[HN Gopher] FreeCAD: Open-source 3D parametric modeler
___________________________________________________________________
FreeCAD: Open-source 3D parametric modeler
Author : _benj
Score : 79 points
Date : 2022-02-03 13:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.freecadweb.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.freecadweb.org)
| etskinner wrote:
| I can't wait to see FreeCAD or something like it mature into
| something on the level of Blender. The problem seems to be that
| other free-ish CAD software exists out there, so there's not much
| demand. Another problem seems to be that overlap between people
| interested in solid modeling and people able to program for solid
| modeling is very small.
|
| For sculpting, Blender actually does pretty well. And for
| parametric solid modeling, Fusion360 has a free license for
| hobbyists and startups. For programmatic non-parametric modeling,
| there's OpenSCAD.
|
| But like others have said here, FreeCAD is lacking a lot of
| polish, and that makes it pretty hard to use.
| somat wrote:
| Note that almost by definition a programmatic interface to cad
| makes it parametric. The parameters are now in the program.
| haberman wrote:
| > For programmatic non-parametric modeling, there's OpenSCAD.
|
| There is also CadQuery, which claims to have fundamental
| technical advantages over OpenSCAD:
| https://github.com/CadQuery/cadquery
|
| I've tried CadQuery and had a rough time of it. I haven't used
| OpenSCAD at all though, so I can't compare.
| bb88 wrote:
| OpenSCAD is very lisp like. It's basically just a series of
| functions that operate on primitives. I tried it out and
| didn't like it very much. Mostly because debugging your model
| this way isn't super efficient.
|
| CadQuery should be better, but they refuse to just release a
| standalone pip library, instead everything is distributed
| through anaconda which just breaks my existing library setup.
| Technically you can use miniconda I guess, but in reality if
| I'm going through that much trouble to set up software, it's
| probably just best to move on.
|
| I found FreeCad easier to install and use frankly --
| especially the RealThunder AppImage version.
|
| https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_assembly3/releases
| dekhn wrote:
| I started with FreeCAD and got pretty good at it. it's a fairly
| capable system although the UI can have some issues.
|
| At some point I started hitting up against a collection of
| problems and finally paid for Fusion 360. It was completely
| transformative. I'd be pretty impressed if FreeCAD can catch up
| to where Fusion 360 is today (in basic shape modelling, advanced
| shape modelling, and mesh modelling, as well as CNC toolpathing).
| bb88 wrote:
| Pro Tip:
|
| Use the Realthunder version of freecad in an AppImage container.
| It seems to be more stable.
|
| https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_assembly3/releases
| zibzab wrote:
| While I like this project, freecad is badly in need of a UX
| overhaul.
|
| For example things being split into X workspace that you have to
| constantly switch between (each with their own toolbar layout) is
| not a good workflow.
| bb88 wrote:
| For simple stuff I think it's pretty good. Though it falls apart
| when you have topological changes in the tree.
|
| For more complex stuff I'm tempted to go buy Alibre Cad. It's
| $150 for personal use / no subscription.
|
| https://www.alibre.com/atom3d/
| _benj wrote:
| Alibre looks quite nice, and it certainly refreshing to see a
| non-cloud non-subscription base software!
| sen wrote:
| I love the idea of FreeCAD so much that I committed pretty much a
| month to doing all my newer projects in it, watching tutorials,
| etc... and in the end had to give up and go back to Fusion 360.
|
| I'm not some long term die-hard F360 fan either, just a casual
| hobbyist maker who uses all sorts of tools (I still regularly
| just whip things up in Tinkercad for the printers) but FreeCAD is
| just so damn hard to get things from your head to the screen. It
| feels like you're constantly trying to fit square pegs into round
| holes just to do basic things.
| Accujack wrote:
| I don't trust Autodesk and I bailed from F360 when they
| crippled the hobbyist version, but I ended up having to go back
| to a single user subscription for now.
|
| CAD/CAM programs are a "hard" type of software to write. I view
| them as similar in difficulty to free operating systems in
| technical difficulty and scope of the project. Before Linux
| there were only a few options for Unix-like OSs (Minix,
| Coherent, etc), but none of them particularly good for much
| except for academic purposes. Real work still took a licensed
| copy of Unix.
|
| There still hasn't been a similar project to produce a CAD
| system (not just 3d modeling, but parametric CAD) created
| that's open source. There are some great programs for 2d cad,
| for running machine tools and CNC routers, but beyond things
| like FreeCAD there's nothing available in the open source space
| that's comparable to even the cheapest commercial offering.
| sen wrote:
| Completely agree with everything you're saying. It's a tough
| problem to solve, and I'd love something like FreeCAD to
| actually be able to complete with Fusion 360. I think with
| the explosion of the hobbyist maker scene and how common 3D
| printers are getting it's inevitable that something rises up
| eventually, but who knows.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I have spent weeks using freecad to build various things. Then I
| tried fusion 360, (closed-source, free but nerfed for non-
| commercial use).
