4 ms·
From the limited work I've done in it, it comes off as poor for it's specific use as well. As an example, one thing that frustrates me is not having access to
by everforward 5y ago
From the limited work I've done in it, it comes off as poor for it's specific use as well.
As an example, one thing that frustrates me is not having access to the geometry of an object. I fairly frequently want to do something like "add this piece so that it's 20% down from the upper edge of this other piece". I've yet to find any way to do that cleanly, despite it seeming like a common use case. The absolute addressing system can be painful, since updating a piece can require updating locations in lots of place. Likewise, but worse, it's extremely painful to rotate and object, because your algorithms for finding the location break.
I've largely given up and use Fusion. I like being able to version control my models, but SCAD feels like I'm working blind with a hand tied behind my back, rather than making things feel expressive like they usually do.
- vorpalhex 5y agoMake sure you are using BOSL - http://openscad.org/libraries.html http://openscad.org/libraries.html Also all of your base points should be variables and your placements operations on those variables. Anything that is dynamically sized should also be built from variables. I usually use a single function per distinct piece of geometry, then use composition. The geometry is the effect, not the cause.