I'd agree with much of what you said here. One place I think you are mistaken is how to categorize the OpenSCAD language. I referring to your comments starting around 6:24. Two broad categories of programming languages are imperative and functional. The OpenSCAD programming language is both functional and a scripting language. It is not a general purpose language but specifically is used to describe 2D and 3D models. It can render the model on a computer screen and the model can be saved as a 3D mesh file and/or a 2D image. Generating simple items is simple as you state. One might desire a simpler method to add a fillet to a design.
Don't copy-and-paste to reuse modules, read about "use" and "include". From the manual: For including code from external files in OpenSCAD, there are two commands available: include acts as if the contents of the included file were written in the including file, and use imports modules and functions, but does not execute any commands other than those definitions.
Yes thank you and aware of this ("use" and "include") however the issue is you must also package these files and for many this becomes confusing and also (as I am aware) will not work with Thingiverse Customize so there is a method to my madness...
Subscriber # 916 - you’re almost there!! Any more favours, just ask. (Better late than never). You do me a favour with every video you put up on your DIY3DTech channel, so thank YOU!
Please do not describe GPL licensed software as "freeware" which is a term generally used to describe proprietary software which is free to use. GPL offers users the four freedoms: any use, study, modify and redistribute the improvements.
+Algot Runeman yes understand the difference however in general commentary (as this was used) getting tied up around the axle typically results in the loss of general value the idea is attempting to deliver :-)
You could just use the term "libre software" or even "free software", which helps avoid the negative connotations of "freeware". :) Differences between GPL and non-GPL aside, many of the people I talk to about programs like OpenSCAD seem to assume that if it's free, it must suck. That's definitely not true of community-drive FOSS projects like OpenSCAD and Linux.
"Not sure why "freeware" has negative connotations?" That is just the problem they try to explain for you. Freewere is just about the price, often it's demoware delivered as binary only and with features removed so you can buy the full version later. Free software is a contribution to knowledge, you have the rights to study and change the code, you can buy it and you can sell it but you have control over your computing, you have a chance to be free from a platform that force you to use stuff you don't like. If unsure, please use the words that the people who gave you the software use so you don't insult them.
Not intending to insult anyone, however I see no issue with the term freeware as I am in the software biz, work for large corp and no one has an issue with "freeware" so I am trying to understand why the "issue". As to me it more much a-do about nothing rather than something as to me this is a kin to don't call that HP copier a Xerox :-)
( 4:08 ), It's wise to mention " at the time of making this video " when digging in features offered by competing software's ( and hardware's ). Tinkercad has come a long way ( mid 2017 ). The mentioned lacking feature in Tinkercad has been long passed. I regularly prototype gears ( flat faced ) in Tinkercad before going to Fusion360 for final design. Often the gear and many other parts we cut in Tinkercad are good enough for final production. To me Scad is DOA with it's fundamental dependencies to typing command syntax. Many people use the good ol' copy/paste of known code to get things going but that's so 80's. Perhaps Scad will evolve towards the graphical controlled interface design assist to complement the syntax and code generation in a few development cycles. Until then the freedom and speed of work is in GUi base cad for me. For full disclosure, I regularly tinker with the contributed designs by Scad community and I always admire the patience and dedication they exert in their work.
I agree a bit about Tinkercad, however it still has some holes yet is a good starting place for the average "Joe" (pardon the pun). However I disagree about SCAD being DOA as I can think in code far faster and better then with an "object" I am manipulating in 3d space. Its a little bit to each their own...
" thinking " in code does not translate to code automatically ( yet ). There is the past century typing on the qwerty keyboard in between. Perhaps I should have said it's that fundamental need for typing the code make the application DOA for " some ". I am positively sure the future versions of this software will generate the necessary code already typed in correct syntax without typos while the user is interfacing with it through GUi . Why not !? Any designer can recognize a sphere in a GUi but many people type it as : " 领域 " or " جسم كروى " and many other UN approved form of !
