9 ms·

The future: "and I want a 3mm hole in one side of the plate. No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the o

The future: "and I want a 3mm hole in one side of the plate. No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the other hole. No, up not sideways. Wait, which way is up? Never mind, I'll do it myself." I'm having trouble understanding why you would want to do this. A good interface between what I want and the model I will make is to draw a picture, not write an essay. This is already (more or less) how Solidworks operates. AI might be able to turn my napkin sketch into a model, but I would still need to draw something, and I'm not good at drawing. The bottleneck continues to be having a good enough description to make what you want. I have serious doubts that even a skilled person will be able to do it efficiently with text alone. Some combo of drawing and point+click would be much better. This would be useful for short enough tasks like "change all the #6-32 threads to M3" though. To do so without breaking the feature tree would be quite impressive.

wgpatrick 2y ago
Yeah - I fully agree with this POV. From a UX/UI POV, I think this is where things are headed. I talk about this a bit at the end of the piece.
itissid 2y ago
> and I want a 3mm hole in one side of the plate. No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the other hole. No, up not sideways. One thing that is interesting here is you can read faster than TTS to absorb info. But you can speak much faster than you can type. So is it all that typing that's the problem or could be just an interface problem? and in your example, you could also just draw with your hand(wrist sensor) + talk. As I've been using agents to code this way. Its way faster.
- alnwlsn 2y ago
  Feels a bit like being on a call with someone at the hardware store, about something that you both don't know the name for. Maybe the person on the other end is confused, or maybe you aren't describing it all that well. Isn't it easier to take a picture of the thing or just take the thing itself and show it to someone who works there? Harder again to do that when the thing you want isn't sold at the store, which is probably why you're modeling it in the first place. Most of the mechanical people I've met are good at talking with their hands. "take this thing like this, turn it like that, mount it like this, drill a hole here, look down there" and so on. We still don't have a good analog for this in computers. VR is the closest we have and it's still leagues behind the Human Hand mk. 1. Video is good too, but you have to put in a bit more attention to camerawork and lighting than taking a selfie.
- voidUpdate 2y ago
  And I can think faster than I can speak, which means it's easier for me to think about what I need to do and then do it, rather than type or speak to an LLM so they can work out what I need to do instead
fragmede 2y ago
talking to my computer and having it create things is pretty danged cool. Voice input takes out so much friction that, yeah, maybe it would be faster with a mouse and keyboard, but if I can just talk with my computer? I can do it while I'm walking around and thinking.
chpatrick 2y ago
If the napkin sketch generation is 95% right and only needs minor corrections then it's still a massive time saver.
ssl-3 2y ago
So maybe the future is to draw a picture, and go from there? For instance: My modelling abilities are limited. I can draw what I want, with measurements, but I am not a draftsman. I can also explain the concept, in conversational English, to a person who uses CAD regularly and they can hammer out a model in no time. This is a thing that I've done successfully in the past. Could I just do it myself? Sure, eventually! But my modelling needs are very few and far between. It isn't something I need to do every day, or even every year. It would take me longer to learn the workflow and toolsets of [insert CAD system here] than to just earn some money doing something that I'm already good at and pay someone else to do the CAD work. Except maybe in the future, perhaps I will be able use the bot to help bridge the gap between a napkin sketch of a widget and a digital model of that same widget. (Maybe like Scotty tried to do with the mouse in Star Trek IV.) (And before anyone says it: I'm not really particularly interested in becoming proficient at CAD. I know I can learn it, but I just don't want to. It has never been my goal to become proficient at every trade under the sun and there are other skills that I'd rather focus on learning and maintaining instead. And that's OK -- there's lots of other things in life that I will probably also never seek to be proficient at, too.)
abe_m 2y ago
I think this is along the lines of the AI horseless carriage[1] topic that is also on the front page right now. You seem to be describing the current method as operated through an AI intermediary. I think the power in AI for CAD will be at a higher level than lines, faces and holes. It will be more along the lines of "make a bracket between these two parts". "Make this part bolt to that other part". "Attach this pump to this gear train" (where the AI determines the pump uses a SAE 4 bolt flange of a particular size and a splined connection, then adds the required features to the housing and shafts). I think it will operate on higher structures than current CAD typically works with, and I don't think it will be history tree and sketch based like Solidworks or Inventor. I suspect it will be more of a direct modelling approach. I also think integrating FEA to allow the AI to check its work will be part of it. When you tell it to make a bracket between two parts, it can check the weight of the two parts, and some environmental specification from a project definition, then auto-configure FEA to check the correct number of bolts, material thickness, etc. If it made the bracket from folded sheet steel, you could then tell it you want a cast aluminum bracket, and it could redo the work. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43773813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43773813
