|
|
|
|
|
|
by krisoft
745 days ago
|
|
|
> since SCAD is "just text", it is categorically easier to work with. I'm happy that you have found the tool you like. I would be vary to be so categorical about something which is fundamentally a preference on your part. I'm not here to tell you that your choice of tool is wrong, and I expect the same courtesy back. When I'm designing I'm creating 2d drawings and 3d bodies. Seeing those things and directly manipulating them is a big benefit for me. This orrery is the most complicated 3d object I ever designed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGdjk5fY87s In particular the roundish bent shape which fixes the upper bevel gears together and holds the reducer gear train at the right depths while also holding the planet's shaft at the right angle. I have no idea how I could have designed that without graphical feedback. |
|
|
I'm not an artist or anything, and while I have made some relatively complex models with Bowler Studio (probably the coolest being a functioning toy elevator for some action figures that I was able to test out digitally before building it IRL, which required a stepper motor and a Z-screw stolen from a broken 3d printer), I'll acknowledge that I am a software engineer first and so of course I stare at plain text multiple hours every day, and that of course defines how I think about problems.
I do think that there are aspects of code-based CAD that do meet some standard of objectivity of being "better", or at least more versatile. I think being able to easily define loops and variables is a feature that is remarkably useful and allows for a lot of flexibility that I haven't really seen in any GUI program.
Also, OpenSCAD renders a 3d image on every file save. You can even have OpenSCAD open and edit in a separate text editor and it still works. Is that not enough graphical feedback?