{"id":47,"date":"2026-11-11T01:28:40","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T01:28:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=47"},"modified":"2026-11-11T01:28:41","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T01:28:41","slug":"mechanical-cad-vs-general-purpose-cad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=47","title":{"rendered":"Mechanical CAD vs. General-Purpose CAD: Key Differences Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A few years ago I was called in by a small manufacturer that was struggling. They built custom conveyor equipment, they had four talented people in the design office, and every one of those people was working overtime. When I sat down with them, the cause was clear within an hour. They were designing <strong>three-dimensional machines in a tool built for two-dimensional drawings<\/strong>. Every change meant editing five views by hand. Every bill of materials was typed into a spreadsheet. Every assembly was a pile of copied blocks that nobody dared to touch.<\/p>\n<p>They did not have a people problem. They had a <strong>tool-fit problem<\/strong>, and it was costing them the equivalent of one full-time salary every year in rework.<\/p>\n<p>This situation is far more common than the software industry likes to admit, and it starts with a simple confusion: the word &#8220;CAD&#8221; is used for very different families of software. In this guide I will show you exactly how <strong>Mechanical CAD (MCAD)<\/strong> differs from <strong>general-purpose CAD<\/strong>, how to recognize which one your work needs, and what it costs when you choose wrongly. If you have not yet read <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=46\">What Is Mechanical CAD (MCAD)? A Complete Beginner&#8217;s Guide<\/a><\/em>, it is worth a quick look first, because I will build on its vocabulary.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>The Short Answer<\/h2>\n<p><strong>General-purpose CAD<\/strong> is software for creating precise geometry of any kind. It gives you lines, arcs, surfaces, solids, layers, text and dimensions, and it leaves <em>what<\/em> you draw entirely up to you.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mechanical CAD<\/strong> is software built around the specific needs of designing physical, manufactured, moving products. It gives you the same geometry tools, plus a layer of <strong>engineering intelligence<\/strong>: parametric features, assembly relationships, standard parts, manufacturing-aware operations, material properties, automatic drawings and bills of materials.<\/p>\n<p>A simple way to remember it:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>General-purpose CAD knows <strong>geometry<\/strong>. Mechanical CAD knows <strong>machines<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That sounds like marketing, so let me make it concrete.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>What &#8220;General-Purpose CAD&#8221; Really Means<\/h2>\n<p>General-purpose CAD usually refers to flexible drafting and modeling tools that serve many industries. The most famous example is <strong>AutoCAD<\/strong>, which for decades has been the universal language of 2D drawing. Many other tools fall in this broad category: generic 2D drafting programs, simple 3D modelers and lightweight design applications.<\/p>\n<p>These tools are powerful and unmatched for what they do well:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fast, precise 2D drawing.<\/li>\n<li>Layers, blocks, linetypes and annotation.<\/li>\n<li>Wide file compatibility, especially DWG.<\/li>\n<li>A huge pool of trained users.<\/li>\n<li>Customization through scripts and add-ins.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>I trained designers on AutoCAD for years and I still respect it. For a floor plan, a site layout, a schematic, a simple plate or a quick sketch, it is excellent. But look at what the software <strong>does not know<\/strong>. It has no idea that your drawing represents a shaft that must fit into a bearing. It does not know that a hole is a hole. It does not know that the five views on your sheet are all the same part. To the software, it is all lines and arcs. <strong>The intelligence lives in your head, not in the file.<\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>What Makes MCAD Different<\/h2>\n<p>Here are the real differences, as I explain them to trainees. Each one changes your daily working life.<\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/mcad-guides\/mcad-vs-general-cad-02-layers-of-intelligence.png\" alt=\"Stacked layers showing what mechanical CAD adds on top of general-purpose geometry tools\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>Figure 1. General-purpose CAD stops near the geometry layer; MCAD adds the layers above it.<\/em><\/p>\n<h3>1. The model is built from features, not just shapes<\/h3>\n<p>In MCAD, you do not simply draw a cylinder with a hole. You create an <strong>extrusion<\/strong>, then a <strong>hole feature<\/strong> with a defined diameter, depth and thread, then a <strong>fillet<\/strong> with a radius. Each feature is a recorded operation, and you can go back to any one of them and change it. Change the hole diameter from 8 to 10 mm, and the software rebuilds the part accordingly.