Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:23:30 UTC No. 993097
>>993073
which CAD software should I invest my time in?
Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:27:28 UTC No. 993102
>>993073
Plasccity trial expired can't use it anymore, I feel sad
Anonymous at Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:17:42 UTC No. 993112
I actually did some stuff in FreeCAD with zero CAD knowledge. I hit a lot of bugs but it did work.
Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:06:37 UTC No. 993237
>>993112
How could you be so sure they were bugs if you entirely lacked any prior knowledge?
Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 01:20:22 UTC No. 993252
>>993073
For me, it's Autodesk Inventor with 30% extra session crashing.
Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 05:24:55 UTC No. 993281
>>993237
>shit crashes
>shit explodes (constraint solver finding a solution that's not a solution)
Anonymous at Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:16:05 UTC No. 993287
>>993073
Tried 123design it's shit
>>993102
Once you trial it that's it, developers made s tier security and it's uncrackable
Anonymous at Thu, 29 Aug 2024 03:54:39 UTC No. 993587
Freecad is a weird combination of totally usable and frustratingly limiting. I am able to design most of what I need (fairly simple stuff though) but as soon as I try to do something in an order it doesn't like, the whole thing crashes. Will be nice in 5-10 years I think.
Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 06:48:12 UTC No. 993705
>solidworks simulation
>solution goes to 80% in 10 minutes
>sits there for the next 5 hours going back and forth between 3 and 17 gigs of ram
>"Study failed"
Every problem involving contact interactions has been a pain so far. I'm not even mad anymore.
Anonymous at Fri, 30 Aug 2024 21:04:19 UTC No. 993745
>>993073
>>993287
nothing is uncrackable, he just paid crackers not to crack it
Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:28:59 UTC No. 993782
As an outsider I HATE 3d software.
Why do I need to install some arcane software whos GUI is build by fucking brain damaged people to do one fucking thing?
In this case engraved text on a curved surface.
Why can't these fuckwits make even importing models intuitive?
I made this in autocad btw and want text on the curved recess.
I'm attempting to use inventor but this shit is maddening.
Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:31:35 UTC No. 993783
>>993097
fucking none. learn a trade instead because shit is built by fucking twisted retards.
Autocad is ok
Anonymous at Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:37:21 UTC No. 993784
>want to insert a file into current document?
Hit OPEN. WTF fucking zoomer devs you total Cumbrians
>imported asset
>puts it in an asset tab with no visible way of importing into main workspace
I will murder on sight any 3D software dev I meet
Meltie over for now
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 08:25:13 UTC No. 994033
>>993587
I've managed to make a few things with freecad with it being the only cad software I've used. But it seema like I can never continue working on a saved project once it has been closed and reopened, nothing ever works again. I have to treat it like an 8bit videogame and complete it in one sitting.
It is incredibly satisfying when you actually get that cumbersome hunk of shit to make something slick though.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:21:45 UTC No. 994081
I feel bad for people who don't use Catia
Anonymous at Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:52:53 UTC No. 994379
>>993097
for me rhino, expensive as hell but easy to get around if you willing to renew the 3 month demo version with a different email each time lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:06:43 UTC No. 994424
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 06:20:50 UTC No. 994663
>>994424
how much do you want?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:44:38 UTC No. 994667
>>993705
I deal with SW Simulation as a job, and I hate it with a passion, I tried asking management to get an Ansys license to no avail because it costs too much and there's not enough demand.
Going back to SW Simulation, first off the progress bars mean nothing, seriously, they barely qualify as vague suggestions. Secondly if your simulation runs for 5 hours and then fails you've got a stupid fine mesh while the analysis isn't properly modeled. Try with a VERY coarse mesh first, see if it runs, see if the results make sense; then, when you know it runs, use a finer mesh or, better, add mesh controls on the surfaces and edges you want to see in more detail.
If it fails, well I got a whole spreadsheet of errors and failures, full of possible causes and possible solutions, so I can't help you there without more informations.
