[HN Gopher] Code CAD - Use code to create CAD models
___________________________________________________________________
Code CAD - Use code to create CAD models
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 127 points
Date : 2021-10-18 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cadhub.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (cadhub.xyz)
| wilsonjholmes wrote:
| Love this site! Keep up the great work.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand the thing about the models not being
| live previews. Is OpenSCAD effectively being run on the server
| and the code needs to be sent to it every time you modify code or
| change the camera?
| hobofan wrote:
| See the link to the explanation just above it:
| https://learn.cadhub.xyz/docs/general-cadhub/openscad-previe...
| ravenstine wrote:
| Honestly, that still doesn't really answer my question.
|
| I can run OpenSCAD locally and there's never a lag like that
| when I pan/tilt/zoom the camera. I could understand if that
| lag occurs in this web app if OpenSCAD wasn't actually
| running in the browser but instead as an instance on a
| server, but the page you linked to doesn't state whether
| that's what's happening.
|
| Or maybe it's just an approach to "bake" the model into an
| image to save resources or prevent potential freezes?
|
| I'm not criticizing it but am just curious about the
| reasoning.
| MH15 wrote:
| For real this is almost unusable. Would be curious to see
| what's going on here, the rest of this tool looks well-
| designed.
| meetups323 wrote:
| Quick check in the network tab shows that each camera
| move sends the full buffer and camera coords to some aws
| server where it spends a second rendering then comes back
| with an image.
|
| The JSCAD integration is however all in-browser and is
| _far_ smoother. They should lead with it, IMO.
| imtringued wrote:
| That sounds unbelievably stupid. Why render 3D graphics
| on a server that has no hardware acceleration?
| ajuc wrote:
| that way you can use open source and don't share your
| code :)
| billconan wrote:
| there is a web version openscad
| http://openjscad.azurewebsites.net/
| randomsilence wrote:
| Could this be an older version?
|
| The current version should be:
|
| https://www.openjscad.xyz/
| cassianoleal wrote:
| OpenJSCAD [0] does live camera and the performance is great.
|
| [0] https://openjscad.xyz/
| sk2020 wrote:
| Programmatically generating geometry is very cool, but I don't
| know of anyone doing real work with it. OpenSCAD is probably the
| best power-hobbyist software I know of for this purpose. AutoDesk
| seems to be trying this approach with DyanamoBIM, which I'm
| excited to experiment with (I just don't get visual programming
| though).
|
| Personally, I would never consider a web-based software for
| professional use. An opaque profit model makes me think you're
| looting my intellectual property to resell, mining crypto with
| obfuscated JS or WASM, or you're snatching up market share to get
| bought by Google who will just kill the service and leave me
| hanging.
|
| There's a lot of room for better software in AEC but CAD is
| pretty robust and very affordable at this point.
| zokier wrote:
| I think the parametric constraint driven way of doing CAD is
| actually already pretty programmatic. While I'm not sure, I'm
| imaging that there might be some sort of isomorphism between
| CAD-style constraints and Prolog-style logic programming...
| mywittyname wrote:
| > Personally, I would never consider a web-based software for
| professional use. An opaque profit model
|
| I worked on a web-based version of a major player in the
| industry and the projected ended up getting canned. Ironically,
| because (I think) they really couldn't figure out a good way to
| profit from it. A license for the desktop product was like
| $xx,000, but the ideas tossed around for the web-based version
| were like $y.00 per minute of instance time (basically like EC2
| pricing). Turns out that $y would need to be Very Large to be
| even remotely profitable.
|
| The product itself was pretty slick though. I was really
| surprised at how well it performed.
| criddell wrote:
| AutoDesk has supported this kind of automation from almost the
| very beginning (originally you had to use their Lisp variant
| AutoLisp but now there's more flexibility).
|
| I agree with you about the web-based criticism though. Working
| in a browser feels pretty limiting and it's so slow.
| buildsjets wrote:
| I've been programmatically generating geometry in Dassault
| CATIA since 1998 or so. Relational Design is essentially the
| CAD version of object oriented programming.
| GordonS wrote:
| I've previously worked at 2 large engineering companies in the
| oil and gas space, and both were using automation to generate
| CAD models from configuration - not _exactly_ the same thing,
| but close enough. They were doing this with both AutoCAD and
| SolidWorks.
| xupybd wrote:
| We use https://www.cadcode.com/ for our production of
| furniture.
|
| It's a little different but essentially it takes data to define
| geometry and machine operations. We generate that data in code
| and pass it on to cadcode. Cadcode then passes that on to our
| NC machines.
| jpgleeson wrote:
| Grasshopper, which Dynamo is really trying to compete against,
| is in wide use in the architecture world.
| [deleted]
| andreseg wrote:
| I would encourage looking into Rhino3D and Grasshopper3D. As
| @jpgleeson mentions - this is already widely used by
| architects as they move from a world of buildings made up of
| mass-produced identical components (e.g., every brick is the
| same shape and size), to a world where mass customization is
| possible (e.g., every brick has variable shape, massing,
| structural properties, etc.). Being able to prescribe that
| programmatically has a lot of promise. Tools like Grasshopper
| already enable some of this customization via code as you can
| see here
| https://developer.rhino3d.com/guides/rhinopython/ghpython-
| ca...
|
| Plugging into existing frameworks (like Rhino) is quite easy
| and can open the door to other realms of
| optimization/simulation for the designs you are scripting.
| For instance you could leverage generative design (e.g.,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HLRtXSG7fQ) and other
| software that can be used to evaluate designs according
| against variety of criteria ranging from structural
| integrity, to environmental performance, to 3d-printability,
| etc. If there's open source frameworks you can plug into,
| even better.. and if not.. then maybe that's what's missing:
| an easy standard way for various opensource projects to share
| and edit information.
|
| Programmatically-defined designs make sense to me only if you
| can easily change parameters to quickly produce, evaluate,
| and optimize the designs/variations/results. Otherwise -
| Better to use a GUI that allows for more direct (and less
| abstracted) expression of designer intent
|
| Similarly open source CAD makes sense if it can be augmented
| by other open source projects - including sharing and editing
| data from these various projects
| xor99 wrote:
| Yeah these are mostly used for architecture. Seemingly
| exclusively to produce the same generative style
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Styles are going to be strongly influenced by the tools
| used to communicate them, so possibly no surprise
| ahupp wrote:
| > Personally, I would never consider a web-based software for
| professional use.
|
| I've seen a lot of enthusiasm for OnShape (a relatively new
| web-based CAD tool) among professional CAD users, particularly
| when there's more than a handful of people working on one
| project.
| xor99 wrote:
| https://www.libfive.com/
|
| Libfive is quite good to check out too but yes openscad and
| cadquery are the most used.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Libfive is quite good to check out too
|
| Lots of potential, but IMO not really usable for real world
| work.
|
| For example, there isn't any (or I haven't found any) simple
| way to create a clean fillet between two complex surfaces other
| than blending them and hoping for the best.
|
| Documentation of the API is lacking, except for a bunch of
| examples in scheme (not exactly the most popular language for
| CAD folks).
|
| Python API exists, but documentation is ... reading the source
| code.
|
| Finally, the implicit surface tessellation algos used in
| libfive are IMO somewhat unpredictable and getting them to
| produce precise shapes (which is something fairly desirable in
| mechanical engineering) is hard.
| app4soft wrote:
| > _Lots of potential, but IMO not really usable for real
| world work._
|
| What about _Antimony_ and _VisualScriptCAD_?[0,1]
|
| [0] https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony
|
| [1] https://github.com/kovacsv/VisualScriptCAD
| jetrink wrote:
| The tool looks very nice, but the syntax, which looks pretty
| close to OpenSCAD, is pretty ungainly. It makes me wish lisp-
| style syntax were more widely accepted.
| difference() { hull() { ... }
| translate([1, 0]) circle(r) }
|
| I mean, those are just s-expressions in disguise.
| (difference (hull ...) (translate
| (circle r) [1, 0]))
|
| The distinction between modules and functions also seems
| unnecessary.
| tjoff wrote:
| There is a small clojure project that transpiles clojure to
| openscad, (if I remember correctly...)
|
| https://github.com/farrellm/scad-clj
|
| Demonstrated and talked about in this clip:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk3A41U0iO4
|
| edit: it is a fantastic talk but the part related to this
| starts at 17:35
| traverseda wrote:
| https://libfive.com/studio/
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Language-wise, OpenSCAD is very functional-ish indeed. Try
| writing code to distribute a vector of length multipliers
| evenly along some arbitrary length, e.g. [1,2,1] times 20 over
| 100 coordinate units. It is only possible by recursively
| calculating a vector of coordinate positions, in our example
| [0,5,25,30,70,75,95,100]. Not the easiest task for the
| uninitiated.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| I've been using CadQuery [1] a lot of late to develop custom
| parts for 3D printing, and while it's nice to be able to write
| plain Python and the abstractions are somewhat more intuitive
| than OpenSCAD, it's still kind of brittle and complex parts are
| hard work.
|
| There are things CAD-as-code excels at, but once you leave the
| happy path of simple primitives with a few holes and a bit of
| chamfer, I found things can get really ugly real quick. Organic
| shapes are very hard to construct, and simply generating
| polylines or the like either fails because OpenSCAD takes literal
| hours to render or because CadQuery throws some weird error
| halfway through and I just can't get it to work.
|
| I'd love to see a free or at least affordable (for hobbyists) CAD
| solution that isn't code-only, cloud-only, totally crippled in
| terms of functionality, or extremely arcane. I believe Fusion 360
| went cloud-only (or almost) last year or so, and between Fusion
| 360 and FreeCAD (which I tried to learn, but couldn't figure out)
| there seems to be a big opportunity for an affordable, user-
| friendly, open CAD tool for the 3D printer owning masses (there
| are dozens of us!)
|
| 1: https://github.com/CadQuery/cadquery
| empressplay wrote:
| I think this stuff is really awesome, I make turtleSpaces which
| lets you create and export STL models using the Logo programming
| language https://turtlespaces.org -- creating a shape using an
| algorithm and then 3D printing it is really cool!
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Further discussion 4 months ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27649270
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Honestly openSCAD is pretty cool but you quickly run into
| limitations because of it's DSL. One major reason I don't like it
| is that it uses mesh-based modeling and not boundary
| representation. With the former you can never get a "perfectly"
| smooth sphere for example. Most CNC shops require the latter. So
| a few years back I moved to CadQuery[1]. CadQuery uses boundary
| representation and uses Python as it's host language. This
| essentially makes it superior in almost every way to openSCAD.
|
| [1] https://github.com/CadQuery/cadquery
| ravenstine wrote:
| Oh wow, I've never heard of this and might have to check it
| out. I love OpenSCAD in contrast to other free CAD programs
| I've tried, but not being able to directly work with STEP has
| been a limitation.
| [deleted]
| phrz wrote:
| Unfortunately CadQuery (primarily its GUI) seems like its
| development has fizzled out, without getting it to the point of
| functionality on macOS. OpenSCAD, on the other hand, works
| quite reliably on Mac.
|
| Also, it's clunky, but I've had success by using Python to
| _generate_ OpenSCAD code. The best application of this was an
| SVG to OpenSCAD path converter.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Doesn't https://github.com/CadQuery/CQ-editor work on MacOS?
| I don't really see how development has fizzed out. There have
| been quite a few commits the last couple of months.
| freeopinion wrote:
| I wanted to kick the tires on CadQuery, but I had to
| install and understand Anaconda first. Any tool that
| requires me to understand a build system or a language
| package manager to correctly and safely build the software
| before I can use it is not ready for prime time.
|
| If this was important for my life, I might put in the
| effort. If it is for passing curiosity, I probably won't.
| Especially when it impacts not just this software but opens
| an entire universe of what exploits can now be run on my
| PC.
|
| When I have to set up a VM to sandbox an environment for a
| tool, it stretches my patience. It makes the tool extremely
| cumbersome.
| grawp wrote:
| I feel you. (Un)fortunately for me CQ is important enough
| because OpenSCAD and similar are not CADs... they are
| just _simple_ generators without an ability to reference,
| use already drawn things. Whereas CadQuery has the main
| feature which is missing from OpenSCAD directly in its
| name: "Query".
