Comment by fusslo 5 days ago
I've been using freeCAD for about 3 years now. Looking at what he was able to make with it blows my mind. I love freeCAD, but I don't think I've ever been so continuously frustrated by a piece of software
I came to FreeCad with some years background in Inventor, NX and SolidWorks. The jump from any of these to FreeCAD is not very big; you're doing a lot of the same things. But, most of the problems FreeCad has are solved in those, so you can sort of do anything in them and be none the wiser. In FreeCAD, you need to think a little bit more on how it's going to do things.
But most people don't learn the big CADs first, they learn Fusion. The few times I've tried Fusion, it's given me a headache. It's probably a bigger headache going the other direction.
Then, there are those who do all their CAD work in OpenSCAD. They scare me.
OpenSCAD is great for functional parts, built of basic components. It can start to be good for moderate complexity components with the BOSL library (I use BOSL2) including chamfers/fillets where needed. And the parametric/customization aspect is second to none - IF it's built with that in mind.
Where it really falls down is when you need to somehow get data OUT of the model to feed to other shapes. I would love to be able to specify a chamfer or fillet along a contact edge of two other shapes, but unless you know the exact contact shape, location, and size a priori you will have a tough time getting anything to line up. If you want to use a mesh or model as a negative, every model's zero coordinate needs to be just right or it will just be entirely misaligned.
I've also tried to spend some time performance optimizing for render/output. It is not cooperative at all. It will just soak CPU time for a minute at a time for not even a complex shape! As pseudosudoer said, it really goes off the rails.
But for functional connectors, adapters, and replicating parts, it's great to be able to leverage my software skills in 3D modeling!
>I would love to be able to specify a chamfer or fillet along a contact edge of two other shapes
Yes, this is how the big cad programs work, they are 'constraint based'. You pick points and lines from other features (or other parts) and add whatever new geometry you want, and a solver fills in the rest. Features build off each other in this way. In OpenSCAD, you are the solver. But, the big programs have a ton of buttons, and scripting, while there, is usually hidden.
It's kind of like the difference between <insert image library> and Photoshop. Photoshop has a ton of useful tools inside, but if all you want to do is crop the bottom 30px from 2000 images, it's better to have a script do that. The scripts can technically do everything that Photoshop can do, but for other things it's easier just to click a few buttons and be done than reinvent the wheel from the ground up each time.
OpenSCAD is genuinely great for the right kind of user. If you’re familiar with CSS and have experience with animations in the past, you already possess the skills to be productive with OpenSCAD. In my opinion, the most challenging aspect is getting accustomed to the disconnect between visualizing something and manipulating it, as it’s done through code.
I really liked OpenSCAD as a concept, but when I started designing things that had a fair bit of complexity the rendering engine really shit the bed. This was a powerful rig as well.
I used OpenSCAD a long time ago because it felt very natural having spent a lot of time with POVray as a teen.
But I found it to be very difficult to design parts with specific dimensions that were needed to line up with objects in the real world.
In FreeCAD (/Solidworks/Onshape/solvespace/etc.) it's easy to just create a logical sketch of your part, fix the require dimensions, angles, symmetries, etc and it solves for the geometry.
I've used Solidworks and Catia quite a bit, and for home use Fusion doesn't give me nearly as much frustration as FreeCAD.
I've found ChatGPT and Claude to be extremely helpful as guides for this sort of stuff. As long as the software has decent/good documentation for the features you are trying to create, the AI does a great job telling you how to do things. There's definitely deep end stuff that the AI doest have enough reference material for, but I find it much quicker than blinding clicking through stuff or speeding watching YouTube videos.
You can also ask it to build a study guide for you to help build foundational knowledge.
But as always, expect some hallucinations, so ask it to provide links/references.
For real, I've been using FreeCAD for small hobby stuff for 7 years and still often find extremely frustrating UX issues in features new to me, stuff that wouldn't pass QA (I'm a FE dev and know a thing or two about that). When I proceeded to understand why overconstraints are an error and not a warning, I immediately discovered a multiple page thread on FreeCAD forums with regulars gaslighting how everything was exactly as needed because "performance", despite this being a deliberate choice, not a solver limitation. This gatekeeping attitude is really off-putting, the project needs a UX expert and a good community manager to root out that power user crap.
Three years should be more than enough time to have learned how to perform a few simple extrusions and pockets. What we're looking at here is essentially a pipe with a cap.
Free cad gets really complicated the moment you want to do surface modeling.
Can concur. I jump between OnShape and FreeCAD in my free time. OnShape feels very polished. I go back to FreeCAD, because I've bought some models, I don't want to publish in OnShape's free tier.
It's amazing how much can be done, but anything that I think will take an hour, lasts 6. Many times into the night.
I think it’s great that we have FreeCAD as an option and I’m excited to see it mature.
That said, I recommend Autodesk Fusion free tier for anyone who just wants to get quality work done quickly. Some will refuse to use it on principle and that’s fine for them, but it really is quality software free for hobbyist use with trivial restrictions.
EDIT: Getting downvoted, presumably for suggesting a non-OSS software to get a job done. However I’d recommend anyone who just wants to get work done at least consider the options at their disposal. Not every software decision needs to be made on principle.
Those who have bought into "free" closed source software simply haven't been burned hot enough by it yet. It might take a while, but you'll learn your lesson one of these days.
I think I could be burned by Fusion, recreate everything in OnShape, get burned by OnShape, then redo everything on a 3rd software and still be better off.
FreeCAD is just that far behind.
Honestly it’s useful enough that I’d pay the several hundred dollars per year if I had to. It’s that much better. The money spent would be well worth it (for me) for all the time saved over using FreeCAD. I’ve used multiple professional CAD packages and I’m just not interested in going back.
People sneer and tell me I’m going to get burned some day, but meanwhile I’ve been using it to great effect for many years for hobby projects that I can share around and edit easily.
I'm not going to agree to any of the "free" (you sign away all rights to the things you made free) tiers. Not that anyone would ever use my things but it's out of principle. FreeCAD has issues but is good enough for most people. And once you want to do really complicated things and also can cope the hundred of euros per years fine, but don't complain other people should do the same because you can.
Unfortunately, those who (used to) use Autodesk Eagle can't say the same, and they were willing to pay.
Though very grateful for projects like FreeCAD, I did encounter a fair bit of frustration while designing this. Especially random crashes, which only got worse as the project got more complex. As far as usage goes, it's mostly a matter of knowing how to do things in FreeCAD. I haven't encountered anything I could not achieve in FreeCAD. Having no experience in other CAD software probably helped sticking to it.