To be clear, solve time doesn't mean the simulation is fucked, I had simulation run for 25 hours (it was an entire electric motor for an e-bike) and produce good results, but it all comes down to what you're analyzing and how you set up the simulation.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 10:43:10 UTC No. 994671
I'm going to use Blender to do CAD work again because learning another software is a pain
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 05:05:00 UTC No. 994759
>>993792
Texturing with a displacement map would be way easier. You don't really see this type of process in real life machining because it's extremely complicated to perform.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 17:38:16 UTC No. 994822
>>994663
Not sure, it's an electron app LMAO.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:13:15 UTC No. 994890
>>994671
I need to do this to because converting files between programs is making me ultra-violent.
How hard is it to align objects? This is the most basic function I need speaking as the autoCAD psycho above.
It’s so unintuitive but I just want to zero in any shape I make and move by integer on an axis. That’s it.
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:16:15 UTC No. 995022
Now every time I add a bolt connector in sw simulation the document units switch to meters. What the actual fuck. Every default I'm aware of is set to mm.
>>994667
In my experience coarse mesh fails the study more often than not, or at least yields questionable results. Fine mesh not so much aside from when solution takes so much time that I get tired of waiting and cancel it myself.
In that particular case the issue was probably parts slipping against each other under load (it was actually the point of study to see if they will), but instead of prompting about large displacement like usual, the solver decided to bug out for some reason.
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:01:48 UTC No. 995037
>>995022
>every time I add a bolt connector in sw simulation the document units switch to meters
That's a new one.
>coarse mesh fails the study more often than not
Not to backpedal, but I meant "coarse" in a relative way, which is always dependant on the problem at hand. In any way, a failure after 5 hours is usually a symptom of bad modeling and mesh issues. Ideally you want that failure to happen much faster so you can troubleshoot your mesh (check for high aspect ratio elements, negative jacobian, shit base geometries, etc) more efficiently.
>parts slipping
Conctact analysis is a bitch in SW, getting it to behave requires esoteric knowledge not even Dassault has. Be mindful about the sleazy trick SW plays on us every time you mess with the model and then go back to the simulation: it may automatically switch the contact between faces you had previously defined to a self-contact, which usually doesn't work when you have two different bodies. I have wasted DAYS of machine time on this shit, fucking hell. Also, if you're studying slipping I assume you set a proper friction coefficient, but keep in mind SW doesn't like very high coefficients, and on the other side of the spectrum it won't go below 0,05.
Also, what's your usual node count? My workstation at the office is a somewhat recent Xeon with 128GB of ECC memory and a proper nvme drive, and I try staying below 3~4 million nodes at most (an analysis like that takes from 10 to 25 hours), and below 1 million if I can help it, with running times in the order of 4~8 hours; less than 500 thousand if I want something to shit out results within the day; if the problem allows it, I can use less than 200 thousand nodes if I want it to finish in a matter of minutes.
Anonymous at Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:49:28 UTC No. 995379
>>995037
>a symptom of bad modeling and mesh issues
For one, that model had lots of unnecessary details that now that I think about it could be simplified or cut out altogether.
>it may automatically switch the contact between faces you had previously defined to a self-contact
Ah so that's what it was. I had a really cursed study a while ago where either some contacts would fall through each other for no obvious reason, or the study would fail due to "numerical difficulties". That's what probably was happening. Good to know.
>keep in mind SW doesn't like very high coefficients
The real coefficient would be at least 0.3, and the max 0.2 sw takes without complaints should've been just barely enough in theory (under the assumption of uniform contact pressure - which it isn't, hence the study) so the idea was that if 0.2 will work then the real thing will work even better.
>Also, what's your usual node count?
