Official Luthiers Forum!

Updates are less expensive than buying a new version outright, and they're not mandatory. Unless there's a major paradigm shift in CAD, you'll never need anything more than the tools in Rhino 4 (or 3, or probably 2) to do lutherie-related work. Rhino already has more advanced tools than any other CAD software I know of, and people get by with those other ones as well.

RhinoCAM and MadCAM are two CAM plugins for Rhino; they're both relatively full-featured (more than you'll need).

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

I tried the free program and wouldn't even work. Tech support forums wasn't much to speak of.
I have also tried Rhino but its way too complicated for my limited amounts of extra time. I think I'll try MOI3D and see what it is.

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

I'm interested in Rhino 4.0. At one time I did quite a bit of work with AutoCad 2000 modeling electronic assemblies in 3D so we could get the plastic cases designed, would the transition to Rhino be very difficult?

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

I also have AutoCAD experience and I found the transition to Rhino to be pretty easy. They do a lot of the same things, but Rhino definitely has some superior surfacing & curve editing tools compared to AutoCAD.

Trev

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

I was hoping that might be the case. Good to hear about the improved surfacing and curve editing tools.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

I downloaded CoCreate Personal Edition, and it does work. I will "give it a whirl" when I have the time to learn it. Thanks for the tip, Jim!

Now, this thread has veered off into "what other CAD program should I consider...", and may I submit that I was a professional draftsman for a few cabinet shops and architectural millwork firms, and there was virtually nothing that we ever built that could not be drawn with the simple and extremely inexpensive DesignCAD software. I went through quite a number of versions of that software, and was in pretty close contact with the original author over the course of his involvement. There was a time when the DesignCAD DXF output files were not quite up to snuff when I tried to send files to architects, and so I bought and sometimes used AutoCAD. But, DesignCAD remained on my machine, and since it worked perfectly for pretty much everything I had to draw, I tended to go back to that application more than AutoCAD (which I always felt was less intuitive.) Autodesk, the creators of AutoCAD, had a brilliant marketing strategy: they gave AutoCAD to schools for free or nearly for free, and so every year, more and more students graduated and entered the workforce that had AutoCAD experience. I believe that was why they have dominated the CAD market, and not because they were actually a better CAD application than many competing applications.

Over the years, I read the magazine reviews on CAD software. Usually, the reviews were divided into cheap and expensive software, but occasionally, the reviewer would throw everyone in and then do a head to head comparison. I always got a chuckle when the reviewer had to admit that DesignCAD (which then retailed for $300), rivaled the $3000 applications such as full-blown AutoCAD, and had some features that made it more intuitive.

DesignCAD was eventually sold off to IMSI, who also bought out TurboCAD, and that would normally mean the death knell for the application that made them the least income, DesignCAD (because it is less expensive.) However, against all odds, it has survived - a testament to the value of the application and a continuing audience. Ever since the first 3D version of the software came out, I always bought the 3D version, but almost always ran the software in 2D mode. I currently have the version 17 (DESIGNCAD 3D MAX VERSION 17), because the latest version (v19) did not have any new features I need or bug fixes that affect me. I have drawn 4 guitars from scratch using DesignCAD 3D MAX v17, and have made all my templates and molds for those guitars. I also use it to make 1:1 (full) scale drawings of smaller parts such as bridges, neck and tail blocks, and headstocks.

So, what do you want your CAD program to do for you? Do you actually need a 3D modeling application (as opposed to a CAD application) to yield output that can be imported into a CNC machine? In those cases, I believe you need to get out your wallet (unless the CoCreate Personal Edition of their solid modeling application is adequate), and gear up for the learning curve of 3D modeling (it ain't an easy trip.) If I was planning to model complex carved surfaces for something like carved-top electric guitars, and want to model, then send it directly to CNC, this is the route I would go.

But if you just need to draw guitars and guitar parts in 2D (like every set of plans on the market), then you may find that DesignCAD is a great tool with a tremendous bang for the buck. (I should write ads for them!) You can currently get a copy of DESIGNCAD 3D MAX VERSION 17 on Ebay for around $20, including shipping! Make sure you do not get "floorplan" or "express", and if you want to save $4.37, then you could buy the 2D version of the software instead (DESIGNCAD VERSION 17)

Wanna take it a step further? DesignCAD can output files as DXF and DWG (AutoCAD formats) and there are a number of G-code converters on the market (maybe even some freeware), so you should be able to draw in DesignCAD and still get the files you need to input into CNC equipment. Do you want full 3D renderings, fully textured with sophisticated lighting? If your thoughts on 3D solid modeling lean toward a desire to produce 3D visualizations of instruments, then download the free version of trueSpace v7.61 before it is no longer available, and you can take that even further with free ray-tracing rendering engines to make the graphics output even more realistic. To go this route, you would either need to learn to use DesindCAD in 3D mode, and export 3D wireframes, and import those into trueSpace, or else export 2D drawings, and learn to extrude solid shapes from those parts in trueSpace. Sound complicated? Well, then just use DesignCAD 3D in 2D mode (like I have been doing so far), and utilize those very useful drawings.

Hope this helps!