- coderenegade 2y ago
  I think this is correct, especially the part about how we actually do modelling. The topological naming problem is really born from the fact that we want to do operations on features that may no longer exist if we alter the tree at an earlier point. An AI model might find it easier to work directly with boolean operations or meshes, at which point, there is no topological naming problem.
- alnwlsn 2y ago
  You're right, but I think we have a long way to go. Even our best CAD packages today don't work nearly as well as advertised. I dread to think what Dassault or Autodesk would charge per seat for something that could do the above!
  - abe_m 2y ago
    I agree. I think a major hindrance to the current pro CAD systems is being stuck to the feature history tree, and rather low level features. Considerable amounts of requirements data is just added to a drawing free-form without semantic machine-readable meaning. Lots of tolerancing, fit, GD&T, datums, etc are just lines in a PDF. There is the move to MBD/PMI and the NIST driven STEP digital thread, but the state of CAD is a long way from that being common. I think we need to get to the data being embedded in the model ala MBD/PMI, but then go beyond it. The definition of threads, gear or spline teeth, ORB and other hydraulic ports don't fit comfortably into the current system. There needs to be a higher level machine-readable capture, and I think that is where the LLMs may be able to step in. I suspect the next step will be such a departure that it won't be Siemens, Dassault, or Autodesk that do it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eurekin 2y ago
I have come across a significant number of non engineers wanting to do, what ultimately involves some basic CAD modelling. Some can stall on such tasks for years (home renovation) or just don't do it at all. After some brief research, the main cause is not wanting to sink over 30 hours into learning basics of a cad package of choice. For some reason they imagine it as a daunting, complicated, impenetrable task with many pitfalls, which aren't surmountable. Be it interface, general idea how it operates, fear of unknown details (tolerances, clearances). It's easy to underestimate the knowledge required to use a cad productively. One such anecdata near me are highschools that buy 3d printers and think pupils will naturally want to print models. After initial days of fascination they stopped being used at all. I've heard from a person close to the education that it's a country wide phenomena. Back to the point though - maybe there's a group of users that want to create, but just can't do CAD at all and such text description seem perfect for them.
- phkahler 2y ago
  >> I have come across a significant number of non engineers wanting to do, what ultimately involves some basic CAD modelling. I very much want Solvespace to be the tool for those people. It's very easy to learn and do the basics. But some of the bugs still need to get fixed (failures tend to be big problems for new users because without experience its hard to explain what's going wrong or a workaround) and we need a darn chamfer and fillet tool.
  - Animats 2y ago
    > I very much want Solvespace to be the tool for those people. Probably not. "Copyright 2008-2022 SolveSpace contributors. Most recent update June 2 2022."
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - phkahler 2y ago
      Most recent commit to the repository: Last week. It's slow and has slowed the last couple years but it's still going.
seveibar 2y ago
Most likely you won’t be asking for specific things like “3mm hole 3in from the side”, you’ll say things like “Create a plastic enclosure sized to go under a desk, ok add a usb receptacle opening, ok add flanges with standard screw holes” In the text to CAD ecosystem we talk about matching our language/framework to “design intent” a lot. The ideal interface is usually higher level than people expect it to be.
- mediaman 2y ago
  The problem is that this isn't very useful except for the very earliest ideation stages of industrial design, which hardly need CAD anyway. Most parts need to fit with something else, usually some set of components. Then there are considerations around draft, moldability, size of core pins, sliders, direction of ejection, wall thickness, coring out, radii, ribs for stiffness, tolerances... LLMs seem far off from being the right answer here. There is, however, lots to make more efficient. Maybe you could tokenize breps in some useful way and see if transformers could become competent speaking in brep tokens? It's hand-wavy but maybe there's something there. Mechanical engineers do not try to explain models to each other in English. They gather around Solidworks or send pictures to each other. It is incredibly hard to explain a model in English, and I don't see how a traditional LLM would be any better.
  - esperent 2y ago
    You may or may not be right, but your arguments sound like echos of what software developers were saying four or five years ago. And four or five years ago, they were right. Don't dismiss an AI tool just because the first iterations aren't useful, it'll be iterated on faster than you can believe possible.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      While LLMs are a useful tool for software development, if you try asking them the software equivalent of “Create a plastic enclosure sized to go under a desk, ok add a usb receptacle opening, ok add flanges with standard screw holes” you'll end up with the equivalent of “No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the other hole. No, up not sideways. Wait, which way is up? Never mind, I'll do it myself” a lot. What works is asking them to implement micro feature that you will specify well enough at first try, not to ask them writing the entire piece of software from top to bottom. The tech is clearly not there yet for the latter. The main difference between Code and CAD is that code is language you're writing to the machine to execute already, so it's pretty natural to just use a more abstract/natural language to ask it instead of the formal one of code, whereas CAD is a visual, almost physical task, and it's more pleasant to do a task than describe it in depth with words.
