throwgfgfd25

8 ms·

31.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Well, I've just read back through some of your comments and I say that ain't so! Write honestly. Write the way you write. Use your own flow, make your own grammatical wobbles, whatever they are. Express yourself authentically. Don
32.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Is it? I thought that was the draft, as a result of the dialogue in the sidebar. If I am wrong then OK!
33.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Do they not understand that the example text they are using in the first image is so laughably banal that it makes an entire segment of its potential audience not want to engage at all? Shoot me in the face if my own writing is ever that ba
34.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> You're just procrastinating the easy part of CAD. But this is actually like a lot of LLM applications. For example: it's not terribly hard to learn to write a song; you don't even need to know an instrument. The songs LL
35.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
But the thing is, those users are unlikely to have thought of anything novel simply because they are not designers: if the tool is going to be successful then what they want is likely to be in the training set and easily googleable. This
36.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> And I'm sure everyone knows the value of arguing with your friend or coworker over those tiny things, even if it doesn't seem important. Not to mention that in this case, this disagreement over the meaning of ultra-fine deta
37.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> In part this is because I've had more time to think, but there's more to it, when you see the thing "coming alive". Yep. I have two printed prototypes of different approaches to a mechanism on my desk that only exi
38.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
More than a thousand generations of grannies, at that. Additive manufacturing from 30,000 years ago!
39.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
This is one of those classic LLM scenarios that doesn't make sense. If you can tweak the model in a CAD package, you can quite possibly make it in CAD in the first place more quickly than you can manage several rounds of descriptions
40.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
It's not negativity so much as informed dissent.
41.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> I see a lot of comments here to the effect "but it's easier to just do it in CAD in the first place" -- those are experts speaking. This is what I think, and yet I am the longest time away from being an expert. It's
42.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
If I am understanding you right... I don't think this gets you anywhere useful. Even if you could do what you're suggesting with an LLM (I have my doubts) this result would be a mesh or 3D pixel grid or something, yes? This is ter
43.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> anything that gets me through the first 98% is welcome :) Only if the result of the LLM is a good, well-architected parametric CAD model you can adjust, right?
44.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
It does take experience but mostly it takes a little analysis. I'm still really quite green at CAD; I've come to it late in life and I only make relatively simple things, perhaps; only simple mechanisms. But when I look at people
45.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> seriously, I think people overestimate how hard basic CAD work is I think this is one of those things that programmers overestimate worse than non-programmers, too. To the point that they reject CAD UIs too early and get themselves stu
46.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Wow, this is weirdly lovely. I don't think I would code with it (probably!) but it would look great for sort of blackboard-ish code samples in teaching materials.
47.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> (N.B. the Replicad studio code editor on that site seems to be broken today, which is a bummer -- it wasn't when I last checked) And appears now to be fixed.
48.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Oh, I'm a hobbyist. (Well, at the moment. Some things I am making might soon get to the Tindie/Etsy/online sales level.) And you're right it has a place. I'm not totally advocating switching if it works for you. But
49.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
It dismays me to see you still downvoted for asking me the question I should be asked so have an upvote!
50.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> Conversely, what if I want to import STEP files and modify them? Right. OpenSCAD can import and mesh STEP files. But the process throws away the true geometry. I agree that the raster/vector analogy is strong!
51.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
bRep apps can handle and work with meshes (though it's probably not the most efficient way to work with them) but no, generally speaking extracting the real geometry requires redrawing them. You can get a long way by decimating meshes
52.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
Yes -- despite my comment, I am in the same boat. Code-CAD is actually a backup/toolbox item alongside FreeCAD, for me. (The programmer in me would love to be able to leave comments in more places on FreeCAD designs. I have spent a lot
53.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
By "faces" I don't mean triangles. I mean the true geometry of the object. Say for example a single six-sided die: six faces, twelve edges. But this would be twelve mesh triangles, right? None of which individually represent
54.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
One of them is literally a browser-based client-side project; would you expect it to be? https://replicad.xyz/ (N.B. the Replicad studio code editor on that site seems to be broken today, which is a bummer -- it wasn't
55.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> So I think these APIs are coming at the problem from the wrong point of view--they're all about driving the CAD kernel and telling it how to draw abstract shapes in a computer. Instead what I want is to tell the computer how I int
56.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
It is a reasonable point. I am a greenhorn in the sense that I've been learning CAD for my own somewhat complex, multi-part projects for three years. And I am not an industrial designer. Or a mathematician! (I am opinionated.) The poin
57.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
It's really a floating-point rounding issue. It is a bug (well, a limitation), but AFAIR from my own designs, it generally only affects the low-precision, "fast" preview; in the final calculation it won't be an issue. Ne
58.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
I have been exactly where you are right now :-) You are right on a precipice between what you know, and falling into a deep, deep trough of CAD knowledge! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent_lines_to_circles You abso
59.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
> But of course it has a lot of cons: - It isn't multithreaded, so, it doesn't matter if you have an 32-core CPU or a single core. It also doesn't matter if you have a GPU. FWIW these don't have massive benefits for C
60.
by throwgfgfd25 2y ago
This is good -- but they aren't quite the same? [0] And the way they are not the same is (as the GP is saying) rather telling about the challenge of getting really precise things working in OpenSCAD without a pretty solid grasp of math

More ›