Talk:Computer-aided design/Archives/2012

Request for contrast
I work for a company that uses GIS frequently. The guys who do this work are very opinionated about the various merits of CAD, autoCAD, and ArcGIS. No matter how perfectly you can define each of these things, what would really be valuable on the Wikipedia page would be for some knowledgeable person to contrast the pros and cons of each of these programs, in the context of any other current/relevant trends. If someone could provide that, I think it would improve this article. --Greensheep (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to user talk page
Why is there a link in the artical to the user talk page ?? 213.218.242.73 (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is receiving recurring atacks. Khullah (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

article quality
This article is of bad quality. If it did ever attain b-class, rolling it back to this version would probably be best. 86.20.158.196 (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The article completely ignores any electrical engineering CAD tools.155.33.168.206 (talk)

what the heck...
Hardware and OS technologies

''Today most Computer-Aided Design computers are Windows based PCs. Some CAD systems also run on one of the Unix operating systems and with Linux. Some CAD systems such as QCad, NX or CATIA V5 provide multiplatform support including Windows, Linux, UNIX and Mac OS X.''

what is this paragraph trying to say? that people use CADs on Windows, Mac and Linux/UNIX. Why even bother with this paragraph? --85.160.91.128 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the whole paragraph ... it was only saying "well, some people use CAD with a mouse, but some with a tablet. You don't need strong computer, but it's better to have one." It was so general it wasn't really saying anything. Revert me if you feel otherwise. --85.160.91.128 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a interesting general introduction. In other sources you would probably always read that you absolutely need this or that program, and this or that computer system. It is not the habbit to inmediately remove whole sections, so I restored it for now. Unless several other editors agree with you, we first keep it like this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then. I will try to rewrite it so it is less general. You can say things like these in the section about, well, anything. --85.160.71.24 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No Catia on Linux - never will be.
Sorry, catia has never been available for Linux, V5 does not run on x86 Solaris, and catia apparently will never be available for Linux. I think this is a very important distinction. V6 is only available for Windows (a proprietary OS). Some might even call it a Legacy OS.

No Open source cad software
Is there no open source cad software in existand. It just geometry fo goodness sake. This article dosn't have a list of cad programs. There's actually a list of cad companies. This is a spam article. Wikipedia is going to be a domain full of sales brochures if this is the norm.63.237.132.170 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC) this website u should never trust as people edit things they want on it

MCAD / ECAD descriptions
Zoso 13:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC) CAD is synonemous with Mechanical CAD and Electronic CAD. However there's no reference to either of them here(or in wiki). I need a vote whether I can add these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)

Elevate beyond start-level article.
I am a architectural/structural drafter and have much experience with CADD programs and concepts. This article is appropriately placed on the start-level quality scale, and I would like to improve it drastically. However, the article is perhaps slightly flawed with it's origins to begin with.

The first idea we must establish is the name of the article. I do not think that CAD - Computer Aided Design is well differentiated between CADD - Computer Aided Drafting & Design. I think CADD is much more appropriate since it accurately envelops both design and drafting as the core conceps behind a two-dimension design process. But this over-simplification of CADD perhaps does not properly describe the design process of newer 3D modeling technology- which could be viewed as an off-shoot or completely independent topic. I have no inclination as to which direction this article should follow.

Any thoughts? Emgeeo (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have probably hit on why the CAE, CAD, CADD, etc. articles haven't been expanded further: the definitions of each is poor and blurred. Unfortunately that has to do with the fact that various people define them in overlapping ways. If you could accurately (that is, using reliable sources) layout the definitions and differences, I think you could reorganize the current information, and then have a good basis to expand upon. Hope that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current page format. I am proposing the following changes.

1 Overview 2 History (Development of CADD. Non-comprehensive, but citing examples from different industries (i.e. auto, aero, arch, eng).  Over-arching concept is the ability to stream-line computational tasks, editing, design options, output & digital integration.) 3 Uses (Difference between CAD & CADD; Different Industries - Different Purposes; non-comprehensive processes. This section will likely require sub-sections.) 4 Technology (Development of hardware and software - specifically environments) 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

I think these sections, and appropriate sub-sections, should provide a comprehensive over-view of CADD. I think expansion into new sections may become necessary as information develops.

Remove 6 Product lifecycle (I am not sure if produce lifecycle is the appropriate heading, or if it is relevant to CADD. Process on the other hand is, but specific to the requirements of each industry.)

Remove 5 Effects of CADD Effects can be better covered in Uses. The development of the technology is in response to the need for it. We do not tailor our processes around CADD, but tailor CADD around our processes.

Also, this article could encapsulate CAE, since Engineering is a process of design.

Cheers,Emgeeo (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I contend your last point. CAE envelopes CAD, not the otherway around. Or if you were looking at a hierarchy, CAE would be above CAD. Wizard191 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would Computer Aided Engineering be above Computer Aided Design? Are they not the same thing?

