CAD real strength is iteration and measurements. If you need to iterate a design more than 2 to 3 times, CAD is way faster because it keeps all of its build history and relationships between things. It does look like that plug-in is bringing the gap between both styles. The other advantage of CAD is measurements, every part of the modeling workflow has measurements which can be easily changed at any point. Really handy if you want to scale up a part but keep gaps the same 2mm.
If you need any sort of fitting two parts together, that should be done in CAD. However if you only need a really complicated accurate-to-eye shape, then just use blender and forget about absolute precision. I sometimes get the best of both by modeling the aesthetic surfaces in blender and importing the dimensions that need fitting from cad as STL after I am done and then export STL to manufacture. Or just use CAD to give you dimensions to begin with then work on the rest. just remember not to touch those surfaces that need to be precise and don't use any modifiers that might ruin the mesh
Not every CAD editor uses absolute constraints, and there are a lot of times when they're the last thing that you could possibly want even in a complex precision model. Worse is that some editors FORCE absolute constraints whenever an edge (or even a node) touches another edge or face, and that will inevitably wreck your design completely if you have any motor control or eyesight issues and aren't using script based modeling.
I really like how free blender is but I also like how straight forward solidworks operates, having a best of both worlds really is nice to see so thank you for this video!
Defining models using polygons is also "mathematical". A better term for how geometries are defined in cad is "procedural", in that a function (a "procedure") is used to define the object's surface, rather than a bunch of triangles. Also, as many others have mentioned, the parametric nature of CAD software (being able to change variables and steps in the history of the construction of the model) is essential because parts often need adjustments and fine-tuning. Blender can't do any of this and I highly recommend anyone who doesn't agree to try making parts in an actual CAD program to experience the difference. Mesh Machine seem like a good solution if you want to make CAD-looking art in Blender, but the workflow you've explored looks like a nightmare compared to actual CAD software. Fusion 360 is a fantastic CAD package that is also free for personal use, so in the end just use the right tool for the right job.
Also important: CAD software uses a more compact representation of surfaces by not only allowing flat surfaces but arbitrary curved surfaces but also basic geometric shapes. The end result will be more precise.
technically, vanilla Blender is also capable of procedural generation, but the UI is significantly more complicated. You have to define the geometry as a directed graph of mathematical operations or equations in a node editor, instead of using the 3D mesh editing interface, making it difficult to see what dimension each parameter corresponds to. However, this interface is similar to the interface used by some topology optimisation software such as Rhino/Grasshopper. Alternatively, you can use NURBS which also procedurally generates surfaces and can be interacted with directly in the model editor interface, but currently NURBS in Blender are not parametric and also not compatible with boolean operations. I believe there is another add-on not mentioned in this video which allows you to observe and change parameters directly in the model editing interface without switching to node editor, but I don't know how it interacts with boolean operations.
Geometries defined in terms of polygons are also procedural; namely, the procedure is to go through the list of polygons and draw them. The other word you used -- "parametric" -- is a much better fit.
The great thing about CAD modeling is that you can define those size parameters as later changeable variables. And you define constraints (how geometry relates to other geometry) for everything. This allows you to fine tweak certain parameters at any point in time by changing the variables, and the software will correctly recalculate the whole object with the newly specified sizes. This is indispensable when modeling parts for manufacturing and allows iterating quickly.
For me, the main advantage of parametric modeling (CAD software) over polygon modeling (Blender) is: - you can control the dimensions of features much more precisely while also having the size of less important features be driven and changed automatically as necessary. (Whenever I watch you model anything it's always an arbitrary size, which is hard to come to terms with as a mechanical engineer) - changing the model is super easy. Even after it's completely modeled, changing something is often as simple as changing a number, whereas with a polygon model I'd almost have to re-do the whole thing. Now, I have yet to find a way to turn these parametric models into clean polygon meshes. Exporting these models to a polygon mesh is easy, but often gives horrendous meshes and is a nightmare to clean up for further work.
