5 ms·

I am a Mechanical Engineer and we use SolidWorks for CAD. I was surprised to find there exists no 3D modeling software (Nurbs / Polygonal based) that I can mode

I am a Mechanical Engineer and we use SolidWorks for CAD. I was surprised to find there exists no 3D modeling software (Nurbs / Polygonal based) that I can model using accurate dimensions. 3DSMax, Maya, Modo, C4D, Blender, Houdini, you name it. I understand that they’re not doing parametric modeling such as SolidWorks, Inventor, etc. but there has to be a way to merge both modeling paradigms. I was honestly shocked at this fundamental lack of capability. I wanted to accurately model a product for visualization and there is no way to specify dimensions. Everything is done by “eye” in the visualization industry. When accuracy is required, especially proportions, manual element dimensions are typed in during creation of primitives. I am used to the extreme discipline and constrain based modeling in engineering. Does anyone know why visualization folks don’t care about dimensional accuracy?

exodust 8y ago
> Does anyone know why visualization folks don’t care about dimensional accuracy? Maybe because the intended output is more about proportion than absolute dimensions? Besides, you can specify dimensions in the programs you mention, Blender, Modo etc. See here for Vectary: https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-measure-in-3D https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-...
- spectramax 8y ago
  That’s the surprising part: These software packages are used for both, proportional modeling of dragons and animated characters to architecture and industrial design visualization. The latter, requires absolute dimensions.
snarfy 8y ago
There are really only so many modeling kernels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel
throwaway936482 8y ago
In blender at least you can specify the size of any primitive, measure the length of any edge, measure between any two points, move a vertice, object, or face by a specified amount etc. so this is just not true for blender at least. You can also annotate any dimension easily with a dynamically updating annotation. What you can't do easily (unless you're prepared to do some serious python scripting) is parametric / constraints based modelling because it's not a parametric modelling program. I'm not sure what else you'd want. As to why visualisation folk don't care about dimensional accuracy, we do when necessary, but unless we're designing for 3d printing there's no point in worrying about things like clearances and tolerances since we're not making a physical object. Also, especially if we're doing arcvis, the demand is to knock out large quantities of models very quickly, not produce a perfect replica. I'm not going to worry about the exact dimensions of a piece of complex equipment or furniture I'm modelling if I need to produce a fully textured model in under an hour.
- spectramax 8y ago
  I’ve seen countless tutorials - Eames house to Braun products, even full furnished houses on YouTube. No one cares about dimensions. It bothers me so much that it should be fundamental to designing anything - I would argue, even dragons. I think it’s the culture and people involved in 3D modeling that do not have the discipline - at the risk of sounding snobby. If customers demanded a feature, modeling software companies would supply those features. “Ball park” dimensioning is like nails on a chalkboard.
AlunAlun 8y ago
Maybe I missed something in your question, but in every modeling package, even online ones, you have always been able to numerically specify the size, position and orientation of every object in your scene, with a precision of several decimal points. No need to rely on your ‘eye’ at all.
- chansiky 8y ago
  Yes, you can model accurately in these programs but you really have to understand how construction documents are put together. You aren't going to be able to quickly take dimensions from a drawing and convert it into an accurate 3D model with any of the big 3D model packages out there. When I was an architect, I stayed far away from 3DS max, Maya, Blender, etc because modelling in them felt like drawing with crayons. Its the difference between using pencils, rulers, and compass on a drafting board and using paint and brush on a canvas. And that is what's surprisingly lacking in the market, the accurate measured generic 3D modelling program.
hantusk 8y ago
I hope you saw onshape mentioned in the other comments
mmjaa 8y ago
Tried OpenSCAD?
chansiky 8y ago
Rhinoceros 3D is a Nurbs modelling software that uses dimensions and is used heavily in the architecture/arch-viz industry. But I agree, its shocking that every mainstream 3D modelling software has no concern for dimensional accuracy.
cannedslime 8y ago
> Everything is done by “eye” in the visualization industry. Im not sure if we tried the same version of blender... Its pretty easy and even intuitive to enter numerical values for dimension, rotation etc.
- spectramax 8y ago
  Yes, I noted that in my post that you can specify numerical values when placing primitives. But there is no full fledged dimensioning like in engineering CAD. As someone said, designing in 3D modeling software feels like drawing with crayons compared to the precision of engineering CAD. Rhino 3D is kind of ok as a nurbs modeler and has some dimensioning stuff.
  - cannedslime 8y ago
    I think my point was that nothing is stopping you from achieving the same level of precision as in CAD, but yeah dimensioning is much more useful for engineering tasks and working with meshes arent really suited for that kind of job.

exodust 8y ago

> Does anyone know why visualization folks don’t care about dimensional accuracy? Maybe because the intended output is more about proportion than absolute dimensions? Besides, you can specify dimensions in the programs you mention, Blender, Modo etc. See here for Vectary: https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-measure-in-3D https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-...

spectramax 8y ago
That’s the surprising part: These software packages are used for both, proportional modeling of dragons and animated characters to architecture and industrial design visualization. The latter, requires absolute dimensions.

snarfy 8y ago

There are really only so many modeling kernels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel

throwaway936482 8y ago

In blender at least you can specify the size of any primitive, measure the length of any edge, measure between any two points, move a vertice, object, or face by a specified amount etc. so this is just not true for blender at least. You can also annotate any dimension easily with a dynamically updating annotation. What you can't do easily (unless you're prepared to do some serious python scripting) is parametric / constraints based modelling because it's not a parametric modelling program. I'm not sure what else you'd want. As to why visualisation folk don't care about dimensional accuracy, we do when necessary, but unless we're designing for 3d printing there's no point in worrying about things like clearances and tolerances since we're not making a physical object. Also, especially if we're doing arcvis, the demand is to knock out large quantities of models very quickly, not produce a perfect replica. I'm not going to worry about the exact dimensions of a piece of complex equipment or furniture I'm modelling if I need to produce a fully textured model in under an hour.

spectramax 8y ago
I’ve seen countless tutorials - Eames house to Braun products, even full furnished houses on YouTube. No one cares about dimensions. It bothers me so much that it should be fundamental to designing anything - I would argue, even dragons. I think it’s the culture and people involved in 3D modeling that do not have the discipline - at the risk of sounding snobby. If customers demanded a feature, modeling software companies would supply those features. “Ball park” dimensioning is like nails on a chalkboard.

AlunAlun 8y ago

Maybe I missed something in your question, but in every modeling package, even online ones, you have always been able to numerically specify the size, position and orientation of every object in your scene, with a precision of several decimal points. No need to rely on your ‘eye’ at all.

chansiky 8y ago
Yes, you can model accurately in these programs but you really have to understand how construction documents are put together. You aren't going to be able to quickly take dimensions from a drawing and convert it into an accurate 3D model with any of the big 3D model packages out there. When I was an architect, I stayed far away from 3DS max, Maya, Blender, etc because modelling in them felt like drawing with crayons. Its the difference between using pencils, rulers, and compass on a drafting board and using paint and brush on a canvas. And that is what's surprisingly lacking in the market, the accurate measured generic 3D modelling program.

hantusk 8y ago

I hope you saw onshape mentioned in the other comments

mmjaa 8y ago

Tried OpenSCAD?

chansiky 8y ago

Rhinoceros 3D is a Nurbs modelling software that uses dimensions and is used heavily in the architecture/arch-viz industry. But I agree, its shocking that every mainstream 3D modelling software has no concern for dimensional accuracy.

cannedslime 8y ago

> Everything is done by “eye” in the visualization industry. Im not sure if we tried the same version of blender... Its pretty easy and even intuitive to enter numerical values for dimension, rotation etc.

spectramax 8y ago
Yes, I noted that in my post that you can specify numerical values when placing primitives. But there is no full fledged dimensioning like in engineering CAD. As someone said, designing in 3D modeling software feels like drawing with crayons compared to the precision of engineering CAD. Rhino 3D is kind of ok as a nurbs modeler and has some dimensioning stuff.
- cannedslime 8y ago
  I think my point was that nothing is stopping you from achieving the same level of precision as in CAD, but yeah dimensioning is much more useful for engineering tasks and working with meshes arent really suited for that kind of job.