CAD vs. Paper

Okay folks, let's throw down on this. Rules: No name calling. Stuff like "Pencil Pushing Pinhead" and "CAD Worshiping Lame-brain" are right out.

I'll start.

I have 25 years of drafting experience. About 5 of those were done on paper. Half of those were in the Architectural field, the other half was in Mechanical Engineering. The latter industry quickly saw the benefits of CAD and from that point on I was all CAD. I've been working in 3D most of that 25 years, working with CADDS 4 and a variety of other 3D packages. It wasn't long before I became heavily involved in the sales and marketing of CAD software from a technical perspective. My last stint was as an Applications Engineer with SolidWorks.

What this exposure has shown is that there is a lot going on in the industry that the typical user may not realize. All this talk of 'fairness' and 'developable', etc (implying that this is done by eye and hand) is peanuts compared to the complex shapes and forms that can and are being developed by PEOPLE who have mastered these tools. Without question, you can do so much more and have fewer limitations than you do creating forms and shapes by hand. Period. This is an undisputable fact. Keep in mind that a lot of the people who set down the criteria for this software are the same people who spent most of their lives bent over a drafting table.

The problem is that, like any tool, in the wrong hands the results can be abysmal. But how is that different from anyone without skill trying to draw a boat by hand? A lot of the opposition to CAD mostly stems from those who oppose it also having a fear of it due to lack of expertise. That's understandable. The irony is that some of CAD's biggest proponents are those who have decades of hand drawn experience.

Bottom line: if you are serious about working in this industry and being good at it, you MUST be proficient with the tools. Today, CAD is the tool. If you are a weekend designer and you find pleasure in hand drawing but don't expect to make a living at it, by all means keep drawing.

 

Rick you hit the nail right on the head.

I have 40 years of marine experience, 30 as a designer. I started out drawing with paper and pencil/pen, splines and curves, then made the switch first to 2D cad and then to 3D. While I miss the art and the process of drawing by hand I will not go back to it, except for preliminary sketch work. I can draw and fair a set of lines quicker and more accurately in Rhino (my preferred software) than I can manually. Any fair curve which a spline or curve can make, Rhino and other programs can make, and then some. Sure there is a learning curve but that's true of anything. And yes the programs can be expensive, but good tools generally are.

People say you are limited by how the software was programmed but that hasn't been proven to me.

I think the proof is in the pudding. There are very few boats designed by hand these days. Look at the lines of some of the prettiest custom or production boats built in the last 10 years. Those lines were most probably drawn using a 3D software program.

I don't think people who use manual design techniques are wrong to use them, in fact I think it is great to keep the old techniques alive. In fact I think anyone who wants to be a professional designer should spend an apprenticeship designing at least one boat manually and one electronically and should spend time on the loft floor (if you can find one these days) and in a production shop.

 

Rick,
This will be an interesting thread for design/CAD newbies like myself to follow, though I expect you'll find supporters on each side. I would like to ask a related question, however, but if you feel I am hijacking your thread, let me know & I'll ask the question elsewhere. "Does the use of CAD stifle artistic creativity?" I recognize that one can do anything with CAD that one can do freehand. Though I expect my speed with CAD to increase greatly with use, I wonder if focusing on CAD-related issues detracts from the creative aspect of drawing lines, or if, in the end, the result will be the same, as it seems to me. I wonder, as well, if using CAD is today's version of Herreshoff's wood models, in that the CAD model is 3D and can be viewed at any angle. When using CAD after the preliminary sketch, Is there a value in doing a preliminary profile on graph paper, over doing it on a "bar napkin", or would that be heading down the wrong path?
Mike

 

Mike,

That is not a hijack at all. Don't be so passive. BRING IT!

Preliminary sketches can come from anywhere. Take a shower, steam up the mirror, and draw a shape with your finger and you have a preliminary sketch. Flashes of creativity must be seized in the moment.

You will be focusing on all the nuances of CAD in the first year or so. I can remember the first time I went from using triangles and a t-square to using a mechanical drafting arm. Never used splines and ducks like Joe, so I can't relate but I would guess that using those tools took a substantial learning curve.

To overcome 'CAD-related issues' (whatever that might be), you need to be expert at the tools. My preferred tool is SolidWorks, but that's just because it's what I know. I won't claim to be expert at much in my life, but I am definitely an expert with that particular piece of software. It is second nature to me. At that level, if I draw something stupid and ugly, it's not because of the software. I do not find the software limiting and in fact find it quite liberating when it comes to design. I am slowly teaching myself Rhino when I have the time. But I'm finding it's not so different from most of the 3D software that is out there. In fact, I will say that so far SolidWorks is still heads above Rhino except in one area : sailboat hulls. Or more generally, non-chined or 'fair' hulls. Hulls with chines are a piece of cake in SolidWorks. Check out Y-M Tanton's Artica and Antartica renderings. 100% done in SolidWorks. In fact, if I wanted to develope plates from those models, it would take a couple clicks and it would be done.

