TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

OpenSCAD: Software for creating solid 3D CAD objects

216 点作者 justadudeama超过 6 年前

24 条评论

tjoff超过 6 年前
It really saddens me that people are recommending fusion 360 here.<p>Sure, I get it. Fusion 360 is an awesome piece of software. But are people really <i>that</i> eager to be completely dependent on autodesk?<p>Do people not realize that perhaps the reason for why fusion 360 is so cheap is because they are aiming (and on a fast track) to get complete monopoly? Does that not bother anyone? You wouldn&#x27;t even be able to stick to an older version of the software.<p>Can you even version control your files? (will you in the future, without buying the premium package?) Yes I know the cloud has your back and everything. But you don&#x27;t want the files in the same version control system that you use for everything else? What&#x27;s next, save your python files in another cloud? It&#x27;s absurd.<p>Can you export your files to be workable in any other software? (aside from very expensive autodesk products)<p>Are you not risking loosing <i>everything</i> you ever produced? It&#x27;s like python2 -&gt; python3 but instead of compatibility issues your code just disappears or held hostage. How is that OK even for a hobbyist?<p>I&#x27;m sure I&#x27;m mistaken on some points (please correct me!), because I vomit every time I decide I want to try it and start the download process and start reading their pages (and I don&#x27;t think I even got to the privacy policy).<p>The whole application is architectured to lock you in. That is the <i>SOLE</i> purpose of it, why do we accept that?<p>It is dystopian, and the devil is being universally cheered upon. Have we really lost all hope?
评论 #18805317 未加载
评论 #18805158 未加载
评论 #18805197 未加载
评论 #18807108 未加载
评论 #18805691 未加载
评论 #18805187 未加载
评论 #18826684 未加载
评论 #18806387 未加载
donpdonp超过 6 年前
I gotta put in a plug for SolveSpace. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;solvespace.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;solvespace.com&#x2F;</a> its got its quirks but it hits a sweet spot between using a GUI and specifying dimentions numerically. I think it might be abadoned, as it seems to need a serious update of some of its concepts, but as long as you stay under a certain complexity level its fun and open source.
评论 #18804800 未加载
评论 #18804989 未加载
qaute超过 6 年前
A (non-exhaustive) list of hobbyist-accessible engineering CAD programs I can recommend:<p>- Fusion 360 (Windows&#x2F;Mac) (free for hobbyists) can do complex many-component robots or simple geometric shapes and has facilities for rendering and simulation. I&#x27;ll concur with all the other recommendations I see here.<p>- OpenSCAD (Windows&#x2F;Mac&#x2F;Linux) (GPL) is text-based, which is nifty but really limiting. Good for generating triangulated files of complex-but-formulaic objects (e.g., gears&#x2F;screws), but is ~10x slower to use than Fusion for most anything else. Would definitely not attempt to use to design an assembly of multiple parts.<p>- SolidWorks (Windows) ($$) is industry-standard. IMO, slightly better (smoother&#x2F;faster&#x2F;more robust) for modelling medium-to-large things than Fusion 360.<p>- OnShape (clound-based) ($$ but IIRC has hard-to-find public&#x2F;free tier) is notable for working in a web browser (good for Linux users). Seems to have a bunch of plugins, but actual CAD capability is run-of-the-mill. [EDIT: also has a functional CAD-on-phone app. Like, wow.]<p>- FreeCAD (Windows&#x2F;Mac&#x2F;Linux) (GPL) is the open source Fusion&#x2F;SolidWorks equivalent option. Needs a lot of work (e.g., good part assembly capabilities) and I find it rather clunky. I wouldn&#x27;t learn CAD here, but I do really want a community-developed Linux desktop CAD program.
评论 #18806238 未加载
评论 #18805557 未加载
评论 #18804997 未加载
评论 #18804603 未加载
评论 #18804782 未加载
评论 #18804506 未加载
评论 #18805366 未加载
评论 #18810086 未加载
评论 #18805204 未加载
评论 #18804516 未加载
syntaxing超过 6 年前
Mechanical Engineer here and I design stuff in CAD for a living. OpenSCAD is great for the basic stuff but doesn&#x27;t really scale well. It&#x27;s fun to play with and to teach people programming and CAD at the same time. If FOSS is really a concern, FreeCAD is probably the better route.<p>However, like others said, Fusion 360 for hobbyist is the way to go. For professionals, just go with Solidworks. IMHO, it works better than anything (though I only also know and have been trained how to use Inventor, Creo, and NX so I do not know how other software like Catia will compare). Solidworks is way more advanced than Fusion 360 when you need to design something a bit more complex. Don&#x27;t forget, CAD modeling is only half the work. Making good drawings is the other half and Fusion 360 drawing capabilities is pretty crappy as of right now.<p>As for the FOSS debate, it&#x27;s quite interesting because no one in the industry cares about being locked in. $4000 for a license is nothing compared to &quot;$140&#x2F;hr&quot; rate that engineers cost a company. As long as the software works and the engineer produces tangible results, closed source software will continue to dominate.
