6 ms·

This is a neat idea and I quite like some of the syntax, but what is this for? I have a hard time seeing this gaining traction over traditional sketch-based CAD

This is a neat idea and I quite like some of the syntax, but what is this for? I have a hard time seeing this gaining traction over traditional sketch-based CAD for a number of reasons, so is it just meant to be a toy?

sho_hn 10mo ago
Hmm - are you familiar with OpenSCAD, which is highly popular? This would appear to compete there. There's a few others, e.g. CadQuery.
- lovemenot 10mo ago
  Such languages can be amenable to LLM generation, reducing barriers to entry.
  - aclindsa 10mo ago
    Just yesterday I had an LLM write an openscad module for generating a 2d rounded rectangle. It worked great! I then tried to get it to write a module to extrude a 2d shape into a 3d shape and it failed spectacularly several times before I gave up.
    - ponyous 10mo ago
      Interesting. I’m building a SaaS around this idea. And I managed to do things waaay more complex than that using LLMs. Especially “several times”. My AI can do a parametric trophy cup from one prompt in a couple of attempts, I would be shocked if it didn’t know how to make rectangular cube…
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10mo ago
    I’ve tried getting Gemini to follow descriptions to generate a simple object in OpenScad. I finally got it to do what I wanted. But I’m much much faster and if didn’t have some amateur CAD experience, I don’t know I would have ever succeeded.
  - jwagenet 10mo ago
    The hard part with 3d part creation isn’t the graphical interface or language, it’s actually describing and translating part requirements to a manufacturable design, weighing material, weight, fit, geometric, and cost tradeoffs. Openscad, opencascade, etc have been around for a long time and have specs for describing features in a way that llm should be able to handle, but if all the part constraints were available it’s far faster to make accurately in Solidworks.
    - atrettel 10mo ago
      This is my experience too. I took a course a long time ago in design for manufacturing, and it became abundantly clear that just because you can conceive of an idea doesn't mean that you can build it. That requires a lot more work and technical know-how that isn't always put into books or other "training data".
Normal_gaussian 10mo ago
I'm a much more capable of designing useful models by programming than I am in using CAD software. The way I think about the construction of models is much more suited to standard programming techniques. I freely admit there is probably immense value in using the industry standard tools instead... I've printed a few projects now which I used OpenSCAD to design, and it went fairly well, and I'm confident in them. OpenSCAD is a bit of a PITA though. I have no idea if this approach might gain traction over sketch-based CAD, I doubt it; yet this approach has a strong chance of expanding the space.
- WillAdams 10mo ago
  If there was a real possibility of folks being willing to use this sort of UI in industry, BRL-CAD would be far more popular, and writing AutoLISP scripts wouldn't be an obscure specialty.
raddan 10mo ago
I would personally prefer to work with a language-based CAD than a strictly graphical one. Especially for parametric kinds of objects. Now that 3D printing is going mainstream, I am certain that new and interesting things are still to come in CAD.
- krisoft 10mo ago
  Curious. How much experience do you have with any form of CAD? Is the preference based on that you tried graphical CAD software and you found them lacking, or is it based on imagining how they might work? Last week at the hackspace someone asked me to quickly design a manifold which holds together a scuba mouth piece, a 48mm diameter valve and a nato 40mm screw fitting. They wanted to minimise the internal tidal volume of the manifold, while keeping enough clearance for the tubes connected to it. We ended up connecting the 3 fittings in a Y-shape and lofted the pipes together. Without seeing the resulting shape I can’t even start to guess how many edges it would have. And I have no idea how I would refer to which edges i want filleted. How would you approach something like that with your prefered method?
  - fainpul 10mo ago
    I've also been asking myself what people do with programmatic CAD. I've used OpenSCAD once to create a simple, cylindrical object, but about 80% of the things I create (using conventional CAD, like Fusion 360) would be way too complex for that. And even the simplest shapes are just much faster to create and modify in Fusion. Maybe this is the "everything looks like a nail" problem for programmers who have never tried CAD?
    - joker99 10mo ago
      I recently used this https://makerworld.com/de/models/1765102-10-inch-mini-rack-generator https://makerworld.com/de/models/1765102-10-inch-mini-rack-g... to generate various mounts for my home lab mini rack. The idea is that everything needs to fit into the same width of rack, but every device is slightly different so custom creating these becomes annoying quickly. This generator was a godsend

sho_hn 10mo ago

Hmm - are you familiar with OpenSCAD, which is highly popular? This would appear to compete there. There's a few others, e.g. CadQuery.

