SCAD

I do not like SCAD generated stl files at all. I've had to clean, patch, and modify EVERY SCAD file I've pulled off of Thingiverse.

The geometry triangulation is HORRIBLE!

I wanted a tapered shoulder on this gear, just about had to rebuild the entire mesh in 3ds Max.

Left gear is SCAD or OpenCAD, both suck at face triangulation, the gear on the right is my corrected mesh. My gear is 75% in diameter which also included completely rebuilding the top face to remove overlapping faces due to scaling.

16 years of 3ds Max and modelling knowledge.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2012 04:10PM by Dirty Steve.

"Of course, WYSIWYG editors are usually pretty terrible"

Snort. Of course, virtually every modern product you encounter on a daily basis was designed using WYSIWYG cad software.

Give HeeksCad a go. It is purely graphical interface uses additive and subtractive 3D design - and is very fast to produce nice objects. It reads STEP files (which really should be the default standard IMHO) plus lot of other formats except SCAD unfortunately. I only use OpenSCAD to read or modify other peoples SCAD files and use Heeks for everything else. Be warned though, it is open source and under developed so you need to save often as it frequently crashes, but it is an awesome way to design 3D objects when it is running.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Richmond, New Zealand
Thingiverse ~ YouTube

Use ImportCSG and FreeCAD to import into FreeCAD. Save as STEP file from FreeCAD, Load into SolidWorks.

FreeCAD version 0.13 should be made available in the not so distant future.
Thanks to some excellent work by Sebastian Hoogen it contains an OpenSCAD module.
After a one time configuration to tell FreeCAD where the OpenSCAD binary is. It will open
SCAD files directly by running OpenSCAD under the covers to export a CSG file and then import
with ImportCSG into FreeCAD all automatically.

If you are using Linux you can pick up a daily build that includes the above.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2012 06:58AM by KeithSloan.

Dirty Steve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not like SCAD generated stl files at all.
> I've had to clean, patch, and modify EVERY SCAD
> file I've pulled off of Thingiverse.
>
> The geometry triangulation is HORRIBLE!
>
> I wanted a tapered shoulder on this gear, just
> about had to rebuild the entire mesh in 3ds Max.

Why would you do anything with the STL file except feed it to the slicer software? The STL output is not meant for further manual editing. Outputting anything to STL throws away the CSG tree, the parameters used to generate it, everything except the raw triangles of the final volume. That's a feature of the STL format, it's just a big bunch of triangles. (You could have just added the tapering in OpenSCAD in about 5 minutes... and the model would still be completely parametric after that.)

Personally, I use OpenSCAD because it's free, multiplatform and allows creating complex, highly parametric models very quickly, whereas with commercial CAD packages I would have to invest, at the minimum, thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in becoming proficient designer to achieve the same.

HeeksCAD is free (and it creates really nice CNC toolpaths quite easily), but it's not parametric (and according to the authors, never will be) and the ways of defining relationships between objects are severely lacking. Most of the time you will end up calculating subcomponent coordinates/dimensions by hand to get everything where they should be, because the constraints are at the moment quite rudimentary...

i like these debates,

dirty steve: horrible face triangulation is almost a staple of most 3d modeling software and yes openscad isn't all that great at it , however it really does come down to how you construct your model in the first place, rather than the software itself, a good percentage of the openscad scripts up on thingiverse could actually be simplified down to a handfull of lines of code with a little bit of thought,

the biggest problems with solid-works and inventor is that they are windows only, their formats are useless for sharing, the software packages cost a diamond the size of a testicle, and there are issues still to this day with dxf export and text,

yes there might be "student" versions which are free to use, yes very good, however this still requires i utilize an operating system which after .. how many years is it now? is still inherently full of bugs and falls over constantly, and still uses components that haven't been updated or even recompiled since 1995!,

thingiverse if anything should put a blanket ban on solid-works and inventor files being uploaded, even STEP files,
those formats are really a cheeky way of being able to say "this project is open-source" without in practical terms actually being open-source, its a bit like re writing this entire thread in Russian, unless you know how to read it it's not very useful to you, the mk7 extruder is a classic example of this,

my usual suggestion to anyone claiming they've had to close openscad down after a mere 5 mins of use is that they haven't really given it a chance and that it's more a case of laziness and ignorance, no-one can get the idea of how an interface or coding structure works inside that amount of time,

The 3D "printing" community might be settling on SCAD, but the rapid prototype community is not; and that’s the difference.
It’s not a mater of who is right or wrong, but more how you view the computer. I think most rapid prototype people would say if the result could be had another way; they would toss the computer (as it is just another tool), as the process is not the goal. I think the 3D printing people enjoy the process as much as the goal.
There is something about fooling with the software, and writing code, which appeals to the 3D printer people, but is considered to be a waste of time for the rapid prototype people.
Rapid Prototype people are generally working on something, which can be related to a job (or a hobby) making things. There has also been the need to “talk’ across platforms, such as SolidWorks, Pro-E, and AutoCAD; so there has been a requirement to transfer -- and to be able to edit -- files to others; because companies have settled on one of the multitude of CAD programs.
With the 3D printing community, it seems the end game is the .STL file, as that is a common format to get you to the 3D printer, and there is no need to “talk’ to other programs.
The cross platform comments go back to the days when “artists” bought Apple -- at least those who have lots of money -- and “engineers” and engineering companies bought IBM. I remember this well, as my wife, for 15 years -- in the ‘70s and ‘80s, had a graphics art business in San Francisco, while I worked as an engineer designing surgical instruments. Lots of the early graphics and CAD software would only work on the politically correct computer; depending on which camp you were in. That has blurred over time, but the divide still has its adherence. You can tell that by the length of this discussion.

LOL, way to resurrect an old topic.

Good points though. I use graphical professional CAD tools at work every day, and OpenSCAD is a way of "modeling" (or rather "part programming") I have no interest in. Having to calculate the coordinates of primitives while writing lines of code would bore me to death. So I'm kind of in the original poster's camp. I deplore this state of affairs but I live with it, and I have OpenSCAD installed for the sole purpose of occasionally opening scad files. I do marvel at the models people come up with it.

Clearly OpenSCAD was designed with a very specific and exclusive purpose: getting STL files out to a 3D printer, and allowing "easy" model configurability - provided the user is willing/able to learn the coding syntax (please understand some of us have a brain that is not wired to understand code!). It does this job admirably well. But outside of 3D printing, OpenSCAD has next to no value because of two aspects: its CSG engine, and the output file format. The first limits greatly the types of shapes that can be modeled. As for the second, In the manufacturing world, to be blunt STL is really "garbage out". It's for rapid prototyping, and nothing else. You don't import an STL file back into a CAD program: it's useless. You don't produce a STL if you want an injection mold done, you need perfect smooth surfaces. Which an STL cannot provide, being mesh-based.

I disagree with the guy who said STEP files should be banned from Thingiverse. STEP is an ISO-standard solid exchange format. Any 3D CAD app, open source, freeware or commercial can open STEP files - with the exception of OpenSCAD of course, and surprisingly, AutoCAD.

I think people uploading design files in proprietary formats (SolidWorks, Inventor) should at least provide STEP files.

BTW, to those like me who prefer a WYSIWYG GUI, since the start of this topic last year FreeCAD improved tremendously. OpenSCAD is still easier for things like gears but for other mechanical design uses, it's great. And like OpenSCAD it's open source, which is important for anyone who takes the RepRap philosophy to heart.

Heekscad which has been mentioned is very nice too, it may not be parametric like FreeCAD, but it features a direct modeling approach that resembles Sketchup (push-pull). Unfortunately its development is as good as dead, and no updated installer is available. On Linux you need to compile it.

What I would like to see is for FreeCAD to carve itself a niche besides OpenSCAD and Blender as a tool used by the RepRap community.

Fair disclosure: I am not a FreeCAD developer (can't code!), but I contribute to this project in other ways.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 11:48PM by NormandC.

I like HeeksCad and find it almost instinctive to use but I realise it's days are probably numbered. I managed to get it to load and run on my new Win8 machine but it's not going to be long before it no longer works on newer computers so what do you think is the logical package to go to from Heeks?

---

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Richmond, New Zealand
Thingiverse ~ YouTube

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> thingiverse if anything should put a blanket ban
> on solid-works and inventor files being uploaded,
> even STEP files,
> those formats are really a cheeky way of being
> able to say "this project is open-source" without
> in practical terms actually being open-source,

I am doing a Bowden conversion and made my own models because the one on Thingiverse was STL only, and I wanted to change it. I thought I was doing a big favor for uploading Solidworks along with the STL. And I thought someone who didn't put the original files up there was being a dick. I realize that Solidworks is expensive, but I put the files there so that people *can* modify the model, not so that they cannot.

