![]() Even if you find a solution, these companies are ready to do quite extensive changes to their output formats to avoid widespread use.Ī completely separate problem, but which just happens to also solve the above problem, is the computational geometry problem of approximating triangular meshes describing pipes and pipe T- and Y-joints, using solid geometry pipe structures instead. (After all, if they were, there would be no demand for projects like BRL-CAD or OpenSCAD.) Obviously, the companies behind these software packages are not going to help with that, because it would increase competition, and they are all about software lock-in, not competition or user needs. The optimal solution is to have the commercial programs and pipe rerouting applications export the data as pipe-like structures, instead of triangular meshes. Triangular meshes work, but cannot be sanely edited (as pipe-like structures) in BRL-CAD. We currently cannot import pipe-like structures from commercial programs, except as triangular meshes. I can do the coding its just understanding the problem generally here. I would someone familiar with CAD to assist me in explaning how the converter works and how it could be done. It is very desirable to be able to import these lines using BRL-CAD native geometry via the pipe solid. In BRL-CAD this becomes a "Bag-of-triangles" (BoT) solid which cannot be edited with any efficiency. Currently these lines are imported using an intermediate format such as STL, which is a facetted geometry. Therefore, when importing these lines from high-end CAD packages such as Catia or Pro-E into BRL-CAD, they need to be re-routed so that they reflect the aircraft systems accurately and eliminate any overlapping issues. Typically when lines are received from an aircraft manufacturer to the vulnerability analyst, they may not terminate at the component(s) they were meant to connect to. I never use CATIA and I don't have access to the software.In the design phase of an aircraft, component positions and locations are continually in flux leading to a lag in models of line routing. It's just different menu locations or different names or icons buttons. For example, I can follow some of the tutorials for CATIA originally by using FreeCAD instead of CATIA and end up finishing with the same result. I found that many operating procedures of FreeCAD is very similar to CATIA. It may be better for you to start with FreeCAD first, and then learn python programming when you need to write some macro or move to CADquery later on. But if you don't know python or any other programming language, then the procedure is completely different than Onshape. If you already know the python programming language, then learning CADquery is wonderful and straight forward. Other options such as BrlCAD, OpenSCAD, gCad3D generally require some scripts writing that is somewhat similar to computer programming.Īs another poster pointed out, CADquery is a great option. ![]() If you just want to make parametric models and don't care about any of that, you're probably best off with something else.Īs far as I know, there are no better option than FreeCAD if you are coming from a Onshape operating knowledge background. More users and feedback would help FreeCAD immensely, so it'd be great if you're willing to learn its somewhat-different UI and controls (and also to save frequently!). That all makes me able to tolerate FreeCAD's very noticeable wrinkles. I also strongly dislike the vendor lock-in business model that "free" options like Fusion 360 use. OpenSCAD/CADquery) doesn't really appeal to me, which surprises me since I write code for a living. I prefer using open source software and am very understanding that this project is still in a very early stage and has very few contributors. They did provide migration tools, but they didn't work perfectly in my experience. In some cases, I've recreated models from scratch in the latest version. ![]() I hold onto a copy of FreeCAD 0.16 to make sure I can open files I created years ago. The lack of built-in assemblies is probably the biggest pain point for me.Īlso, the file format changed significantly enough to break accessing older files once in the 5 years I've been using it. However, I feel like it's been in the experimental phase for long enough: it's time to pick the best one and collaborate to add any missing features/functionality that the other ones have. That's a good initial approach because it allows several developers (or teams) to experiment with different approaches. That means it'll sometimes crash and many of the features are still evolving.įor instance, there are several competing implementations for assemblies of multiple parts, which you can install as plugins. It's great if you consider that it's only at version 0.18.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |