Is learning 3D Design Software as Hard as It Appears?

[tehachapifan]

So, I downloaded a free 3D design program and have tried to mess around with it, but it seems ultra-complicated. Not sure I'm ever going to get it. I've watched a few "basic" how-to videos and can't believe what one guy goes thru just to make a second circle appear on the other side of an object. He spends a really long time trying to set some plane in the center of everything to finally be able to make another circle by using a mirror function. How he set this plane is still not clear to me. Is it really this difficult? I want to draw-up some loco truck side frames but I feel like I need to go get a Masters in 3D graphics first!

[peteski]

I dabbled in SketchUp few years  back and it does seem very tedious and non-intuitive. I often found myself not knowing how to do something that needed to be done. Seems like lots of time is to be spent on the design part. Scratchbuilidng using physical materials the old way seems much easier.

I am planning on revisiting CAD sometime in the future.  I think the big obstacle is that you have to change your way of thinking. And once you get better, designs will come easier.  The best CAD advantage I think is the ability to quickly duplicate or clone repeating shapes.  And we both know that there are modelers out there who can whip out a fairly complex design in the matter of few hours.  Again, I think they have new way of thinking and approaching the problem at-hand.  I think we can do it too (with some exercises and coaching).

I wish I could spend a week with someone like Lemosteam and sit by their side when they are drawing their design. I think that would help to understand how things need to be done. Especially if they were doing something that I was going to design, to see how they approach the problem.

My local vocational High School offers night CAD courses. I think that would be useful to sign up for, but I work night shift, so it is a non-starter for me.  Maybe you have something similar in your area?

Here is one of my successful (basic) examples.  I was helping Mark (spookshow) with his scratchbuilt church. He needed a fairly complex steeple roof.



I drew it in SketchUp



And flattened the parts to be able to make the pieces out of flat material (this was before 3D printing was popularized).



And finally (in CorelDraw I was more familiar with), I made the final design for cut-and-fold parts.



I have to say that with all those complex angles and intersecting parts, it was easier to draw this in SketchUp than figuring it out freehand.

[tehachapifan]

Thanks for the reply, peteski! Yes, there are classes I could probably take at the local JC but I guess I'm still holding out hope that I can figure this out without going that far.

[peteski]

Thanks for the reply, peteski! Yes, there are classes I could probably take at the local JC but I guess I'm still holding out hope that I can figure this out without going that far.

I have no doubts you can learn by yourself, but it would be much easier and quicker to learn with a live human instructor in the class, and you could ask them questions.  If I did not work nights, I would take the class in an instant.  Of course the CAD program they use it class will probably not be the same as you use at home, but I still think that once you "get it", it will be easier to deal with any CAD program.

[samusi01]

Consider online courses like what Lynda.com offers - my local library system offers a free login.

As for me, I am self taught in Fusion 360; I started simple (making 1960s era containers; a box is a box, after all) and got more complex from there.

Recommendation is to dive in, either with a course in person, or self-instruction, as procrastination just makes the process stretch out.

Sam

[Erock482]

I've been teaching myself sketch up for the past few years.

It seems daunting at first, but with practice you get to learning the tips and tricks. at its core its drawing a flat 2d shape, and extruding it to give it depth. With practice you can get to drawing complete train cars like this.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

There is a plethora of tutorials on you-tube for any software you may want to try. Today I was looking for a quick way to make springs in sketch up and sure enough there was a tutorial on it!

[kornellred]

/>
Try DesignSpark Mechanical.  It is 100% free.  I am 70 years old with no CAD experience whatsoever and it has taken me two months to get pretty good with it.  People with lots of CAD experience will be cruising within a couple of hours.

I have tried almost all of the free 3D parametric model offerings and this one has them beat as far as ease of use.  DSM is not parametric, which ostensibly lends itself to greater simplicity.

[tehachapifan]

Thanks for the tips, guys!

One thing regarding any other programs....they would need to be able to create Shapeways-ready artwork.

I picked a program off their list of "free" compatible programs.

[basementcalling]

So, I downloaded a free 3D design program and have tried to mess around with it, but it seems ultra-complicated. Not sure I'm ever going to get it. I've watched a few "basic" how-to videos and can't believe what one guy goes thru just to make a second circle appear on the other side of an object. He spends a really long time trying to set some plane in the center of everything to finally be able to make another circle by using a mirror function. How he set this plane is still not clear to me. Is it really this difficult? I want to draw-up some loco truck side frames but I feel like I need to go get a Masters in 3D graphics first!

Shapeways brags on Sketchup as easy to learn. I would hate to see what they consider a harder program. My results looked like a drunk monkey played with an Etch-a-Sketch. Similar experience to yours with online tutorials or how to videos.

I'd settle for a library of items that could be modified or used as a base for a model for 3D printing. Can't justify anything like an Anycube Photon without the skills to create drawings to use to print items.

My mileage was pretty short on trying to learn CAD software before I went to Anyrail.com to draw my layout.

[narrowminded]

In general, I understand and sympathize with the "not intuitive" sentiments no matter whose program you decide to use.  The whole process is not natural to human thinking.  I have used Sketchup this far and found it "easy" to learn.  I had a head start as I had used 2D cadd for decades and also manually wrote G-code for CNC machining, both similar by style and not so intuitive... until the light bulb goes off.  

My best suggestion is to do the Sketchup tutorials, repeating each several times until you are really comfortable with them.  Not necessarily understanding them but able to glide through them.  As you progress you will start to see some commonality in the different functions and "style" of how cadd works.  Don't expect it immediately but it will come as you progress through the tutorials.  I remember the tutorials having maybe 10 levels?  By the time you've mastered the first few, things will already be starting to make sense.   If you are impatient at this point it could take forever to get it if the frustration doesn't stop you first.  If you are patient, one day it will click, the light bulb will go off, the learning curve will make an abrupt upward turn, and you'll recognize that you could now make that model piece that you've been wanting.  And when you run into a stumbling block at some point, you'll be familiar enough from your experience to be able to use the help features and not chase down rabbit holes, further muddying up the waters.   Hope that helps.

Edit add:  And with Sketchup, draw at 10x *actual the final desired* size.  All of the proportions remain the same but there are some details (like .005" circles or radii) that Sketchup doesn't like to deal with as you draw.  Then, when the scaled up drawing is completed, it's one step to scale the whole drawing back 1/10th.  And then, when editing a scaled drawing, first blow it up 10x, edit, then re-scale.  The reason to chose 10x is it's easy to do, moving the decimal point one place, and seems to be sufficient for the detail we're generally trying to accomplish.   .010" becomes .10",  .10" becomes 1.0",  etc.  When scaled back the dimensions are correct and the details are retained.  Don't ask me why because I don't know.

*Cross out and italics above edited for clarity.*

[Lemosteam]

Russ, any software that have the ability to export a .stl file extension will work at Shapeways.

@narrowminded , scaling up is ok but you have your own printer. I do not recommend designing in anything other than the scale you need because features that look good in a design ten times too large may not be printable when scaled down.

Shapeways has very specific design rules such as wall thicknesses and wire diameters, etc., for the material that you intend to print in that must be followed or you risk rejection after rejection. These rules must be in your mind as you design and many times force dimensional compromises from prototype.

[wcfn100]

So, I downloaded a free 3D design program and have tried to mess around with it, but it seems ultra-complicated.

Most programs are ultra complicated if you look at everything they can do.   Like all software, 3D modeling sofeware is a collection of tools to do a job.  Different packages do things in different ways.

I would say the main hurdle is thinking and planning in three dimensions.   I've seen talented 2D artists struggle with 3D concepts. 

When I go into a project the first thing I figure out is what can be mirrored.  Most freight cars only need 1/4 of the car modeled which can then be mirrored twice.  Then I look at what can be patterned like a row of rivets or board gaps on a wood side car.  Then I try and figure what my base object will be that I will build everything off of that.

For something like a locomotive side frame, assuming it's 2 axle, I know some or maybe all of it could be drawn as 1/2 the frame (left or right side) and then mirrored.  For something like a Blomberg B truck, the bolts around the roller bearing can be patterned.  For the base I would draw the 1/2 frame in 2D and extruded it.  From there all the other details would build off of that.  Think of how you would build it in layers from back to front.

When you get to stuff like air cylinders, that's where people will have their own favorite ways to approach it, especially depending on how 3D you want to make it.

When in doubt, you can always screen capture what you are working on and post it here and explain what you are trying to do.  You will get several different approaches, all of which that may work, and try the one that makes the most sense to you.

Jason

[narrowminded]

@narrowminded , scaling up is ok but you have your own printer. I do not recommend designing in anything other than the scale you need because features that look good in a design ten times too large may not be printable when scaled down.

I understand that thought and it's something that you can encounter when trying to scale from something designed to be rendered in HO but then scale it to print in Z, for example.  Some objects that are very solid or robust in life may render OK but delicate pieces may not render well because they become too small to print.  One theoretical I can think of is printing fine details like grabs where we might draw them to render at .010" regardless of scale and only because that's as fine as we dare to make them.  If designed at .010" in HO and then scaling that drawing to render in Z we'd be trying to print a .004" feature.  And we know that won't work. 

What I'm suggesting is only due to the program not wanting to deal with the miniscule details so has absolutely no bearing on the intended dimension because you are still drawing to an intended target dimension and whether you draw everything at 10x then reduce it 10x or just draw it to the target dimension the end result will be identical... except for the Sketchup program struggling to accept, for example, a .002" radius.  That's the only reason the 10x suggestion is made.  What happens is that when drawn to .020" then scaled down 10x resulting in the intended .002" dimension, the drawing retains that scaled .002" feature just fine.  This effect is almost exclusively an issue with circles and radii.  And this is why I suggest drawing at 10x by just shifting the decimal one place and then when finished, scaling down 10x.  The end result is exactly the intended plan.  And yes, it's weird.

[CNscale]

I If you are patient, one day it will click, the light bulb will go off, the learning curve will make an abrupt upward turn, and you'll recognize that you could now make that model piece that you've been wanting.

This was exactly my experience with SketchUp. I tried to learn it by just dabbling and gave up several times. Then the local public library installed some 3D printers and I got really motivated to draw the spark arrestors I needed for a G-scale locomotive I was working on. It took a while, but suddenly the light went on (not off  ) and everything seemed easier after that.

And with Sketchup, draw at 10x *actual the final desired* size. 

This suggestion was something I ran across while searching online for tips and it solved some problems I was having with small radii. Everything printed fine after scaling it back down.

[Norris04]

As a former architect I must say that I found it harder than learning how to use CAD. But DesignPark Mechanical is a very good suggestion, I think it's way more easier to use than SketchUp and CorelDraw. So far I designed a lot of property in Germany but I couldn't draw a single thing with SketchUp... Maybe because of  the interface, I don't know why.