4 ms·

Has anyone used this? How does using nodes compare to using text syntax? One of the big problems I've found with openSCAD is that beyond a certain level of com

Has anyone used this? How does using nodes compare to using text syntax? One of the big problems I've found with openSCAD is that beyond a certain level of complexity it gets very hard to keep a good mental model of the constituent parts of your 3D model in your head, and so changes become hard. This is generally after things get rotated a few times. Does this make that easier?

contingencies 5y ago
I've noticed the same. Partly, the need to maintain a complete mental model is obviated by the fast-iterating IDE (ie. a try-it-and-see approach) and comments. Haven't tried this frontend yet but it seems a good match to the structure of abstraction.
agumonkey 5y ago
a lot of software use node based UI most movie grade CGI (houdini, maya) or compositors were made this way since most tasks don't require an abnormally large network it's ok (when it's not they try to implement submodules of some kind, it's pretty ad-hoc but it's not supposed to be the average use case) one value of these is that it's obviously (and visually) lazy reactive. You can do the same with text but it's harder to see input/outputs on text IMO.
- app4soft 5y ago
  > most movie grade CGI (houdini, maya) or compositors were made this way Yeah. Upcoming Olive Video Editor `0.2.x` would be fully on nodes.[0,1] [0] https://olivevideoeditor.org/020.php https://olivevideoeditor.org/020.php [1] https://github.com/olive-editor/olive https://github.com/olive-editor/olive
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    heh, the late 90s are back
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > a lot of software use node based UI Yes, and as pointed out in another comment, it does not scale well. It's nice for the "tweak" phase of - say - finalizing a shot in a CGI movie, but when you start to get more than a few thousand nodes in a setup, it's very hard to do anything. There are mitigation solutions, such as grouping and collapsing of nodes, but that only goes so far. Another annoying thing with node-based systems: - collaborative work is hard - version control is hard
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    People made full blown characters rigging and scenes with a blend of node and direct interaction. It's not just for trivial tasks only.
bsdubernerd 5y ago
openSCAD has a few operators to highlight/isolate the current syntax block. Have you ever used those? Working on a project using openscad is not that different than using other cad programs: you should split your model into "modules"/functions and use composition effectively. I generally find nodal interfaces quite inefficient in general and scale very poorly in every context I've seen them. The biggest problem with openSCAD for me is that there's no way to "measure" in the preview window. As in: just pick two faces and give me the parallel distance and/or vertex-to-vertex distance. I don't care about precision of the preview, let me double-check! You have no idea how often this comes up when connecting multiple parts. Computing the distance manually, while possible, is such a nuisance. Every respectable CAD program gives you a distance when clicking on things for this reason. Somehow FreeCAD made this quite unnecessarily clunky that I have to rely on addons and openscad is missing it completely :(
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > The biggest problem with openSCAD for me is that there's no way to "measure" in the preview window I agree, except for the fact that I would go one step further. OpenSCAD would be amazing if it would let you "interrogate" a piece of geometry returned by a module, something along the lines of: - get the AABB of the model - cast a ray onto the odel and get a sorted list of intersections - intersect two pieces of geometry and get a polyline out of it and use the result of these "introspections" as parameters for subsequent manipulation/modification of the object. If OpenSCAD could do this, it'd be simply amazing. But I suspect it's hard to do in the current way it's implemented: what I am describing kind of breaks the current OpenSCAD paradigm because it would force injection of data coming from the "geometry stream" into the control parameters of downstream processing nodes. I don't think the engine is designed to handle this well.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    You might try exporting objects as STL and then link them in Solvespace. Edge builds do support binary STL files and it will identify edge vertices for building additional geometry.
jacquesm 5y ago
I've used it to create some parametric stuff (an alternative layout piano keyboard), it's super powerful. Here is an example: module slice(r = 10, deg = 30) { degn = (deg % 360 > 0) ? deg % 360 : deg % 360 + 360; difference() { circle(r, $fn=100); if (degn > 180) intersection_for(a = [0, 180 - degn]) rotate(a) translate([-r, 0, 0]) square(r * 2); else union() for(a = [0, 180 - degn]) rotate(a) translate([-r, 0, 0]) square(r * 2); } } module 3d_slice(height, r, deg) { linear_extrude(height = height) slice(r, deg); } module key(c, n, l, padlength, a) { padangle = 6; // support color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([0,0,13 * n]) difference() { 3d_slice(12, l, a); 3d_slice(12,l-(padlength-3),a+0.1); }; // keypad color(c) render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([0,0,-6 + 13 * n]) difference() { 3d_slice(24, l, a+padangle); 3d_slice(24,l-(padlength-3),a+padangle+0.1); 3d_slice(24, l, a);}; } module note(n) { colors = ["red", "black", "white", "black", "white", "white", "black", "white", "black", "white", "black", "white"]; tone = n % 12; // angles just below the keypad aa = 3.5; ab = 6; // this one is important, too small and you won't be able to press the key all the way down ac = 8.25; ad = 10; hingeoffset = 6; keypad = 30; length = 225; width = 12; height = 12; space = 1; xlat = (width + space) * n; if ((n % 2) == 1) { l = length - keypad + hingeoffset; color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([-6,-hingeoffset,xlat]) cube([l,width,height]); key(colors[tone], n, length-3*keypad, keypad, ad); key(colors[tone], n, length-keypad, keypad, ab); } else { // long keys l = length + hingeoffset; // base color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([-6,-hingeoffset,xlat]) cube([l,width,height]); // inner key key(colors[tone], n, length-2*keypad, keypad, ac); // outer key key(colors[tone], n, length, keypad, aa); } } for (i=[0:60]) { note(i); }
ur-whale 5y ago
> it gets very hard to keep a good mental model of the constituent parts of your 3D model in your head I had that exact problem initially. Then I realized that the problem was exactly identical to designing large-scale code: however big your brain, you won't be able to keep all the details in your head after some point and therefore you need to design things hierarchically or in some sort of modular fashion, just like when you write code. And this is where OpenSCAD really shines: if you apply the same kind of engineering discipline to your 3D models that you would to a large-scale and complex piece of code, you can make things that are way more complex than you would with a WYSIWYG type environment and have them fully parametric to boot. The one thing that I find lacking is self-introspection capabilities, i.e if I am in a caller piece of OpenSCAD code, calling to an OpenSCAD module that returns a piece of geometry, I would love to be able to "probe" the returned geometry from the caller in order to use it in the bigger piece I'm building. As a simple example of what I mean: it'd be great to have the AABB of the model returned by a module, or be able throw an arbitrary ray at it and get the first intersection so as to properly design the piece next to it.
eurasiantiger 5y ago
Use less nesting and more modules.

contingencies 5y ago

I've noticed the same. Partly, the need to maintain a complete mental model is obviated by the fast-iterating IDE (ie. a try-it-and-see approach) and comments. Haven't tried this frontend yet but it seems a good match to the structure of abstraction.

agumonkey 5y ago

a lot of software use node based UI most movie grade CGI (houdini, maya) or compositors were made this way since most tasks don't require an abnormally large network it's ok (when it's not they try to implement submodules of some kind, it's pretty ad-hoc but it's not supposed to be the average use case) one value of these is that it's obviously (and visually) lazy reactive. You can do the same with text but it's harder to see input/outputs on text IMO.

app4soft 5y ago
> most movie grade CGI (houdini, maya) or compositors were made this way Yeah. Upcoming Olive Video Editor `0.2.x` would be fully on nodes.[0,1] [0] https://olivevideoeditor.org/020.php https://olivevideoeditor.org/020.php [1] https://github.com/olive-editor/olive https://github.com/olive-editor/olive
- agumonkey 5y ago
  heh, the late 90s are back
ur-whale 5y ago
> a lot of software use node based UI Yes, and as pointed out in another comment, it does not scale well. It's nice for the "tweak" phase of - say - finalizing a shot in a CGI movie, but when you start to get more than a few thousand nodes in a setup, it's very hard to do anything. There are mitigation solutions, such as grouping and collapsing of nodes, but that only goes so far. Another annoying thing with node-based systems: - collaborative work is hard - version control is hard
- agumonkey 5y ago
  People made full blown characters rigging and scenes with a blend of node and direct interaction. It's not just for trivial tasks only.

bsdubernerd 5y ago

openSCAD has a few operators to highlight/isolate the current syntax block. Have you ever used those? Working on a project using openscad is not that different than using other cad programs: you should split your model into "modules"/functions and use composition effectively. I generally find nodal interfaces quite inefficient in general and scale very poorly in every context I've seen them. The biggest problem with openSCAD for me is that there's no way to "measure" in the preview window. As in: just pick two faces and give me the parallel distance and/or vertex-to-vertex distance. I don't care about precision of the preview, let me double-check! You have no idea how often this comes up when connecting multiple parts. Computing the distance manually, while possible, is such a nuisance. Every respectable CAD program gives you a distance when clicking on things for this reason. Somehow FreeCAD made this quite unnecessarily clunky that I have to rely on addons and openscad is missing it completely :(

ur-whale 5y ago
> The biggest problem with openSCAD for me is that there's no way to "measure" in the preview window I agree, except for the fact that I would go one step further. OpenSCAD would be amazing if it would let you "interrogate" a piece of geometry returned by a module, something along the lines of: - get the AABB of the model - cast a ray onto the odel and get a sorted list of intersections - intersect two pieces of geometry and get a polyline out of it and use the result of these "introspections" as parameters for subsequent manipulation/modification of the object. If OpenSCAD could do this, it'd be simply amazing. But I suspect it's hard to do in the current way it's implemented: what I am describing kind of breaks the current OpenSCAD paradigm because it would force injection of data coming from the "geometry stream" into the control parameters of downstream processing nodes. I don't think the engine is designed to handle this well.
- phkahler 5y ago
  You might try exporting objects as STL and then link them in Solvespace. Edge builds do support binary STL files and it will identify edge vertices for building additional geometry.

jacquesm 5y ago

I've used it to create some parametric stuff (an alternative layout piano keyboard), it's super powerful. Here is an example: module slice(r = 10, deg = 30) { degn = (deg % 360 > 0) ? deg % 360 : deg % 360 + 360; difference() { circle(r, $fn=100); if (degn > 180) intersection_for(a = [0, 180 - degn]) rotate(a) translate([-r, 0, 0]) square(r * 2); else union() for(a = [0, 180 - degn]) rotate(a) translate([-r, 0, 0]) square(r * 2); } } module 3d_slice(height, r, deg) { linear_extrude(height = height) slice(r, deg); } module key(c, n, l, padlength, a) { padangle = 6; // support color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([0,0,13 * n]) difference() { 3d_slice(12, l, a); 3d_slice(12,l-(padlength-3),a+0.1); }; // keypad color(c) render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([0,0,-6 + 13 * n]) difference() { 3d_slice(24, l, a+padangle); 3d_slice(24,l-(padlength-3),a+padangle+0.1); 3d_slice(24, l, a);}; } module note(n) { colors = ["red", "black", "white", "black", "white", "white", "black", "white", "black", "white", "black", "white"]; tone = n % 12; // angles just below the keypad aa = 3.5; ab = 6; // this one is important, too small and you won't be able to press the key all the way down ac = 8.25; ad = 10; hingeoffset = 6; keypad = 30; length = 225; width = 12; height = 12; space = 1; xlat = (width + space) * n; if ((n % 2) == 1) { l = length - keypad + hingeoffset; color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([-6,-hingeoffset,xlat]) cube([l,width,height]); key(colors[tone], n, length-3*keypad, keypad, ad); key(colors[tone], n, length-keypad, keypad, ab); } else { // long keys l = length + hingeoffset; // base color("brown") render() rotate([90,0,0]) translate ([-6,-hingeoffset,xlat]) cube([l,width,height]); // inner key key(colors[tone], n, length-2*keypad, keypad, ac); // outer key key(colors[tone], n, length, keypad, aa); } } for (i=[0:60]) { note(i); }

ur-whale 5y ago

> it gets very hard to keep a good mental model of the constituent parts of your 3D model in your head I had that exact problem initially. Then I realized that the problem was exactly identical to designing large-scale code: however big your brain, you won't be able to keep all the details in your head after some point and therefore you need to design things hierarchically or in some sort of modular fashion, just like when you write code. And this is where OpenSCAD really shines: if you apply the same kind of engineering discipline to your 3D models that you would to a large-scale and complex piece of code, you can make things that are way more complex than you would with a WYSIWYG type environment and have them fully parametric to boot. The one thing that I find lacking is self-introspection capabilities, i.e if I am in a caller piece of OpenSCAD code, calling to an OpenSCAD module that returns a piece of geometry, I would love to be able to "probe" the returned geometry from the caller in order to use it in the bigger piece I'm building. As a simple example of what I mean: it'd be great to have the AABB of the model returned by a module, or be able throw an arbitrary ray at it and get the first intersection so as to properly design the piece next to it.

eurasiantiger 5y ago

Use less nesting and more modules.