I use both Solidworks and Blender (and AutoCAD) in my day to day work. I'm glad I don't have to use any complex CAD stuff in Blender, and when I do they are minor players so I don't care much about shading errors. But there is also no way I would use Blender for any CAD work. CAD parametric modeling isn't about "infinitely subdivided meshes", but about NURBS surfaces/patches containing desired/described tangencies that blend into each other, using zebra stripes and curvature combs to ensure things works as intended. Also it's used for stress analysis, technical documentation and communication, flow modeling, cost analysis, material reduction, evaluating physical properties, assembly simulation and interference checking, machining exports and g-codes (via builtin CAM), plastic mold injection, cut and bend sheets for sheet metal, nested parts lists, drawings for fabrication, installation, and inspection (and likely others); and that's just within my own discipline. As far as surfacing and surface smoothness goes, Blender doesn't stand a chance. When I use Blender, I fillet for highlight catching. When I use Solidworks, I fillet for "how it feels in you hand" and "how reflections run". It's not like Solidworks can't run into issues with simple circular fillets we tend to use out of sheer lazyness, but Blender just can't do many of the much tougher fillets we can do in Solidworks - although they can be tricky af and require a lot of fiddling around. He should check out "Will It Fillet?" on the DiMonte Group Inc youtube channel and try to recreate those in Blender. But if I don't need that accuracy and it's not for product production and only visuals, yeah Blender all the way. Solidworks absolutely sucks in the rendering department as far as general purpose goes, although it can be decent enough for basic product rendering if you already have the model. Mesh machine doesn't turn Blender into CAD, it just makes Blender an improved poly modeler. I swear to both Solidworks and Blender for different uses. I also swear *AT* both sometimes...
Idk what you're using your exported meshes for, but I 3D print STLs straight out of SOLIDWORKS/NX/fusion and have never needed to clean anything up for any reason
@@mattmurphy7030 With STL we get a triangulated mess with no information about "custom normals". For 3D printing that doesn't matter. For rendering it means a lot of work (depending on mesh complexity and data within it) cleaning the mesh up in order to be able to use smooth shading. Rendering within SW doesn't cause these issues, as custom normals are likely calculated under the hood but cannot be part of the STL export.
@@gottagowork I totally agree, but something kinda funny is that the one I picked was about blending the ends of fillets using surface fill, and Blender just had to implement curvature aware fills as part of their bevel upgrade project, so hopefully they expose those tools soon! not expecting the same level of control, but as a Fusion 360 user I don't even have "surface fill" available, so...
EXCELLENT. I have no experience in CAD and simply searching if I can even export a Blender model, or any polygon-designed model in CAD, led me to here. Just understanding the basic difference via a quick introduction really helps. Thank you!
I finally understood the difference between the CAD modeling and mesh modeling. My thoughts were, why people use expensive CAD softwares if you can do all types of precise 3d modeling in blender as well.
If a model is based on mathematical calculations (as is usual in CAD), this has another disadvantage: parallel processing is much more difficult to implement in software terms. Therefore, most CAD programs benefit little from the number of CPU cores during the main part of the work, but much more from the clock frequency. But, I would like to add a few things about some daily needed advantages of CAD: - A construction history (important in mechanical engineering) can be stored directly in a STEP-file. - When handing over drawings (design data) to manufacturing companies, the STEP format (including all dimensional tolerances, surface quality, etc.) is almost mandatory. - And, the most annoying part: Authorities require correctly dimensioned and standard-compliant 2D(!) drawn plans. This calls for appropriate options (keyword: paper space). I've been working with CAD (in the field of factory planning) professionally for more than 30 years and quite honestly: I hate it more and more. And as much as I love Blender and try to use it in as many areas as possible (as an example, Blender was surprisingly proven to be incredibly flexible and fast when it comes to creating cable layout plans in industrial electrics and automatisation), it lacks so many basic things to compare it to professional CAD in this area.
@@JoshGambrell For another CAD option for Blender with *REALLY* precise geometry definition, check out 'CAD Sketcher': ruclips.net/p/PL6Fiih6ItYsXlk87595sDny7VnvQu3PoS Cheers!
CAD depends on single core performance because it uses a linear model history, not because it's mathematical. You obviously can't calculate a feature until you calculate the features it depends on.