I don't really pay attention to that. I usually just tune mesh size by feel depending on how much time I'm willing to spend on it. Solution time can vary wildly depending on number of contacts and how well the model behaves after all. The study right now with 750k nodes, with every contact that have to watch out enabled just finished in 4.5 hours. With only essential contacts that move by design it takes 1h 40 min. With everything bonded it finishes in under 7 minutes. I'm running it on i5-12400, in a VM with 24 Gb of ram.
When I'm just fiddling with stuff I usually try to keep the solution time under half an hour, and only run longer studies when I want to verify the final design that I'm reasonably sure I won't have to fix and run again.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 12:02:23 UTC No. 995548
any fusion chads here? also i write websites in php and use an iphone. feels good to get paid and watch you nerds squeal over tools lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:09:38 UTC No. 995885
>>993705
>>994667
Have you tried Catia V5? I have an old R20 somewhere.
The V5 is the standard for Airbus and our aviation business overall.
SW is honorable but it's not as powerful.
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:13:26 UTC No. 995886
>>995164
How do i contact you?
Anonymous at Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:46:48 UTC No. 995892
>>995885
>>994667 here. I work in a studio, we have all the softwares so whatever our client has, we can work with it too. I've seen CATIA, but never used it. UI is shit, and that's pretty much all I can say about it. As for the "powerful", I think it all comes down to handling large assemblies with millions of components and integration with a robust PDM that might set it apart from everything else. As for actually modeling in it, I don't know, but one of the good thing about SW is that being so widespread there's always something online that will help you learn or solve a situation, while the same can't be said about CATIA. In the end all CAD work pretty much the same (more or less). Just today I was reading SW2025 highlights and my impression is that DS is doing basically the absolute bare minimum to keep all these softwares afloat, because SW works like absolute ass, but the features and fixes are so few and far in between to be laughable. Also, unless you work in some massive corporation that does massive projects it's infinitely more likely for you to encounter SW than CATIA.
Anonymous at Mon, 23 Sep 2024 23:39:39 UTC No. 996227
>>995886
What os?
Anonymous at Tue, 24 Sep 2024 07:44:30 UTC No. 996273
Plasticity user here. How can I start learning to make AAA quality firearms? I know modeling in general fairly well but guns have been quite difficult for me in CAD software. Any good pirated courses? What guns should I create as a beginner?
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:06:24 UTC No. 998446
Is there a CAD package that
>is cheapish (max $500/yr, inb4 pirate)
>has parameters that integrate with Google Sheets/Excel
>has text parameters that can be imported to a model/2d geometry
>has g-code export (not a need, but a nice to have)
I want to do a little sign business out of my garage. Ideally I would have products that are customizable without having to go in and change the model with each iteration.
I want to be able to put Basic Girl's(tm) last name/family motto/marriage date w/e into a spreadsheet and have a router table shit out
"(Basic Girl Name) and (Basic Guy Name) married (year) at (stupid town they live in)"
or w/e.
I use Inventor at work, string parameters are abhorrent. I have to do a work around to import text parameters from excel. It's also more than I need for mostly 2d signs.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:30:19 UTC No. 998587
Let's talk CAD!
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:30:41 UTC No. 998614
for me, it's IronCAD. The tri-ball is GOAT
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:32:01 UTC No. 998615
>>998446
alibre, probably.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:26:31 UTC No. 998636
>>998615
>>998446
Just mucked around with it a bit - they don't do the integration I need.
Currently I have to use an iPart in inventor, and then edit the iPart table in Excel since you cannot populate the regular parameter table with strings from Excel.
I am sure this functionality exists somewhere - how many part configs have different things engraved in them? Surely they don't expect engineers to manually change the engraving for each different part iteration.
wan00
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:29:27 UTC No. 998688
>>994890
>How hard is it to align objects?
It's possible, the features are there, but it's very tedious to do in default Blender without addons
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:30:28 UTC No. 998694
>>998636
yeah I think you have to script it in python
https://www.alibre.com/3d-cad-scrip
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:51:15 UTC No. 998781
>>998446
Inkscape is easy enough to script. The gcodetools plugin might suitable.