bboygravity 2y ago
Text (specs + conversations) is the starting point of 100 percent of all CAD drawings made by more than 1 human though (so essentially everything you see around you). I don't get your point (and yes I use CAD programs myself).
- alnwlsn 2y ago
  Most of the things I work on are "make this fit onto that like this". There's not that much information contained in that sentence, it's contained in the 2 objects I was just handed. Sometimes we have drawings for that stuff, most of the time we don't. The "like this" part can be a conversation, but the rest of the info is missing and needs to be recreated. I said this below, but most of the mechanical people I've met are good at talking with their hands. "take this thing like this, turn it like that, mount it like this, drill a hole here, look down there" and so on. We still don't have a good analog for this in computers. VR is the closest we have and it's still leagues behind the Human Hand mk. 1. Video is good too, but you have to put in a bit more attention to camerawork and lighting than taking a selfie.
whatshisface 2y ago
Here's how it might work, by analogy to the workflow for image generation: "An aerodynamically curved plastic enclosure for a form-over-function guitar amp." Then you get something with the basic shapes and bevels in place, and adjust it in CAD to fit your actual design goals. Then, "Given this shape, make it easy to injection mold." Then it would smooth out some things a little too much, and you'd fix it in CAD. Then, finally, "Making only very small changes and no changes at all to the surfaces I've marked as mounting-related in CAD, unify my additions visually with the overall design of the curved shell." Then you'd have to fix a couple other things, and you'd be finished.
- tylergetsay 2y ago
  In your example, what about mounting the electronics or specifying that the control knobs need to fit within these dimensions? I guess its easy if those objects are available as a model, but thats not always the case.. 3d scanner maybe?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    You'd get control knobs of a reasonable size, and mounting holes in an arbitrary rectangle, then correct them with the true dimensions outside of generation.
- zonkerdonker 2y ago
  I appreciate that you have given this some thought, but it is clear that you dont have much or any professional experience in 3D modeling or mechanical design. For the guitar amp, ok. Maybe that prompt will give you a set of surfaces you can scale for the exterior shell of the amp. Because you will need to scale it, or know exactly the dimensions of your speakers, internal chambers, electronics, I/O, baffles, and where those will all ve relative go eachother. Also...Do you need buttons? Jacks/connectors/other I/O? How and where will the connections be routed to other components? Do you need an internal structure with an external aesthetic shell? Or are you going to somehow mold the whole thing in one piece? Where should the part be split? What kind of fasteners will join the parts and where should they be joined? What material is the shell? Can it be thinner to save weight? Or need ribs or thickness for strength? Where does it need to be strong? These are the issues from 30 seconds of thinking about this. AI (as suggested) could maybe save me from surfacing an exterior cosmetic cover, given presice constraints and dimensions, but at that point, I may as well just do it myself. If you have a common, easy, already solved an mechanical design problem (hinge e.g.), then you buy an off the shelf component. For everything else, it is bespoke, and every detail matters. Every problem is a "wine glass full to the brim"
wilg 2y ago
Think about it this way, if the richest person in the world wanted something done, they would probably just shoot off a text to someone, maybe answer a few questions, and then some time later it would be done. That's your interface.
michaelt 2y ago
> I'm having trouble understanding why you would want to do this. You would be amazed at how much time CAD users spend using Propriety CAD Package A to redraw things from PDFs generated by Propriety CAD Package B
- plorg 2y ago
  I spend a lot of time using proprietary CAD package A to redraw things from Who Knows What, but that's mostly because the proprietary CAD data my vendor would send me is trapped behind an NDA for which getting legal approval would take more time and effort than just modeling the things in front of me with minimum viable detail, or else my vendor is 2 businesses removed from the person with the CAD data that I need (and may require a different NDA that we can't sign without convincing our vendor to do the same). Anyone I've ever been able to request CAD data from will just send me STEP or parasolid files and they will work well enough for me to do my job. Often I spend more time removing model features so my computer will run a little faster.
lud_lite 2y ago
If there I in AI then it would tell me where to put the hole and why.
oofbaroomf 2y ago
If you would use LLM-assisted CAD for real industrial design, you would have to end up by specifying exactly where everything has to go and what size it has to be. But if you are doing that then you may as well make an automated program to convert those specific requirements into a 3D model. Oh wait, that's CAD. Cynical take aside, I think this could be quite useful for normal people making simple stuff, and could really help consumer 3D printing have a much larger impact.
farts_mckensy 2y ago
[flagged]

