R
Robin2
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 10:42 AM
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
NH
nop head
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 10:55 AM
Yes you can't query the geometry in OpenSCAD but I never need to do that
because I specify the geometry precisely with maths.
I don't make anything with hand tools, so I don't need dimensioned
drawings. I make my designs so that they fit around parts they need to
mount or mate with. I don't care what the final dimensions are, they are
often far from round numbers due to the build up of parameters and
clearances and radii. If I want to sanity check something, I examine the
STL in NetFabb before printing it.
Before OpenSCAD I used CoCreate but since switching to OpenSCAD I would
never consider a GUI based CAD system because I a computer programmer, not
a mechanical design engineer. I can't even sketch anything in 3D and have
difficulty imagining 3D shapes. I start with a mental model of how the non
printed parts need to be arranged and design the plastic around them.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 11:35, Robin2 robin@nbleopard.com wrote:
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
Yes you can't query the geometry in OpenSCAD but I never need to do that
because I specify the geometry precisely with maths.
I don't make anything with hand tools, so I don't need dimensioned
drawings. I make my designs so that they fit around parts they need to
mount or mate with. I don't care what the final dimensions are, they are
often far from round numbers due to the build up of parameters and
clearances and radii. If I want to sanity check something, I examine the
STL in NetFabb before printing it.
Before OpenSCAD I used CoCreate but since switching to OpenSCAD I would
never consider a GUI based CAD system because I a computer programmer, not
a mechanical design engineer. I can't even sketch anything in 3D and have
difficulty imagining 3D shapes. I start with a mental model of how the non
printed parts need to be arranged and design the plastic around them.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 11:35, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
> I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
> Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
> could learn either or both of them if necessary.
>
> It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
> other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
> questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
> the
> corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
> can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
> rotated or scaled.
>
> However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
> You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
> interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
>
> Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
>
> As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
> i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
> there
> are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
> of
> an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
> not be an option.
>
> ...R
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
A
arnholm@arnholm.org
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 11:55 AM
On 2019-10-02 12:42, Robin2 wrote:
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad
(and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that
is the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And
you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have
been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is
mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
It is a fair assessment.
OpenSCAD and similar programs are based on the Constructive Solid
Geometry method (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_solid_geometry ), which is
kind of an implicit way of defining a model, which makes it harder to
refer to details in the model. Another thing is that the OpenSCAD
language explicitly does not allow any model queries, this is a design
choice. Another difference is that the OpenSCAD internal model
representation is mesh based using CGAL, which is fundamentally
different from the internal model representation in FreeCAD.
In FreeCAD, the internal representation is based on OpenCascade, which
is a boundary representation model (BREP), and not a mesh model. The
OpenCascade model is much more complex and more equivalent to
traditional CAD programs. OpenSCAD (and AngelCAD) are not directly
comparable because of the mesh representation.
Whether you can "ask questions" or not is related to the internal
representation and difficulties of referring to parts of the model, but
it is not the whole story. It is also a question of design philosophy.
Carsten Arnholm
On 2019-10-02 12:42, Robin2 wrote:
> It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad
> (and
> other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
> questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that
> is the
> corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And
> you
> can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have
> been
> rotated or scaled.
>
> However with Openscad the process of defining a model is
> mono-directional.
> You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
> interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
>
> Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
It is a fair assessment.
OpenSCAD and similar programs are based on the Constructive Solid
Geometry method (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_solid_geometry ), which is
kind of an implicit way of defining a model, which makes it harder to
refer to details in the model. Another thing is that the OpenSCAD
language explicitly does not allow any model queries, this is a design
choice. Another difference is that the OpenSCAD internal model
representation is mesh based using CGAL, which is fundamentally
different from the internal model representation in FreeCAD.
In FreeCAD, the internal representation is based on OpenCascade, which
is a boundary representation model (BREP), and not a mesh model. The
OpenCascade model is much more complex and more equivalent to
traditional CAD programs. OpenSCAD (and AngelCAD) are not directly
comparable because of the mesh representation.
Whether you can "ask questions" or not is related to the internal
representation and difficulties of referring to parts of the model, but
it is not the whole story. It is also a question of design philosophy.
Carsten Arnholm
F
fred
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 1:07 PM
I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having parametric values in a translate command provides that information for future use.
I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having parametric values in a translate command provides that information for future use.
I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
AC
A. Craig West
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 1:26 PM
There are two use cases I can think of for being able to query objects for
information. One is when you import external objects and then wish to add
things to them. The second is to make implementing generic library code.
In the first instance, I spend a LOT of time rendering objects with shadow
cubes in various positions to determine the actual dimensions of the
imported objects. This work then has to be repeated whenever the original
object is updated to a new version. Tinkercad appears to be particularly
bad for putting objects in different positions every time...
The second instance can be worked around by adding parameters but it is
essentially redundant information. For example, a module to put a hole
through a cube could have parameters to specify the size and the
orientation of the cube, but this is essentially redundant and prone to
failure. Any time the same data needs to be specified twice, you are making
updates to the code more difficult to get right.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 09:08 fred via Discuss, discuss@lists.openscad.org
wrote:
I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric
manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in
this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.
cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those
assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having
parametric values in a translate command provides that information for
future use.
