3 ms·
I like the interface, and being a Blender3D user, I like nodes. However, I am long AutoCad / Inventor user, and I don't see what's new. You could do CSG modelin
by eggy 11y ago
I like the interface, and being a Blender3D user, I like nodes.
However, I am long AutoCad / Inventor user, and I don't see what's new. You could do CSG modeling in AutoCad with union, difference, and intersection, and in Inventor you have that and sketch-based parametric modeling; update the sketch, and the model changes. Go back in the history, and change a value, and the model changes. In AutoCad you could use AutoLisp and later VBA. So aside from the look of the interface, and nodes vs. a history hierarchy what distinguishes it from decades-old parametric modelers?
- hugs 11y agoCompared to AutoCad/Inventor, cost and licensing are two huge differences. Antimony is open source: https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony/blob/develop/README.md https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony/blob/develop/README.md
- eggy 11y agoTrue, but I was addressing the 'novelty' observation made, not cost and licensing. I do like the look of it.I just think it has been available, and is not new. Even the tease of Lisp machine when it has python in the background, not Lisp. For free, the now-opensource Solvespace [1] is a cool parametric 3D-modeler with STL check export and you can view some kinematic movement by dragging a constrained link in a linkage. [1] www.solvespace.com