评论 #18807942 未加载
japanuspus超过 6 年前
A great way of getting started with OpenSCAD is (blockSCAD)[1], which is a scratch-type graphical editor (that can switch back and forth between text and block code). While I don&#x27;t usually like block code, it actually works really well in the setting of OpenSCAD, and because of the one-to-one mapping between blocks and written code the editor can switch back and forth between the two.<p>A related project is (openJSCAD)[2], which uses the same geometry logic as openSCAD, but embed it into javascript for flow-control and related logic. I really like this approach, since it avoids having to pick up yet another DSL. The openJSCAD online editor also features an local-file integration that blew my mind when I first saw it.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.blockscad3d.com&#x2F;editor&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.blockscad3d.com&#x2F;editor&#x2F;</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;openjscad.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;openjscad.org&#x2F;</a>
评论 #18805271 未加载
sokoloff超过 6 年前
For simple geometric models for 3D printers, it&#x27;s hard to beat OpenSCAD for precision and productivity.<p>It&#x27;s not particularly good for more organic shapes, but simple mechanical parts are a dream to make.
评论 #18804437 未加载
bibomator超过 6 年前
I&#x27;ve used opendSCAD and also freecad for years (linux). Now I just ordered a new PC for running windows and Fusion360. Am I happy with that solution? ... not really. I would be happy to support an open source CAD project with 3-5€ a month if I got a decent and stable SW in return. I do likewise with octoprint. Why I&#x27;m in the process of changing? My time is limited and I feel that certain things should be faster toolwise. Additionally it happened more then once, that I had to scrap work of several hours because I hit a point with a reproducible crash. (yes - I did file a bug report ... it was answered more then a year later asking me for the buggy design ... which I could not provide anymore)<p>I understand that a stable SW and continuous improvement (especially in a complex SW package like CAD) needs a small team of full time developers. If somebody started a related croud funding campaign with a follow up patreon financing program ... I would be in!
评论 #18805833 未加载
gnulinux超过 6 年前
I generally like OpenSCAD but its language is not very feature rich. E.g. it still does not support generalized extrusion, offsetting, subdivision (e.g. Catmull-Clark subdivision), bezier curves etc which I find it hard to use for anything more complex than a screw. They use CGAL as a dependency, so they should be able to implement these. But it&#x27;s a promising CAD for sure.
评论 #18804851 未加载
ndnxhs超过 6 年前
Its a lot less scary than it looks and I found it to be much much easier to use than freecad. My workflow on freecad was basically just typing numbers in to the properties panel for shapes so why not just do the same thing but as a text file so I can see more at once.
评论 #18803922 未加载
iamwil超过 6 年前
A couple years back, I wrote a beginner post on learning OpenSCAD. It seemed to have helped people get up and running. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cubehero.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;11&#x2F;19&#x2F;know-only-10-things-to-be-dangerous-in-openscad&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cubehero.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;11&#x2F;19&#x2F;know-only-10-things-to-be-da...</a><p>Other than that, you can check out <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;openscad" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;openscad</a>, for what other people are doing with it.
评论 #18806422 未加载
ComputerGuru超过 6 年前
I can&#x27;t recommend Fusion 360 enough (it&#x27;s free for non-industrial use and cross-platform) for non-professionals looking to model 3D CAD for prototypes, POCs, hobbyist consumption, etc.