wgpatrick 2y ago

Yeah - I fully agree with this POV. From a UX/UI POV, I think this is where things are headed. I talk about this a bit at the end of the piece.

itissid 2y ago

> and I want a 3mm hole in one side of the plate. No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the other hole. No, up not sideways. One thing that is interesting here is you can read faster than TTS to absorb info. But you can speak much faster than you can type. So is it all that typing that's the problem or could be just an interface problem? and in your example, you could also just draw with your hand(wrist sensor) + talk. As I've been using agents to code this way. Its way faster.

alnwlsn 2y ago
Feels a bit like being on a call with someone at the hardware store, about something that you both don't know the name for. Maybe the person on the other end is confused, or maybe you aren't describing it all that well. Isn't it easier to take a picture of the thing or just take the thing itself and show it to someone who works there? Harder again to do that when the thing you want isn't sold at the store, which is probably why you're modeling it in the first place. Most of the mechanical people I've met are good at talking with their hands. "take this thing like this, turn it like that, mount it like this, drill a hole here, look down there" and so on. We still don't have a good analog for this in computers. VR is the closest we have and it's still leagues behind the Human Hand mk. 1. Video is good too, but you have to put in a bit more attention to camerawork and lighting than taking a selfie.
voidUpdate 2y ago
And I can think faster than I can speak, which means it's easier for me to think about what I need to do and then do it, rather than type or speak to an LLM so they can work out what I need to do instead

fragmede 2y ago

talking to my computer and having it create things is pretty danged cool. Voice input takes out so much friction that, yeah, maybe it would be faster with a mouse and keyboard, but if I can just talk with my computer? I can do it while I'm walking around and thinking.

