101–110 of 124 posts
This is really nice. Seems super easy to use, unlike other CAD/3D modelling software I've tried before. I think a lot of software could benefit from this 'timeless' graph/node based approach, rather than most UI's which only let you see the latest version with a long undo chain. It reminded me a bit of Bret Victor's drawing tool[1] too. Only problem, to me, is that it seems like a lot of work to get a UI like this of…
Did you try sketchup?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they turned it into a license feature (so LT doesn't have it, only the full version does)? But yes, I found AutoLisp to be very useful for automating things. The place I used to work for had to have the CNC machines cut out differently sized shapes from a library of shapes, so I created functions to draw each library shape for me quickly. This is a lot easier than trying to form four mutually tangent circul…
You are correct. I describe AutoCad LT as either "Fisher Price" AutoCAD, or AutoCAD without the useful stuff. Most people that use AutoCAD might as well be using Etch-A-Sketch...
Sure, I could construct everything by hand, but that's pretty unreasonable when I'm redoing the same basic shapes all day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they turned it into a license feature (so LT doesn't have it, only the full version does)? But yes, I found AutoLisp to be very useful for automating things. The place I used to work for had to have the CNC machines cut out differently sized shapes from a library of shapes, so I created functions to draw each library shape for me quickly. This is a lot easier than trying to form four mutually tangent circul…
LT is the follow on to AutoSketch and marketed to those who don't find value from working in 3d. AutoDesk upbranded the product and raised the price point when they renamed it, and a lot of people who say they use AutoCad are using LT "instead". In fairness, there are a lot of people using AutoCad with color based plotting (style based was introduced with Acad2000 in 1999) and who don't use those "new features" like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed his/her point... OP wasn't saying that Bézier curves in car models were something new. What OP said is that (as an example) latest car desings are hard to do with constructive solid geometry but easy to do with B-rep
Haha! Smiles from the town of Béziers, Hérault, France... apparently no direct relation to the curve. From the AMS: Bézier curves are ubiquitous in computer graphics. They were introduced implicitly into theoretical mathematics long before computers, primarily by the French mathematician Charles Hermite and the Russian mathematician Sergei Bernstein. But it was only the work of Pierre Bézier, an employee of the autom…
Postscript became popular[1] well before any version of the PDF format existed. It was popularized by the Apple Laserwriter, the first printer to natively support it.
[1] Well, I suppose it depends on what one means by 'popular'. I think creating the desktop publishing industry counts; YMMV.
So it's like POV-Ray[1], with a visual coding paradigm rather than purely text-based source, optimised for CAD rather than raytracing? [1] http://povray.org/
It's neat, but really just looks like a pretty primitive version of Houdini to me: http://www.sidefx.com/ Perhaps the emphasis on CAD instead of computer graphics is the primary differentiating factor, but it's really too early to tell. Good luck.
This looks _very_ interesting (from a DIYer point of view), however building under GNU/Linux amd64 isn't seamless. (Missing --std statements in the Makefile, notably) I find openscad quite painful to use, I whish I learned about Antimony before. I think this has lot of potential, as a lightweigth, intuitive, free software, notably in the maker/diyer scene.
ok, here a very specific question: can I chamfer or fillet a specific edge that is resulting from a CSG subtraction? Because 3D printing supposes a very robust 3D CAD.
I think that Antimony kind of suffers from the same problem, but because it's using distance fields rather than plain CSG, it does have a “blend” operation (https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony/blob/develop/py/fab/shap...) that attempts to fillet the union of two shapes. Now, Antimony has inversion (complement, more or less), and set A \ B is just A ∩ B', which by De Morgan's Laws is equivalent to (A' ∪ B)'. So what happens if you attempt to approximate a filleted A \ B with invert(blend(invert(A), B))? I don’t know. But damn, I’m sure tempted to try it!
Of course, even if that works, that won’t fillet a specific edge resulting from the subtraction. It will fillet all of them. Invariably, that is what I want.
Okay, I'm a CAD software developer instead of an actual CAD engineer, so my perspective may be a bit biased. But this CSG (constructive solid geometry) idea is not in any way new. The reason it's kind of obscure now is that spline-based boundary representation systems (B-reps) took over the market decades ago. If you think about, say, the latest car designs, those free-flowing shapes are pretty easy to do in B-rep, a…
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…
> "code-based" solid modelling systems See the presentation video where it's driven from a GUI.
I'm also confused about the grandparent comment, since the video clearly shows direct manipulation of the actual sketch.