<\/p>\n<p>General-purpose tools generally store the <em>result<\/em> of your actions, not the <em>recipe<\/em>. MCAD stores both, and it is the recipe that makes change cheap. The deeper logic of this approach is the subject of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=50\">Parametric vs. Direct Modeling: Which Approach Is Better?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<h3>2. Dimensions and relationships drive the geometry<\/h3>\n<p>In a general-purpose drawing, dimensions are annotations. You measure the geometry and write the number beside it. In MCAD, it works in the opposite direction: <strong>the dimension controls the geometry<\/strong>. You type 40 and the line becomes 40 long.<\/p>\n<p>On top of that, <strong>constraints<\/strong> record relationships such as parallel, perpendicular, concentric, tangent and equal. These capture your intent, a subject so important that I dedicated a full guide to it: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=51\">Understanding Design Intent in 3D Mechanical Modeling<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n<h3>3. Assemblies are first-class citizens<\/h3>\n<p>In an MCAD system, a product is a <strong>structured assembly<\/strong> of individual parts and subassemblies, each in its own file, positioned using <strong>mates or constraints<\/strong> that behave like real-world contact. You can drag a piston and watch the crank turn. You can check for collisions. You can replace one bracket with another and see every consequence.<\/p>\n<p>In general-purpose CAD, an assembly is typically a drawing where parts are placed next to each other. There is no motion, no relationship and no way to ask &#8220;does this fit?&#8221; except by eye. For depth on this subject, see <em>Assembly Modeling in Mechanical CAD: A Complete Guide<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h3>4. Drawings come from the model<\/h3>\n<p>In MCAD, you create a 3D model once, and the drawings are <strong>generated and associative<\/strong>. Change the model and the views, dimensions and notes update. Section views are cut through the actual solid rather than drawn by hand.<\/p>\n<p>In a purely 2D workflow, each view is drawn independently. I have audited drawing sets where the top view and side view of the same part disagreed by 2 mm, and nobody knew which was right. That cannot happen when views are projected from a single model.<\/p>\n<h3>5. Standard parts and libraries are built in<\/h3>\n<p>Mechanical design is full of standard components: screws, nuts, washers, bearings, pins, gears, chains, profiles, O-rings. MCAD systems ship with large libraries of these in ISO, ANSI, DIN, JIS and other standards, and they insert the right size with the right thread and the right properties. Autodesk Inventor, for example, offers a content library and a family of design accelerators and generators for shafts, gears, bolted connections and frames. Other major systems have comparable tools.<\/p>\n<p>A general-purpose tool can store your own blocks, but it will not know that an M10 bolt needs an 11 mm clearance hole and an 18 mm counterbore.<\/p>\n<h3>6. Manufacturing logic is embedded<\/h3>\n<p>MCAD systems include specialized environments for the things we actually make:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sheet metal<\/strong>, with bend allowances, K-factors, reliefs and automatic flat patterns for laser cutting. See <em>Sheet Metal Design in 3D CAD: A Complete Guide<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Weldments and structural frames<\/strong>, with profile libraries, cuts, miters and end treatments.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Plastic part design<\/strong>, with draft analysis, ribs, bosses, snap-fits and core and cavity tools.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Surfacing<\/strong>, for complex shapes that solids alone cannot create.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Machining preparation<\/strong>, with hole tables, thread data and links to CAM.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A general-purpose 3D modeler can sometimes build the <em>shape<\/em>, but it will not unfold it, check its draft angle or generate its cut list.<\/p>\n<h3>7. Mass properties and materials<\/h3>\n<p>Give an MCAD part a material, and it knows its <strong>mass, volume, center of gravity and moments of inertia<\/strong>. This matters more than beginners realize. A designer who can read the weight of a sub-assembly straight from the model can size a motor, check a crane limit or estimate shipping cost in seconds.<\/p>\n<h3>8. Analysis and simulation are connected<\/h3>\n<p>Because the model is a true solid with material and relationships, it can be passed directly to simulation: stress, deflection, thermal behavior, vibration, motion. The loop between &#8220;I designed it&#8221; and &#8220;I tested it&#8221; becomes short. Explore this in <em>Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE): A Complete Beginner&#8217;s Guide<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h3>9. Bills of materials come from the structure<\/h3>\n<p>In MCAD, the <strong>BOM<\/strong> is generated from the assembly. Quantities, part numbers, descriptions, materials and masses come from the model data. Add a part to the assembly and the BOM changes with it. This single feature has prevented more costly purchasing errors than any other I have seen.<\/p>\n<h3>10. Data management is part of the ecosystem<\/h3>\n<p>MCAD goes hand in hand with <strong>version control, release workflows and change management<\/strong>, typically through a PDM system such as Autodesk Vault or similar tools from other vendors. When you work with hundreds of interlinked files, this is not optional. It is explained in <em>Product Data Management (PDM): A Complete Guide<\/em>.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Side-by-Side: A Practical Comparison<\/h2>\n<div style=\"overflow-x:auto\">\n<table class=\"mcadai-table\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Aspect<\/th>\n<th>General-purpose CAD<\/th>\n<th>Mechanical CAD<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Primary purpose<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Precise drawing and geometry of any kind<\/td>\n<td>Design and documentation of manufactured products<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Model logic<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Stores geometry<\/td>\n<td>Stores geometry <strong>plus<\/strong> features, relationships and intent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Dimensions<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Annotations of existing geometry<\/td>\n<td>Drivers that control geometry<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Assemblies<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Parts placed visually<\/td>\n<td>Constrained, movable, checkable assemblies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Drawings<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Drawn view by view<\/td>\n<td>Generated from the model, updated automatically<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Standard parts<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>User-made blocks<\/td>\n<td>Built-in, standards-based libraries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Manufacturing tools<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Minimal<\/td>\n<td>Sheet metal, weldments, plastics, mold, CAM links<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Mass and material data<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>None, or manual<\/td>\n<td>Automatic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>BOM<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Manual or attribute extraction<\/td>\n<td>Automatic, from the assembly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Simulation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Not integrated<\/td>\n<td>Integrated or directly connected<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Learning curve<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Gentle at the beginning<\/td>\n<td>Steeper at first, much more productive later<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Best for<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Layouts, schematics, simple 2D parts, general drafting<\/td>\n<td>Machines, products, tooling, anything made and assembled<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p>Keep in mind that this table describes tendencies, not absolute rules. Some general-purpose tools have added 3D features and some MCAD tools handle 2D work very well.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>The Other CAD Families (And Why They Confuse People)<\/h2>\n<p>In my career I have worked across several branches of CAD, including mechanical, architectural, BIM and GIS, and the biggest source of confusion I see is mixing them up. Here is the map.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>MCAD (Mechanical CAD):<\/strong> products, machines and manufactured parts. Our subject.<\/li>\n<li><strong>ECAD (Electronic or Electrical CAD):<\/strong> schematics, printed circuit boards, wiring and harness. It overlaps with MCAD where electronics meet enclosures and cables.<\/li>\n<li><strong>AEC and BIM (Architecture, Engineering, Construction):<\/strong> buildings and infrastructure. BIM models carry information about walls, floors and systems, not about fits and tolerances. The philosophy is similar to MCAD (&#8220;the model is a database&#8221;), but the objects are completely different.<\/li>\n<li><strong>GIS (Geographic Information Systems):<\/strong> location data on the Earth. It answers <em>where<\/em>, not <em>how it is built<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Industrial and entertainment design tools:<\/strong> freeform surfaces, sculpting and rendering. Beautiful shapes, but little manufacturing logic.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/mcad-guides\/mcad-vs-general-cad-01-cad-families.png\" alt=\"Cards comparing MCAD, ECAD, AEC\/BIM, GIS and industrial design CAD\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>Figure 2. The CAD families: choose by the nature of what you create.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The practical rule: <strong>choose the family by the nature of the thing you are creating.<\/strong> A pump bracket belongs to MCAD. A floor plan belongs to AEC. A cadastral map belongs to GIS. Forcing one into another&#8217;s software always costs more in the long run.