We just completed our Microvellum Basic Training, in which we covered both 2D and 3D drawing styles. No question, 3D is the way to go IMHO (in my humble opinion).

2D does seem has it's uses for producing quick plan views and elevations, but the benefits stop there it seems. For those that don't understand the concept of Model Space, maybe 2D makes using Microvellum a little less intimidating. But come on, we're working in a CAD environment, there's 3 axes to deal with. I expect more of myself, even if it's a lot to take in.

For me, it very important to understand where the parts are coming in and how they relate each other - which one can do only in 3D. I also like the flexibility of 3DCLIPS and SECTIONPLANE, whereas in 2D you're stuck with the drawing tokens (which, yes, can be edited or modified, but why not look at the actual parts?) I couldn't help but feel that the 2D drawing mode was designed for those who don't really want to deal with 3D AutoCAD, but is limited because of that.

Personal preference, ok, but I also have to meet the demands of the client, manufacturing floor, and install crew. Sometimes they need extra details, and I can explain or include those details if I'm looking at a 3D box . 2D, not so much.

For basic cabinet and countertop elevations, Plans, and section details for project submittals, I like to drawe in 2D. Its fast, simple and easy to read. Diminsioning in 3D is very cumbersome. I have not had any luck mastering that task. However, I would like to have the ability to create a seperate 3D perspective view of my 2D elevations to present to our customers along with the 2D drawings.

I will create a 3D drawing from Overdrive to evaluate a specific product if it needs to be customized or there is some issue wityh the product its self.

I will use 3D drawing when creating new or special products.

I think Diverse MV users really need to be able to use both.  I just finished two complex courtooms that there is no way you could draw and "engineer" everything out in 2D.  On the other hand on the same project, there is many rooms of standard cabinetry and countertops, which would be a waste of time to draw in 3D versus 2D.  Someone above mentioned having a hard time dimensioning in 3D.  I did too until I learned to try and dimension only in paperspace with your dimension style set to Full Normal.  

when I submit drawing to an architect i usually use 2d.  Then when I am ready to run my parts on cnc I wil draw them in 3d so I can see how they go together.  Nest and send out to shop.  I do this to avoid the dimensioning, labeling, and creating views. With all that said I am going to be going through a painful transition(I think).  It does not make sense to do drawings twice, so I am hopefully going to make the transition from 2d to all 3d. I will still have the typical elevations, but I will also have a 3d perspective on some of the more complicated stuff we do. Reception areas, bank teller lines, etc. I am wanting then to extend that to doing renderings. Which will help the architect and owners see what the product is going to look like and will help the builders in our shop know which color of laminate or corian start and end points are located . Also, you mention dimensioning in paper space. You should always dimension and label in paper space in 2d or3d. It is easier.  

I'm right now in process of trying to figure out which to go with, 2D or 3D. I'm new with MV and have a lot to learn. I used the 3D space for my first 2 jobs and really liked the ability to see how my parts are comming together. Like many of you we dont really do just a standard box, most everything has 1 or more things i need to look at in detail and change. However the guys in the shop really have not liked the lack of dimensions  that i can provide with the 3D drawings. I have had to redraw from the Spreedsheet many of the cabinets in 2D so they get their dimensions. So, my biggest challange is the dimensioning part... I want to stick with 3D and think that's where we end up after the shop / install guys get used to things.

I draw everything in 2D because It is faster for me. If I have a large curved island, I make dxf's from my 2D geometry and process them with Router-Cim. All of the Cabinets that get integrated into the fixture will be processed with Microvellum. I can make dxf's of parts very fast, if I use Microvellum I have to create a square part and then add machining to it. That takes alot more time than getting the geometry and making a dxf of the part.

The company that I work for has just implemented Mirovellum. I’m currently searching and testing ways for representing Microvellum’s 3D output into an acceptable 2D presentation.

I’ve experimented with a variety of Auto cad’s commands such as 3D clip, Sectionplane and others. My preferred right now being the Sectionplane command over the 3D clip command since the later one will produce or project lines at the cutting plane which according to our team of project managers are undesirable. I would like to have some of your insights on these two methods.

From a drafting point of view, we need to accurately and quickly produce drawings to covey the information clearly to the recipients of the content. From personal experience in different industries using 3D and 2D drafting/design techniques, I recommend using 2D drawings when ever possible for the wood working industry. This will speed up the shop drawing process considerably since you do not have to deal with the third axis or model additional items not automatically generated. However it will be more dependant on the people who will be using the drawings for what ever purposes; review, approvals, installation, etc. Architects and Engineers are capable of visualizing 2D plans, elevations and details to determine a finished look. So in cases where trained and experienced professionals will be the main part of the review process, 2D drawings will be sufficient 90% of the time, which saves you time. Sometimes you do run into a strange condition and 3D drawings are required as part of the design process and representation for review. Most people not associated with drafting and design lack this capability. In cases where people without the trained eye will be a major part of the review process, 3D will more accurately represent the finished products in a representation they can conceive.

I personally like to draw in 3D, but if I have a thousand cabinets in a hundred rooms to do shop drawings for, I will be using 2D as much as possible; I might use 3D drawings for detailing conditions as required. I do recommend that all custom product design be done in 3D for machining verification and assembly drawing purposes.

The bottom line is, the faster the drawings are produced accurately the more money a company makes. I have seen jobs been made or break just on the Engineering and shop drawing process alone. My overall advise is to avoid the over kill when ever possible, but provide the necessary detail (2D or 3D) as your condition requires.

Pingback from  drawing 2d eye

It's a question of preference. I love and will always, wherever I can draw in 3D. I don't believe that one is saving that much time drawing in 3D because once you have 3D models you are just playing with "installing" cabinets in the room. From that point on using front, side and top view is fast. The only thing that is left is dimensioning in paper space. When ever I did do 2D I was always sorry later for not investing that little more time to do the right thing. Anyhow, that is what I believe...

Anyone other than me using AutoCadd "solprof" command for generating 2D elevations and plan views from 3D product?

It is much easier and simpler than either 3D clip or section plane.

Try it, you'll like it.

I have been drawing everything as 3D Solid Models in AutoCAD for the last couple years.  

I use the clipping planes and AutoCAD's section command (creates regions using the intersection of a plane defined by the user and the parts in a solid model) to draw my sections.  This allows me to properly hide the things I don't want to see in my sections as well as perform any hatching of my sections that is required.

All of my dimensioning (plan views, elevations, sections, details) including leaders and notes, is done in paper space.  It seems to me that that is what the developers intended when they created Model Space and Paper Space.  Model Space is for the "model" and Paper Space is for the stuff you would put on paper (i.e. notes, dimensions, etc.).  It just makes sense to me, but maybe I'm nuts.

I work in both 2D and 3D.  I submit shop drawings with isometric, plan, elevation, and section views.  I have created 2D drawing tokens to generate details that Microvellum does not such as dimensions and fillers.  Then when I revise a product, all the details are updated automatically.  When using AutoCAD to create elevations or sections, it does not provide any dimensioning and does update products automatically after revising them.  After completing the 2D drawing, I make a copy of the room in the same drawing, then use the copy to make a 3D drawing.

I do like working in 3D when making custom cabinets.  It shows all the machining.

I only work in 2D because it seems almost impossible to get training on Microvellum. My company has paid for many hours of training but we spend 75% of the time fixing errors with Microvellum. The sales people do such a great job telling you what Microvellum can do and not enough time explaining all of its limitations and errors. If we hadn't invested so much time and money into this software I would be back doing line drawings and getting a faster end result.

your not the only one Roy, I havn't given up on the system yet but when i spend 6 hours a week or more with tech support and they have no idea how to fix different things it gets irritating.