Antigravity 2.0 Tops the OpenSCAD Architectural 3D LLM Benchmark

Post by illiac786 » Sat, May 23, 2026, 11:56 AM UTC

pabs3 wrote: post #158

illiac786 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s say, for the positive case, hash comparison is significantly faster.

I feel like that is quite unlikely. Both the hash and bitwise comparisons read both files in both cases. In the not-equal case the hash reads the entirety of both files, so its slower than a start-to-end bitwise comparison, which exits at the first not-equal bit. In the equal case, both read the entirety of both files. Various other bitwise strategies can be faster than start-to-end, rdfind for example checks the sta…

Post by idontwantthis » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:36 PM UTC

jonah wrote: post #72

jhot wrote: post #26

Last weekend I bought my wife a bike off marketplace. It was in good condition but was missing one of the internal cable routing grommets. I gave Claude pictures of the pill-shaped hole by itself and with my digital calipers in the long and short directions. Gave it a short prompt and it gave me an openscad model with everything parametrized. I printed with no changes in tpu and it was nearly perfect on the first try…

I was recently trying to get models to generate a 3D fortune cookie. Claude in three.js and Gemini in openSCAD. Neither really got the concept or could get very close at all. It's a surprisingly complex shape I guess.

Post by 05 » Sat, May 23, 2026, 9:15 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #164

05 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You optimize for no support when selecting print orientation (but for anything semi-cylindrical like described that would be the only sane orientation and the one slicer would choose when you smash the 'Auto Orientation' button).

Naive/uninformed question: does 3D printing produce any cleavage issues (like you’d get with a crystal) along the directions of printing, and does it ever make sense to change the orientation to help with that?

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 » Sun, May 24, 2026, 12:15 PM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #40

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #13

Still a long way from shorting Autodesk. As a side note Autodesk released an agentic assistant back in December for Fusion. Six months later it is still quite bad.

It is almost comically bad. I've had a few simple parts to design for 3d printing in the last weeks and tried it with them (each are about 4 operations on the timeline), and it never created close to what I was trying to do even if spelled out step by step according to Fusion naming. At this point I'm not even sure if it can properly create a simple primitive solid.

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 » Sun, May 24, 2026, 12:19 PM UTC

shideneyu wrote: post #84

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #13

Still a long way from shorting Autodesk. As a side note Autodesk released an agentic assistant back in December for Fusion. Six months later it is still quite bad.

Still a long way to go, but I'm sure it will get there eventually.