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>The Grey Zone: 2D Mechanical Tools<\/h2>\n<p>This is where a lot of readers get stuck, so let me clarify it. There is a category between the two worlds: <strong>2D CAD with mechanical intelligence<\/strong>. Autodesk&#8217;s <strong>AutoCAD Mechanical<\/strong> toolset is the classic example. It is built on the general-purpose AutoCAD platform, but it adds:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Libraries of standard parts and fasteners.<\/li>\n<li>Mechanical symbols and annotation tools that follow drafting standards.<\/li>\n<li>Automatic hole tables, balloons and parts lists.<\/li>\n<li>Layer and dimension management tuned for mechanical drawings.<\/li>\n<li>Calculation tools for shafts, springs and other components.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It is a very useful tool for shops that produce 2D drawings every day, for maintaining legacy drawing archives, and for transitional teams. But it is still <strong>2D<\/strong>: no solid model, no assembly relationships, no automatic projection. It speeds up drafting without changing the way the design is stored. The wider question of when 2D is still the right choice is explored in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=48\">2D CAD vs. 3D CAD in Mechanical Engineering<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>When General-Purpose CAD Is Still the Right Choice<\/h2>\n<p>I do not want to turn this into a sermon against 2D drafting. There are many cases where general-purpose CAD is perfectly sensible:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Plant layouts and floor arrangements<\/strong> of machines, where you place simplified outlines.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Schematics and diagrams<\/strong> such as hydraulic or pneumatic circuits, in tools with the right symbols.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Simple flat parts<\/strong> like plates or gaskets that will be cut by laser or waterjet from a 2D profile.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Quick sketches and concepts<\/strong>, where speed matters more than data structure.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Existing 2D archives<\/strong> that need to be maintained or revised.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tight budgets<\/strong> and very occasional use.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>If your needs fall here, do not let anyone sell you a heavy solution you will not use.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Signs That You Have Outgrown General-Purpose CAD<\/h2>\n<p>Over the years, I have noticed a consistent list of symptoms. If you recognize three or more of these, it is time to move to MCAD.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Changes are painful.<\/strong> A single dimensional change touches many views and many files.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Drawings disagree with each other.<\/strong> Or worse, they disagree with the real part.<\/li>\n<li><strong>BOMs are typed by hand.<\/strong> And they contain mistakes that surface at purchasing or assembly.<\/li>\n<li><strong>You cannot check fit.<\/strong> Interference is discovered in the workshop.<\/li>\n<li><strong>You are redrawing variants.<\/strong> Each size of a product is a new drawing, instead of a configuration.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Customers ask for 3D files.<\/strong> STEP, STL or native models, which you cannot provide.<\/li>\n<li><strong>You need weight, center of gravity or simulation.<\/strong> And you are estimating by hand.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Manufacturers want flat patterns or toolpaths.<\/strong> And you are producing them manually.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Your team is growing.<\/strong> And nobody can find the latest version of anything.<\/li>\n<li><strong>You are losing bids.<\/strong> Because competitors respond faster with better documentation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The company I described at the beginning of this guide ticked eight of ten. After they moved to a 3D parametric system with a proper data management setup, their drawing time for a typical conveyor module dropped dramatically, and, more importantly, their errors in the workshop almost disappeared. The software did not make them smarter; it made their knowledge <strong>reusable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>What Switching Actually Costs (Be Honest With Yourself)<\/h2>\n<p>I would be doing you a disservice if I presented MCAD as a magic wand. Moving to it has real costs:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Licenses.<\/strong> Professional MCAD is a serious expense. Subscriptions have lowered the entry cost but not removed it.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Hardware.<\/strong> Heavier models need better machines than a drafting seat did.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Training.<\/strong> Plan for real classroom or guided hours, not just &#8220;they will figure it out&#8221;.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Productivity dip.<\/strong> Expect the first two or three months to be slower, sometimes noticeably.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Standards and templates.<\/strong> You will need to build or adopt them, as covered in <em>Mechanical CAD Standards: A Complete Guide<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Legacy data.