Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#21

Post by nkallen »

walrus wrote: post #17
avian wrote: post #7

> Plasticity is mostly Open Source. When Plasticity reaches 1.0, it will cost $25 to use (no subscription). I'm curious how this will be implemented. According to the LICENSE file in the repo, the current source is available under LGPL. What will cost $25? Will the repo be taken off-line after 1.0 release? Or will further updates after 1.0 be binary only?

It appears to use C3D as its CAD kernel, which is proprietary. You can't build it without a copy of C3D. I'm guessing the source will be available for inspection, but the binary will cost money.

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide.

What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module.

You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own fork of the electron app, but not the npm module.

In effect you will be paying for a license key, not the binary

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#22

Post by nkallen »

fsloth wrote: post #15

A side note not intended as hostile or disparaging for any stakeholders: Plasticity seems to use c3d toolkit for it's solid operations. That may - or may not be - soon problematic as the company that produces is based in Russia ( https://c3dlabs.com/en/company/about/ ). Are other c3d users finding this problematic? There aren't that many solid kernels in the market.

This is a significant issue for anyone doing business with Russia. I’m happy with c3d in general but there is a possibility I will be forced to use another kernel

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#23

Post by nkallen »

rkagerer wrote: post #18

Are there parametric features? eg. Can I say "this line is 35mm long"?

I want to emphasize to everyone that this is for concept artists. It’s nurbs used to create interesting shapes and fillets. While there are some parametric features, they’re completely de emphasized compared to something like fusion or solidworks

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#24

Post by fsloth »

nkallen wrote: post #22
fsloth wrote: post #15

A side note not intended as hostile or disparaging for any stakeholders: Plasticity seems to use c3d toolkit for it's solid operations. That may - or may not be - soon problematic as the company that produces is based in Russia ( https://c3dlabs.com/en/company/about/ ). Are other c3d users finding this problematic? There aren't that many solid kernels in the market.

This is a significant issue for anyone doing business with Russia. I’m happy with c3d in general but there is a possibility I will be forced to use another kernel

Do you see any other reasonable options in the intended pricepoint besides OpenCascade?

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#25

Post by dsign »

nkallen wrote: post #22
fsloth wrote: post #15

A side note not intended as hostile or disparaging for any stakeholders: Plasticity seems to use c3d toolkit for it's solid operations. That may - or may not be - soon problematic as the company that produces is based in Russia ( https://c3dlabs.com/en/company/about/ ). Are other c3d users finding this problematic? There aren't that many solid kernels in the market.

This is a significant issue for anyone doing business with Russia. I’m happy with c3d in general but there is a possibility I will be forced to use another kernel

It hurts what is happening in Ukraine now, and still Putin has support of more than 50% of the Russian people. Please, don't support them.

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#26

Post by nkallen »

hnarayanan wrote: post #3
danboarder wrote: post #2

I find this to be a very cool NURBS-based CAD project, can't wait to play with it more. From what I can see it borrows a lot of concepts from solid modeling CAD tools like Solidworks, but also has UX similarities to other common surface modeling tools like Blender. Here is a video of how it works: Plasticity - Fresh NURBS Modeler for Everyone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l16YkZnT5zM

This is really cool, both in terms of what it can do, the approachable pricing model and the video that shows it off. (Since I’m not aware of the details…) Is this similar to using NURBS as the representation in Blender? As in what makes this more CAD-ey?

I think the main thing to understand is that blender has minimal nurbs support. For example, try doing booleans, fillets, or offset surfaces with blender nurbs. You can’t.

Nurbs are good for some shapes and bad for others. In addition to manufacturing, nurbs are great for hard surface / scifi assets for video games and movies.

Plasticity is for artists. It is more in the tradition of MoI3d than say solidworks. It has a very powerful geometry kernel and the user interface is meant to be familiar to blender users and modern looking.

It’s still very beta and changing every day

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#27

Post by nkallen »

fsloth wrote: post #24
nkallen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a significant issue for anyone doing business with Russia. I’m happy with c3d in general but there is a possibility I will be forced to use another kernel

Do you see any other reasonable options in the intended pricepoint besides OpenCascade?

Parasolid and Acis are the only other options. I have a lot of admiration for OpenCascade but unfortunately its functionality is very limited for my needs.

I’m considering parasolid but, no, I can’t keep this price point with it

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#29

Post by nkallen »

nkallen wrote: post #21
walrus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears to use C3D as its CAD kernel, which is proprietary. You can't build it without a copy of C3D. I'm guessing the source will be available for inspection, but the binary will cost money.

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide. What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module. You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own for…

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal.

There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

Re: Plasticity Is CAD for Artists

#30

Post by jcelerier »

nkallen wrote: post #29
nkallen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A full build from scratch would require the c3d headers, which I can’t provide. What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module. You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own for…

I will say I’m constantly bewildered by which license to choose. I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source. Plasticity will allow plug-ins to do whatever they want, that’s the goal. There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp

> I’m using copyleft to defend myself a bit. But weak copyleft because I’ve hate that the gpl prevents blender plug-ins from being closed source or linking against something closed source

So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering

Post reply on HN