14 ms·

I feel CAD is one area where open source does not shine. The problem space is too complex, and the UIs demand continuous, thoughtful development driven from cus

by beachy 8mo ago

I feel CAD is one area where open source does not shine. The problem space is too complex, and the UIs demand continuous, thoughtful development driven from customer demands rather than developers scratching their own itches. Not least there are free (as in beer) solutions available, like fusion 360, that are enormously capable. Theres certainly a place for open source, and openscad would be a great tool to reach for for procedurally generated models. But in all honesty, Freecad doesn't compare well to the professional tools in this space - not in the way that say, gimp does to its commercial competitors.

gucci-on-fleek 8mo ago
> the UIs demand continuous, thoughtful development The current AutoCAD GUI is essentially unchanged from the 80s, so this shouldn't really be much of an issue. They added a ribbon probably 15 years ago at this point, but I can't think of any other major/recent changes. (But maybe there are some changes that I'm not familiar with, since I don't use AutoCAD very often and only started using it relatively recently)
- cracki 8mo ago
  People aren't talking about AutoCAD, but things such as Autodesk Inventor, AD Fusion 360, ...
blablabla123 8mo ago
I don’t know, I tried FreeCAD a few months ago and it was buggy as hell. I did some really basic extrusions and distance constraints. But ended up with non-perpendicular entities despite not constructing it like this.
- LtWorf 8mo ago
  I assure you that my 3d prints look like what I designed them.
- obelisk79 8mo ago
  I've been using FreeCAD for around 5 years no, and I can't ever recall running into such a problem, ever. I first started learning it during version 0.19 at the end of 2020 after years with solidworks and onshape. The user experience just sucked royally, it's far better today than back then.
fifticon 8mo ago
fusion 360 is exactly "free" for that reason, to make people reason like you do. They do not want a blender moment.
- sho_hn 8mo ago
  Note as a Linux user, the only version of Fusion you can really use is the (bad) browser one, which requires a $900/year subscription. I like Fusion, but this is a powerful motivator to make due with FreeCAD or Dune3D.
  - beachy 8mo ago
    Fusion 360 and my golf sim software are the only two reasons I have windows dual boot.
    - Jblx2 8mo ago
      I wonder if anyone has first-hand experience they can share with Fusion 360 under Wine.
      - sho_hn 8mo ago
        It's incredibly rough and unreliable, sadly.
erremerre 8mo ago
I never understood this UI problem. Because... You can copy the UI of the leader and problem solved. There you have GIMP with an absolute nightmare UI to use, but people keep saying, just get used to it. On the other hand, a single developer, in javascript, made a copy of photoshop, and most people I know prefer to use that over GIMP... Just copy the UI that works, if you can't research your own UI.
- imtringued 8mo ago
  >Because... You can copy the UI of the leader and problem solved. For whatever reason, the FreeCAD community is explicitly against taking note from competitors. Copying the UI of the leader is a thoughtcrime.
  - rounce 8mo ago
    No it isn’t, stop being silly.
- andrewshadura 8mo ago
  Why do you think GIMP is a nightmare? I don’t find it problematic at all. The only issue I’m hitting once in a while is that I click on a button on the toolbar, and I guess I hit its edge, as I doesn’t switch modes. Other than that, I don’t have any complaints at all. What are yours?
  - sho_hn 8mo ago
    It's mostly a received holdover opinion from the days when Gimp still defaulted to being strongly multi-windowed. The people who keep repeating it probably haven't used Gimp for a while. The usability may still not match Photoshop, but at this point the Gimp UI is largely conventional for this genre of software. Popular opinions take ages to shift sadly.
    - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
      Yes, I learned on Paint Shop Pro and have used many image editors over the years. GIMP is very similar to the rest of them.
bsza 8mo ago
Another advantage of OpenSCAD (if you can call it that) is that LLMs seem to be able to work with it pretty well. A few days ago I asked chatgpt to make me a box for storing batteries, and it came out perfect on first try without any modification. It also made an okay-ish looking 3D pelican after some back-and-forth.
- willis936 8mo ago
  The problem with openSCAD is that you cannot modify it easily. I had made a complex geometry several years ago in openSCAD and I have been waiting for a model that can actually convert it into a python script that generates freecad parametric sketches that recreate it in an editable way. All frontier models fail at this, some more spectacularly than others (gemini never spent 40 minutes / $4 trying and failing, but opus 4.6 did). https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335532 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335532
  - rabf 8mo ago
    OpenSCAD is ideal for making models that can be modified! You have to program your models with the mindset of parametric CAD though, if I was making a battery case I would start by defining variables for battery length, diameter and count and work from there.
  - bsza 8mo ago
    Your ball looks well parametrized to me, what kind of editing are you missing from it? Unless you want to change the shape of the locking mechanism altogether, which I think would be a chore in any format.
    - willis936 8mo ago
      Yeah the lock is what needs iterating. It was always marginal and took several rounds of prototyping to even get to a printable state. I'd like to experiment with something like a keyed screw. The issue with this scad file is that I built the geometry up with no functions. I tried and failed to get them working so I just pushed through, so now it is mind melting to try to refactor it. I'm hoping to one day melt a mechanical mind to get it done. Until then, it's a fun challenge prompt for these models.
tda 8mo ago
The real problem is that BREP CAD kernels are hard. A few of proprietary kernels dominate the scene: Parasolid powers NX, SolidWorks, Fusion, and Onshape, while ACIS (owned by Dassault) is used by Inventor and BricsCAD. Catia uses Dassault's own CGM kernel. The open-source world relies mostly on OpenCASCADE, which is unfortunately a lot less capable than any of these. Fillets and chamfers are a good example. They seem simple but are geometrically non-trivial, and OCC will fail on cases that Parasolid handles without complaint. You can push either kernel to its limits if you try hard enough, but OCC hits that ceiling much sooner. So any CAD tool built on top of it inherits that ceiling too.
- regularfry 8mo ago
  That's one of the real problems. The other real problem is an active resistance to UI improvement simply because another CAD package did something similar.
  - obelisk79 8mo ago
    FreeCAD doesn't resist those comparisons anymore. They happen regularly. Implementing change is just slow, and purely copying how xyz cad built their UI isn't always compatible with FreeCAD, so a lot of careful consideration goes into things before concepts from other software get implemented. Not to mention that developers seem to really dislike doing frontend work.
    - regularfry 8mo ago
      Aaaaah! No! You're doing it too! I am not talking about copying how xyz cad built their UI. I am not talking about consciously implementing concepts from other software. I'm talking about this crazy tendency to assume that the reason someone wants UI feature X is because xyz cad does it, not because it's a natural, intuitive thing to want to do. Natural, intuitive things tend to get independently invented; more than once I've made a suggestion and had "this isn't Fusion 360, you know" thrown back at me, despite the fact I've never used F360 to know what comparison they're making.
wolvesechoes 8mo ago
> I feel CAD is one area where open source does not shine. Many such cases, not only in CAD area. Good non-dev FOSS software is exception, not a rule, and these exceptions pretty often have some corporate backing and are not purely community-driven. And even for dev tools there are proprietary offerings that are light-years ahead of anything FOSS, though people here are never going to admit it, as TTY clone running vi clone is supposedly all you need. I don't state this with satisfaction, quite the opposite, but it is long since I became disillusioned.
sparkyvision 8mo ago
I'm use Vectorworks professionally, but that's because it's become the de-facto program for drawing in the entertainment / production space, and uses Parasolid. I'd love to have any, ANY alternative to VW and Nemetschek's awful pricing / subscription scheme, but I don't see FreeCAD being a competitor in this space for many, many years. Maybe for hobbyists, but I agree that the problem space is oversized for a community project like FreeCAD.
cracki 8mo ago
The reason being that Open Source is a bunch of people who approach EVERYTHING as a programming problem, and they are chronically allergic to graphics, graphical UIs, and any kind of sense of what user interactions are a good experience. They don't start with "how do users want this to operate?" They start with a weekend of coding, applying their preconceived notions, a library of fancy algorithms that are not directly motivated by an actual feature, and they go from there. This does not lead to a good product, as in something that could earn you money on an open market. It only prevails, in spite of nobody wanting to pay for it, because they give it away for free, and they sink their own "disposable time" (and maybe even income) into the project.
weezing 8mo ago
Image manipulation doesn't shine either. GIMP is the prime example.