Agree with most of points.. but openscad still works with polygons - you can't compare the quality to (inventor, solidworks, rhino, etc..) - they all have infinite precision, while openscad not - it only has a settable precision, but a circle will still be made out of n-lines (which can cause problems with 3d printers (acceleration/jerk)).
Sorry for the delay as I don't get a chance to check these much, however a tool shed is simply not stocked with just "hammers" as then everything would have to be a nail right? Open-SCAD is not the end all be all of course as it has some huge limitation to, however it is free and programmatic and being an old coder I am hooked. However wish some one would take a version commercial as it could use a bit of polishing :-)
Well for one, current firmwares will happily take a couple dozen advance segments into account when motion planning, and are optimised for handling linear segments rather than curves, because that's what most intermediate files end up being comprised of - whether it's from classic animation-centric modelling packages, from point cloud meshifiers like 3D scanners, or the usually tessellated export out of classic CAD programs that only internally support smooth shapes... i think the way forward for 3D printers is not to concentrate on curves in firmware, but to extend the hardware to handle more segments better, as it would be the more universal solution. An STM32 is both cheaper than current ATMega based solutions and would provide tons more performance and RAM to work with. Still, OpenSCAD being purely mesh based does present its own issues. As to commercial package of the kind - no - i can see myself contributing money or code/effort to open-source project of this kind, but i think such commercial project has no room to exist. It's most valuable as an accessible open interchange format for partial and customisable objects.
@@OpenSCADDIY3DTech I've read through all the comments on this video for some reason and have had a chuckle over as well as nodded my head in agreement to the conversations re freeware, openGL, etc... Some very good points made that are key when discussing such subjects. Frankly I'm smitten with open source because of the fact that it fits a model of complete exposure and allows anyone who chooses to go deep down the rabbit hole on everything from kernel design/development to cad software such as OpenScad. The fact that some of this is free absolutely blows my mind knowing the amount of hours, blood, sweat and tears by so many people to develop such fine products. I think your video was great and I'm subscribing to the channel however, I couldn't let your last comment slip by. "Wish someone would take a version commercial as it could use a bit of polishing"... I think that's counter to the community built up around these products as so many of them are well polished and stand toe to toe with commercial software. Re polishing, it's a known fact that not all software can be everything to everyone and when a vendor attempts it you end up with such a huge piece of bloatware, full of bugs and prone to errors. I digress, my point being, I've spent most of the years of my life supporting and specializing in everything from email architecture to collaborative application development. These "Commercial Products" if you will were certainly well polished however they were just as, if not more so, prone to bugs, design idiosyncrasies that made you want to gouge your eyes out and shortcomings galore. Additionally and often as was the case, the price of these products so outlandish that the average person couldn't afford to utilize them if they wanted to. Top that off with any curious lad or lassy (god I'm old but not old enough to use these terms, lol) wanting to grow their education as up and coming developers, architects, designers, would be stopped dead in their tracks when attempting a peek under the covers at the inner workings. I think a better comment would be there is room for improvement with OpenSCAD as there is for any product. Disclaimer: I'm not offended and no one should be. These are great discussions centered around correctly representing the subject and what lies within. It's not about anything else other than accuracy in description which matters as much when calculating and designing precision parts as it does when communicating about software products, licensing and the effort that goes into making them. /end diatribe ;-) Great channel. Thanks for sharing!
For personal and student use it is still [free] however they have changed to Start Up Lic (well after this video was made) which many such as myself use to use....
![[008] Prototype Enclosures with FreeCAD & OpenSCAD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/38Z7E8OcVd8/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video+explanation+presentation! Thank you SO MUCH for sharing your knowledge! Well done mate - NEW SUB 🙏🏻
I'd agree with much of what you said here. One place I think you are mistaken is how to categorize the OpenSCAD language. I referring to your comments starting around 6:24. Two broad categories of programming languages are imperative and functional. The OpenSCAD programming language is both functional and a scripting language. It is not a general purpose language but specifically is used to describe 2D and 3D models. It can render the model on a computer screen and the model can be saved as a 3D mesh file and/or a 2D image.
