Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick.kremer
In my opinion, if you are new to CAD this is the way to go. Students should get a good handle on 2-D visualization of parts, and the basic drafting techniques before moving on to 3-D parts and assemblies. Similarly, they will be dimensioning in 2-D (for any CAD program), so I believe introducing them to dimensioning initially is better in 2-D.
...
My problem with SolidWorks (for students who start learning CAD with it) is that it automatically generates 2-D views for you when you make drawings from assemblies, which does save time, but limits the amount of time students think about how the part looks. It also seems that dimensioning becomes almost an afterthought, which should never be the case.
|
That would be a gross waste of time. Learning how to use a dedicated 2-D design package like AutoCAD
1 is unnecessary, because the concept of 2-D sketching is still a necessary skill in 3-D parametric CAD (like SolidWorks, Creo, Inventor, etc.). AutoCAD is a reasonable tool to use for plans, layouts and the like, but it is nowadays outclassed by 3-D packages for complex machine design. Incidentally, the fact that 3-D CAD packages generate the 2-D layouts for you is kind of the point: make a change to one parameter, and the 2-D layout is updated automatically without any further expenditure of effort.
As for dimensioning, the most important skill is understanding how dimensions define parts and establish specifications, and being able to recognize when a part is underdefined, is overdefined or could be defined in an alternative way. Knowing how to conventionally represent them on a drawing is a useful skill too, but far less critical than a conceptual understanding of dimensioning.
1 Its 3-D mode doesn't deserve to be dignified by further discussion.