Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Has anyone out there taught themselves 3D Software?


Note: This thread is 3394 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Because it's winter and I have some time on my hands, I've been playing with 3D graphics for the last few days. I'll likely never become proficient, but thought I'd see if the tools and logic might make any sense. It wouldn't hurt to have some additional experience listed on my resume (been using Adobe software since the 80's). Mostly, it's just a hobby to keep my mind occupied until the golf courses open back up.

I started with some free software... FreeCAD and StrataDesign 3D SE 7. I could't get StrataDesign to run, and while FreeCAD runs pretty well, it seems a bit unstable. Of course, it's very possible the issues stem from user error, but I decided to download a 30day trial version of Fusion360 (AutoDesk). I like that software a lot so far and there's such a difference between it and the free stuff.

Anyway, it's been fun messing around with it. Simple, geometric shapes are pretty easy to work with, but I went ahead and tried to draw a golf club head which is a bit more "free-flowing". I became stuck on cleaning up the design...maybe too much of a challenge at this point.

There seems to be a great deal of math and engineering involved and probably because of my limited education, I'm unfamiliar with much of the terminology. For the most part, the difficulty lies in learning the best way to accomplish the task and resisting the temptation to use other software logic. Also, if you don't do things in the correct sequence, I think it becomes difficult. In other words, there's a right way and wrong way to accomplish what you're after.

For me, it's been a bit like learning Excel formulas and functions (which I'm a novice at). I know the software can accomplish what I want, the hard part is learning exactly how to ask the questions and to keep the formulas as simple as possible. 

Anyway, just wondering if anyone's had success learning this type of software without formal education, or even if it's of any interest to anyone.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I messed with the 3D add-on for AutoCAD very, very briefly as part of my land survey drafting classes and I was mostly indifferent to it.  The instructor said AutoCAD wasn't very popular among 3D modelers so I took his word for it and moved on.  I've watched a bit of 3D modeling on Twitch as well and the vast majority of the streamers seem to use Solidworks, which I have zero experience with.  Anyway, as far as learning it I think it's probably not any more difficult than learning 2D drafting; it's just a matter of becoming familiar with the tools.  When I learned 2D drafting it helped to have an instructor as far as getting fast answers but over the past couple years of trial and error I've probably learned as much on my own as I learned from the classes I took.


Posted
On 2/13/2017 at 4:12 PM, Strandly said:

I've watched a bit of 3D modeling on Twitch as well and the vast majority of the streamers seem to use Solidworks, which I have zero experience with.

A few years ago I played around with Maya which I believe is a Solidworks application. There was just something that made it feel like it would be impossible for me to learn. I've heard Solidworks is considered by many to be the industry standard - for mechanical engineering anyway. But from what I've read online, the "best 3D software" is often contested. 

This time around, it's been a little easier. But it isn't anything I'll be able to master.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I've used 3D studio max, maya, lightwave and cinema 4d at various times in the past.  At the moment I'm putting some time into learning Blender (which is free to use and pretty much does everything I need).

With all these programs the thing I've found is that you have to learn the tools you have available and the shortcut keys to activate them.  When starting out it seems impossible to get anything done as you are always hunting for which tool to use and then trying to figure out how to operate it.  So any artistic ability you might have gets blocked by simply not being able to use the tool. If you watch 'how to' videos on YouTube then invariably the demonstrator rocks through the examples with a blur of key strokes and mouse clicks.

As with pretty much anything you just have to practice practice practice to get to the point where choosing tools becomes second nature.  I tend to follow what's happening on video and then repeat the action on my desktop.  I find this helps me remember what the keys are much more effectively than simply watching the video on its own.  But realistically it is going to take me hundreds of hours to get proficient enough to produce anything useful.  I do however have the benefit of having done this process before on several different platforms so I at least know that eventually I will be able to get there.  I think for a lot of people it just gets too boring and they give up.

 

Adam

:ping: G30 Driver 

:callaway: XR16 3W
:callaway: Big Bertha 5W
:ping: S55 4-W 
:ping: 50' , 56', 60' Glide Wedge
:odyssey: White Hot #7 Putter


Posted
14 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

A few years ago I played around with Maya which I believe is a Solidworks application. There was just something that made it feel like it would be impossible for me to learn. I've heard Solidworks is considered by many to be the industry standard - for mechanical engineering anyway. But from what I've read online, the "best 3D software" is often contested. 

This time around, it's been a little easier. But it isn't anything I'll be able to master.

I would just get an evaluation version of Solidworks. There are many youtube "how-to" videos to guide you through the first stages of development.

About a decade ago, it took me about 2 weeks to learn on my own to design test fixtures and such and about 6 months before I was able to effectively design tools for high volume plastic.

Currently, I've been forced to learn Creo, and I'm still not that proficient in it. Tolerances and parameters are easier to change, because it's a relatively high end professional package developed for tool making. Overall, I like the power behind it without having to pay for Unigraphics, Catia or other packages. So, Creo 3.0 and above can place full featured Solidworks parts in it. So, it's even better. The only thing is the learning time is a lot longer than Solidworks.

Solidworks is the best for home use, and most companies use it when they are not doing heavy duty tooling for plastic.

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I learned Solidworks in college. There are some textbooks you can buy if you want to get more involved. I don't use it for work, so I'm not as up to speed as I'd like to be.

I've got an AutoCAD license on my Mac at home. I've never done much with it, but I plan on trying some simple things in my spare time. In the brief time I've tried it it's seemed much less user friendly than Solidworks.

Corporate usage seems pretty varied. Solidworks, AutoCAD, NX, Creo, and CATIA are the big ones.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:41 PM, JonMA1 said:

or even if it's of any interest to anyone.

I haven't become proficient in any manner with experimenting in 3D, but I was able to create a few basic designs. I wanted to design new door hinges for my cart cover to allow the door to fully open and pivot. The manufactured hinge were a fixed pivot point and the door would not swing fully open. My back round have been designing patterns for metal fabrication, so drawing the new parts was simple. After watching a few tutor videos, I was successful and had the parts printed on a 3D printer.

It will open the door to create small parts for many things if you have a need.

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
10 hours ago, ZappyAd said:

With all these programs the thing I've found is that you have to learn the tools you have available and the shortcut keys to activate them.  When starting out it seems impossible to get anything done as you are always hunting for which tool to use and then trying to figure out how to operate it.  So any artistic ability you might have gets blocked by simply not being able to use the tool. If you watch 'how to' videos on YouTube then invariably the demonstrator rocks through the examples with a blur of key strokes and mouse clicks.

This is what I've found as well. I got a kick out of your description of the YouTube videos and how easy the experts make it look.

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

Solidworks is the best for home use, and most companies use it when they are not doing heavy duty tooling for plastic.

I'll have to check and see if it runs on a Mac. I think Maya had to run on a Windows partition back in the day.

3 hours ago, jamo said:

There are some textbooks you can buy if you want to get more involved

I might look into this or even take an online class. Have considered working towards some type of certification, but that would be down the road, if at all. 

2 hours ago, Club Rat said:

I haven't become proficient in any manner with experimenting in 3D, but I was able to create a few basic designs. I wanted to design new door hinges for my cart cover to allow the door to fully open and pivot. The manufactured hinge were a fixed pivot point and the door would not swing fully open. My back round have been designing patterns for metal fabrication, so drawing the new parts was simple. After watching a few tutor videos, I was successful and had the parts printed on a 3D printer.

It will open the door to create small parts for many things if you have a need.

At least you're using it for a purpose. Haven't sent anything to a printer yet. It's amazing how affordable that technology seems to be. I'd print at least one piece.


I think a lot of this stems from just feeling that I haven't pushed myself to learn as many things as I could have in my life. Funny how things change once you approach a certain age. Anyway, there is a feeling of accomplishment when/if you can push through the difficulty and end up learning something new. It's not like I'm ever going to become proficient - as in career-wise. But it might turn into a cool hobby.

Of course, all this changes once the golf courses open. :-D

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

I'll have to check and see if it runs on a Mac. I think Maya had to run on a Windows partition back in the day.

Solidworks is Windows-only. AutoCAD is the only big one that offers a Mac version.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
22 hours ago, jamo said:

Solidworks is Windows-only. AutoCAD is the only big one that offers a Mac version.

I'm not sure if they are one of the high-end developers, but Autodesk seems to make some decent software. I have next to no experience though.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm not sure if they are one of the high-end developers, but Autodesk seems to make some decent software. I have next to no experience though.

Autodesk is probably the biggest actually, AutoCAD been at least since the 80s I think.  I really like AutoCAD though if I have to draft something that's the software I try to use first.  Also, Autodesk makes Maya if I remember right.


Posted
9 minutes ago, Strandly said:

Autodesk is probably the biggest actually, AutoCAD been at least since the 80s I think.  I really like AutoCAD though if I have to draft something that's the software I try to use first.  Also, Autodesk makes Maya if I remember right.

You're right. I mistakenly thought it was Solidworks.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm not sure if they are one of the high-end developers, but Autodesk seems to make some decent software. I have next to no experience though.

The big two are Autodesk and Microstation. I think Autodesk is used primarily unless there is a specific CADD program for a certain field. Electrical Utilities use PLS_CADD. Which is nothing like Autodesk, but is a 3D software for designing transmission lines. 

I would say it isn't too hard to learn. The key is getting it set up the way you want. I like to save my own profile so I can just load it where ever I go. That way all the toolbars are where I want them to be. There are little tricks here and there. 

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

You should try SketchUp.

I'm pretty proficient in AutoCAD and Revit (3D modeling specifically for buildings), and I've used Maya and Microstation. For the "hobbyist", I'd definitely recommend SketchUp over all of them.

- John

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

The big two are Autodesk and Microstation. I think Autodesk is used primarily unless there is a specific CADD program for a certain field. Electrical Utilities use PLS_CADD. Which is nothing like Autodesk, but is a 3D software for designing transmission lines. 

I would say it isn't too hard to learn. The key is getting it set up the way you want. I like to save my own profile so I can just load it where ever I go. That way all the toolbars are where I want them to be. There are little tricks here and there. 

Just browsing through all the 3D software, I get the impression many are intended for specific fields such as electrical, architecture, modeling, animation, parts engineering...

I'll take your advice on setting up a profile. I agree that learning the software is the relatively easy part. The far more difficult part is knowing the trade or profession the drawing will be use for. I'm not going to learn that from watching YouTube videos.

6 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

You should try SketchUp.

I'm pretty proficient in AutoCAD and Revit (3D modeling specifically for buildings), and I've used Maya and Microstation. For the "hobbyist", I'd definitely recommend SketchUp over all of them.

I'll give SketchUp another look as I definitely fall into the hobbyist category. Anytime I've had any sort of project (recently rebuilt steps for my deck), I've found having it planned out helps tremendously. I've always used Illustrator in the past for this, but only because it's what I use every day. 

Just as a real-world exercise, I actually drew a part that my brother-in-law needs to mill out of aluminum for the company he and I work for (he often machines his own replacement or custom parts). I first did the 2D multi-view sketch in Illustrator to establish the angles, dimensions, positioning of holes and threads, etc. Because I had that drawing for reference, when it came time to create the 3D model it went really well... only took a few hours. 

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3394 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.