ppdaa.blogg.se - Free cad 3d printing software

When it comes to OpenSCAD, my main complaints are that it’s rooted in strictly CSG, and the language does unexpected things at times compared to other “programming languages”. Do these two packages handle these types of cases well? This is something OpenSCAD obviously does well at too. In parametric CAD this is literally finding one parameter (if you’ve done your job correctly) and changing it. As an example, if I have a piece that I’ve made a bunch of M5 screw holes for and later I decide “M5’s are overkill, and M3’s are so much cheaper right now”. I don’t have a lot of familiarity with Sketchup and TinkerCAD, but how flexible are they when it comes to adjusting to changes on the fly? One thing that is nice in parametric CAD is the concept of lots of things can be tied to values that can be altered later, and the “construction history” so to speak can be used to rebuild everything. “How many sides does your cylinder have?” might be being overly pedantic, but I’m not sure how well some CAM packages handle those cases? Dear CAM package, this shaft is not a 50 sided polygonal prism, but is instead supposed to be a cylinder, could you pretend I have one here and maybe use some G02’s and G03’s? It’s a pretty moot point on 3D printing because almost every slicer just works with STL’s, which are triangles. I think all 3 are probably great for a lot of 3D printing tasks (which was the question being asked), but using a lot of triangles when doing other types of CAM seem like a bad idea. ĭifferent horses for different courses (and this course was definitely 3D printing), but I had some generic questions. handy for making parts which must work togetherĮxample: here’s a coffee grounds scoop I designed.can use Customizer source and modify the design (Code)rather than the implementation of the design (the STL).

can generate complicated mathematical models.

relatively small user base - harder to get help.

You write procedures with graphics primitives (cube, cylinder, rotate, translate, et al) to describe the model. If you like programming, you might like OpenSCAD.

Your (and others’) models avail From anywhere.

basic shapes only, but can add/subtract other shapes.

more like traditional CAD (could also be a minus).

has more sophisticated tools than TinkerCAD.Sometimes gets faces “reversed” which can confuse slicers.editing/rescaling can cause bizarre warping if not approached carefully.Can be frustrating when drilling holes.Following that are some comments on OpenSCAD. My comments are mostly contrasting those two tools. More recently I’ve tended to turn to TinkerCAD for quick designs.