I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm
thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our
makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 robin@nbleopard.com
wrote:
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
There are two use cases I can think of for being able to query objects for
information. One is when you import external objects and then wish to add
things to them. The second is to make implementing generic library code.
In the first instance, I spend a LOT of time rendering objects with shadow
cubes in various positions to determine the actual dimensions of the
imported objects. This work then has to be repeated whenever the original
object is updated to a new version. Tinkercad appears to be particularly
bad for putting objects in different positions every time...
The second instance can be worked around by adding parameters but it is
essentially redundant information. For example, a module to put a hole
through a cube could have parameters to specify the size and the
orientation of the cube, but this is essentially redundant and prone to
failure. Any time the same data needs to be specified twice, you are making
updates to the code more difficult to get right.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 09:08 fred via Discuss, <discuss@lists.openscad.org>
wrote:
> I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric
> manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in
> this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
>
> cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.
> cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those
> assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having
> parametric values in a translate command provides that information for
> future use.
>
> I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm
> thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our
> makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
> Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but anyone
> could learn either or both of them if necessary.
>
> It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
> other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
> questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
> the
> corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
> can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
> rotated or scaled.
>
> However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
> You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
> interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
>
> Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
>
> As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
> i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
> there
> are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
> of
> an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
> not be an option.
>
> ...R
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
NH
nop head
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 1:29 PM
I never specify the same thing twice. If I need a position twice I usually
make it a module that positions its children and call it multiple times.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:27, A. Craig West acraigwest@gmail.com wrote:
There are two use cases I can think of for being able to query objects for
information. One is when you import external objects and then wish to add
things to them. The second is to make implementing generic library code.
In the first instance, I spend a LOT of time rendering objects with shadow
cubes in various positions to determine the actual dimensions of the
imported objects. This work then has to be repeated whenever the original
object is updated to a new version. Tinkercad appears to be particularly
bad for putting objects in different positions every time...
The second instance can be worked around by adding parameters but it is
essentially redundant information. For example, a module to put a hole
through a cube could have parameters to specify the size and the
orientation of the cube, but this is essentially redundant and prone to
failure. Any time the same data needs to be specified twice, you are making
updates to the code more difficult to get right.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 09:08 fred via Discuss, discuss@lists.openscad.org
wrote:
I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric
manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in
this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.
cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those
assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having
parametric values in a translate command provides that information for
future use.
I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm
thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our
makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 <
robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but
anyone
could learn either or both of them if necessary.
It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
the
corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
rotated or scaled.
However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
there
are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
of
an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
not be an option.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
I never specify the same thing twice. If I need a position twice I usually
make it a module that positions its children and call it multiple times.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:27, A. Craig West <acraigwest@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two use cases I can think of for being able to query objects for
> information. One is when you import external objects and then wish to add
> things to them. The second is to make implementing generic library code.
> In the first instance, I spend a LOT of time rendering objects with shadow
> cubes in various positions to determine the actual dimensions of the
> imported objects. This work then has to be repeated whenever the original
> object is updated to a new version. Tinkercad appears to be particularly
> bad for putting objects in different positions every time...
> The second instance can be worked around by adding parameters but it is
> essentially redundant information. For example, a module to put a hole
> through a cube could have parameters to specify the size and the
> orientation of the cube, but this is essentially redundant and prone to
> failure. Any time the same data needs to be specified twice, you are making
> updates to the code more difficult to get right.
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 09:08 fred via Discuss, <discuss@lists.openscad.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that if one creates OpenSCAD code in a parametric
>> manner, it is not necessary to query an object. By creating the object in
>> this way, you've "told" OpenSCAD everything that you'd need to know later.
>>
>> cube([10, 20, 5]); definition is fine for many.
>> cube([b_width, b_depth, b_height]); allows for referencing those
>> assignments as often as necessary. If location is important, having
>> parametric values in a translate command provides that information for
>> future use.
>>
>> I learned this method from another OpenSCAD user, many moons ago, and I'm
>> thankful for having been put on the right track. As I assist others in our
>> makerspace, I do my best to pass along what I've learned.
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 6:35:37 AM EDT, Robin2 <
>> robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't mean the user-interface, which is obviously very different between
>> Openscad and Freecad. Different people like different interfaces but
>> anyone
>> could learn either or both of them if necessary.
>>
>> It seems to me there is a more fundamental difference. With Freecad (and
>> other similar CAD programs) you can define an object and later "ask
>> questions" about that object. For example you can select a point that is
>> the
>> corner of a cube and it will tell you the coordinates in 3D space. And you
>> can locate the surface of a face of the cube even though it may have been
>> rotated or scaled.
>>
>> However with Openscad the process of defining a model is mono-directional.
>> You define the object (such as a cube) and you can have no further
>> interaction with it. You cannot "ask questions".
>>
>> Is this a fair assessment, or am I completely muddled?