|
| I'm actively working on bringing CadQuery and all its
| dependencies to Nix because *Conda is an abomination of
| highest order.
|
| Moreover the pywrap and OCP which are CadQuery's
| dependencies are even much worse. They are like galleries
| of every DevOps anti-pattern ever invented. The more you
| dive into them the more horrible it gets.
|
| CQ is actually nice though.
| dbrueck wrote:
| FWIW I'm not familiar with Anaconda either and it took
| about 10 minutes to get it and the cadquery editor up and
| running. To each his own though!
| amelius wrote:
| Which is ironic given that Anaconda was made to
| _simplify_ package management and deployment.
| freeopinion wrote:
| Of course, when the tool is actually a library for a
| particular programming language, considerations of build
| environment and package manager are more germane. But you
| still might question if it is worth it.
| meetups323 wrote:
| Worth noting that this product is able to operate on CadQuery
| and JSCAD in addition to OpenSCAD.
| dbrueck wrote:
| cadquery is great! I had been a Fusion 360 user for 3D
| printing, but then Autodesk started getting weird with hobbyist
| licensing. And Fusion's insistence on being cloud-based was
| frustrating. Anyway, I went hunting for something else and
| found cadquery and haven't looked back.
|
| Modelling via code in cadquery is definitely a different
| approach in a lot of ways, but it is extremely powerful too:
| you get all the goodies like parameter-based, non-destructive
| history but also things that might not be obvious up front,
| like being able to "comment out" sections of your model (not
| just hide them - but skip generating them) temporarily,
| building up reusable helper routines, easily swapping out rough
| prototype vs thoroughly designed parts that are depended upon
| downstream in the model, and being able to organize complex
| models into separate modules.
|
| I don't think I'd necessarily recommend this approach to
| modelling to a non-developer, but if you're already a
| developer, it is tough to beat (for 3D printing at least).
| amelius wrote:
| I really would like to know how programs like CadQuery maintain
| a robust geometric representation given the inevitable rounding
| errors that will occur in floating point. For example, how can
| CadQuery guarantee that a surface will never self-intersect
| after a number of operations have been performed on it?
|
| Wikipedia has a page on it [1], but quickly skims over some
| techniques without much details.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_geometric_computation
| [deleted]
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Actually, you can get a perfectly smooth sphere both with
| constructive solid geometry and boundary representation. Where
| you cannot get a perfect sphere is mesh-based modelers.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| You are right. I was confusing the two. I have edited my
| comment.
| croes wrote:
| Isn't OpenSCAD based on CSG and not mesh based?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| It's CSG using CGAL which is mesh based.
| irevdev wrote:
| Hey, I created CadHub.
|
| I'm really bullish on software driven CAD, myself and other
| CadHub volunteers talk regularly about a future in which
| Mechanical Engineering and design is very similar to software
| engineering.
|
| I'll be the first person it admit that some of the current
| CodeCAD tools aren't production ready, OpenSCAD for example I
| can't imagine being used by mechanical engineers. So the idea is
| mostly about unifying the community with a website dedicated to
| this paradigm, and if we're lucky we play a small role in
| promoting more development and better tools in the future.
|
| Some of the reasons it's got potential:
|
| - 3d-diffs on pull requests [1]
|
| - Automated FEM, CFD etc simulations akin to CI/CD [2]
|
| - PLM managed through git
|
| - plus git in general is such a good way for teams to work
| together
|
| [1] https://learn.cadhub.xyz/blog/3d-diffs/
|
| [2] https://learn.cadhub.xyz/blog/testing-code-cad/
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Howdy! Well we absolutely need more open source CAD tools.
|
| That said as a mechanical engineer for going on two decades
| now, I really get no value from this kind of mechanical design.
| I grew up on Solidworks and now use OnShape. That kind of
| physical modeling is very important. Being able to click on a
| face and sketch some geometry and then extrude it really feels
| like the right modality for me. I'd really love to see more
| investment in that kind of parametric visual CAD.
|
| EDIT: An example of one of my recent projects:
| https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/1450001567088713730
| OJFord wrote:
| My background is software, I do (mechanical) CAD just for
| hobby stuff, but I agree about the GUI being a convenient way
| of working on it.
