continued...
Illustrator's Deficiencies re Technical Illustration:
Illustrator is the only program among those listed above still lacking these very basic features:
- User-defined drawing scales. (!!)
- Connector lines.
- Reliable grid snaps. (!!)
- Live shape primitives (polygons and ellipses with adjustable geometric parameters after being created) (!!)
- A proper circular arc tool (!!)
Illustrator (and FreeHand) also lacks:
- Simple dimension tools.
- Callout tools.
(I dare say those would be in FreeHand by now, had Adobe not acquired and condemned it.)
Illustrator does have a few very basic interface elements and a few advanced features which can be exploited for axonometric drawing:
- Line Tool: Its dialog alows you to define a path segment numerically in terms of angle and length.
- SmartGuides: Although inferior to similar features in competing programs, its construction guides can be set to your drawing axes.
- Move Dialog: DoubleClicking the main selection tools (white or black pointer) presents a dialog in which you can define a movement in terms of angle and direction.
- Actions: Illustrator's macro recording/playback feature. Can be marginally useful for initially "projecting" (rotating, scaling) flat ortho objects onto the main drawing planes. (This is largely why I asked about your background; beginners commonly think that is all there is to isometric drawing, and don't understand that isometric drawing means drawing directly onto the isometric planes, not "projecting" things drawn in the flat.)
- Javascripting Support: Can be hugely leveraged, but of course requires both a knowledge of Javascript and an understanding of axonometric construction and practice.
- Pattern Brushes: Can be used to store "adjustable" versions of repeating objects, such as fasteners or terminals. Suffers from some debilitating caveats that have to be worked-around (inability to disallow scaling of strokes and distortion of end tiles).
IsoDraw is still focussed on its entirely too-vertical "engineering/enterprise" marketing orientation. It doesn't even list prices on its website, and even refuses to quote prices straightforwardly over the phone. The kind of programming required for 2D axonometric drawing stopped being "rocket science" decades ago. It's a pity, but If not corrected, I expect its antequated marketing model to lead to its eventual demise. This is a day and age in which quite powerful 3D modeling programs can be had for free. It's way past time for IsoDraw to go mainstream, or give up.
That's the problem with 2D axonometric drawing these days: It's not that it isn't need; it still very much is. It's still as practical as ever. The pity is, since the beginning of the whole personal-computer "revolution" of the early 80s, technical illustration in the US seems to me to have slided continually backward. Most of what passes for product documentation these days is hideous. The infrequent occasions you see attempts at axonometric illustration for parts breakdowns or assembly instructions, they are either replete with drawing error or consist of some painfully ugly flattened view from a 3D CAD/CAE model. In today's computer-on-every-table world, common technical illustration has regressed, not advanced.
| I started out with board, t-square, & triangle and adapted what I knew to the "new" software... |
EXCELLENT. Because that's what you'll have to do, to varying degrees, with any of the above-mentioned programs. You can do proper axonometric drawing in any of the mainstream, general-purpose vector drawing programs, and you can even do it with reasonable efficiency. But doing so is a continual process of "clever" working-around the X,Y page-edge orientation that--with few exceptions--permeates every feature of the program.
It's far more important to understand the principles of axonometric drawing in general (which you probably do, despite what you think you've forgotten). With that background, you can figure out how to exploit the features that are provided in the program you end up using, and devise the inevitable workarounds.
| I'm really not sure I can answer your questions about the isometric protractor... |
It's important. Did you not, back in the day, use a plastic isometric template or mylar underlay that consisted of a large isometric ellipse marked off in rotational degrees? Or (better still) did you construct a rotation about one of the isometric axes by projecting from a cirle? For example, if the thrustline of a cylinder was not parallel to your X, Y, or Z axis, how did you determine its correctly proportioned length?
| I know the difference between an iso projection and an iso drawing... |
EXCELLENT. You understand, then, that you must either:
- Use true measure for the major axes of ellipses and foreshortened measure along the axes (isometric projection). Or...