>>
>> As I see it very many projects can be created with an Openscad approach -
>> i.e. without ever needing to be able to "ask questions". But I suspect
>> there
>> are some projects where the ability to easily locate a point or a surface
>> of
>> an existing object would be essential. And for those cases Openscad would
>> not be an option.
>>
>> ...R
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
>> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
>> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
NH
nop head
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 1:35 PM
I suspect it is just as impenetrable as the other programs for someone
who has no experience of programming and does not know how to conceive a
programmed solution for a problem.
Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the general
public. Mechanical engineers I know would use a conventional CAD program
and would have no idea how to write programs or use OpenSCAD and even a
good friend that is an experienced programmer prefers conventional CAD and
thinks I am mad to use OpenSCAD.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Robin2 robin@nbleopard.com wrote:
Thanks, and also to @nophead.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice without
him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they can
decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will have
to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use - so
they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be sufficient.
There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a fidget
spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
novice.
If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
problem.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
> I suspect it is just as impenetrable as the other programs for someone
who has no experience of programming and does not know how to conceive a
programmed solution for a problem.
Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the general
public. Mechanical engineers I know would use a conventional CAD program
and would have no idea how to write programs or use OpenSCAD and even a
good friend that is an experienced programmer prefers conventional CAD and
thinks I am mad to use OpenSCAD.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
> cacb wrote
> > It is a fair assessment.
>
> Thanks, and also to @nophead.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice without
> him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they can
> decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will have
> to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use - so
> they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
> waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be sufficient.
>
> There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a fidget
> spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
> the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
> video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
> novice.
>
> If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
> lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
> impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
> programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
> problem.
>
> ...R
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
R
Robin2
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 1:36 PM
Thanks, and also to @nophead.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice without
him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they can
decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will have
to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use - so
they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be sufficient.
There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a fidget
spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
novice.
If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
problem.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
cacb wrote
> It is a fair assessment.
Thanks, and also to @nophead.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice without
him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they can
decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will have
to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use - so
they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be sufficient.
There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a fidget
spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
novice.
If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
problem.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
RP
Ronaldo Persiano
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 2:54 PM
Besides his or her preference for a programmer's approach in modelling, the
OpenSCAD user should be fairly comfortable with geometry and math.
A quarta, 2/10/2019, 14:36, nop head nop.head@gmail.com escreveu:
I suspect it is just as impenetrable as the other programs for someone
who has no experience of programming and does not know how to conceive a
programmed solution for a problem.
Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the
general public. Mechanical engineers I know would use a conventional CAD
program and would have no idea how to write programs or use OpenSCAD and
even a good friend that is an experienced programmer prefers conventional
CAD and thinks I am mad to use OpenSCAD.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Robin2 robin@nbleopard.com wrote:
Thanks, and also to @nophead.
I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice
without
him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they
can
decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will
have
to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use -
so
they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be
sufficient.
There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a
fidget
spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
novice.
If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
problem.
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
Besides his or her preference for a programmer's approach in modelling, the
OpenSCAD user should be fairly comfortable with geometry and math.
A quarta, 2/10/2019, 14:36, nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> escreveu:
> > I suspect it is just as impenetrable as the other programs for someone
> who has no experience of programming and does not know how to conceive a
> programmed solution for a problem.
>
> Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the
> general public. Mechanical engineers I know would use a conventional CAD
> program and would have no idea how to write programs or use OpenSCAD and
> even a good friend that is an experienced programmer prefers conventional
> CAD and thinks I am mad to use OpenSCAD.
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Robin2 <robin@nbleopard.com> wrote:
>
>> cacb wrote
>> > It is a fair assessment.
>>
>> Thanks, and also to @nophead.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out how to explain the differences to a novice
>> without
>> him or her needing to understand the technical foundations so that they
>> can
>> decide which program is best for what they want to make. A novice will
>> have
>> to take the trouble to learn no matter what program they decide to use -
>> so
>> they should not waste time learning one that cannot meet their needs or
>> waste time learning a complex program if a simpler one would be
>> sufficient.
>>
>> There are many instructional videos on Youtube (for example making a
>> fidget
>> spinner) that demonstrate the different programs. But the reality is that
>> the person making the video already knows how to use the program so the
>> video does not give a fair impression of how easy it would be for the
>> novice.
>>
>> If you know the basics of programming then Openscad's learning curve is a
>> lot more gentle. But, at least to start with, I suspect it is just as
>> impenetrable as the other programs for someone who has no experience of
>> programming and does not know how to conceive a programmed solution for a
>> problem.
>>
>> ...R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
>> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
R
Robin2
Wed, Oct 2, 2019 4:43 PM
Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the
general public.
That seems to me a very narrow marketing concept.
I agree that professional engineers are not the target market but shouldn't
the Openscad community be looking for ways to get as many hobbyists as
possible to use Openscad - even if they are not programmers?
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
nophead wrote
> Yes I would think so, but it is a CAD tool for programmers, not the
> general public.
That seems to me a very narrow marketing concept.
I agree that professional engineers are not the target market but shouldn't
the Openscad community be looking for ways to get as many hobbyists as
possible to use Openscad - even if they are not programmers?
...R
--
Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