chpatrick 2y ago

If the napkin sketch generation is 95% right and only needs minor corrections then it's still a massive time saver.

ssl-3 2y ago

So maybe the future is to draw a picture, and go from there? For instance: My modelling abilities are limited. I can draw what I want, with measurements, but I am not a draftsman. I can also explain the concept, in conversational English, to a person who uses CAD regularly and they can hammer out a model in no time. This is a thing that I've done successfully in the past. Could I just do it myself? Sure, eventually! But my modelling needs are very few and far between. It isn't something I need to do every day, or even every year. It would take me longer to learn the workflow and toolsets of [insert CAD system here] than to just earn some money doing something that I'm already good at and pay someone else to do the CAD work. Except maybe in the future, perhaps I will be able use the bot to help bridge the gap between a napkin sketch of a widget and a digital model of that same widget. (Maybe like Scotty tried to do with the mouse in Star Trek IV.) (And before anyone says it: I'm not really particularly interested in becoming proficient at CAD. I know I can learn it, but I just don't want to. It has never been my goal to become proficient at every trade under the sun and there are other skills that I'd rather focus on learning and maintaining instead. And that's OK -- there's lots of other things in life that I will probably also never seek to be proficient at, too.)

abe_m 2y ago

I think this is along the lines of the AI horseless carriage[1] topic that is also on the front page right now. You seem to be describing the current method as operated through an AI intermediary. I think the power in AI for CAD will be at a higher level than lines, faces and holes. It will be more along the lines of "make a bracket between these two parts". "Make this part bolt to that other part". "Attach this pump to this gear train" (where the AI determines the pump uses a SAE 4 bolt flange of a particular size and a splined connection, then adds the required features to the housing and shafts). I think it will operate on higher structures than current CAD typically works with, and I don't think it will be history tree and sketch based like Solidworks or Inventor. I suspect it will be more of a direct modelling approach. I also think integrating FEA to allow the AI to check its work will be part of it. When you tell it to make a bracket between two parts, it can check the weight of the two parts, and some environmental specification from a project definition, then auto-configure FEA to check the correct number of bolts, material thickness, etc. If it made the bracket from folded sheet steel, you could then tell it you want a cast aluminum bracket, and it could redo the work. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43773813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43773813

coderenegade 2y ago
I think this is correct, especially the part about how we actually do modelling. The topological naming problem is really born from the fact that we want to do operations on features that may no longer exist if we alter the tree at an earlier point. An AI model might find it easier to work directly with boolean operations or meshes, at which point, there is no topological naming problem.
alnwlsn 2y ago
You're right, but I think we have a long way to go. Even our best CAD packages today don't work nearly as well as advertised. I dread to think what Dassault or Autodesk would charge per seat for something that could do the above!
- abe_m 2y ago
  I agree. I think a major hindrance to the current pro CAD systems is being stuck to the feature history tree, and rather low level features. Considerable amounts of requirements data is just added to a drawing free-form without semantic machine-readable meaning. Lots of tolerancing, fit, GD&T, datums, etc are just lines in a PDF. There is the move to MBD/PMI and the NIST driven STEP digital thread, but the state of CAD is a long way from that being common. I think we need to get to the data being embedded in the model ala MBD/PMI, but then go beyond it. The definition of threads, gear or spline teeth, ORB and other hydraulic ports don't fit comfortably into the current system. There needs to be a higher level machine-readable capture, and I think that is where the LLMs may be able to step in. I suspect the next step will be such a departure that it won't be Siemens, Dassault, or Autodesk that do it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eurekin 2y ago