lovemenot 10mo ago
Such languages can be amenable to LLM generation, reducing barriers to entry.
- aclindsa 10mo ago
  Just yesterday I had an LLM write an openscad module for generating a 2d rounded rectangle. It worked great! I then tried to get it to write a module to extrude a 2d shape into a 3d shape and it failed spectacularly several times before I gave up.
  - ponyous 10mo ago
    Interesting. I’m building a SaaS around this idea. And I managed to do things waaay more complex than that using LLMs. Especially “several times”. My AI can do a parametric trophy cup from one prompt in a couple of attempts, I would be shocked if it didn’t know how to make rectangular cube…
- 2muchcoffeeman 10mo ago
  I’ve tried getting Gemini to follow descriptions to generate a simple object in OpenScad. I finally got it to do what I wanted. But I’m much much faster and if didn’t have some amateur CAD experience, I don’t know I would have ever succeeded.
- jwagenet 10mo ago
  The hard part with 3d part creation isn’t the graphical interface or language, it’s actually describing and translating part requirements to a manufacturable design, weighing material, weight, fit, geometric, and cost tradeoffs. Openscad, opencascade, etc have been around for a long time and have specs for describing features in a way that llm should be able to handle, but if all the part constraints were available it’s far faster to make accurately in Solidworks.
  - atrettel 10mo ago
    This is my experience too. I took a course a long time ago in design for manufacturing, and it became abundantly clear that just because you can conceive of an idea doesn't mean that you can build it. That requires a lot more work and technical know-how that isn't always put into books or other "training data".

Normal_gaussian 10mo ago

I'm a much more capable of designing useful models by programming than I am in using CAD software. The way I think about the construction of models is much more suited to standard programming techniques. I freely admit there is probably immense value in using the industry standard tools instead... I've printed a few projects now which I used OpenSCAD to design, and it went fairly well, and I'm confident in them. OpenSCAD is a bit of a PITA though. I have no idea if this approach might gain traction over sketch-based CAD, I doubt it; yet this approach has a strong chance of expanding the space.

WillAdams 10mo ago
If there was a real possibility of folks being willing to use this sort of UI in industry, BRL-CAD would be far more popular, and writing AutoLISP scripts wouldn't be an obscure specialty.

raddan 10mo ago

I would personally prefer to work with a language-based CAD than a strictly graphical one. Especially for parametric kinds of objects. Now that 3D printing is going mainstream, I am certain that new and interesting things are still to come in CAD.

krisoft 10mo ago
Curious. How much experience do you have with any form of CAD? Is the preference based on that you tried graphical CAD software and you found them lacking, or is it based on imagining how they might work? Last week at the hackspace someone asked me to quickly design a manifold which holds together a scuba mouth piece, a 48mm diameter valve and a nato 40mm screw fitting. They wanted to minimise the internal tidal volume of the manifold, while keeping enough clearance for the tubes connected to it. We ended up connecting the 3 fittings in a Y-shape and lofted the pipes together. Without seeing the resulting shape I can’t even start to guess how many edges it would have. And I have no idea how I would refer to which edges i want filleted. How would you approach something like that with your prefered method?
- fainpul 10mo ago
  I've also been asking myself what people do with programmatic CAD. I've used OpenSCAD once to create a simple, cylindrical object, but about 80% of the things I create (using conventional CAD, like Fusion 360) would be way too complex for that. And even the simplest shapes are just much faster to create and modify in Fusion. Maybe this is the "everything looks like a nail" problem for programmers who have never tried CAD?
  - joker99 10mo ago
    I recently used this https://makerworld.com/de/models/1765102-10-inch-mini-rack-generator https://makerworld.com/de/models/1765102-10-inch-mini-rack-g... to generate various mounts for my home lab mini rack. The idea is that everything needs to fit into the same width of rack, but every device is slightly different so custom creating these becomes annoying quickly. This generator was a godsend