I wanted to clarify a few things for the 3D workflow only people that emailed me after they made some incorrect assumptions based on the quick and heavily edited video in my last Jays Garage post. Oh and yes I noticed they spelled my name incorrectly and also listed the wrong URL for AutoCAD.
Believe it or not 2D is as critical and in some instances more critical than 3D depending on what you do, 3rd party programs, construction workflow, and your personnel. There are some things like the drawing a sketch of a part that are hard to beat AutoCAD‘s speed hands down and the sketch may be all that is needed to communicate the construction accurately. Sure there are some parts like the classic Ford Model T bearing cap that was shown on the video in 3D that are better in a 3D mechanical modeler, but Jay’s Garage still has a vital need for 2D for many of their parts and documentation.
In addition to my many years of experience as an AutoCAD user, I have also been an Autodesk Inventor since before Autodesk Inventor R1 was released and having modeled several thousand part assembly of a motorcycle I fully understand and can appreciate the benefits of Autodesk Inventor and discussed with Jay’s Team the benefit of Inventor and maybe that might be something they move to later and with the Autodesk Inventor Suite they get the best of AutoCAD in a Mechanical flavor as well as Autodesk Inventor a win-win. I also believe a small 3D scanner would be perfect for capturing the geometry of the existing parts for reverse design and creation of the replacement parts by Jay’s Team.
So give respect to both 2D and 3D as they are equally vital in communication and neither will be replaced across the board in the future.
What do you think? 😉
Cheers,
Shaan
