4 ms·

I recommend Ondsel as well, which is free without restrictions (they have paid tiers that have cloud features, but those aren't necessary). They should include

I recommend Ondsel as well, which is free without restrictions (they have paid tiers that have cloud features, but those aren't necessary). They should include the FreeCAD 1.0 fixes in a few days. HUGE improvement to the FreeCAD GUI, and it saves in FreeCAD format so you're not stuck.

godelski 2y ago
It's also worth noting that they work with FreeCAD and make pushes to them too. So using either helps both. I've been very happy with the developers and they are very responsive on GitHub.
- lazulicurio 2y ago
  Just to start, I want to acknowledge that the problem space is tremendously complex; the FreeCAD developers have put in a lot of effort and it's amazing that a project like FreeCAD exists at all. Not trying to disrespect the other FreeCAD developers, but it seems like things have improved remarkably since ondsel started taking a more active role. The project seemed to exhibit a (common) impulse to prioritize extensibility too much. The "workbench" architecture and python API let you do some really neat stuff if you're willing to dig into the weeds. But, from the perspective of a community outsider (so take it with a grain of salt), the development process seemed to be a good example of Conway's Law in action. The workbenches let everyone have their own sub-projects to manage without stepping on each other's toes. This led to a lot of resulting complexities, inconsistencies, and instabilities, which made the approach a net negative (imo) in terms of tradeoffs. With ondsel, there's been more focus on holistic improvements and getting the individual modules working together more smoothly, which I greatly appreciate.
  - Robotbeat 2y ago
    Agreed with all of this. Although... the extensibility (while it is the stereotypical open source trap that leads to splintering of focus and complexity) is ALSO nice, although built on a shaky platform. Once the base GUI and functionality of Freecad is fixed up, the extensibility could potentially allow more flexibility than commercial CAD packages. Lots of potential there, if the platform is improved.
wakeupcall 2y ago
I still recommend RealThunder's fork (https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/ https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/) at the moment, even though his fork is a bit lagging at the moment. Most of his contributions to the topology fixes got merged back into freecad now, but his enhancements to UI/behavior aren't (yet), and they make a night and day compared to ondsel too. I didn't find any significant limitation to RealThunder's assembly3. In any case, while far from most commercial offerings, FreeCAD is progressing and the future looks bright. I've stopped using f360/onshape in the last years for my hobby designs. Once you know the specific limitations of freecad+occt (something you learn in each cad program) and how to work them around effectively, it's already pretty powerful.

godelski 2y ago

It's also worth noting that they work with FreeCAD and make pushes to them too. So using either helps both. I've been very happy with the developers and they are very responsive on GitHub.

lazulicurio 2y ago
Just to start, I want to acknowledge that the problem space is tremendously complex; the FreeCAD developers have put in a lot of effort and it's amazing that a project like FreeCAD exists at all. Not trying to disrespect the other FreeCAD developers, but it seems like things have improved remarkably since ondsel started taking a more active role. The project seemed to exhibit a (common) impulse to prioritize extensibility too much. The "workbench" architecture and python API let you do some really neat stuff if you're willing to dig into the weeds. But, from the perspective of a community outsider (so take it with a grain of salt), the development process seemed to be a good example of Conway's Law in action. The workbenches let everyone have their own sub-projects to manage without stepping on each other's toes. This led to a lot of resulting complexities, inconsistencies, and instabilities, which made the approach a net negative (imo) in terms of tradeoffs. With ondsel, there's been more focus on holistic improvements and getting the individual modules working together more smoothly, which I greatly appreciate.
- Robotbeat 2y ago
  Agreed with all of this. Although... the extensibility (while it is the stereotypical open source trap that leads to splintering of focus and complexity) is ALSO nice, although built on a shaky platform. Once the base GUI and functionality of Freecad is fixed up, the extensibility could potentially allow more flexibility than commercial CAD packages. Lots of potential there, if the platform is improved.

wakeupcall 2y ago

I still recommend RealThunder's fork (https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/ https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/) at the moment, even though his fork is a bit lagging at the moment. Most of his contributions to the topology fixes got merged back into freecad now, but his enhancements to UI/behavior aren't (yet), and they make a night and day compared to ondsel too. I didn't find any significant limitation to RealThunder's assembly3. In any case, while far from most commercial offerings, FreeCAD is progressing and the future looks bright. I've stopped using f360/onshape in the last years for my hobby designs. Once you know the specific limitations of freecad+occt (something you learn in each cad program) and how to work them around effectively, it's already pretty powerful.