TurboCAD Census

Discussion in 'Gallery & Designs' started by Gil, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. Gil

    Gil Active Member

    I was wondering how many of you are users of TurboCAD and whether you're using it to do design with. It's come up now and again that it would be nice for someone to do a tutorial on how to use it to make cardmodels along with Pepakura.

    Let's find out whether it's time to start something!

    Best regards, Gil
  2. Ashrunner

    Ashrunner Member

    I just recently acquired TurboCAD 10 and am slowly learning it. After having spent years with TurboCAD 7, most of the commands are familiar to me. However, the 3d stuff is a little different, but something I want to learn.

    Presently I am using TurboCAD for the BUFF redraw. That is working out well, but slow. But TurboCAD has some features I didn't know about that is making it a little easier than the first couple of pages were.

    A tutorial regarding TurboCAD and paper modeling, would for me, be something I would be interested in. 8v)
  3. gera

    gera Member

    I would also like to know if Pepakura is "worth" for good scale models, the samples I have seen with this program look mostly like toys......but the price is good :?: :?:
  4. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    I, like you, had reservations regarding Pepakura's "worth" for scale models. I've been using it for nearly two years now and have found it to be a very good tool for developing (unwrap) 3D structures. It is limited to the amount of surfaces that it can unwrap but it's not meant to unwrap Nurbs type objects. IMHO it's the best unwrapper by far in this price range.

  5. RyanShort1

    RyanShort1 Member

    I am using it a bit for my P-51D redraw as I was so unsatisfied with certain parts as to feel the need to dabble in a bit of construction!
    Off and on I also work on a Piper Tomahawk and an armored vehicle.
    My main thing is that I'm using version 7.0 from which I'd really like to upgrade for more 3d versatility.

  6. gchucky

    gchucky Member

    I'm using v8 but have not started anything complex (just simple models that I can visualize being flat). I created some Hako figures (Santa and some toy soldiers) but could not get the coloring that I wanted and ended up finishing the model using Adobe Illustrator. I find that 2d drawings can be drawn fast but if you want shaded areas, a little more planning is involved. Drawing the same model in Illustrator takes even more work but you can select the shading that you want.

  7. NOBI

    NOBI Active Member

    Hi Gera,

    S-3 Viking, X-15, Hawker Tempest Mk.I, Supermarine Attacker, A-36 "Apache", Fokker D.XXI, X-43 "Hyper X", XP-56 "Blackbullet", Heinkel He.P.1078, Skoda Hauer P.1401, Mya VM-T Atlant, Yak-17, Baby MIG-15, B5N2 Kate, SAAB J-21, Yak-23, UH-1D, Tucano T.1, Baby Bf-109 and C-130 from http://Thaipaperwork.com is a result from "Pepakura" combine with Free powerful program "Metaseq"
  8. Maurice

    Maurice Member

    TC has no particular orientation to card model design and is certainly not the much sought after prog that will design models without effort or understanding. So a tute on it's use in this area would be of limited use.
    As a full blown CAD prog it is capable of standing wih the best in the field and some find the GUI far more user friendly, easy to learn and speedy than the command line system of other progs.
    As with all CAD the best chance of using it successfully comes from specific training and having to use it in employment. Hobby users may find it too difficult, then again some may not.
    I have taken the trouble of accurately developing some slightly complex segments in TC and running the same items in 3DS format through Pepakura.
    Now it's not that Pep is innaccurate but it's tolerances are rather (read "very") coarse. So, for example, a development that should show a gentle reflex curve along the edge will likely only give a straight line from Pep. It seems to me that this coarseness is one of the limits to what Pep can do in the way of models.
    Currently the combination of Metaseq and Pep is possibly the best way to go for those attempting to start in paper model design and as yet unsure of what's involved. The limitations will have to be accepted until more sophisticated progs can be used.
  9. As a commited AutoCAD user at work I found the TurboCAD consumer version I have to be a PITA. I like Rhino a lot better. Will probably buy InteliCAD to avoid any potential copyright and end user problems with AAutoCAD. I will be retiring shortly and I will probably go back to school some. The idea of cheap student price software is too much to pass up :D :D Actually I am trying to get a handle on the whole unfolding issue but my time is short right now
  10. Gil

    Gil Active Member

    Hello All,

    The genreral sentiment seems to be negative regarding the usefulness of a TurboCAD tutorial. I tend to agree that TC is not recommended for beginners and that seems to be many of the regular membership. Now to figure how to shut down a poll...,

  11. Maurice

    Maurice Member

    ie brainwashed at an early stage and now totally beyond redemption.
    Admit it, you didn't choose it. You were forced to use it under threat of starvation.

  12. Guilty as charged, AutoCAD is one of the programs that people either love or hate. I have been using it long enough that I know a few short cuts and can find my way around certain problems. The rendered Metcalf images where done in AutoCAD 2002. But I am more comfortable working with solids in AutoCAD than surfaces. This is probably due to my experience in Tool Work where you have to think in three diminsions about solids anyways. Now I admit I would love to get a free copy of SolidWorks or RHino but I doubt that is going to happen. Actually in relation to CAD software and modeling I am currently doing the drawings for a 9/18 cylinder radial engine of 12.5/25 cubic inch displacement that I'd like to try building in the home shop. 14" OD and probably about 16 inches long with the prop. Prop diameter ???

    PS My avatar is a rendered AutoCAD solid model
  13. wunwinglow

    wunwinglow Active Member

    Can I suggest that all of the mentioned programs, and a whole lot of others too, are all extremely capable of generating useful output for paper models. The 'problem', if one can call it so, is the ability of the user. Having a clear idea of what you want, the limitations of the printing process, and working back through the tools available in the software package, will usually give you a solution. Problems arrise when inapporpriate tools, methods etc are used. Rhino, for example (my favourite) is brilliantly easy to use with NURBS lines. Too easy perhaps! Fabulous surfaces are a few mouse clicks away, the model looks clean and crisp, but will be disaster when it comes to either unroll surfaces with more than one degree of curvature. They won't! Argh! So generate a mesh and unroll it in Pepekura. Eek! 12000 triangles! Rhinos' fault? No. Designers fault for using inappropriate surfaces for the purpose. Designers fault for not exploring the mesh controls properly. Designers fault for not doing the excellent tutorials. Designers fault for not thinking through what he TRULY wants. But Rhino gets the blame, because it didn't work out as simple as expected. And not really surprising, when the apparently really difficult curvy, swoopy stuff was such a doddle.

    This applies to all software packages. If you don't take the time to LEARN how to use them, you will not get the output you want. Heck, if you don't practise, a Grand Piano is only a fancy piece of furniture!

    My favourites are CorelDraw (now at v11) and Rhino, with PaintShop Pro following. Even now, having used them for years, (Corel from V3, Rhino since the original demos were released, and PSP since v4) I am still learning how they work.

    Tim P
  14. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    I agree with you whole heartedly...., one point of using TurboCAD for paper model design was to show how to use the tools in the most primitive format, that the model be composed only of triangular facets. It is almost tedius to use TC this way as one has to keep checking to make sure "settings" are correct and that only "surfaces" are produced. I too love Rhino but most of it's feature set is discarded when it comes to designing unwrappable paper models so a tutorial on using it for design would be on what how to limit the application in order to produce developable surfaces....,

    The fact stands that Rhino 3D simply cannot be equaled by any other application and though expensive it is not so in productivity and this after all is what really counts.

  15. Maurice

    Maurice Member


    What is this problem you seem to be having with settings in CAD. Can any of us help?
    I think you'll find the surfaces problem can be overcome by using the loft command rather than extrude.


Share This Page