|
| The usability differences are insane. What took me hours in
| freecad takes minutes in fusion 360. Fusion 360 just does what
| you expect, while freecad throws nonsensical errors and randomly
| breaks your whole model if you edit something you've already done
| and it takes hours to fix.
| jbay808 wrote:
| I'm now using FreeCAD for all of my mechanical design work. It's
| about 10% as productive for me as SolidWorks (although I'm still
| climbing the learning curve), which I regard as a massive
| achievement for open-source software.
|
| It's definitely got rough spots, especially the tendency for
| models to sometimes become corrupt and flip inside out. But
| overall I like it, and I can make do with the problems.
| Ciantic wrote:
| I have very little experience with FreeCAD, but I used Solid
| Works years ago. I still can't understand why with FreeCAD the
| chamfering or "smoothing" the edges breaks the model. I thought
| chamfering should be easy task if it uses SDF's or something like
| it for solid modelling, but somehow it makes unwanted holes.
| samuell wrote:
| If only it had more free form (while mathematically exact, e.g.
| NURBS-based) drawing tools, similar to the NURBS-based tools in
| Rhino 3D [1], it would be a killer platform for a lot of 3D
| modelling.
|
| [1] https://www.rhino3d.com/
| wtfIsOn wrote:
| emergentstate wrote:
| I have pretty mixed feelings about FreeCAD, having used it for
| 100+ hours across a few different projects.
|
| It's wonderful to have a open-source alternative to the expensive
| CAD software that muscled its way into a near monopoly in
| academia/industry, but it suffers from some really inexcusable
| design problems, on a fundamental level. As it is, I don't think
| it's really usable as a serious tool for creating complex
| assemblies.
|
| I'd be curious if anyone here has managed to use it effectively
| for a large project (something real-world, not just showcasing
| FreeCAD).
| imglorp wrote:
| Curious if you have compared to SolveSpace?
| floatboth wrote:
| Last time I used SolveSpace, what I hated the most was how
| the undo button was near useless.. and
| https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/91 is still
| open :/
| phoenix3200 wrote:
| Wow, that looks like what I may be after!
| haberman wrote:
| > some really inexcusable design problems, on a fundamental
| level
|
| Can you be more specific?
|
| I understand that the Topological Naming Problem is big
| (discussed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSsVFu929jo), but
| as I understand it this is being fixed in the RealThunder
| branch (https://bit.ly/3iBzQly), and fixes may be flowing from
| this into FreeCAD 0.2.
| floatboth wrote:
| A fundamental problem is that OpenCASCADE, despite being the
| most advanced open source CAD kernel, does kinda suck. It's
| single-threaded (FreeCAD has it on the _main_ thread so any
| long operation blocks the entire UI) and it 's... rather
| buggy.
|
| Recent fun example I've encountered: doing a fillet in two
| places at the same time can result in either an unhelpful
| "resulting shape is invalid" or a crash inside OpenCASCADE,
| depending on the selection order (!) --
| https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/issues/202
| jbay808 wrote:
| I have noticed that fillets in particular are a weak point
| for FreeCAD.
| jackyinger wrote:
| My complaint is that it is extremely modal and as a result
| not very friendly, not intuitive even to a relatively
| experienced CAD user.
|
| I've used a variety of CAD and it just really didn't click. I
| know it's open source, so not going to be as UX oriented, but
| still.
|
| I would love to be proved wrong. If there's something I'm
| missing please share.
| jbay808 wrote:
| Did you find the Part Design workflow? It took a while for
| Freecad to click for me but it ends up being fairly similar
| to other CAD programs in terms of workflow.
| haberman wrote:
| I've experienced that user unfriendliness too. I'm not at
| all an expert in this, I'm a FreeCAD newbie that has been
| trying to decide whether to invest in learning FreeCAD or
| not.
|
| I keep wishing that FreeCAD had the UI polish of Blender,
| and ask myself if Blender can do enough of the CAD
| workflows that it makes sense to learn Blender instead of
| FreeCAD.
|
| I keep reading that technically speaking, mesh-based
| modelers are woefully insufficient for CAD tasks. But then
| I see videos like this, which suggest that Blender can
| handle most modeling tasks, with the main exception of
| bevels and chamfers:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5SehCbhxFs
| jackyinger wrote:
| Mesh modeling in blender has similar downfalls to
| OpenSCAD. When you're designing a bit of precision
| equipment (or what have you) you don't want your circles
| turned into high degree polygons.
|
| Can a lathe turn a polygon? Can a drill drill a polygonal
| hole? Maybe you can machine a polygon on a fancy CNC
| lathe, but you certainly wouldn't do so for a turbine
| shaft.
|
| Also for less precise things, say construction, you care
| about dimensions. Select an arc to get it's radius for
| instance.
|
| This is why design for traditional construction
| techniques best done in boundary representations:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_representation
|
| I will concede that one can easily create nasty insoluble
| problems with boundary representations if not familiar
| with the limitations of splines, but this only really is
| a problem with curvy things like ship's hulls and
| aircraft.