---

[www.matter-replicator.com]

rsilvers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > thingiverse if anything should put a blanket
> ban
> > on solid-works and inventor files being
> uploaded,
> > even STEP files,
> > those formats are really a cheeky way of being
> > able to say "this project is open-source"
> without
> > in practical terms actually being open-source,
>
> I am doing a Bowden conversion and made my own
> models because the one on Thingiverse was STL
> only, and I wanted to change it. I thought I was
> doing a big favor for uploading Solidworks along
> with the STL. And I thought someone who didn't put
> the original files up there was being a dick. I
> realize that Solidworks is expensive, but I put
> the files there so that people *can* modify the
> model, not so that they cannot.

i was referring to the ones who don't even bother with an STL and have nothing but the source as a solid-works file,
personally these days i've been around the argument long enough to not care what people put up as source if it's a solid works file whatever, i can have the files exported into something else, it's now just a case of asking in irc at pretty much any given moment,

what i despise the attitude of some people i've spoken to over the years where the belief is that solid-works or inventor or auto-cad is the be all and end all of cad software, and everything else is too inferior to use,

i would personally like to get a copy of solid-works as the thermal analysis ability would be handy in hotend development, but i simply can't justify around $4000 on software,

*yes before somone mentions there's a student version ... yes however you actually have to prove you are a student before they'll give you a license,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Dirty Steve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not like SCAD generated stl files at all.
> I've had to clean, patch, and modify EVERY SCAD
> file I've pulled off of Thingiverse.
>
> The geometry triangulation is HORRIBLE!
>
> I wanted a tapered shoulder on this gear, just
> about had to rebuild the entire mesh in 3ds Max.
>
> Left gear is SCAD or OpenCAD, both suck at face
> triangulation, the gear on the right is my
> corrected mesh. My gear is 75% in diameter which
> also included completely rebuilding the top face
> to remove overlapping faces due to scaling.
>
> 16 years of 3ds Max and modelling knowledge.

Dirty Steve, have you figured out a good method for converting these STL or even how to merge the faces? I am pretty new to Solidworks (I know AutoCAD fairly well). I am struggling here to recreate usable parts in Solidworks. Getting pretty frustrated

---

--------------------------------------------------
Check out my blogs: [oc3dprint.blogspot.com] & [forums.reprap.org]
Hit me up if you have any tips or tricks.

You can say 'rapid prototyping' people want things to be convenient and '3d printers' like the process. For me though, the number of clicks and mouse moves to design something if i werent to use a keyboard-centric tool irks me already, nevermind what would happen if i needed to change some parameter.(Though -i am sure- some tools do parametric aswel.) That goes for many tools, btw, the same has been said as difference between linux and windows. (Though largely that sentiment is simply obsolete)

'Programming is hard' makes it inconvenient to them. But it is also inability to deal with it that makes it inconvenient to them.

That said,(and nothing against openscad per-see) openscad could be at least ten times better than it is now. Like having a `r` radius that works on everything like in implicitCAD, a way to get a position/orientation(/matrix) tagged inside some object, a standard library that is better-documented. Containing stuff like attachers. Variables dont seem to work as nicely as i'd like either. (how to `use` a file and still get a parameter out, how to pass parameters on into a submodule without repeating too many)

As for .stl afaics it basically not a very good format in the first place. (Even taking into account it is what .png is to .svg)

The elephant in the room I think, is development resource. Comparing a CAD package which has had $millions sunk into it against an open source s/w written by volunteers is frankly silly, like comparing Apple to Greenpeace, then asking why aren't Greenpeace giving everyone a free wind turbine if they care so much about the planet.

I'm sure if a CAD/CAM company developed a script based CAD package like OpenSCAD it would be quite impressive and blow the pants off a small open source GUI CAD package. I think OpenSCAD is pretty amazing considering the resources available.

Also you can't apply the same "customer demand" rules to FOSS as commercial products. Customers can say "if you don't add this feature, I won't buy the product". The company has a profit incentive to provide the feature.

The company/customer relationship is so ingrained it is hard to think of something different. The only entity really involved in FOSS is user-developer. I follow the OpenSCAD mailing list and there are lots of interesting ideas mooted, but following the 80/20 rule, OpenSCAD has gone far with CGAL, triangle mesh and a simple GUI, but turning it into a professional grade package will take some serious support. There are various offshoots, which have some valuable ideas, but their disadvantages.

By all means add things to the wish list, but if you really want the feature, you need to write it. The next best thing might be to offer code bounties.

