Yorkie's 'PW Testmaster' c 1982

[Joe]

Never mind, David. I'd use a Dymo or marker pen.

- Joe

[Retired]

Hi,

Exemplary work as usual from you David; the front panel does it justice as does all the neat work; very well done.

I too struggle a great deal with "CAD" This afternoon I needed to draw an accurate grid so loaded the Turbocad. It took two hours of frustration to complete the grid which no doubt Big Al with his Autocad could have knocked out in a couple of minutes. Just setting the page size is a nightmare on CAD programs so I skipped this part and simply rubber stamped a few copies of the grid and obtained what I wanted. The grid is for a drilling guide and the hole centres are where the lines cross.

Kind regards, Col.

   
Grid drawn by a novice using Turbocad.

[AlanBeckett]

Yes, it takes seconds with AutoCAD. There's a Command called Array.

Alan

[Yorkie]

I've got TuboCAD, Serif Pageplus11, Photoshop, Publisher, Tiny CAD and various other such programs, which over the years I've fumbled around with, but never really got to grips with. I don't find the help screens or tutorials all that helpful, but the top and bottom of it is that I just don't have the time to approach these things in a single-minded way towards a successful conclusion. Really, I need the discipline of attending an adult education class, but most are just about digital photography, which is rather narrow for my needs. I can fumble around tidying up scans, PCB artwork etc, but to create a front panel say for the Testmaster or something similar would be outside my skills portfolio! Still, I can at least build it, so that's something

[Robert Darwent]

I've got TuboCAD, Serif Pageplus11, Photoshop, Publisher, Tiny CAD and various other such programs, which over the years I've fumbled around with, but never really got to grips with.

You've highlighted the problem there David, choose one software package and stick with it. Persevere with it, by trial and error, until you know it back to front. Then what you find difficult to achieve at the moment will quickly become relatively easy.

I am completely self taught in graphic/CAD work using a free software package on a CD that came with a computer magazine back in 1999. That software, 'Micrografx Picture Publisher', has been superceded many times over by better software and yet it is still capable of matching perhaps 95% of what that latest software can produce. The vast majority of functions offered the latest programs are just slicker and less labour intensive, that is all.

Turning to your 'PW Testmaster', another superbly constructed magazine project by your good self. I agree with the earlier comment about yours looking better than the author's own offering. Great stuff David!

Regards

[Yorkie]

I'm sure you're right Robert, and your accomplishments with 'Micrografx Picture Publisher' speak for themselves. I did manage to find a copy on the web, complete with the tutorial, and although it says it was only tested up to Win98, it seems to run OK on Win7. As you say, it's a question of sticking with one package and mastering it, just as we get to know our way around such things as internet browser, e-mail systems, MS Word etc, learning the ropes bit by bit. Some users of this and other ofrums seem to draw wonderful pictures of circuits too, but a lot of circuit drawing software doesn't have old components such as valves in the library, so I guess some users must add them.

All clever stuff!

As to homebrew construction standards, we can't of course attain the same standards that commercial firms do, but we can at least aim to attain the best standard that can be achieved within the limits of hobbyists, and I think that's what most of us seek to do. I know there are those who say 'I'll throw it together and if it works I'll build it properly but I'm not going to spend time making something look neat which might not work'. (They never do re-build it of course). That's never been my mindset, and as a result, down the years, I've often built stuff that hasn't worked despite my best efforts, which more often than not has been down to a design or printing flaw, but at least it looked good! That's always the dilemma when one's construction abilities exceed one's technical knowledge, as mine has tended to do, but over time, most of what I've built has worked well or I've been able to de-bug it.

Fewer and few homebrew designs use discrete wire-ended components - often it's a PIC, a PCB and a few SMDs. Marvelous technology which some have adapted to with ease, but I'm afraid I'm cut from different cloth, trapped in a 1960s - 1990s time warp, like an insect trapped in amber! Maybe that's why I enjoy furtling about with old radios, which were actually new 'state of the art' radios when I was a kid - I was nine when the DAC90A rolled off the assembly lines and fifteen before food rationing ended.