评论 #18805163 未加载
评论 #18804383 未加载
评论 #18804297 未加载
nicwest超过 6 年前
I recently bought a 3D printer and have enjoyed programing objects in cljoure with scad-clj.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;farrellm&#x2F;scad-clj" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;farrellm&#x2F;scad-clj</a><p>This is biggest project I know of that uses it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;adereth&#x2F;dactyl-keyboard" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;adereth&#x2F;dactyl-keyboard</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=uk3A41U0iO4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=uk3A41U0iO4</a>
评论 #18805820 未加载
eltoozero超过 6 年前
I can’t believe that nobody has mentioned the Prusa FDM 3D printers are, and have always been designed in SCAD[0].<p>This alone has been instrumental in allowing community improvements, it’s the last “true” reprap, they run a farm of 300+ machines and iterate parts somewhat frequently.<p>Pretty amazing that there is one molded part on the entire machine, the spool holder.[2]<p>There was also some “archeology”[1] on the traditional CAD dead-ends from a specific extruder design that I found facintating.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.prusa3d.com&#x2F;prusa-i3-printable-parts&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.prusa3d.com&#x2F;prusa-i3-printable-parts&#x2F;</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reprap.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Genealogy_&#x2F;_Archeology_of_the_Greg&#x27;s_Wade&#x27;s_Geared_Extruder" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reprap.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Genealogy_&#x2F;_Archeology_of_the_Greg&#x27;s...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;la3dpr&#x2F;status&#x2F;1072393398722670594?s=21" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;la3dpr&#x2F;status&#x2F;1072393398722670594?s=21</a>
bsilvereagle超过 6 年前
Another option for programmatic parametric CAD is cadquery: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dcowden.github.io&#x2F;cadquery&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dcowden.github.io&#x2F;cadquery&#x2F;index.html</a><p>A cadquery FreeCAD plug-in exists, so some tasks can be done via the GUI and others programmatically.
评论 #18806439 未加载
评论 #18804015 未加载
omeid2超过 6 年前
While I really enjoyed working with OpenScad, I find ImplicitCad[0] to be far more <i>functional</i> (excuse the pun), the language is just more easy to reason about.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.implicitcad.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.implicitcad.org&#x2F;</a>
评论 #18806748 未加载
评论 #18804466 未加载
评论 #18804606 未加载
wlll超过 6 年前
For those curious about what you can do, I designed and 3d printed this small robot using OpenSCAD:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sendcat.com&#x2F;dl&#x2F;BLB0593VKWdC8p61VVmDxA9Yy0eR9EtLl33qLVLt2FEwIzkbCbjgJzd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sendcat.com&#x2F;dl&#x2F;BLB0593VKWdC8p61VVmDxA9Yy0eR9EtLl33qL...</a>
jake_the_third超过 6 年前
The apt-packaged version of OpenSCAD was broken for the current LTS version of ubuntu and hasn&#x27;t been fixed yet. You&#x27;ll need to download it from an alternative source if you want it on 18.04. Works well on 16.04 though!
评论 #18804003 未加载
andybak超过 6 年前
Has the post title been altered by mods? I recall last night it mentioned something about Scad being parametric or programmable - a fact that made this post potentially more relevant to HN readers.<p>It&#x27;s a terribly generic title now.
jmpman超过 6 年前
Better integration with Python would make OpenSCAD 1000% more usable.
评论 #18803783 未加载
deckar01超过 6 年前
OpenSCAD&#x27;s performance only scales with the clock speed of a single CPU core. On any sufficiently complex composition, the underlying geometry engine will eventually either slow to a crawl due to combinatorial node visits or fail to render due to opaque assertion failures. This is not the basket to put your eggs in for professional modeling. It will let you down and there is no clear path to making it better any time soon.
rebuilder超过 6 年前
There&#x27;s also Graphscad, which is a node-based interface for openscad. I only just learned about it myself, so haven&#x27;t tried it yet, but it looks extremely cool to me!<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;graphscad.blogspot.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;graphscad.blogspot.com&#x2F;</a>
johnmarcus超过 6 年前
My only problem with Autodesk products is they refuse to support Linux. I hated having to have Windows just for one shitty piece of software.
zbrozek超过 6 年前
I feel like OpenSCAD is extremely good for generative art (where its programming language is useful), but sorely lacking for designing functional hardware. It doesn&#x27;t even have a measure tool! It&#x27;s vastly too slow at previewing and rendering, and building everything out of various intersections of basic solids is cool at first and rapidly becomes infuriating. While not FOSS - but still suitable for tinkerers - Fusion 360 and SolidWorks both have maker-friendly licensing and are dramatically superior tools.
评论 #18804278 未加载
anonlastname超过 6 年前
In OpenSCAD you build your part by constructing its convex hull. This is done by using primitives with known convex hulls such as rectangles and spheres and combining them using operations such as addition, subtraction, union, and Minkowski sum (which is an interesting peice of mathematics.)<p>Because you interact with shapes using code, it feels much more precise than a GUI. I think this makes it easier to create parts that aren&#x27;t &quot;glitchy.&quot; You want your part to have the minimal amount of detail and using code makes this easier because you can keep track of the steps to draw your shapes to see if you made any unnecessary changes.<p>OpenSCAD made me think about CAD in a different way.