- Use true measure along the axes and enlarged ellipses (isometric drawing).
If your experience parallels mine, you'll find that, when devising a consistent method in these kinds of general-purpose drawing programs, it turns out that using the first method is more efficient than the second, overall. This is probably opposite of what you did on the board, but I find that, in practice, the software lessens the tedium of scaling along the axes more than it accomodates the otherwise-necessary up-scaling of ellipses.
| ...vaguely remember using the scale, shear, and rotation tools alot. |
Most of the piecemeal instruction you'll find for isometric "tricks" in programs like Illustrator focusses too heavily upon skewing. I consider it one of the dead givaways that the author doesn't really have much axonometric drawing experience. It's part of that "beginner's misconception" I aluded to: As an experienced isometric illustrator, you know that you don't usually draw "in the flat" and then distort it to your iso axes; you draw along your drawing's axes to begin with. In the methods that I've devised, I've found that I almost never resort to skewing. Skewing reqires too many moves, because the skew does not simultaneously scale. Rotating, followed by scaling in one direction, fits the lengths of both axes at once.
| Oh - and being able to measure lines as I drew them - or was that in ISODraw? |
Probably IsoDraw, if you're otherwise thinking only of Illustrator. The dialog of Illustrator's Line Tool lets you define a single-segment path in terms of angle and length; but unlike other programs, Illustrator's lame Info Palette does not display length/angle as you drag with with the Line Tool. The Info Palette does provide live distance/angle feedback when you drag with the Measure Tool, but that, of course, doesn't create a path. (It's another example of the very poor feature integration and resulting over-complication-to-no-benefit of this program that I'm always raving about.)
Unlike Draw and Designer, Illustrator's SmartGuides feature does not provide distance increment snaps for its angled construction guides. Illustrator's grid feature is limited to square increments; it doesn't provide for defining angled grids. (Turning on Snap To Grid disables SmartGuides anyway.) You can resort to drawing a grid with the Grid Tool and then turning that into pathGuides, or locking it. But in practice, I find it just as efficient (meaning just as inefficient) to rely on the LineTool dialog to establish measures along axes. A one-click Action button can then scale the resulting line to 81.64% (cosine of the iso angle). Once you have the line, you can just drag it about to use it elsewhere as a "measuring stick" when you need to.
- I'm not one for memorizing too much esoterica, probably being discouraged by all of Illustrator's too-numerous keyboard shortcuts. But it's hugely beneficial to memorize a few key measures for isometric drawing:
- 30, 150, 270 degrees (Angles of iso axes.)
- 120 degrees (Separation angle between iso axes.)
- 35.27 (Iso angle--the "tilt" of the isometric cube--as decimal, rather than degrees/seconds; for entering in calc fields.)
- 57.74 (Sine of iso angle, as percentage; therefore the vertical scale factor of a circle on top plane of the iso cube.)
- 81.64 (Cosine of iso angle, as percentage; therefore the scale factor of the front corner edge of the iso cube; therefore the foreshortened measuring scale along all three iso axes.)
- .5 (Sine of 30 degrees; therefore the scale factor for the "rise" of any length along the left and right iso axes [which I call Z and X, respectively]; therefore the half-diagonal of an iso square. It's easy to remember, and sometimes comes in handy).
| ...but I was really hoping for info already printed that I could work with and not have to "re-invent" the wheel so to speak. |
I have yet to see a book or other resource that does an adequately thorough job of explaining axonomentric constuction in the context of Illustrator and similar programs. I have a couple of excellent pre-computer texts on isometric drawing (you may also), but they, of course, don't put things in the software context, don't leverage the few, but significant advantages the software provides, and are generally written in "textbook styles" that make a relatively subject sound more complicated than it is.