KiCAD has been in a similar situation, they did a lot with a relatively small team. They are now getting backing from CERN, so I hope we can see a lot more "pro" features coming into KiCAD. For OpenSCAD to get to the next level

well i use freecad and openscad and i made a m5 thread in autocad trial, which i found difficult to make threads in the others but now i found a stl to scad convertor i can use it modify stls in freecad by coverting it to scad then to csg and importing it into freecad, which has helped me redesign stuff for my printer

I myself am more of a blender guy because of the vast possibilities of this program. Sort of never bothered to have a decent look at OpenSCAD, but I guess I won't feel uncomfortable with it.

@bobc: Maybe something similar to how blender is developed and supported might be useful for OpenSCAD (or RepRap in general), too? They get money from their donations to their foundation and feature films to pay for development. Thinking back to the pre-2.5 interface, this piece of software has come a long way.

Blender looks potentially a good option... It might at the same time allow use of the same skills for games/movies/art whatever.

But how do you get into it? I tried a bit but was turned off by not finding a way to get scripts files in from the commandline, and not finding much reference.

Blender does have a host of documentation and a full scripting Api.

There is an interactive python console within the app [wiki.blender.org], if you want to code as you go. There is also the usual launch parameters to pass in files and scripts to do stuff [wiki.blender.org]. The following link shows you how to load and run scripts in a little more detail [www.blender.org].

OpenSCAD stl triangulation will probably be customizable by mid-2014, pending approval, and assuming i dont get hit by a bus.

[github.com]

Hi Steve,

OpenSCAD is gradually improving - we're currently looking at tessellation quality and it would be interesting to see the original model causing the issues you mention. Since you wrote your original message, lots of fixes has gone into OpenSCAD, so this might actually be less of a problem now. Anyway, if you have any offending models lying around, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

Cheers,

-Marius

I posted a thread about this a while ago in the OPENSCAD forum.

[forums.reprap.org]

I'd like to chime in on a point that is rarely addressed -- "open sourcing" files in proprietary formats.

Granted everybody has their own opinion, but to me the STL is a distributable and not source. Yes, you can modify an STL with various programs -- but very very few people (probably nobody) are going into notepad or gedit and writing STL files directly. That means your program generated the file for you and exported into a distributable format. Having the 3d model is not the same as having the source. If the source is not in a format that is open, then is your project really open source? My opinion is no -- though I wonder what someone like Richard Stallman would have to say about it.

Again, I think it's a very grey area. Some people will disagree that the STL is a distributable file. I can understand that -- but my own stance has led me to pursue open source modeling programs for the parts that I release. It's important to me that people are releasing files that I won't require me to purchase programs in order to edit. So my own open source approach is to exclusively release open source files in open formats that come from open source modeling software. Regardless of how inexpensive a CAD program might be, I'm still not going to buy 50 different programs to modify 50 different people's parts. It's not a sustainable way to approach open hardware -- and therefore (again, in my opinion) should not be considered open source at all.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2014 11:36PM by iquizzle.

the money factor is probably the number one reason, but it still really does come down to personal preference,

one of the biggest problems as i see it with not just with the stl format but also obj and step is that nearly none of the cad programs seem to follow any serious standard for them anyway and as a result step files generated on one program may or may not actually open in another depending on complexity, the same goes for stl and obj and pretty much every other format , then you have the situation where some viewers have all sorts of mesh error correction built in to them so you can open an stl file which is still non manifold without warnings ,

the Open-scad format (for lack of a better way of putting it) really does solve a lot of these problems however at a cost ... there is no point and click interface , the down fall for openscad is that people are writing bad scad files for it and blame the program when things go wrong, thingiverse is particular is littered with scad files which are full of bad practices such as this:





when really the proper way to do it to make sure you get a clean model is more like this:





while the interface doesn't look pretty i don't know how anyone can actually use that as a valid excuse for hating openscad , from what i've seen a lot of people who claim to have tried it and hate it usually haven't really given it much of a go it's not like it's a difficult language to get used to and it's not like there's a lack of documentation and/or tutorials on how to do things,

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2014 11:55PM by thejollygrimreaper.

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the money factor is probably the number one reason

For anyone serious about the open source philosophy, it shouldn't be.

I could have access to any pro CAD program I wanted if I chose to. But I choose to use only open source software for my personal needs, including the OS.

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the down fall for openscad is that people are writing bad scad files for it and blame the program when things go wrong, thingiverse is particular is littered with scad files which are full of bad practices

Isn't it true for any CAD software? You can find a lot of badly designed Sketchup files as well, and I'm sure of many other files made with other CAD programs.

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
while the interface doesn't look pretty i don't know how anyone can actually use that as a valid excuse for hating openscad

It's not about it not being pretty, it's about how you interact with it through code. The official website says it all, "The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller".

