4 ms·

While I really enjoyed working with OpenScad, I find ImplicitCad[0] to be far more functional (excuse the pun), the language is just more easy to reason about.

by omeid2 8y ago

While I really enjoyed working with OpenScad, I find ImplicitCad[0] to be far more functional (excuse the pun), the language is just more easy to reason about. [0] http://www.implicitcad.org/ http://www.implicitcad.org/

zokier 8y ago
At least it can make circles that are round instead of polygons, so that's a major upgrade already.
- Wurlitzer 8y ago
  I think you can set the resolution with something like $fn=100; if I remember correctly.
  - zokier 8y ago
    Polygon with large but finite number of sides is still a polygon.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      When the desired output format is .stl, that's not a meaningful limitation.
      - zokier 8y ago
        But when the desired format is STEP, then it suddenly is a meaningful distinction.
jimmux 8y ago
I found OpenSCAD was convenient for quick ad-hoc printed parts, but doing it all in the browser is even better. Thanks for this.
deckar01 8y ago
The theory behind it is interesting, but in practice I found it underwhelming for practical applications. The point of using it was to get a performance boost by separating the geometry composition from the node mapping. Unfortunately, even on simple models it produces erroneous protrusions until the resolution is turned up high enough. This slowed things down to the point that it was no longer any faster than OpenSCAD and since it doesn't have STL import functionality, there was no reason to keep using it.