by beachy 8mo ago

gucci-on-fleek 8mo ago

> the UIs demand continuous, thoughtful development The current AutoCAD GUI is essentially unchanged from the 80s, so this shouldn't really be much of an issue. They added a ribbon probably 15 years ago at this point, but I can't think of any other major/recent changes. (But maybe there are some changes that I'm not familiar with, since I don't use AutoCAD very often and only started using it relatively recently)

cracki 8mo ago
People aren't talking about AutoCAD, but things such as Autodesk Inventor, AD Fusion 360, ...

blablabla123 8mo ago

I don’t know, I tried FreeCAD a few months ago and it was buggy as hell. I did some really basic extrusions and distance constraints. But ended up with non-perpendicular entities despite not constructing it like this.

LtWorf 8mo ago
I assure you that my 3d prints look like what I designed them.
obelisk79 8mo ago
I've been using FreeCAD for around 5 years no, and I can't ever recall running into such a problem, ever. I first started learning it during version 0.19 at the end of 2020 after years with solidworks and onshape. The user experience just sucked royally, it's far better today than back then.

fifticon 8mo ago

fusion 360 is exactly "free" for that reason, to make people reason like you do. They do not want a blender moment.

sho_hn 8mo ago
Note as a Linux user, the only version of Fusion you can really use is the (bad) browser one, which requires a $900/year subscription. I like Fusion, but this is a powerful motivator to make due with FreeCAD or Dune3D.
- beachy 8mo ago
  Fusion 360 and my golf sim software are the only two reasons I have windows dual boot.
  - Jblx2 8mo ago
    I wonder if anyone has first-hand experience they can share with Fusion 360 under Wine.
    - sho_hn 8mo ago
      It's incredibly rough and unreliable, sadly.

erremerre 8mo ago

I never understood this UI problem. Because... You can copy the UI of the leader and problem solved. There you have GIMP with an absolute nightmare UI to use, but people keep saying, just get used to it. On the other hand, a single developer, in javascript, made a copy of photoshop, and most people I know prefer to use that over GIMP... Just copy the UI that works, if you can't research your own UI.

imtringued 8mo ago
>Because... You can copy the UI of the leader and problem solved. For whatever reason, the FreeCAD community is explicitly against taking note from competitors. Copying the UI of the leader is a thoughtcrime.
- rounce 8mo ago
  No it isn’t, stop being silly.
andrewshadura 8mo ago
Why do you think GIMP is a nightmare? I don’t find it problematic at all. The only issue I’m hitting once in a while is that I click on a button on the toolbar, and I guess I hit its edge, as I doesn’t switch modes. Other than that, I don’t have any complaints at all. What are yours?
- sho_hn 8mo ago
  It's mostly a received holdover opinion from the days when Gimp still defaulted to being strongly multi-windowed. The people who keep repeating it probably haven't used Gimp for a while. The usability may still not match Photoshop, but at this point the Gimp UI is largely conventional for this genre of software. Popular opinions take ages to shift sadly.
  - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
    Yes, I learned on Paint Shop Pro and have used many image editors over the years. GIMP is very similar to the rest of them.

bsza 8mo ago

Another advantage of OpenSCAD (if you can call it that) is that LLMs seem to be able to work with it pretty well. A few days ago I asked chatgpt to make me a box for storing batteries, and it came out perfect on first try without any modification. It also made an okay-ish looking 3D pelican after some back-and-forth.