| eindiran wrote:
| There is no downside in my opinion to learning a bit of
| OpenSCAD, FreeCAD, and Blender and reaching for the right
| tool when you need it. Personally, I have found the UI/UX
| of FreeCAD painful to use, but it is sufficient for most
| of my CAD needs. And after Fusion 360 crippled their
| hobbyist licensing, I don't really want to get in bed
| with any of the non-free CAD tools.
| phoenix3200 wrote:
| I found OpenSCAD to be very friendly for parametric
| designs, but after a while I switched to the SolidPython
| wrapper as it was more flexible.
|
| However, I'm hunting for a better way to create 3d models
| via code (Blender Python?) because
| 'extrude_along_path'->SolidPython->OpenSCAD->stl export
| simply could not handle my model.
| floatboth wrote:
| CadQuery should be better as it is using the OpenCASCADE
| cad kernel (same as FreeCAD) instead of a simplistic ad-
| hoc thingy.
| jackyinger wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out! Looks pretty useful, will
| give it a shot.
| jackyinger wrote:
| OpenSCAD is great in some ways, but the fact that
| everything gets boils straight to triangles drives me
| nuts. If there were an OpenSCAD equivalent to work with
| boundary representation models I'd have found my CAD
| nirvana.
| rq1 wrote:
| Topological naming issue is the biggest problem that they
| should address immediately. Otherwise they can't call it a
| parametric drawing tool. Period.
|
| I discovered the issue in a middle of a design where I tried
| to change what I thought was a parametric piece. It
| unrecoverable blew up everything.
|
| I kind of lost trust in it after that. I ended up making a
| backup for every step on top of the regular backups, like:
| piece_name-step-1... etc.
|
| I discovered the real thunder branch too late.
| psadauskas wrote:
| I agree. I'm working on a project to finish my basement, and
| decided to use FreeCAD for it. It mostly worked, but did weird
| things often enough it was frustrating. Often the solution was
| to look up on the forums for a hack to do things in a certain
| order and it would work. Sometimes there was no solution, like
| trying to print a floor plan of my 3d model always did weird
| things with the scale and the labels. I could mostly get it to
| "work", but really lacked polish that made using it more of a
| chore than I'd like, and I don't feel like I got the full power
| out of using it.
| nikitaga wrote:
| Personally I also ran into some inexcusable bugs on my first
| try of FreeCAD recently. Sadly I don't have the link anymore,
| but the problem was offsets being incorrectly calculated in
| certain cases, and I found it to be a long standing bug in
| their issue tracker. There wasn't an easy way to work around it
| so I had to look elsewhere. Too bad, because FreeCAD did seem
| quite fine otherwise (Note: I never used SolidWorks, and my
| demands are amateur level).
|
| For programmers I highly recommend OpenSCAD or Cadquery, which
| let you write code to build your models instead of using GUI.
| With this approach, "parametric" comes naturally, and so you
| don't need to learn a special constraint system, it's just your
| code (and a bit of math).
|
| Cadquery was a bit hard to get started with being essentially a
| bunch of python scripts, but it's also more versatile and more
| powerful than OpenSCAD, and has a good collection of examples
| in their docs. OpenSCAD is still great for e.g. building simple
| models for 3D printing.
| dang wrote:
| Past related threads:
|
| _FreeCAD 0.19_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26533384 -
| March 2021 (60 comments)
|
| _FreeCAD Simulator_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25098981 - Nov 2020 (13
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD BIM development news_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24951311 - Oct 2020 (23
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD: A free and open source multiplatform 3D parametric
| modeler_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24513340 - Sept
| 2020 (268 comments)
|
| _FreeCAD on Raspberry Pi 4_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22347385 - Feb 2020 (36
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD BIM development news December 2018_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18800484 - Jan 2019 (22
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD 0.17 "Roland" released_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16790814 - April 2018 (58
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD Arch development news_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480294 - June 2017 (44
| comments)
|
| _FreeCAD 0.16 release notes_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11533435 - April 2016 (75
| comments)
|
| _Free CAD-CAM Software Demos_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893631 - July 2015 (1
| comment)
| chasd00 wrote:
| i've used FreeCAD but didn't like the UI so then I switched to
| OnShape. I used OnShape for a while but then switched over to
| Fusion360 because the vast majority of the people in my hobby (
| amateur rocketry ) use Fusion360. Using the same tool as everyone
| else really helps when asking questions and reading tips/tricks.
| Accujack wrote:
| Yeah. A major "cost" of CAD software is the investment in
| learning it, which is made much cheaper by having others learn
| it whom you can interact with, an open community to ask
| questions of, etc.
|
| That's part of why it hurt so much when Autodesk crippled the
| hobbyist version of Fusion 360. All the stuff it can't do now
| no one can help you learn.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-04 23:01 UTC)