The point of cad isn't things like being able to add or change a round on intersects faster. It's mainly about the different functionality that engineers need after the model is done that matters, and honestly the workflow with it is just a necessary hassle at this point. You can do so many things with cad models now, it's insane: -take your geometry with it's material data and see how it will handle the stress your part is expected to take, and then optimize the shape to take the least material required -see how high-pressure molten plastic will flow when injection molding said part, where spouts will work best, where liquid jet fronts will meet and leave an ugly line, etc. -send the model directly with annotations embedded into it for machining instead of having to draw it, but even if you do have to draw it makes it 3x faster than 2d autocad and about 7x faster than hand drawing it, now you can even get fast free machining price estimation just by uploading a model -with cam you can make cnc programs for your machine and tools for a given part -simulating complex behavior like an entire turbine's thermal cycles that would take actual years with pen and paper calculations -things like running mass amounts of tubing/wiring or generating entire gearboxes with simple prebuilt conversational tools -you can take an entire machine's plans and check if any components will intersect (meaning you've made a mistake) -we can simulate for example what vibratory modes you have to look out for that would cause catastrophic damage seemingly out of nowhere with 0 early warning signs in the past -simulating gravity or vibration driven processes, like dispensing machines and such -creating press dies for things like car structural elements with only minimal post-production work required -generating automatic bill of material for your product -simulating the effects of processes like welding or heat treatment on materials or things like how strands break apart over time in polymers from fatigue stress -skip modelling and placing connecting elements (like screws, locating pins, etc.) manually -new stuff like generative design that makes geometry automatically based on what forces will act upon the part This list is incomplete even on the mechanical front, and as far as I know there are lists just as large for electrical and civil engineering as well. Any good cad software's worth (and insane price) lies in these baked in functionalities that merely use the 3d model as something to build upon. It's theoretically possible to develop a massive suite of blender add-ons to fulfill all of these purposes, but I suspect that parametricity as a programming technicality is what made the insanely fast development of these tools possible in the first place.
I come from a background of using CAD for over a decade and recently have started to learn modeling in Blender and Maya. I've had headaches trying to figure out how to do things that are so easy in CAD. This add-on seems like a huge advantage.
@@yash1152 I have different uses for them. CAD I use for my engineering projects, product design, and 3D printing. I use Blender for animation and some modeling. I guess more generally, I use CAD for work and a little hobby, but Blender strictly for hobby. Most anything I make in CAD, will eventually come together in real life too, but my Blender projects remain virtual, for the most part.
@@ktcottrell thanks for the input. 1. have u tried direct modelling paradigm in CAD - though not all CAD software provide it. 2. Is there anything (tangible) that u'd like to see improve or become available in CAD systems which will reduce ur use of Blender?
@@yash1152 I mean I use whichever one depending on what I'm doing. You can't really make high quality animation or renderings in CAD, so I use Blender. I might make some scene objects in CAD if I know I can do it faster in CAD, but generally I'd use Blender because I'm already there and I can likely get better details and edit whatever I'm doing later down the line much easier if I just do it in Blender. There's nothing that would reduce my usage of either, really. They're 2 separate things more or less. Its like asking if there's any changes to Word that would reduce my usage of Excel.
As a retired engineer with 37 years of experience I very very STRONGLY prefer working in PTC's (Parametric Technology Corp.) high end CAD program Creo (Formerly Pro-Engineer). At least for modeling. But I'd never want to go back to Creo for several reasons. First it costs THOUSANDS of dollars AND requires regular extremely expensive yearly payments for each "seat" or user, that I just can't afford. Secondly what keeps me busy in retirement is learning how to make my own animated shorts that get as close to photo-realistic as possible, something that really isn't practical in Creo. Creo does do rendering, sort of. But photo-realistic it most definitely is not. Creo doesn't come close to the same level of control you get using Blender for things like lighting, texture control, and a list of other things far too long to detail here. And there's just no way you could animate a human in clothes with cloth simulation in any reasonable amount of time without an entire team of people to do it. Even then the results would be pretty crappy. I have tried outputting meshes from Creo to bring in to Blender back when I was still a working stiff, but Creo has all the same problems Blender does with messed up n-gons, overlaping geo, and vertices that are way too close to edges they aren't a part of. So basically, that solution is a non-starter that won't save you any time or headaches. (Yes I've seen all those videos about importing CAD meshes from Cad programs but all of them involve very simple examples that are easy to work with, not the really tough stuff that requires literally a week of exasperating clean up ). For those who say try the CAD Sketcher addon... I would. I have it. I even have it installed. But sadly (or actually wonderfully) that addon is developing SO quickly that as far as I can tell there isn't a tutorial up to date enough to bother watching. And those that do exist are pretty poorly produced. Basically you have to download those videos so that you can go frame by frame to catch things they do - just for example - with hotkeys, that they assume everyone knows about, when many of us don't, so you always get to a point where you're permanently stuck and can go no farther. Always a HARD FAIL for any tutorial. The bottom line: If you're designing a machine for manufacture, use a sufficiently advanced piece of CAD software. But if you're working more in the visual arts end of things use BLENDER (or if you're independently wealthy something like Unreal Engine which I still think produces the most realistic looking renders and animations).
If you like Creo but don't want to pay then just use Fusion. That doesn't solve your animation needs, but CAD isn't the tool to use for organic animation period
I like to think of CAD as 3D modeling without understanding point cloud, and Blender is 3D modeling without understanding part tolerances. I used both but I've found the workflow in blender to be a lot easier, especially if I'm designing something that requires organic curves. I just use the measureit plug-in to get my tolerances right. Sure it requires a little preconfig of the start file to make the environment and tool to scale 1:1 with reality, but once I had set that up... All of my CNC/resin/additive projects were being done through blender within 0.01mm tolerance. It's not for everyone and it may not even be the best method, but it's worked great for me. And the only reason I take this route is because the plethora of programs out there that are just as complex to learn are also ungodly expensive. Blender came up to me as a starving, overworked student and said; "No charge, and we have a ton of in-depth tutorials for you online at no charge too." I likely would not have continued 3D work if not for blender, because there was no way in hell I was going to pay thousands a year for a subscription to an industry-standard program.
05:25 ALT-Click the SAME EDGE !!! My goodness, It's been years I wonder how to master that ALT-Click properly, cause I never ever got it right. I alt-clicked nearly everywhere wondering why it didn't work. Thanks a gazillion times, Josh !!!
MOI3d is not CAD but NURBS-modeling software. It's not the same, not at all. For example In CAD bevels/chamfers are some sort "objects" which you can select and change radius in any time or just delete. Deleting will not cause holes in geometry, but Moi3D will leave holes. Fusion 360 uses 3 types of geometry workflows: 1)Solid-geometry pipeline, which is its main 2) NURBS 3) Sub-D tools which resembles Polygonal Subdivision in polygon 3D-software.
@@NIXO3D Fusion 360 is the first and only integrated cloud CAD, CAM, CAE, and PCB software platform of its kind - that's Autodesk statement. Moi3D is neither. Does NURBS makes Maya also a CAD?
@@SuperSuperka You said: "For example In CAD bevels/chamfers are some sort of "objects" which you can select and change radius at any time or just delete. Deleting will not cause holes in geometry, but Moi3D will leave holes." That's exactly CAD. In CAD, if you delete the bevel you create a hole. You have to know what the focus of each software is. For example, I work with Rhino which is CAD software and it has also Sub D and mesh and polygon modeling, but in the end, Is CAD software. You can't select and change the radius of your bevel in CAD that's called CAM. Like Fusion and Solidworks and NX and CATIA.
@@SuperSuperka And also NURBS curves are commonly used in computer-aided design (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and engineering (CAE). And usually, CAM software is also CAE software.
@@NIXO3D Robert McNeel & Associates never ever named Rhino3D a CAD, so its you who did it. Also SolidWorks, which has bevels, holes, etc as objects *is a CAD* and that is what about you can read in WIKI or on Solidworks site itself
In simpler terms: CAD preserves the accuracy of the features of the model. This hole is exactly this size in exactly this position relative to these two other features. That way when you build the real-world object, everything fits. But the mesh it generates is just a visualization, and the geometry of the mesh is none of your business. 3d modeling tools like blender, OTOH, preserve the accuracy of the mesh. The vertices, edges, and faces are precisely defined, and whether a given shape is interpreted as an octagon or a circle is up to you. The software guarantees it won't mess with your mesh geometry unless you say so, but it doesn't preserve any of the original *meaning* around any shapes. CAD tools are for people who need to preserve what the geometry represents, while modeling tools are for people who need to preserve the geometry itself.
@@mattmurphy7030 both *can* preserve history, but neither is required to. It's just that cad history is more rigidly defined and easier to incorporate. But things like modifier stacks in blender are examples of preserving a mutable history of operations on a mesh using roughly the same technique as cad programs use.
I'm complete noob in 3d modeling, but I guess main difference is that Blender works with meshes, CAD works with rules ... like this hole has 3mm radius and it's located 15mm from this edge and 50mm from that edge. You may change any of these anytime. If you move the edge, hole moves as well. If there is some object bound to the hole, it moves with the hole. If you want to make array from that hole, it's easy. In Blender, you make box, you make cylinder, you substract cylinder from the box. Both object are destroyed - you may remove some faces, fill the hole in the mesh model, but all the information about object like shape or geometry does not even exists - box are 6 vertices, I think 18 edges and 12 faces. I found myself using Blender extremely hard and/or hard to learn. Same applies to FreeCAD, SolidWorks is likely easier despite it can do much more. If I need some simple 3D model, I use OpenSCAD, where definition is a text file. If I want to render it, blender is quite handy.
Three areas where I see Blender working in manufacturing are subdivision surfacing, sculpting, and geometry nodes (+excel fields, attributes). Subdivision surfacing can be used and converted to B-surfaces if done carefully in low poly. The surfaces can then be tweaked and constrained later in CAD. The old fashioned way of surface matching is very expensive, slow and tedious. Hi poly sculpted geo can now be processed to create tooling. Hasbro has painfully forced Zbrush to do this but has managed well. Geometry Nodes can be used to generate parametric models in niche ways CAD packages can only do simplistically or inefficiently. It actually works very nicely for mathematically optimizing a complex design, because all your parameters aren't stuffed into a one dimensional expression menu, but can be customized in a visual way. Engineering departments have gotten rid of designers over time, but not everything you manufacture should or will be fillet machined into blocks and cylinders. I think we have a lot of untapped talent focusing only on video game development that design departments could use if they were to think outside the "box".
Plasticity is the next gen for hard surface. Really like its user friendly approach. Blender is too troublesome in that regad, unless modeling with quads )
i will look into it for sure but don't forget that you still need to export and import it back to blender or any 3d software if you want to do anything with it rly. Which is why i still want to master poly modeling but i am open for CAD approaches
All you need for blender is Quad remesher, Hardops and boxcutter for hard surface. Mesh machine is cool and all but I am not buying it just for it to cleanup a boolean mesh. I would rather manually clean up the mesh so I can understand how to create quads and do manual topology.
One critical thing for CAD software is the ability to make drawings from your models... But for simple 3D printed stuff with wide tolerance and so on it's great. Or visualization of course.
Some shops have moved away from paper based definition to model based definition, or a combination of both. Despite what people might think, faceted "dumb solid" data (instead of B-surf) could still be used for that purpose. A ref is ASME Y14.41-XXXX Digital Product Data Definition Practices and ISO 1101:2004 Geometrical Product Specifications. Some of the measuring addons coming out are looking pretty good and templates can be put together for sheet sizes. I would still use CAD for manufacturing, but I don't see why a company couldn't use Blender in their pipeline if it's the right fit.
@@modelenginerding6996 Please show me the CAM software that can deal with faceted bodies because I had no idea that exists. I can't possibly imagine a machine shop accepting faceted models and no drawings.
@@mattmurphy7030 Solidworks and F360, etc can convert to breps. Blender's subdivision surfacing converts directly to bsurfaces in Rhino or SW, NX. Shops have been handling mesh geo for years, it's just slow to be adopted and not something you want to use for high rate production without further processing. Hasbro uses high density voxels in zbrush for their product definitions, as an example. It's up to their tooling shops to make it happen.
As someone who learned simple modeling on CAD software first, Blender has always been a challenge for me to wrap my head around and conceptualize how to take advantage of it. This plugin might finally get me to use Blender more often, since it will help me preserve the workflow I already understand.
For me the biggest advantages of CAD are parametric modelling and constraints. And the biggest struggle is that it's pretty often can't do some intuitively obvious modifications, like adding bevels, to a complex geometry. Sometimes history breaks after parameters change and it becomes a complete mess.
I feel like you're kind of misrepresenting what CAD is about. It's not just about infinite resolution. Everything in CAD is parametric and dimensional. You can edit features upstream and the whole model history updates to incorporate the changes. You can make engineering drawings directly from models. There's no analogue to these features in polygonal modeling. This plugin might let you edit the subdivision of a fillet, but that's a hack--editing the fillet is innate in CAD.
Very true, however that's from a product industrial design and mechanical engineering point of view. Producing real objects for manufacture or construction. That world is a completely different kind of design discipline from the 3D modeling done for entertainment industries, tv, movie, effects, game assets, virtual props, etc. "Hard surface modelling" - these objects may look like the kind of things that could be manufactured, but the vast majority of these "assets" never will be (unless for actual one-off physical movie props or costumes or the like.) High precision and parametrics and production mechanical drawings are all pretty much irrelevant in the 3D asset world. It's all about visuals and renders and animations and effects in the end and this is where a tool like Blender has vastly better abilities. Meanwhile in the CAD engineering world none of THAT stuff matters. These are two different universes. Josh is pretty clearly all about 3D asset creation and not mechanical engineering.
Try send the hard-surface blender file to manufacturer, and they'll be happy to tell you to redrawn it in proper CAD software. Mesh is not friendly in manufacturing world. Visualization is what it's good for.
literally no one would use blender in the real life industry for production. And if so you are 10 times fucked or actually would never get the job in the first place.
I finished watching this video, and I started reading through the comments here and while I don't typically chime in, I had to for this topic. There is an amazing new addon by Johnny Mathews that uses geonodes to create highly customizable (and also renderable) model dimensions. So for those who are worried about schematic drawings, this could you could probably help with the creation process, especially if you can templatize the setups. Historically, there have been two ends to the spectrum when it comes to modeling, precision (as in CAD "nurbs" based) and organic (as in zBrush pixol based). Adding some degree of additional precision to zBrush, or in this case Blender by way of "work around" addons, does not make these tools CAD like. The problem with this whole premise, is that CAD modeling is not about shading...or working arounds for shading errors...it's not the speed at which you can drill a hole...or bevel an edge. it's not about being able to provide technical drawings, although that is getting a little closer. The main benefit of CAD is "proceduralism"...the thing that Modo added to their pipeline YEARS ago, and Blender is slowly moving towards...Houdini does, but it's throughout their entire system...so good luck using it for simple modeling or layout tasks. No, you need CAD so that you can define dependancies, dimensions, and then iterate on your design making changes to that hierarchy and having it propagate throughout the model. This is not how polygonal modeling works in blender, at least not yet. There are plenty of tutorial videos discussing procedural modeling techniques using geonodes in blender, but that still feels a long ways from where it would be a truly viable option...but who knows, maybe an addon or future LTS release will come along and turn the game on it's head.
I found Fusion360 was very easy to create weapon game assets. I export as a low detail obj , then duplicate the project and add all the bevels, chamfers, the details I want to bake into the low using Substance Painter. That means no retopology and very low vert count with very good overall accuracy. Making UV's can be a pain because the low is triangulated, but I use 3dCoat and just follow the hard edges for the most part.
That's why we call "Design for Manufacturing" instead of just design for media purposes. CAD lets us define tolerances and real parameters to manufacture any item, while software for graphic design is not focus on the state of the art related the work flow to come to reality things from raw materials.
I love fusion and find it so intuitive but struggle with blender and if i'm honest I didn't even know why. I can create some intricate mechanical models with fusion that print and work every time. Thankyou for this
Are you by any chance familiar with add-ons like Cad Sketcher or Cad Transform that add CAD functionality to Blender? I haven't had a chance to try them, but would be interested to hear what you think about them and if they're any good.
In Blender, you can link a math model through the Python scripting and have it automatically added as you model. The model will build as you do it manually a few times, and then it will basically adapt to your modeling style.
You use CAD because its 100% accurate. 3D modelling software, Maya, Max, Blender use single-precision floating-point accuracy - meaning its useless to design anything that will later be manufactured in the real world (figurines on your 3d printer don't count).
One thing to note is that some of cad software uses polygons similarly to the way blender does, for example sketchup (with i think is more tailored for architectural work) uses polygons rather than mathematicaly smooth surfaces
I didn't take this video as claiming this would make Blender into a replacement for CAD software but as a way to give Blender some of the user friendly features found in CAD software for modeling previz or artistic renders of products/structures.
Just at a 3 month old company. Somebody makes animation videos about the house in Blender. Another makes technical construction in Solid Edge CAD. But this is something to avoid, because Solid Edge is an extreme expensive software. First thought to change him to FreeCAD. But what are pros and cons to have people work in FreeCAD and Blender vs Blender for all?
For anyone cutting a Boolean cylinder In to a sphere like that in polys, