4 ms·
That a CAD program can only handle 2D doesn't mean that it doesn't describe 3D. Even when plans where physical large format blueprints, 2D, the product they des
by liotier 3y ago
That a CAD program can only handle 2D doesn't mean that it doesn't describe 3D. Even when plans where physical large format blueprints, 2D, the product they described was of course always 3D. In French, the draughtsman was called a "dessinateur projeteur" - as projecting the 3D objects to a 2D plane (the plan !) was his core skill.
- iancmceachern 3y agoExactly, because the end result is a 3d object in the real world that needs to function with its surroundings in 3d space. How we write down that shape to communicate it to eachother doesn't matter so much. It's like language vs content
- BillyTheMage 3y agoSeems like a massive waste of time to me, like hours vs seconds kind of waste of time. With 3D CAD, if I have a top view of a part and want to add a side view, it's like 3 clicks to just... make it exist. All views are derived from the 3D part/assembly, there's no effort needed to make new views pop into existence. Maybe I'm out of date on 2D CAD knowledge, but from what I remember you'd literally have to re-sketch the entire part for the new view. Because it's drawn in 2D, you can't just "flip it on its side" like you can a 3D part. And then you have to make sure you actually sketched the part correctly and didn't forget anything. I see it as analogous to programming with toggle switches.
- iancmceachern 3y agoExact this. I can design parts in solidworks in a few minutes, drawings included, that would take much longer to draw in autocad.
- liotier 3y agoYou are exactly right: 3D CAD has taken the draughtsman's job.