from the (RISC OS) ProCad+ / Artworks 2 couple? Any chance to see the box (i.e.: YouTube) running the OS and apps? All the best,

Diego

This was drawn in ProCAD+ and saved in Acorns Draw vector format. It was then dropped in ArtWorks and just saved there in Artworks vector format to get smoother image because antialiasing.

Finally the Artworks file was dropped to compo for some cheap effects, basically white sphere composited on top of screen and shadow added with shadow tool. Nice thing is that vector images can be automatically masked and you can work with them without any quality loss (scale, rotate, etc), as after operation image is rasterized again from the vector image. You can bring those also as vector images but then lose all the fun stuff, like blending and so on.

Nicely done. For vectorided work I frequently use the good and old Xara Xtreme (for much less complex stuff than that) and excepting for some new bug that it developed along latest versions (upper menues are lost) it works really well too.

Anyway, I tend to find easier to work right from the start with the classic 3D stuff that everyone knows here and then after some export add whatever I need (like titles) mostly with Xara or more rarely with GIMP. But I think your method retains better the little details for more complex imagery, and after all you don't need to worry at all about cameras, lights, etc.

As I said, very nice stuff. I would love to have something like that to illustrate datasheets, user manuals, and all kinds of things like that!

All the best,
Diego

I used to do some 3d modelling when was younger but sucked on things like texturing and setting up lights/views, actual models were not that bad though. In fact those modelling tutorials that I read back then are still useful even in 2d work, as can translate flat picture into perspective and just pull/copy the details from it to get the 3d view of object.

I love Compo as there are some things that can not be done or are hard with just a vector program. I can add that stuff later with Compo by just experimenting and stacking things over picture.

Some wise man once said if you can not make them just fake them. Below is a quick example to demonstrate adding lighteffects later. (Image used is the iconic ArtWorks/Xara Midget.)

And it looks great! ...anyways, no RISC OS around to try the apps your using.

I would say I'm used to FreeCAD, but it would not be entirely true... I use so many apps on last years that now I need to think a bit before to do some not too frequent operations. All in all I would say it reached for me pretty much the desired level of usefulness.

So, anyone using FreeCAD over here? It runs on pretty much every major platform now. No IRIX, well... but you can run it using any netbook or tablet, which is a plus. I would not model using a portable, but it is very useful as itinerant viewer when you model using some more powerful workstation and need to check things on field.

Greetz!
Diego

[EDIT] For cleaner reading... [/EDIT]