|
| What I desparately want though is an on-disk format that's
| plaintext, makes sense, and results in reasonable diffs so
| that I can use git for version control.
|
| I just don't understand, being familiar with git, how people
| can work with 'save and mark new version' style 'version
| control' that's so prevalent among tools that have anything
| at all.
| app4soft wrote:
| > _I grew up on Solidworks and now use OnShape... I'd really
| love to see more investment in that kind of parametric visual
| CAD._
|
| Has You tried _SolveSpace_ app?
|
| [0] https://solvespace.com
|
| [1] https://git.io/SolveSpace3x (latest nightly builds +
| various useful resources)
| irevdev wrote:
| "why not both"
|
| Direct manipulation/GUI will always be faster at producing
| content. It worth exploring how much the two can we wedded
| with code synthesis. I get that code synthesis attempts
| normally produce poor quality code, but maybe a hybrid work
| flow could work between using the GUI and fixing up code.
|
| It's a shame that the current CodeCAD tools have very little
| interaction with he part viewer.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=290&v=jC2_O5Jh_Rg&feature=yo.
| ..
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF8arSFKI1k
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Maybe both would be fine, I am just saying the code part is
| much less useful to me than the visual/parametric editor.
| Onshape for example has scripts which can do things like
| generate gears and that is great, but I use scripts for
| less than 0.1% of my onshape work. The visual/parametric
| component is what users like me really need. I added it
| late to my comment but here is an example of one of my
| recent CAD projects.
|
| https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/1450001567088713730
|
| I will check out those videos when I get a chance.
| amenghra wrote:
| Onshape is a good combination of visual + you can set exact
| values for things. I'm always happy to try new tools, but I
| tend to fallback to Blender for artsy stuff and Onshape for
| more precise parts.
|
| I suck at 3d modeling, so I evaluate tools from a "how much
| value can a noob get" point of view.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| That is definitely an important user perspective. My
| angle is that I am a professional robotics engineer as
| well as an open source evangelist. I design a lot of open
| source CAD and I'd really like it if the CAD package
| itself was open source as it is important to me to have a
| community of users who fork my designs. So far open
| source CAD does not feel adequate as a design tool for
| me. FreeCAD is conceptually the closest but it seems like
| the project needs more investment. I recently tried it
| again and it seems extremely simple compared to
| Solidworks or Onshape.
|
| Honestly CAD is very complex software and is not well
| suited to a single engineer working in their hobby time.
| I think a huge reason Blender has been successful is that
| they built a sustainable crowd funding system. They
| currently pull in $166k each month with that system:
| https://fund.blender.org/
|
| I am pleased to see also Godot engine (a similar type of
| tool) pulling in over $7k/month (last I checked) on
| Patreon.
|
| Anyway there is a "business model" for open source
| projects even if they don't sell anything. Call it a
| funding model. I think open source projects need to get a
| handle on that for anything that exceeds a very small
| team.
|
| I am trying to build this kind of sustainable funding for
| my own open source farming robot (link in profile) and I
| think we're going to go with Open Collective at least as
| a front end.
|
| https://opencollective.com/
|
| For fiscal hosting we've applied to the Open Collective
| Foundation and the Software Freedom Conservancy.
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/
|
| I think open source CAD really needs a funding plan like
| this. It's a very large software project and we've seen
| how Blender and Godot are able to actually get traction
| and produce a compelling program with resources like
| that.
| irevdev wrote:
| Some really interesting thoughts in funding, thankyou.
| The gotdot and blender examples useful.
| mywittyname wrote:
| From what I've seen, most programmatic integrations comes on
| the CAE/simulation side of the house. Faces of the part are
| given specific names/metadata by the designer and a script is
| used to automatically apply the loads/constraints and run it
| through the simulation.
| thedavidprice wrote:
| > So the idea is mostly about unifying the community with a
| website dedicated to this paradigm, and if we're lucky we play
| a small role in promoting more development and better tools in
| the future.
|
| Yes, please!
| marcodiego wrote:
| Since the links doesn't indicates, its license is GPLV3:
| https://github.com/Irev-Dev/cadhub
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-18 23:00 UTC)