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Dennis, as usual, you are a voice of reason. I will go get one and try it out. Could you post a few "3d" renderings in wire frame mode (jpegs)?

Mike

Dennis, I ordered V18 of DesignCad. Then I downloaded TrueSpace.

Sounds like TruesSpace is a product that has reached the end of the line, true? Of course, I am still running XP, so what does that mean?

Looking forward to discussing DesignCad with you,

Mike

Dennis, glad you weighed in here, its always good to hear from a pro. I've been using Visio for drawing my small guitar parts only because that's what I have to use at work for cables and fixtures; definitely less then ideal. Of course Visio is 2D only but its surprising how much you can do with it once you learn the ins and outs. Our other software option at work is SolidWorks but as an EE it doesn't make sense to spend the money for a seat since I just don't do that much mechanical design.

I remember how hard it was to learn AutoCad; at the time I was working for a small company and we couldn't afford the training so I had to do it on my own. Fortunately a friend was teaching CAD at a local tech college and gave me a very good textbook that I could work through. I still have AutoCad on my machine at home but just really have no desire to use it if I can avoid it. I also purchased a version of TurboCad about 5 years ago and I didn't care much for that product.

So I just went on ebay and bought DESIGNCAD 3D MAX VERSION 17 for $21 including shipping. If it works as well as you say, and I expect it does, then I look forward to trying it.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Mike and Steve, I think you will be surprised by the ease of use and the power of DesignCAD.

One of the things I used to love about DesignCAD was that they had a different (third) way of making curves than AutoCAD. Like AutoCAD, you have spline and bezier curves. In DesignCAD, you could also place up to 200 points, then hit "C" for curve, and voila, you had a complex (or simple) curve. Then, you can snap onto any of the points, and move that point, and the entire curve redraws itself to go through all the points. I used this functionality to draw my first guitar's body shape. Later, I found out that modern printshops no longer deal with architectural drawings for plotting the way they used to (at least, nowhere in my town), and don't really support DXF or DWG files very well. They really want PDF files, and oddly, even some straight lines were skipped in translation to PDF for plotting. I mention all of this to let you know in advance that you probably do not want to use the "C" curve function in DesignCAD, because it did not translate well in an output file (there were gaps in the curved line upon plotting.) It took a number of test plots and re-translations of the drawing to get it to plot curved lines correctly, and the one and only technician in my town had quit and moved away by the time I went back for my next plot. (Maybe I sent him over the edge? )

I have also found out that the "C" curve function does not translate well to G-code (for the possibility of CNC at any point in the future of your designs going to CNC.) So, I drew my second, third, and fourth guitars using arcs for all curves, because I know that arcs translate well. All of this long explanation is just to recommend that you ignore the (cool) "C" curve function if you ever want to plot or take the files to CNC. (Sometimes I still use the "C" curve to sketch a curve, then work over top of that to create arcs that approximate the curves, then finally delete the complex curve.)

Mike,

True, unless Microsoft resurrects it. Gotta wonder why they would bother buying it out. That usually means either killing a product that is competing with something they already own, or entering a new arena - neither of which seem to be true in this case. But the good news is that anyone savvy enough to download it right now (for free, legally), before it disappears, will have a cool 3D modeling and animation tool to play with if they ever want to venture in that direction.

Again, I don't work in 3D with DesignCAD, just 2D. I have played with it, a while ago, in 3D, but have no renderings I can show you. I'd recommend getting comfortable with 2D first, and know that down the road, you can extrude 3D shapes from 2D closed shapes/polygons - when you're ready to try that. For "flattop" guitars, a 3D rendering would be almost exclusively for visualization anyway. Quite frankly, the extrusion is very easy, but the next step, Boolean subtraction of one solid intersecting another is much more difficult, both in terms of aligning the solids and the software/CPU burden. I just posed (on the fledgling United3DArtists forum) the question of whether it is better to create 2D in CAD and then extrude and do Boolean operations within trueSpace, or whether it is better to do the Boolean operations in 3D CAD before exporting the 3D wireframe from CAD and importing that into trueSpace. Again, we are getting WAY ahead of ourselves here, and out of 1000 luthiers that might find some uses for 2D CAD drawings, maybe a handful would ever take all the extra steps to create 3D renderings (modeling.)

The kinds of things I use CAD for:

Making templates
(spray glue on the back of a plotted drawing, and stick to the film-covered Lexan sheet.)

(A couple of experimental designs, "Grace", and "Basia." Note that some of the straight lines for radial braces on the left shape are missing from the plot.)

Small parts:


The tailblock for my "Angelina" guitar sweeps in at the butt. Here, you see 1:1 drawings printed on my printer, glued to the blocks, then bandsawed out.

Engineering visualizations:
Tthese three drawings use the same pivot point for the neck, so I can see the effect on the string action height and various other parts positions when rotating an adjustable neck in both directions - even beyond normal extremes.
The drawings represent 0° rotation (normal setup), then -1.5°, then +1.5°.







Hope this helps to see what use CAD has for a luthier.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Dennis, thanks for the heads up on the 'c' function curve. t would be a drag to get to Kinkos and find out the critical parts of my drawing would not print.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"