The programmer's.

Well I am not a programmer, and I do not wish to become one.

You cannot expect everyone to adapt to writing code. For many of us, the design process is highly visual. Even "simple" coding is simply too abstract.

Quote
NormandC

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the money factor is probably the number one reason

For anyone serious about the open source philosophy, it shouldn't be.

I could have access to any pro CAD program I wanted if I chose to. But I choose to use only open source software for my personal needs, including the OS.

i'm glad you can have access to any piece of cad software you like, however for the good percentage of us this isn't an option , does that mean because i cannot afford a copy of say solidworks or inventor i am not serious about the opensource philosophy? don't get me wrong i would love a copy of either of them i just can't afford it.

Quote
NormandC

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
the down fall for openscad is that people are writing bad scad files for it and blame the program when things go wrong, thingiverse is particular is littered with scad files which are full of bad practices

Isn't it true for any CAD software? You can find a lot of badly designed Sketchup files as well, and I'm sure of many other files made with other CAD programs.

yes it is true for all cad programs, and to a degree this is probably why even the likes of solidworks can also put out a bad stl file, openscad seems to be more susceptible to a degree because people think that can treat it the same way they might in a more visual environment as per my example in the previous post

Quote
NormandC

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
while the interface doesn't look pretty i don't know how anyone can actually use that as a valid excuse for hating openscad

It's not about it not being pretty, it's about how you interact with it through code. The official website says it all, "The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller".

The programmer's.

Well I am not a programmer, and I do not wish to become one.

You cannot expect everyone to adapt to writing code. For many of us, the design process is highly visual. Even "simple" coding is simply too abstract.

i do not expect anyone to adapt to writing code, they can use whatever they please, however i do ask that people take a little longer than 5 mins to decide they don't like something and then tell the world it's crap as if they themselves had been trying to use/learn it for weeks,

strictly speaking it's not even "programming" in a sense as all you are doing is describing the properties of an object using primitive shapes , i can understand if someone doesn't want to get into programming as it may not interest them ,
however if they are avoiding it because it looks "too hard" then that's really more willfull ignorance

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2014 03:49AM by thejollygrimreaper.

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
i'm glad you can have access to any piece of cad software you like, however for the good percentage of us this isn't an option , does that mean because i cannot afford a copy of say solidworks or inventor i am not serious about the opensource philosophy? don't get me wrong i would love a copy of either of them i just can't afford it.

OK let me rephrase that, I was intentionally vague because I thought people would get my meaning. By saying I could get any piece of CAD software I want, I was talking of software piracy.

Which I am convinced, is what many (if not most) people who swear by SolidWorks or other proprietary software here are doing. There is simply no way an individual is going to spend that kind of money unless he's making a living with it. Not every one here is a student, a freelancer or has access to such software through their work place.

Even if I had the $4,000 to spend for a basic SW or IV or SE license, I wouldn't, because I don't want to condone the software industry practices by purchasing a license. And yes that means making do with less powerful and less complete, less polished software. I'll admit though that it's easy for me to have such "high principles" since I don't design RepRap printers or anything else as complex. Still, some of the RepRap designers have proven it can be done without expensive CAD software.

Quote
NormandC

Quote
thejollygrimreaper
i'm glad you can have access to any piece of cad software you like, however for the good percentage of us this isn't an option , does that mean because i cannot afford a copy of say solidworks or inventor i am not serious about the opensource philosophy? don't get me wrong i would love a copy of either of them i just can't afford it.

OK let me rephrase that, I was intentionally vague because I thought people would get my meaning. By saying I could get any piece of CAD software I want, I was talking of software piracy.

Which I am convinced, is what many (if not most) people who swear by SolidWorks or other proprietary software here are doing. There is simply no way an individual is going to spend that kind of money unless he's making a living with it. Not every one here is a student, a freelancer or has access to such software through their work place.

Even if I had the $4,000 to spend for a basic SW or IV or SE license, I wouldn't, because I don't want to condone the software industry practices by purchasing a license. And yes that means making do with less powerful and less complete, less polished software. I'll admit though that it's easy for me to have such "high principles" since I don't design RepRap printers or anything else as complex. Still, some of the RepRap designers have proven it can be done without expensive CAD software.

I dont think it bothers Autodesk and Dassault systems much anyway that people who are not professional users pirate their software. Our company has around 20 Solidworks 2011 licenses and we are upgrading to 2014 soon. The representative from Dassault systems (Solidworks), just up and told us to download SW2014 at home if we want to get used to its new features before switching over.