4 ms·

> The main reason they exist is that it is much (like 100 times) easier to write a code-drive CAD system than a GUI-driven one. The reason they exist is becaus

by ranit 11y ago

> The main reason they exist is that it is much (like 100 times) easier to write a code-drive CAD system than a GUI-driven one. The reason they exist is because they are very well suited for making changes on the model ... on shallow and deep level. It might be easer to "click on dimensions on the actual sketch and change them" for a few elements, but try making a fundamental change without code. GUI vs. code/config file preference seems to be a personal disposition not only for CAD but for all kinds of software.

andor 11y ago
Solidworks is parametric, too. You don't need code for that.
krschultz 11y ago
A parametric modeler, i.e. every major CAD system in use since 1995, allows you to specify your dimensions based on formulas that use relationships between components. If you look at Solidworks or CATIA and think "man it must be slow to point and click to set dimensions" you are missing how it is actually used in professional practice. The difference between point and clicking dimensions in those tools and how they are supposed to be used is greater than the difference between pecking in Notepad and being a power user in Emacs/Vim.
- ranit 11y ago
  Exactly my point. "Based on formulas that use relationships between components" means that they have internal language which if used well helps enormously.
  - phkahler 11y ago
    No, it means they have an algebraic constraint solver. If you don't have this feature, you don't really have a CAD program.
saidajigumi 11y ago
Being a career software developer who has recently learned to use parametric CAD (specifically, Geomagic Design, formerly known as Alibre Design), this is just not true. On the software side, I'm one of those who generally prefers code vs. GUI config. But that's an utterly terrible analogy to parametric CAD, which is really a touch closer to a kind of end-user programming language. Parametric CAD is far better about keeping relevant dimension values, formulas, and model constraints right where they're relevant and trivial to visually comprehend in terms of their function in the model. A better analogy for the uninitiated would be the frustration of a spreadsheet where the cell values and formulas had to be edited on some entirely separate text code UI sheet, requiring flipping back and forth and holding stuff in short-term memory to do anything to the model. That said, I'm actually quite interested to play with Antimony. At first blush, it looks far more appealing than OpenSCAD for practical applications. Over time, it's UI might be able to converge functionally to the mature CAD packages, but allow for greater insight into how the engine is really building up the model, especially in complex projects. Constraint debugging in parametric CAD can occasionally be a frustrating kind of hell. Antimony and/or its descendents may be able to help out with that.

by ranit 11y ago

andor 11y ago

Solidworks is parametric, too. You don't need code for that.

krschultz 11y ago

A parametric modeler, i.e. every major CAD system in use since 1995, allows you to specify your dimensions based on formulas that use relationships between components. If you look at Solidworks or CATIA and think "man it must be slow to point and click to set dimensions" you are missing how it is actually used in professional practice. The difference between point and clicking dimensions in those tools and how they are supposed to be used is greater than the difference between pecking in Notepad and being a power user in Emacs/Vim.

ranit 11y ago
Exactly my point. "Based on formulas that use relationships between components" means that they have internal language which if used well helps enormously.
- phkahler 11y ago
  No, it means they have an algebraic constraint solver. If you don't have this feature, you don't really have a CAD program.

saidajigumi 11y ago

Being a career software developer who has recently learned to use parametric CAD (specifically, Geomagic Design, formerly known as Alibre Design), this is just not true. On the software side, I'm one of those who generally prefers code vs. GUI config. But that's an utterly terrible analogy to parametric CAD, which is really a touch closer to a kind of end-user programming language. Parametric CAD is far better about keeping relevant dimension values, formulas, and model constraints right where they're relevant and trivial to visually comprehend in terms of their function in the model. A better analogy for the uninitiated would be the frustration of a spreadsheet where the cell values and formulas had to be edited on some entirely separate text code UI sheet, requiring flipping back and forth and holding stuff in short-term memory to do anything to the model. That said, I'm actually quite interested to play with Antimony. At first blush, it looks far more appealing than OpenSCAD for practical applications. Over time, it's UI might be able to converge functionally to the mature CAD packages, but allow for greater insight into how the engine is really building up the model, especially in complex projects. Constraint debugging in parametric CAD can occasionally be a frustrating kind of hell. Antimony and/or its descendents may be able to help out with that.