Generating simple items is simple as you state. One might desire a simpler method to add a fillet to a design.
Don't copy-and-paste to reuse modules, read about "use" and "include".
From the manual:
For including code from external files in OpenSCAD, there are two commands available:
include acts as if the contents of the included file were written in the including file, and
use imports modules and functions, but does not execute any commands other than those definitions.
Yes thank you and aware of this ("use" and "include") however the issue is you must also package these files and for many this becomes confusing and also (as I am aware) will not work with Thingiverse Customize so there is a method to my madness...
Been stumbling with the order of operations/flow of execution. Any places/references/pointers? Thx.
Yes if you study a few of my code examples you will see I basically use a boiler plate for Union & Diff as well as Translate and Rotate
Subscriber # 916 - you’re almost there!! Any more favours, just ask. (Better late than never). You do me a favour with every video you put up on your DIY3DTech channel, so thank YOU!
Many thanks! That was a very nice comment by the way :-)
Please do not describe GPL licensed software as "freeware" which is a term generally used to describe proprietary software which is free to use. GPL offers users the four freedoms: any use, study, modify and redistribute the improvements.
+Algot Runeman yes understand the difference however in general commentary (as this was used) getting tied up around the axle typically results in the loss of general value the idea is attempting to deliver :-)
You could just use the term "libre software" or even "free software", which helps avoid the negative connotations of "freeware". :)
Differences between GPL and non-GPL aside, many of the people I talk to about programs like OpenSCAD seem to assume that if it's free, it must suck. That's definitely not true of community-drive FOSS projects like OpenSCAD and Linux.
Not sure why "freeware" has negative connotations? Maybe its just my gray hair and the youth of today aren't fond of "free"?
"Not sure why "freeware" has negative connotations?"
That is just the problem they try to explain for you.
Freewere is just about the price, often it's demoware delivered as binary only and with features removed so you can buy the full version later.
Free software is a contribution to knowledge, you have the rights to study and change the code, you can buy it and you can sell it but you have control over your computing, you have a chance to be free from a platform that force you to use stuff you don't like.
If unsure, please use the words that the people who gave you the software use so you don't insult them.
Not intending to insult anyone, however I see no issue with the term freeware as I am in the software biz, work for large corp and no one has an issue with "freeware" so I am trying to understand why the "issue". As to me it more much a-do about nothing rather than something as to me this is a kin to don't call that HP copier a Xerox :-)
( 4:08 ), It's wise to mention " at the time of making this video " when digging in features offered by competing software's ( and hardware's ). Tinkercad has come a long way ( mid 2017 ). The mentioned lacking feature in Tinkercad has been long passed. I regularly prototype gears ( flat faced ) in Tinkercad before going to Fusion360 for final design. Often the gear and many other parts we cut in Tinkercad are good enough for final production.
To me Scad is DOA with it's fundamental dependencies to typing command syntax. Many people use the good ol' copy/paste of known code to get things going but that's so 80's. Perhaps Scad will evolve towards the graphical controlled interface design assist to complement the syntax and code generation in a few development cycles. Until then the freedom and speed of work is in GUi base cad for me.
For full disclosure, I regularly tinker with the contributed designs by Scad community and I always admire the patience and dedication they exert in their work.
I agree a bit about Tinkercad, however it still has some holes yet is a good starting place for the average "Joe" (pardon the pun). However I disagree about SCAD being DOA as I can think in code far faster and better then with an "object" I am manipulating in 3d space. Its a little bit to each their own...
" thinking " in code does not translate to code automatically ( yet ). There is the past century typing on the qwerty keyboard in between. Perhaps I should have said it's that fundamental need for typing the code make the application DOA for " some ". I am positively sure the future versions of this software will generate the necessary code already typed in correct syntax without typos while the user is interfacing with it through GUi . Why not !? Any designer can recognize a sphere in a GUi but many people type it as : " 领域 " or " جسم كروى " and many other UN approved form of !