Emgeeo (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Computer-aided engineering. FEA programs, heat transfer programs, etc. are CAE, but definitely not CAD. Wizard191 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point- they are not computer-aided design. They are components or modules of analysis (CAA) used in the process of computer-aided engineering (or design.) Is engineering not a process of design? Yes, I understand it entails processes of analysis, simulation, manufacturing and so-forth, but the discipline is one of design. CAD is process under which engineering, architecture, graphic, and other design disciplines function. I think to say that CAD is under EAD is to give a somewhat limiting and misgiving direction to what it is.

What overlap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgeeo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some engineers spend very little of their time "designing" but still use computers in getting their jobs done. Design is the fun part, budgets and schedules and getting stuff out the door is the un-fun part of the business (for some,anyway). I would suggest not to worry about which one "encapsulates" the other; there's plenty to write about without getting into a hypothetical and not-very-useful distinction. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say this discussion is neither hypothetical nor indistinct in purpose. The article as currently presented is inclusive of both computer aided drafting and design. It does not draw any distinction between the two concepts. Yes, CAE provides a much better definition of what computer-aided design is, but it is exclusive of the concepts presented within this article.

I think the distinction is necessary for the clarity of the article. Is computer-aided design another term for computer-aided drafting, or is there a distinction between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgeeo (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, we are full circle again. See you are throwing out your own definitions for CAE, CAD, CADD, etc. but that's is not how things are done around here; if everyone put in there own opinion our articles would be worthless. As I stated in my first reply, you need reliable sources that back up your definitions, otherwise they are original research and that's not allowed. The CAE article has a very well referenced definition, which puts it at the top of the hierarchy. Wizard191 (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This can't be that complicated. If the computer is acting like an electronic T-square and set of triangles, just making lines to put down on paper, it's computer-aided drafting. If the computer does some non-trival interpolation between the user and the geometry, it's computer-aided design; not necessarily producing a graphic printed output, either. And if the computer is providing automatic bill of material generation, production tracking, project schedules, design rule checking, or scores of other servcies related to actually gettign somethign done int the world, it's computer-aided engineering. Straight AutoCad out of the box does computer-aided drafting. But put on soem parametric features and it's computer-aided design. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good layman's way of putting it. Wizard191 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with the girl?
Seriously, why is there a render of a girl at the top of the page? Yes, CAD packages can do renders of stuff, but that's not really what they're about. This image gives the wrong impression of what the article is about, it definately should not be in the intro and probably shouldn't be in the article at all. 4.243.44.151 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. She gone. Wizard191 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

thijsdsdsdsdsdsdsd\zxcvbnm,./NHB VCXZfasDFGhjkl;' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.216.146 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

History section need
A history section about the term and the practical use should be added to this article. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 05:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

cut it out or ill tell the admin
the person who made wiki is corrupt would you cut it out this is a talk page for the cad page. btw my account is drutribe so complain about me all you want. Hi There 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drutribe (talk • contribs)

Students claimed to be not taught manual drafting
"In today's world most, if not all, students in universities do not learn manual drafting techniques because they are not required to do so."

Isn't this conjecture too ambitious? I am studying at Riga Technical University (Riga is located in European Union), and we were indeed taught to draft manually. Moreover, we haven't been taught to use CAD at all (I'm studying for chemical engineer degree; the next constructors, of course, learns using of CAD). So, I think, if we in Europe do learn manual drafting, there are plenty of universities all over the world (especially in other developing countries) where people also learn. --Esmu Igors (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Current definition needs improvement and support by quality and reliable sources
When reading the first paragraph of this article, I do not feel that it defines what computer-aided design effectively. For example, stating, "computer-aided drafting describes the process of drafting with a computer" is quite redundant, and uses the entire term being defined within the definition. Also, some of the information in the first paragraph is in need of sources. I intend to edit the definition to make it more effective and clear and use credible sources, primarily college textbooks used to teach CAD, to aid in revising the definition. Merluza-NJITWILL (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the geometrical principles of Solid Modeling
User:PavelSolin has written in [this revision] that "While automated CAD systems increase an engineer's efficiency, they are not necessarily the best way to allow newcomers to understand the geometrical principles of Solid Modeling. For this, scripting languages such as PLaSM (Programming Language of Solid Modeling) are more suitable." I'd like to hear why this is the case and what relevance this has to the many non-engineering uses of CAD. I have removed the reference to engineers but I suspect the statement is still too specific for this article. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Duncan, my observation is not related to engineering or non-engineering uses of CAD. Perhaps the formulation can be improved - thank you for pointing this out. The message I want to deliver is that highly automated CAD systems such as Autocad or SolidWorks do many things automatically on a "black box" basis. This is of great help to a practitioner who knows how the black box works inside. But for someone who learns solid modeling, a more expository approach may be more beneficial.PavelSolin (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that use of graphical CAD applications lessens the learning process because the underlying mathematics is obscured? I don't think this article is about learning solid modelling, it's much broader. Perhaps your comment is better on the Solid_modeling page? Something like 'a number of researchers have noted that...'. What do you think? --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the comment applies on this web site. PavelSolin (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)