Still, for someone with your background, an old textbook may be all you need to refresh your memory; you may find one on Amazon. Once you refresh your memory of the principles, you can most likely recongnize how they can be deployed as you learn the features of whatever drawing software you are using.
| Which is why I asked in my OP if anyone knew if the Illustrator CS4 WOW Book contained the Chapter on Isometric systems someone in another thread said was in the CS3 WOW Book. |
I've only momentarily thumbed through earlier editions of that book in the bookstore, so am only somewhat familiar with it. As I recall, it's focus is general; a collection of effects and tricks. I'll make a point to take a look at the chapter mentioned next time I have opportunity. It's probably a fine book, so don't take this as a slur; but since axonometric drawing is not the main subject, (though I'd love to discover otherwise) I rather expect a few basic tricks with grids and skew/rotate/scale transforms like those mentioned elsewhere in this thread. That kind of stuff can be found online.
| I'm desperatly searching for work but full time technical illustrator jobs that don't require knowledge of CAD are few and far between. |
By way of encouragement, I don't really think so. Most every company that builds a product needs to be able to support it with proper end-user-oriented technical documentation. That's everything from parts explosions for carburetors to step-by-step instructions for Lego kits. Both can be done with ordinary 2D mainstream drawing programs, and without any CAD software experience whatsoever. What's commonly missing is the understanding of axonometric drawing itself--which you already posess.
I work in this field, managing a department which produces end-use technical documents. What I find is that almost all applicants with working knowledge of mainstream publishing software have no clue about technical drawing; many downright fear it. It's that drawing software cultural thing, stemming from the nearly utter disregard of axonometric drawing in the software marketing.
Nor would I have you be intimidated by CAD software. Using it is not rocket science either. (Doing true mechanical engineering work is another thing altogether. The CAD software is just a tool. Remember, an engineering department uses Word and Excel, too; just because CAD software resides in an engineering department doesn't mean it's unapproachable. I don't know didly about accounting, but I can work Excel. Heck, if you can sort out the convoluted, confused, and scattered interface of Illustrator, with all its tedious workarounds and behavioral caveats, you can learn a CAD program; at least they're organized for efficiency.)
Also, truth be told, many companies that have a group using Illustrator or something similar to produce illustrations for parts breakdowns or service manuals or whatever, seldom really use it for original illustration; they use Illustrator to "clean up" CAD exports of 3D models flattened to 2D views and exprorted as DXFs. The so-called "illustrators" are just removing extraneous internal notes, hidden lines, etc., etc. and otherwise prepping the result for import to a page layout program or some such. Someone with actual experience doing axonometric drawings from scratch can bring alot of new capability to the table in such an environment, and can thereby improve the output quality and versatility of the whole group. So by all means, don't toss out that drawn-on-the-board and drawn-in-IsoDraw portfolio, and don't hesitate to take it with you on interviews.
Also, have you considered freelancing? Self-employment certainly has its upside and downside, but many, many small-to-medium manufacturing and fabrication concerns have absolutely no internal staffpower (let alone expertise) for product documentation, and love to have a reliable outsource for such.
| So I'm trying to get back up to speed as quickly as possible for the jobs that are available. If that makes since. While Illustrator has always been my program of choice (with ISODraw tying for first) I'm willing to learn any vector program that will get me a full time job. |
Real-world story: I grew up in, and still live near, an "Air Force base town." That town has a plethora of so-called "technical illustration" houses doing contract work for the base. The people who work in those shops rather optimistically call themselves "technical illustrators." They're not paid much. Know what they do, all day, every day? They open scans of axonometric line drawings in Photoshop and touch up unwanted trash pixels. No kidding. Imagine what someone who actually knows something about axonometric illustration might bring to that kind of organization.
So I'm just saying; don't sell yourself short just because you don't know Illustrator or some CAD program like the back of your hand (yet).
| > So - any help you can give will be greatly appreciated... |
Sharon, you and your subject made my day. (And I'm on vacation.)
Again, sorry for "pontificating." It's just one of my favorite subjects.
JET
1 Correct answer
10
Replies
AdChoices