What CAD software? POLL

I use OpenSCAD for 3D and QCAD for sketches, they are used for creating all my designs.

OpenSCAD is slow and a PITA to learn the code but is excellent for making quick sizing adjustments and parametric designs. It will also teach you about fractions. OpenSCAD is used for many 3D printer designs, there's even parametric files for the Kossel so you can resize your own.

QCAD is quick and easy to learn, has layers and good copy and paste functions. It likes to crash now and then.

I also use Inkscape for converting complex .svg images to models. OpenSCADs surface command doesn't really work too well except for plotting data points.

Sculptris is also a worthy note, think digital ball of clay.

I also use OpenSCAD and I find it very easy - but I do have a background in writing code, HTML and so on, plus a history of writing documents in LaTeX, so structured languages are not a problem for me. I also have a knack for visualising shapes in my head, so find it relatively easy to translate them into OpenSCAD code.

I also love the ease with which I can go back and modify designs if necessary, and also the portability of the code.

Openscad on Fedora 24. My background is also code (but mostly embedded) so code isn't a problem. I'm mostly designing small parts for electronic assemblies, so the easy re-sizing is a big plus.

One thing to be careful of, is that files made in openscad are basically doomed to only be useful in openscad. Real parametric cad software outputs to common formats like STEP or IGES, whereas AFAIK, openscad only outputs STL (and usually, very low resolution because users don't know better or don't care).

For these reasons, I usually recommend against Openscad except for very small, one-off "throw-away" items, if you don't know any other software.

Openscad is a cool tool, but it shouldn't be used if your goal is to design; it should only be used if your goal is to make something and it is your quickest path to that goal. IMO It is way more useful to learn a more robust CAD solution.

OpenSCAD is by far my favorite.

To quote from openscad docs:

Quote
After rendering with F6, the "File --> Export" menu can be used to export as STL, OFF, AMF, DXF, SVG, CSG OR PNG (Image).

So maybe the DXF output is useful as a bridge to other CAD systems (never tried it).

My favorite CAD is openSCAD when making things that have an engineering use and have to be certain dimensions. For sculpting things to look at I use meshmixer to modify a basic shape that might be openSCAD to start with.
FWIW I'm not exactly prolific in either category.

Cheers,
Robin.

It looks like, by jumping through some hoops, one can convert openscad documents into STEP or other formats, as described here: [forum.lulzbot.com]

This is far from ideal for anyone who wants to work on the design with a program other than openscad.

What I would like to see, is an Openscad Fusion360 add on (they have a very robust API, it seems) that allows people to create geometry in Fusion 360 using Openscad syntax.

Mastercam and NX at work.

Autodesk 123D Design at home.

OpenSCAD. I only use QCAD to convert AutoCAD compatible DXF format.

Quote

Openscad is a cool tool, but it shouldn't be used if your goal is to design; it should only be used if your goal is to make something and it is your quickest path to that goal. IMO It is way more useful to learn a more robust CAD solution.

I disagree. OpenSCAD is for hard-core users that want to produce 3D parts on demand. In OpenSCAD a 3D model exists as source code not fixed data set. Carefully designed a 3D model in OpenSCAD offers scalability.

For example, I ported Geodome written by Edward A. Falk in C with OpenGL libaray to Python 3.x and OpenSCAD. I'm develping a module that generates the hub parts automatically so that the end user could build any size of geodesic dome. It will reduce the prototype building time of a geodesic dome.

That is a very nice use of the software, yes. I think you could fairly easily achieve the same results in a number of CAD packages. You could even port that script to be a Fusion 360 add-on, so you could take advantage of all the other useful features that Fusion 360 offers: Simulation (Finite element analysis), motion analysis, interference/tolerance checking, physical assembly joints (Ball joints, revolute joints, etc), animation, engineering drawing workspace, cloud-based collaboration, photo-realistic ray-tracing rendering, cloud-based computing for rendering and simulation, etc.

I stand by what I said -- Openscad is a cool tool, but it does not compete with fully-featured CAD packages.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2016 10:18PM by n8bot.

FreeCAD is my go-to tool. Actually I help people with questions on its use on the FreeCAD forum, been doing so since 2010 as well as contributing other stuff for the project.

Quote
the_digital_dentist
I use DesignSpark Mechanical but have also used OnShape a little. Lately I've been running into DSM's limits more and more, so I'm thinking of spending more time learning OnShape. I like being able to run it in Linux- I'd love to get away from Wndows some day. The only problem there is that I'm addicted to my 3D mouse and have yet to get it working in Linux.

3D Connexion devices are supported on Linux through the open source spacenav library. [spacenav.sourceforge.net]
On Debian/Ubuntu it is available in the software repositories. The problem is that almost no apps support it. With one exception: FreeCAD. If I remember correctly you have been critical of FreeCAD and its shortcomings in the past. But if you badly want to use your 3D mouse in Linux, it might be worth another try. If you do give it another shot, here's a useful link to get it working with FreeCAD: [www.freecadweb.org]

I have a 9-year old SpaceNavigator I originally used on Windows, but I've been using Ubuntu at home exclusively since 2010. It works as well in FreeCAD as it did in Solid Edge. Thanks to one of the devs who owns a few "spaceballs", FreeCAD has a complete configuration panel.


The only problem is button mapping isn't supported. I just reconnected mine after a couple of years, I think I went through the OS but I don't remember how I did it last time.

Quote
Zedsquared
So maybe the DXF output is useful as a bridge to other CAD systems (never tried it).

DXF export from OpenSCAD produces small line segments rather than arcs/circles/splines. This severely limits its usefulness IMHO. OpenSCAD uses a geometry algorithms library (originally conceived for academia) instead of a typical geometric modeling kernel. It explains why it can't export to IGES or STEP: it doesn't use a "real" CAD kernel. It does not support widely used CAD features like loft or sweep, not to mention fillets. On the other hand it supports tools that do not exist in CAD kernels (Convex hull and Minkowski sums).

Quote
n8bot
It looks like, by jumping through some hoops, one can convert openscad documents into STEP or other formats, as described here: [forum.lulzbot.com]

This is far from ideal for anyone who wants to work on the design with a program other than openscad.

I wrote that tutorial on the Lulzbot forum. Why do you call it jumping through hoops? It's pretty straightforward. When working in FreeCAD, the model is ready to use or modify, since the conversion creates a complete CSG tree. Granted, it's not what you'd be used to in typical parametric CAD packages. FreeCAD supports multiple work flows, among them CSG through its "Part" workbench, and a sketch and feature-based approach through its PartDesign workbench.

But I haven't had success importing large projects like the Prusa i3 or the Mendel90.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2016 12:10AM by NormandC.

It isn't jumping through hoops if you intend on using FreeCad. If, however, you want to use an Openscad design in any other Cad software, getting freecad just for this purpose is jumping through hoops. Maybe hoop, singular...

I had major problems with FreeCAD - but they may have been of my own making!

For example, I created an object with holes in particular places, and that worked well. But later on I wanted to change the shape and position of some of those holes, the whole model broke and I was unable to fix it. Someone on the FreeCAD forum fixed it for me, but at that point I'd lost heart. My impression is that it doesn't like changes in the earlier part of the creation tree, resulting in later parts breaking. It's a huge shame as it is easy to use, 'looks pretty' and works on Linux, which many other free/cheap CAD packages don't. Also, when it works, it outputs nice models.

As most of my object creation involves frequent changes throughout the model I'll stick to OpenSCAD as I'm very happy with the way it works for me.

Fusion 360 (Currently)

Cinema 4D (Previously)

OnShape (Going to try it)

---

Makerparts.ca
Your Canadian source for V-Slot Extrusion, CNC and 3D Printing Parts and Accessories.
we are proud to be an official Openbuilds distributor.

Openscad has similar functions to sweep known as rotate and linear extrude. It can also perform closed cross-section loft commands but cannot deal with open sections at all.

You can also download filleting scripts for openscad to blend sections together, however I have found that filleting is somewhat inefficient. In openscad if you want a filleted shape you create it with rounded objects or extrude it from a sketch.



A downside to this is you have to wrap your head around the math to do it (-xsize/2+fillet/2 ect) so just having a click and go fillet system is better for some people.

From an industrial design viewpoint it is a poor choice, but I think it is perfectly suited for small but complex parts and appliances.

Fusion 360 at the moment and finding it pretty good for designing parts I want I did find it a bit of a pain to get used to but nothing a couple of days on Youtube couldn't fix.

I used ZBrush and Maya in Uni for Games Design but I haven't used them in a few years so they might be different now.

If you want to create Highly polished models in either you will need a good graphics card and a decent amount of RAM.

I used them both together and found that the best way, ZBrush handles organic shapes better that Maya but Maya is better for designing building and structures.