Cool video)
Thanks!
Agree with most of points.. but openscad still works with polygons - you can't compare the quality to (inventor, solidworks, rhino, etc..) - they all have infinite precision, while openscad not - it only has a settable precision, but a circle will still be made out of n-lines (which can cause problems with 3d printers (acceleration/jerk)).
Sorry for the delay as I don't get a chance to check these much, however a tool shed is simply not stocked with just "hammers" as then everything would have to be a nail right? Open-SCAD is not the end all be all of course as it has some huge limitation to, however it is free and programmatic and being an old coder I am hooked. However wish some one would take a version commercial as it could use a bit of polishing :-)
Well for one, current firmwares will happily take a couple dozen advance segments into account when motion planning, and are optimised for handling linear segments rather than curves, because that's what most intermediate files end up being comprised of - whether it's from classic animation-centric modelling packages, from point cloud meshifiers like 3D scanners, or the usually tessellated export out of classic CAD programs that only internally support smooth shapes... i think the way forward for 3D printers is not to concentrate on curves in firmware, but to extend the hardware to handle more segments better, as it would be the more universal solution. An STM32 is both cheaper than current ATMega based solutions and would provide tons more performance and RAM to work with.
Still, OpenSCAD being purely mesh based does present its own issues.
As to commercial package of the kind - no - i can see myself contributing money or code/effort to open-source project of this kind, but i think such commercial project has no room to exist. It's most valuable as an accessible open interchange format for partial and customisable objects.
@@OpenSCADDIY3DTech I've read through all the comments on this video for some reason and have had a chuckle over as well as nodded my head in agreement to the conversations re freeware, openGL, etc... Some very good points made that are key when discussing such subjects. Frankly I'm smitten with open source because of the fact that it fits a model of complete exposure and allows anyone who chooses to go deep down the rabbit hole on everything from kernel design/development to cad software such as OpenScad. The fact that some of this is free absolutely blows my mind knowing the amount of hours, blood, sweat and tears by so many people to develop such fine products. I think your video was great and I'm subscribing to the channel however, I couldn't let your last comment slip by. "Wish someone would take a version commercial as it could use a bit of polishing"... I think that's counter to the community built up around these products as so many of them are well polished and stand toe to toe with commercial software. Re polishing, it's a known fact that not all software can be everything to everyone and when a vendor attempts it you end up with such a huge piece of bloatware, full of bugs and prone to errors. I digress, my point being, I've spent most of the years of my life supporting and specializing in everything from email architecture to collaborative application development. These "Commercial Products" if you will were certainly well polished however they were just as, if not more so, prone to bugs, design idiosyncrasies that made you want to gouge your eyes out and shortcomings galore. Additionally and often as was the case, the price of these products so outlandish that the average person couldn't afford to utilize them if they wanted to. Top that off with any curious lad or lassy (god I'm old but not old enough to use these terms, lol) wanting to grow their education as up and coming developers, architects, designers, would be stopped dead in their tracks when attempting a peek under the covers at the inner workings.
I think a better comment would be there is room for improvement with OpenSCAD as there is for any product. Disclaimer: I'm not offended and no one should be. These are great discussions centered around correctly representing the subject and what lies within. It's not about anything else other than accuracy in description which matters as much when calculating and designing precision parts as it does when communicating about software products, licensing and the effort that goes into making them.
/end diatribe
;-) Great channel. Thanks for sharing!
Remove the video on parametric objects.
For example boxes select generator with a cover.
Sorry, not following getting at...
There are scripting languages which are interpreted-not compiled, and there is
compiled languages. This simple enough to be a not language at all
I guess as Forrest Gump was found of saying, "Simple is as Simple does" :-)
and fusion 360 is NOT free
For personal and student use it is still [free] however they have changed to Start Up Lic (well after this video was made) which many such as myself use to use....