11–20 of 124 posts
Does it use a geometric modeling kernel? e.g open source Open CASCADE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Cascade_Technology ) ?
Two other open source CAD come to my mind that use Python as primary scritping language: FreeCAD and the unmaintained HeeksCAD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCAD , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeeksCAD
This is neat, but from a usability standpoint most mechanical engineers prefer to work with draft style sketches rather than a node-based interface. Thus it is neat and impressive, but I am not sure it is what the consumers in the CAD market desire.
Well this is a CAD software from a parallel universe, you wouldn't know what those mechanical engineers from that universe prefer. I'm a physicist and I only used one CAD software occasionally. In the CAD software I used I had to clone primitive objects to use them in multiple operations. If I wanted to change one dimension I had to update all the clones. Simply the acyclic graph model works better for this than the…
To add a bit of historical perspective, AutoCad could be extended through Lisp (AutoLisp), back in the day. So I posit that this approach is nothing new and unlikely to be what the customers of CAD packages don't already have.
* Gears and sprockets * Fasteners (nuts & bolts) * Electrical components (ICs, etc)
For anything else they aren't at all suitable. It's just a million times easier to be able to click on dimensions on the actual sketch and change them. You're never going to see a power tool or a tractor or whatever designed in OpenSCAD.
Few 2D drawing programs are specified in code - the only ones I can think of are things like TikZ for Latex, and ... well there's a reason only Latex geeks use them. They aren't very easy to use.
The main reason they exist is that it is much (like 100 times) easier to write a code-drive CAD system than a GUI-driven one.
Having used OpenSCAD, Solidworks and NX fairly extensively, I can say that "code-based" solid modelling systems are good for some specific things - anything that is highly parametric, for example: * Gears and sprockets * Fasteners (nuts & bolts) * Electrical components (ICs, etc) For anything else they aren't at all suitable. It's just a million times easier to be able to click on dimensions on the actual sketch and…
Well, I thought OpenSCAD was a pretty fresh look at things: http://openscad.org/ .. with fairly similar goals - only not for architecture, but rather 3d-printig ..
Having used OpenSCAD, Solidworks and NX fairly extensively, I can say that "code-based" solid modelling systems are good for some specific things - anything that is highly parametric, for example: * Gears and sprockets * Fasteners (nuts & bolts) * Electrical components (ICs, etc) For anything else they aren't at all suitable. It's just a million times easier to be able to click on dimensions on the actual sketch and…
Having used OpenSCAD, Solidworks and NX fairly extensively, I can say that "code-based" solid modelling systems are good for some specific things - anything that is highly parametric, for example: * Gears and sprockets * Fasteners (nuts & bolts) * Electrical components (ICs, etc) For anything else they aren't at all suitable. It's just a million times easier to be able to click on dimensions on the actual sketch and…
The reason they exist is because they are very well suited for making changes on the model ... on shallow and deep level. It might be easer to "click on dimensions on the actual sketch and change them" for a few elements, but try making a fundamental change without code.
GUI vs. code/config file preference seems to be a personal disposition not only for CAD but for all kinds of software.