willis936 8mo ago
The problem with openSCAD is that you cannot modify it easily. I had made a complex geometry several years ago in openSCAD and I have been waiting for a model that can actually convert it into a python script that generates freecad parametric sketches that recreate it in an editable way. All frontier models fail at this, some more spectacularly than others (gemini never spent 40 minutes / $4 trying and failing, but opus 4.6 did). https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335532 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4335532
- rabf 8mo ago
  OpenSCAD is ideal for making models that can be modified! You have to program your models with the mindset of parametric CAD though, if I was making a battery case I would start by defining variables for battery length, diameter and count and work from there.
- bsza 8mo ago
  Your ball looks well parametrized to me, what kind of editing are you missing from it? Unless you want to change the shape of the locking mechanism altogether, which I think would be a chore in any format.
  - willis936 8mo ago
    Yeah the lock is what needs iterating. It was always marginal and took several rounds of prototyping to even get to a printable state. I'd like to experiment with something like a keyed screw. The issue with this scad file is that I built the geometry up with no functions. I tried and failed to get them working so I just pushed through, so now it is mind melting to try to refactor it. I'm hoping to one day melt a mechanical mind to get it done. Until then, it's a fun challenge prompt for these models.

tda 8mo ago

The real problem is that BREP CAD kernels are hard. A few of proprietary kernels dominate the scene: Parasolid powers NX, SolidWorks, Fusion, and Onshape, while ACIS (owned by Dassault) is used by Inventor and BricsCAD. Catia uses Dassault's own CGM kernel. The open-source world relies mostly on OpenCASCADE, which is unfortunately a lot less capable than any of these. Fillets and chamfers are a good example. They seem simple but are geometrically non-trivial, and OCC will fail on cases that Parasolid handles without complaint. You can push either kernel to its limits if you try hard enough, but OCC hits that ceiling much sooner. So any CAD tool built on top of it inherits that ceiling too.

regularfry 8mo ago
That's one of the real problems. The other real problem is an active resistance to UI improvement simply because another CAD package did something similar.
- obelisk79 8mo ago
  FreeCAD doesn't resist those comparisons anymore. They happen regularly. Implementing change is just slow, and purely copying how xyz cad built their UI isn't always compatible with FreeCAD, so a lot of careful consideration goes into things before concepts from other software get implemented. Not to mention that developers seem to really dislike doing frontend work.
  - regularfry 8mo ago
    Aaaaah! No! You're doing it too! I am not talking about copying how xyz cad built their UI. I am not talking about consciously implementing concepts from other software. I'm talking about this crazy tendency to assume that the reason someone wants UI feature X is because xyz cad does it, not because it's a natural, intuitive thing to want to do. Natural, intuitive things tend to get independently invented; more than once I've made a suggestion and had "this isn't Fusion 360, you know" thrown back at me, despite the fact I've never used F360 to know what comparison they're making.

wolvesechoes 8mo ago

> I feel CAD is one area where open source does not shine. Many such cases, not only in CAD area. Good non-dev FOSS software is exception, not a rule, and these exceptions pretty often have some corporate backing and are not purely community-driven. And even for dev tools there are proprietary offerings that are light-years ahead of anything FOSS, though people here are never going to admit it, as TTY clone running vi clone is supposedly all you need. I don't state this with satisfaction, quite the opposite, but it is long since I became disillusioned.

sparkyvision 8mo ago

I'm use Vectorworks professionally, but that's because it's become the de-facto program for drawing in the entertainment / production space, and uses Parasolid. I'd love to have any, ANY alternative to VW and Nemetschek's awful pricing / subscription scheme, but I don't see FreeCAD being a competitor in this space for many, many years. Maybe for hobbyists, but I agree that the problem space is oversized for a community project like FreeCAD.

cracki 8mo ago

The reason being that Open Source is a bunch of people who approach EVERYTHING as a programming problem, and they are chronically allergic to graphics, graphical UIs, and any kind of sense of what user interactions are a good experience. They don't start with "how do users want this to operate?" They start with a weekend of coding, applying their preconceived notions, a library of fancy algorithms that are not directly motivated by an actual feature, and they go from there. This does not lead to a good product, as in something that could earn you money on an open market. It only prevails, in spite of nobody wanting to pay for it, because they give it away for free, and they sink their own "disposable time" (and maybe even income) into the project.

weezing 8mo ago

Image manipulation doesn't shine either. GIMP is the prime example.