<\/strong> Converting years of 2D drawings is rarely automatic and rarely perfect.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Culture.<\/strong> The hardest part. Experienced drafters sometimes feel that their craft is devalued. Treat their knowledge as the foundation of good modeling, because it is.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>My advice, after managing several transitions: <strong>start with a pilot project, not the whole department.<\/strong> Choose a real but non-critical job, train a small group, build your templates on it, learn from the mistakes, and then roll out.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>How to Choose: A Short Decision Checklist<\/h2>\n<p>Answer these questions honestly.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>What do I make?<\/strong> Machines and products with moving or assembled parts point to MCAD. Layouts and diagrams point to general-purpose CAD.<\/li>\n<li><strong>How many parts per project?<\/strong> Under ten simple parts, you may survive in 2D. Over fifty, the structure of 3D assemblies pays for itself fast.<\/li>\n<li><strong>How often do designs change?<\/strong> Frequent changes favor parametric models.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Do I produce variants?<\/strong> Configurations in MCAD beat duplicated drawings every time.<\/li>\n<li><strong>What do my suppliers and customers require?<\/strong> If they ask for 3D data, you need it too.<\/li>\n<li><strong>What is my team&#8217;s current skill?<\/strong> A realistic training plan matters more than the software&#8217;s feature list.<\/li>\n<li><strong>How will I manage files?<\/strong> The more people involved, the more important data management becomes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/mcad-guides\/mcad-vs-general-cad-03-decision-guide.png\" alt=\"Decision flowchart to choose between general-purpose CAD, a 2D mechanical toolset and 3D MCAD\" \/><\/p>\n<p><em>Figure 3. Three honest questions that point to the right kind of CAD.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>If you want a deeper evaluation of the tools themselves, I keep a running guide at <em>Best Mechanical CAD Software for Professional Engineers<\/em>.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Common Misunderstandings I Hear Again and Again<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>&#8220;3D CAD is just 2D CAD with an extra axis.&#8221;<\/strong> No. The difference lies in the data model, not in the number of dimensions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>&#8220;MCAD is only for big companies.&#8221;<\/strong> Not anymore. Subscription and cloud options have made it accessible to workshops and individuals.<\/li>\n<li><strong>&#8220;We will keep drawing in 2D, it is faster.&#8221;<\/strong> For a single simple part, perhaps. Over a year of changes and variants, almost never.<\/li>\n<li><strong>&#8220;The software will fix our bad habits.&#8221;<\/strong> It will amplify them. A chaotic office becomes a chaotic office with large files.<\/li>\n<li><strong>&#8220;One tool does everything.&#8221;<\/strong> Even the best MCAD system is part of a chain that includes simulation, manufacturing and data management. Plan for the chain.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Final Thoughts<\/h2>\n<p>When I look back at the offices I have worked in, the ones that struggled with CAD almost never struggled because of the software they chose. They struggled because the <strong>software did not match the nature of their work<\/strong>, or because nobody had explained to them how deeply the two families differ.<\/p>\n<p>General-purpose CAD is a superb pencil. Mechanical CAD is a complete design environment. Both have a place. What matters is that you pick the one that matches the thing you are actually creating, and that you invest in the habits that make either one work.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Where to go next:<\/strong> continue with <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=48\">2D CAD vs. 3D CAD in Mechanical Engineering<\/a><\/em> to understand why the shift to 3D changed everything, and then read <em><a href=\"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/?p=50\">Parametric vs. Direct Modeling: Which Approach Is Better?<\/a><\/em> to see how the models themselves are built.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A few years ago I was called in by a small manufacturer that was struggling. They built custom conveyor equipment, they had four talented people in the design office, and every one of those people was working overtime. When I\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":113,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[23,24,22],"class_list":["post-47","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fundamentals","tag-autocad","tag-cad-comparison","tag-mcad"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=47"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47\/revisions\/59"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=47"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=47"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcadauthority.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=47"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}