Comment by alnwlsn

Comment by alnwlsn 5 days ago

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.

ejp 5 days ago

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!

Reply View 4 replies

alnwlsn 5 days ago

>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.

Reply View | 0 replies
coryrc 5 days ago

> I've also tried to spend some time performance optimizing for render/output. It is not cooperative at all.
Have you started using a recent nightly build with the Manifold backend and not the "stable" (aka obsolete) release?

Reply View | 2 replies
- ejp 4 days ago
  
  I have not! I will give that a shot, and hope that it will maintain compatibility with BOSL2 (also beta).
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  coryrc 2 days ago
  
  BOSL2 devs use more recent snapshots, so it definitely does.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

sheepscreek 5 days ago

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.

Reply View 2 replies

pseudosudoer 5 days ago

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.

Reply View | 0 replies
nullc 5 days ago

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.

Reply View | 0 replies

Catbert59 5 days ago

> 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.

Siemens Solid Edge also has a hobbyist version with very fair terms.

Reply View 0 replies

waerhert 5 days ago

Haha, the thought of using OpenSCAD briefly crossed my mind when I found out about it but I didn't want this project to take a year extra to complete. I do consider exploring some of the other CAD alternatives though if budget permits.

Reply View 0 replies

benhurmarcel 5 days ago

I've used Solidworks and Catia quite a bit, and for home use Fusion doesn't give me nearly as much frustration as FreeCAD.

Reply View 0 replies