Comment by commandar

Comment by commandar 7 hours ago

2 replies

>Even with procedural and parametric modeling in Blender, you will always encounter issues with approximation and floating point precision, which are inherent to the data representation.

A common problem people run into with CAD models is importing a STEP file and modeling directly off of geometry in it. They later find out that some face they used as a reference was read by the CAD package as 89.99999994 degrees to another, and discover it's thrown the geometry of everything else in their model subtly off when things aren't lining up the way they should.

And that's with a file that has solid body representation! It's an entire new level of nightmare when you throw meshes into the mix.

The heart of any real CAD package is a geometry kernel[1]. There are really only a handful of them out there; Parasolid is used by a ton of 'big name' packages, for example. This is what takes a series of descriptions of geometry and turns it into clear, repeatable geometry. The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled. It's the very core of what these things do. Mesh modeling is fantastic for a lot of things, but it's a very different approach to creating geometry and just isn't a great fit for things like mechanical engineering.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel

jijijijij 6 hours ago

> The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled.

Yes, but I meant making a case for workflow differences.

CAD is bad at aiding visual thinking and exploration, since you kinda have to be precise and constrain everything. You can pump out a rough idea of an object, edit it much, so much faster in Blender.

Sketching on paper, or visualizing in one’s mind, is pretty hard for most people when it comes to 3D. CAD is not at all inviting for creative impulses and flow. People who can do this in CAD are probably trained engineers who learned a very discipled, analytical way to approach problems, people who think in technical drawings.

So, CAD is good at getting a precise and workable digital representation of a "pre-designed" object for further (digital) processing, analysis, assembly and production. I think Blender is better at the early design process, figuring out shapes and relations.

  • commandar 6 hours ago

    I don't entirely agree there.

    In a vacuum for a standalone object, a 3D mesh app like Blender can be useful for brainstorming.

    Most of my CAD usage is designing parts that have to fit together with other things. The fixed elements drive the rest of the design. A lot of the work is figuring out "how do I make these two things fit together and be able to move in the ways they need to."

    There is still a lot of room for creativity. My workflow is basically "get the basic functionality down as big square blocks, then keep cutting away and refining until you have something that looks like a real product." My designs very rarely end up looking like what they started out as. But the process of getting them down in CAD is exactly what lets me figure out what's actually going to work.

    It's a very different workflow, and it's definitely not freeform in the same way as a traditional mesh modeling app, but CAD is for when you have to have those constraints. You can always (and it's not an uncommon pattern) go back and use a mesh modeler to build the industrial design side of things on top once the mechanical modeling is done.

    ETA:

    I'd also add: I'm not sure "thinking in CAD" comes naturally to anyone; it's a skillset that has to be built.