Maya also has a better Render package with loads of plugins and being an Autodesk product it has great support.

Although Maya can Render better it doesn't come close to the level of detail you can achieve using ZBrush if I can find it on my old uni HDD I'll post a picture of the Human Form study I did. High Poly Anatomical Figure.

As for CAD software Fusion 360 is the only one I have used for now and it handles it like a champ and its free.

---

Out of the box thinking is easier when you never fitted in the box to begin with.

I am trying to get to grips with Fusion360, just so that we can release designs for others.

But I do not like it. It is a struggle after working with IronCad for so long. I don't like the method used, where you have to define the working plane, make a sketch and extrude it.
The biggest issue I have with it, is that you have to know what size to make a line or shape, before you can make it. At least that it what it feels like to me.
With IronCad I just drop a block, mold it and shape it till it fits. Much easier and faster to do. Also, the positioning controls are so much easier.

But, since we want to publish the adapters so that everyone can make their own adapters if they want, we will need to publish them in a format that can be used. So I will press on with Fusion360.
Pity that I simply do not have the time to get into Openscad. Since I am not a programmer, it would be tricky for me.

Lykle

Have you got a Sketch?
I don't mind giving it a crack for you if you would like.

---

Out of the box thinking is easier when you never fitted in the box to begin with.

Have I got a Sketch? I have models. Using IronCad so I can export in a lot of formats. Step is usually the most accurate.
What format do you need to look at it?

And, Thank you!

Lykle

Surprised nobody has mentioned OPENJSCAD yet.

It is very similar to OPENSCAD, but allows models to exist in parametric form on the cloud.

That way, people can size an object with a menu of measurement choices, without affecting parameters that don't change (like holes for nuts and bolts) and then make a CUSTOM STL of the object for download. It does support loading some other formats like OPENSCAD, AMF, DXF and SVG, but compatibility is not guaranteed (even with OPENSCAD files) so you might have to tinker a bit with raw ASCII code to get it to accept a different format.

Not for non-cloud users of course, but even if you ARE paranoid (and I am) it makes a very good way of distributing an OPEN SOURCE, SIZABLEe model without paying a fortune for using proprietary software like Fusion.

For an example, download the OJSCAD model of the original Smartrapcore 3D printer from YouImagine...

[www.youmagine.com]

Unzip the file (4MB!). Then drag and drop the saved file smartcore-v1.2.jscad (which is only 69KB in size!t) onto a browser opened at the OpenJscad address. You can manually open jscad files from within the browser page too. It will take a while to re-render, depending on your PCs horsepower. You can save in Binary or ASCII STL format, or AMF or X3D formats. (Not DXF, sorry, I have reedited to correct this mistake).

[openjscad.org]

It is a clunky way to design, but a SUPERB way to distribute true scalable OPEN SOURCE models... if you are doing proprietary stuff, don't use it.

Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2016 09:21AM by DragonFire.

A .OBJ would be the easiest option as I can try in both Blender and Fusion 360.

Ryan.

---

Out of the box thinking is easier when you never fitted in the box to begin with.

OK Ryan,

I will make the model and send it over to you. Thanks again.
You will have it tomorrow.

---

Lykle
________________________________________________

Co-creator of the Zesty Nimble, worlds lightest Direct Drive extruder.
[zesty.tech]

wow, didn't expect this to be such an active thread, so much great information and suggestions

Autodesk 123D Design for me.

This was a few hours work split over 2 days in Fusion 360.

If you have an under powered computer the cloud render is an excellent tool.

---

Out of the box thinking is easier when you never fitted in the box to begin with.

Nice work! I am really impressed how quickly you can do that.
I would really struggle in Fusion360 to do this. Overall shapes are simple I know, but still.

Here is a quick render of my Diamond nozzle mockup I did in IronCAD.


Lykle

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2016 04:56AM by Lykle.

@Lykle - Nice work on the diamond Extruder I can't seem to find any decent schematics for the complete extruder assembly.

At the moment its adding a little bit of this and a little bit of that and I'm planning on printing these one day I've got a few ideas I want to use them for.

Mostly decoration purposes as they look cool as but also to study the forms and try to design something a bit different.

---

Out of the box thinking is easier when you never fitted in the box to begin with.

Quote
Rlewisrlou666
............... I can't seem to find any decent schematics for the complete extruder assembly.
.............

There are complete assembly files for the Diamond hot end here but they are OpenScad [www.thingiverse.com]