I have come across a significant number of non engineers wanting to do, what ultimately involves some basic CAD modelling. Some can stall on such tasks for years (home renovation) or just don't do it at all. After some brief research, the main cause is not wanting to sink over 30 hours into learning basics of a cad package of choice. For some reason they imagine it as a daunting, complicated, impenetrable task with many pitfalls, which aren't surmountable. Be it interface, general idea how it operates, fear of unknown details (tolerances, clearances). It's easy to underestimate the knowledge required to use a cad productively. One such anecdata near me are highschools that buy 3d printers and think pupils will naturally want to print models. After initial days of fascination they stopped being used at all. I've heard from a person close to the education that it's a country wide phenomena. Back to the point though - maybe there's a group of users that want to create, but just can't do CAD at all and such text description seem perfect for them.

phkahler 2y ago
>> I have come across a significant number of non engineers wanting to do, what ultimately involves some basic CAD modelling. I very much want Solvespace to be the tool for those people. It's very easy to learn and do the basics. But some of the bugs still need to get fixed (failures tend to be big problems for new users because without experience its hard to explain what's going wrong or a workaround) and we need a darn chamfer and fillet tool.
- Animats 2y ago
  > I very much want Solvespace to be the tool for those people. Probably not. "Copyright 2008-2022 SolveSpace contributors. Most recent update June 2 2022."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - phkahler 2y ago
    Most recent commit to the repository: Last week. It's slow and has slowed the last couple years but it's still going.

seveibar 2y ago

Most likely you won’t be asking for specific things like “3mm hole 3in from the side”, you’ll say things like “Create a plastic enclosure sized to go under a desk, ok add a usb receptacle opening, ok add flanges with standard screw holes” In the text to CAD ecosystem we talk about matching our language/framework to “design intent” a lot. The ideal interface is usually higher level than people expect it to be.

mediaman 2y ago
The problem is that this isn't very useful except for the very earliest ideation stages of industrial design, which hardly need CAD anyway. Most parts need to fit with something else, usually some set of components. Then there are considerations around draft, moldability, size of core pins, sliders, direction of ejection, wall thickness, coring out, radii, ribs for stiffness, tolerances... LLMs seem far off from being the right answer here. There is, however, lots to make more efficient. Maybe you could tokenize breps in some useful way and see if transformers could become competent speaking in brep tokens? It's hand-wavy but maybe there's something there. Mechanical engineers do not try to explain models to each other in English. They gather around Solidworks or send pictures to each other. It is incredibly hard to explain a model in English, and I don't see how a traditional LLM would be any better.
- esperent 2y ago
  You may or may not be right, but your arguments sound like echos of what software developers were saying four or five years ago. And four or five years ago, they were right. Don't dismiss an AI tool just because the first iterations aren't useful, it'll be iterated on faster than you can believe possible.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    While LLMs are a useful tool for software development, if you try asking them the software equivalent of “Create a plastic enclosure sized to go under a desk, ok add a usb receptacle opening, ok add flanges with standard screw holes” you'll end up with the equivalent of “No the other side. No, not like that, at the bottom. Now make it 10mm from the other hole. No the other hole. No, up not sideways. Wait, which way is up? Never mind, I'll do it myself” a lot. What works is asking them to implement micro feature that you will specify well enough at first try, not to ask them writing the entire piece of software from top to bottom. The tech is clearly not there yet for the latter. The main difference between Code and CAD is that code is language you're writing to the machine to execute already, so it's pretty natural to just use a more abstract/natural language to ask it instead of the formal one of code, whereas CAD is a visual, almost physical task, and it's more pleasant to do a task than describe it in depth with words.

bboygravity 2y ago

Text (specs + conversations) is the starting point of 100 percent of all CAD drawings made by more than 1 human though (so essentially everything you see around you). I don't get your point (and yes I use CAD programs myself).

alnwlsn 2y ago
Most of the things I work on are "make this fit onto that like this". There's not that much information contained in that sentence, it's contained in the 2 objects I was just handed. Sometimes we have drawings for that stuff, most of the time we don't. The "like this" part can be a conversation, but the rest of the info is missing and needs to be recreated. I said this below, but most of the mechanical people I've met are good at talking with their hands. "take this thing like this, turn it like that, mount it like this, drill a hole here, look down there" and so on. We still don't have a good analog for this in computers. VR is the closest we have and it's still leagues behind the Human Hand mk. 1. Video is good too, but you have to put in a bit more attention to camerawork and lighting than taking a selfie.

whatshisface 2y ago

Here's how it might work, by analogy to the workflow for image generation: "An aerodynamically curved plastic enclosure for a form-over-function guitar amp." Then you get something with the basic shapes and bevels in place, and adjust it in CAD to fit your actual design goals. Then, "Given this shape, make it easy to injection mold." Then it would smooth out some things a little too much, and you'd fix it in CAD. Then, finally, "Making only very small changes and no changes at all to the surfaces I've marked as mounting-related in CAD, unify my additions visually with the overall design of the curved shell." Then you'd have to fix a couple other things, and you'd be finished.

tylergetsay 2y ago
In your example, what about mounting the electronics or specifying that the control knobs need to fit within these dimensions? I guess its easy if those objects are available as a model, but thats not always the case.. 3d scanner maybe?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  You'd get control knobs of a reasonable size, and mounting holes in an arbitrary rectangle, then correct them with the true dimensions outside of generation.
zonkerdonker 2y ago
I appreciate that you have given this some thought, but it is clear that you dont have much or any professional experience in 3D modeling or mechanical design. For the guitar amp, ok. Maybe that prompt will give you a set of surfaces you can scale for the exterior shell of the amp. Because you will need to scale it, or know exactly the dimensions of your speakers, internal chambers, electronics, I/O, baffles, and where those will all ve relative go eachother. Also...Do you need buttons? Jacks/connectors/other I/O? How and where will the connections be routed to other components? Do you need an internal structure with an external aesthetic shell? Or are you going to somehow mold the whole thing in one piece? Where should the part be split? What kind of fasteners will join the parts and where should they be joined? What material is the shell? Can it be thinner to save weight? Or need ribs or thickness for strength? Where does it need to be strong? These are the issues from 30 seconds of thinking about this. AI (as suggested) could maybe save me from surfacing an exterior cosmetic cover, given presice constraints and dimensions, but at that point, I may as well just do it myself. If you have a common, easy, already solved an mechanical design problem (hinge e.g.), then you buy an off the shelf component. For everything else, it is bespoke, and every detail matters. Every problem is a "wine glass full to the brim"

wilg 2y ago

Think about it this way, if the richest person in the world wanted something done, they would probably just shoot off a text to someone, maybe answer a few questions, and then some time later it would be done. That's your interface.

michaelt 2y ago

> I'm having trouble understanding why you would want to do this. You would be amazed at how much time CAD users spend using Propriety CAD Package A to redraw things from PDFs generated by Propriety CAD Package B

plorg 2y ago
I spend a lot of time using proprietary CAD package A to redraw things from Who Knows What, but that's mostly because the proprietary CAD data my vendor would send me is trapped behind an NDA for which getting legal approval would take more time and effort than just modeling the things in front of me with minimum viable detail, or else my vendor is 2 businesses removed from the person with the CAD data that I need (and may require a different NDA that we can't sign without convincing our vendor to do the same). Anyone I've ever been able to request CAD data from will just send me STEP or parasolid files and they will work well enough for me to do my job. Often I spend more time removing model features so my computer will run a little faster.

lud_lite 2y ago

If there I in AI then it would tell me where to put the hole and why.

oofbaroomf 2y ago

If you would use LLM-assisted CAD for real industrial design, you would have to end up by specifying exactly where everything has to go and what size it has to be. But if you are doing that then you may as well make an automated program to convert those specific requirements into a 3D model. Oh wait, that's CAD. Cynical take aside, I think this could be quite useful for normal people making simple stuff, and could really help consumer 3D printing have a much larger impact.

farts_mckensy 2y ago

[flagged]