hannobraun

6 ms·

1.
by hannobraun 4y ago
(I'm the author of Fornjot.) > I wouldn't be suprised if the author of fornjot had similar feelings if they ever considered that approach. Yeah, I don't think I have it in me to work on a non-trivial project in C++ :) (Not
2.
by hannobraun 4y ago
Ah, sorry! I missed that bit in the README and got confused :)
3.
by hannobraun 4y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. Rust was chosen as a modeling language for two reasons: 1. Since the whole project is written in Rust, it was the most straight-forward choice. No dealing with bindings to another language or a scripting languag
4.
by hannobraun 4y ago
Code-first CAD is the way to go for some users and some use cases. I personally won't make any stronger claim than that, nor will I accept any sweeping claims to the opposite. The average guy can keep doing what they're doing. For
5.
by hannobraun 4y ago
Hey, creator of Fornjot here. I had experimented with f-rep for years before switching to b-rep for the current iteration of Fornjot. I came to the conclusion that f-rep, while neat, is too limited for what I intend to do. I came to a simil
6.
by hannobraun 4y ago
FreeCAD is GUI-based though, not code-first like Fornjot. A better comparison would be CadQuery ( https://cadquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro.html ) or Cascade Studio ( https://zalo.github.io/Casc
7.
by hannobraun 5y ago
I will definitely keep reading and learning, as well as gaining practical implementation experience. We'll have to see how that goes, and what the solution will end up being. > Another direction you could take is to define just the
8.
by hannobraun 5y ago
> How do you solve that in "code CAD"? I mean referring to a geometry that's a result of some previous operations, not one that you manually created. I've written down some preliminary thoughts here: https:/&#x2
9.
by hannobraun 5y ago
I have a concept in mind, but have no idea yet whether it's going to work out: My idea is to require relationships between geometric objects to always be explicit. For example, you're not allowed to define a point that happens to
10.
by hannobraun 5y ago
No idea :) I know I want it, and that's about the extent of the design work. There's loads of more basic capabilities to add, before it makes sense to tackle constraints.
11.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, creator of Fornjot here. > Shouldn't this be a separate project? Maybe. Not right now, I think. Not much of a point, as long as I'm the one doing most of the work. The kernel is available now as a separate library though,
12.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, creator of Fornjot here. Support for architecture use cases is currently listed on Fornjot's feature wishlist: https://github.com/hannobraun/Fornjot/discussions/146 As is noted there, I lack any exp
13.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, creator of Fornjot here. > I do question whether Rust is the write choice for defining models, You're not the only one :-) As I've written in reply to other comments (here and elsewhere), it was just the easiest option to
14.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, creator of Fornjot here. Fornjot is written in Rust, so starting with Rust as the modeling language was the most straight-forward option. I do agree that Rust is not ideal for this use case. Fornjot is architected to be language-agnost
15.
by hannobraun 5y ago
I agree that a geometric constraint solver is very valuable. Having one built-in is a goal for Fornjot. We're not nearly there, though!
16.
by hannobraun 5y ago
I've been reading Boundary Representation Modelling Techniques by Ian Stroud. Not the most approachable book, and I haven't read nearly all of it, but I already found it very valuable.
17.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. > The modeling language for Fornjot is Rust. To me, this seems like an akward language to write models in. I fully agree! Given that Fornjot is written in Rust, starting with Rust as the modeling language was
18.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. > I do wonder what kind of limitations the author ran into with OpenSCAD Lack of bevels/chamfers, no way to refer to existing geometry (to sketch something on a face and extrude that, for example), no co
19.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. In addition to the article that agucova posted, OpenSCAD is also specifically called out in the FAQ: https://www.fornjot.app/faq/ Second question. (Sorry, there isn't a way to link to
20.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Interesting, thanks for elaborating! I have had similar thoughts: Having a low-level representation that only makes sure that a geometric object you reference actually exists (and does other low-level validations), then have a wrapper aroun
21.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Some of that documentation exists in the issue tracker. But that vision is something I refine as I learn more about use cases and the problem space. So it's not like I can just write down the ideal state right now :-)
22.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. Could you give a bit more detail on what you mean by that? The plan for Fornjot is to use WebAssembly as the intermediate representation for models: https://github.com/hannobraun/Fornjot&#x2
23.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. Chamfered edges are definitely planned! > edit: Models are defined as Rust code. > > Oh... Not sure how to interpret that "Oh.." :-) Rust is the only modeling language supported right now (gi
24.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Fornjot is architected to be language-agnostic. Rust is just the easiest language to support, given that the rest of the project is written in it too. I (author of Fornjot) don't have any near-term plans to add support for other langua
25.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Exactly. All a model does, is build a C-ABI-compatible data structure. And even though Rust is currently the only language supported, Fornjot is architected to be language-agnostic. I don't think Rust is the ideal language for this pro
26.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Well, no. But it's what we currently have. As adamsvystun notes, I have to start somewhere. Making models more convenient to define is planned ( https://github.com/hannobraun/Fornjot/issues/72 ), support f
27.
by hannobraun 5y ago
phkahler is probably referring to the milestone I'm currently working on: https://www.fornjot.app/blog/straight-edges-flat-faces-simpl... Curves (currently only full circles) are supported, but the focus is on bui
28.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. > Yes, I think he's being rather naive about that. Oh yes, definitely :-) Not in the sense that I think it's going to be easy, or anything like that. But I'm definitely (and consciously) focusi
29.
by hannobraun 5y ago
Hey, author of Fornjot here. Thank you for the encouraging words! > I do believe there is a commercial market for this to - a cheaper and easer to use kernal to build cad products on would be very welcome, I could see the potatial for co
30.
by hannobraun 10y ago
It's not very far along, unfortunately. While my vision stayed intact over the course of the project, the specifics changed, and I've changed my approach a few times. Every time that happened it basically reset the progress. I&#x2

More ›