But I digress. The software package is not the gist of this thread. There are many other religious discussions going on on this site adressing that stuff.

 

Mike, I have some thoughts on that. You can do it either way but the way I do it is to use CAD after I have done some preliminary sketches. This can be done with sketching software (EXPENSIVE right now) or on a bar napkin or graph paper or whatever you are comfortable working with. I usually start with a sheet of flimsy (tracing paper) overlaid on a grid or one of my older designs for reference, and at the same time decide on some preliminary hydrostatics/displacement numbers, ratios, and coefficients. I adjust the sketch to suit and then go to CAD and repeat, the traditional design spiral (see other threads). Others may do it differently.

I also don't think CAD inhibits artistic creativity. It is a tool which an artist can use to create with, just like a pencil, brush, chisel or camera. Many Rhino users are jewelers who have created some very nice pieces. Go to some of the software web sites and check out the galleries.

 

bear in mind that im not a NA, or even stydying naval architecture, its purley a hobbey, but this is my oppinion. for general ideas and first design concept, i find paper and pencil the most appealing. its something the freedom of a pencil gives: you can simply draw however you want wherever you want and it will always turn out that way.

but when i have the profile, top and rear/forward plans, i want more precision and in depth detail. then i make a CAD on that drawing, so i can turn it, and shape it in 3D. i can get my desired hull shape, and calculate hydrostatics, stability and all possible sorts of data. i can then export it from the boat design to a more 3D designer and make my interior, and bring my imaginary boat to life.

the interior is of course planned on paper though. i change my mind way to often trying to bring all my requirements together, so i print my cad drawing with all the waterlines and etc. so i have a clear picture of what space i have. then i draw, erase, replace and redraw until it fits my desires prefectly. then i make it in the 3D model, and i find things i dont like, and i re-do until its perfect.

after that i just save it and chucks all the papers down a file somwhere, and not wievign it until i design something more later...

 

Each one of the things you gentlemen have said is true, imho.
One in particular: the preliminary drawing needs to be done by hand, pencil on paper. That is the most natural and immediate way for our brain to express the shape it has envisioned. I have tried several times to start a design directly on screen with a CAD, but the result was very disappointing. It was lacking... a soul. After all, we are talking about boats. A boat is not just a mechanical object, it is also an artwork. At least that's how I see (and feel) it.

It is hard to express by words, but drawings made by hand somehow have that misterious peace of life in it, which give a terrific appeal to a design. If you design by hand even just an outline of a desired shape, with few rough curves and lines, it will be enough to switch on your fancy... Something a blank screen just cannot do.
Only after this first drawing was made by hand, it makes sense to me to transfer it into a CAD software, where a detailed engineering design can be performed.

As you know, we have a huge gallery of really excellent design works done by forum members.
Well, I'd love to share with you the only one among the myriad of renderings and 3D models that has made me stop breathing for a moment... Here it is:

http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1184

I consider that one more than a drawing. It is an artwork, unbeatable by any CAD or 3D software printout, imho.

 

I have only been working with freeships , and played a little with some others.
The question is whether the program or the designer is driving the design.
It seems to me that with many programs it is possible to take 2 totally divergent
stylistic themes and make it appear as if they belong together. Some would say that this is a matter of taste , but it is not for me. I spent years working to understand rhythms in line , mostly from nature . Training my arm so that a line could be drawn freehand as if it were pulled from my arm through the end of the pencil . We exist in this natural world , and the rhythms of nature exist in us . A computer program can never make us as aware as the direct physical experience.

The computer is a very powerful tool ,for those trained to get the best out of it , no doubt. And I cant see why one would not use it . Commercially , I dont think you could get by with out it today. But designing for me, happens in the mind, and drawing is about the best way to train it. That is just my opinion of course .

 

Hey,

I have no idea how much opposition to CAD there is but, I have none except that I am unable to get into it. I draw and design with pencil and paper, not because I think it is the best way but because that is the only avenue open to me. No matter what I try to do that is at all complex on a computer, I never am master of more than 90% of what is required to complete the task. Whose fault is that? Its my brain I guess. I am good at visualizing all sorts of interrelationships of parameters but not in the same league as computers so I am forced limit the variables that can be worked with.

One fault that I can lay at the feet of computer nerds is that they do not make enough effort to make the programs workable by non nerds like me. Entry level stuff is still too advanced for old dogs. Too many options, too many bells and whistles and far too many assumptions. I am an old dog and this is a new trick.

 

I don't think your comment makes a lot of sense.

Regardless of whether you are using a T-Square or a monitor you need to have the skills to produce a correct part.

If you don't know what you are doing it is just as likely you would produce "a boat so poorly shaped..." if you are using traditional tools or a CAD system.


FYI: I can touch my T-Square from where I am sitting now, but there wasn't one used in the yacht design office I worked in, back when we did drawings on the boards. We did not have any drafting machines or rolling straightedges either (although I had both on my board at home).

 

I use 3ds max mostly for fun and to work on any fanciful idea that I might dream up. For me that is the point . Cad is an aid to the imagination. I also think that lines is a 2d concept and drawing is method of lines depicting a 3 dimensional object while cad is more like sculpture. After all cad programs are modeling programs. I think that is why half models of wood were made . I still draw as I think but without care and in scribbles that only I can interpret. As cad becomes more second nature to me I sometimes find myself dispensing with the sketches altogether and modeling in the program as I think.

 

I hear violins. And now I want some wine. If you had any doubts about why the Italians dominate the world of design, my friend Daiquiri here should put that to rest.

Par. You are dead wrong mister. Cameras, stripping, proofs, etc. were not replaced by PCs. They were replaced by Macs.

I know exactly where you're coming from. I took a 7 year break from my design career and worked as a Color Systems analyst for Xerox. We were the ones responsible for the death of Chromas, 4C presses, etc. The last machine I worked on at Xerox was a monster called the iGen3. Your analogy is spot on. There are still a lot of Mary Secretary out there who will design some graphic with 37 pms colors then wonder why it looks like crap when printed on her junk inkjet printer. Or better yet, faint when receiving a 5 figure quote for print.

As a programmer, I can tell you that the 'nerds' value simplicity more than anything. It is not their fault that programs become bloated. Frankly it is because the ones who use it (that includes me also). If the software were really simple to use it would most likely not be very full featured. Then the complaint would be, "I don't like this software, it doesn't do <insert function here>." Chicken and egg, Catch 22, Ozzie and Harriet, you get the picture.

When I worked for a SolidWorks reseller, I did a lot of training. The basic class is 8hrs a day for 5 days. Essentially the same as 1 quarter at a community college working 2hrs a week. Many students after the first day were significantly frustrated at their inability to use the software. But by the 5th day, they were amazed at how proficient they had become. You cannot discount the value of training. The training books that SolidWorks publishes are the best I've seen. Better even than the stuff I used when teaching Autodesk products. The books are good enough that going through them 2 or 3 times over the course of a few weeks will make you better than average. Really.

Whatever software you choose, take the time to actually learn it. There are more resources to learn this stuff than ever before. It amazes me how impatient folks have become. "This software sucks because I don't know how to use it."

 

My reading comprehension is quite good. So is my critical thinking ability.

Here is where your comparison falls apart. There are not a large number of boats being produced from the clunky renderings you see on internet sites, done by people who don't know what they are doing. Boats that "are so poorly shaped that they might just remain upright on launching day."

What we often see on these internet sites are people on the steep part of the learning curve. They post things to get feedback that will help them up the curve more easily. Why didn't we experience this with hand drawn attempts in earlier days? Because the CAD tools pre-date the widespread use of the internet for this type of thing.

So for years there may have been just as many people making clunky attempts at hand drawing linesplans and deck layouts and interior arrangements, but we never saw them because there was no place for people to easily share them. I know when I was in college there were 3 of us who drew up sets of plans, and we critiqued each other's attempts because there was no one else to ask about it. Yes, they were clunky attempts. You have to start somewhere.

 

If anyone understands your comparison, it is me. I retired a full color offset pressman. 30 years ago a 4 over 4 color job took a whole team a whole shift to make and if a plate was destroyed it was 3 hours for another.

Now Kodak's Creo system pops out 8 plates in 45 minutes. and the strippers, color separators, typographers just watch in horror from the unemployment lines while one college punk does it all on a pc and plays Nintendo at the same time. and Computer direct to press is getting workable too.

Problem is the work looks damn good. when was the last time you picked up a magazine and immediately spotted a color out of register?

as in many industries the computer is extending creativity rather than cancelling it. I think the trick is controlling your computer rather than letting it control you. Easier said than done but people have done some fine artwork on computers now. As a former printer, I toy with photoshop and illustrator and I'd love to learn some CAD.

I am no draftsman but here is a little before and after ditty I did relating to boats as a time filler a couple years ago. took me about 3 weeks and many many pots of coffee mostly erasing what was originally in the rigging.

http://lighthouscolor.tripod.com/tallship.html

 

Great story Paul.

PAR - true there are plenty of PCs running the show behind the scene. But there was a time when Macs provided the muscle on the backend as well as the front. Even before PCs there were Unix boxes. For a time, most of Scitex's workflow was AIX based. Their first RIPs were IBM AIX machines. EFI RIPs were Unix, Xerox DFEs (Docutech) were Sun based and Splash pre-press RIPs were Mac based. Colorbus used SGI machines. There were a handful of PC RIP guys, but their RIPs were not true postscript and we had a hell of a time with them. When Creo bought the POD part of Scitex, they developed the first real workable PC RIP based on NT4. Until NT4, PCs just couldn't hack it.

oh wait, I hijacked my own thread!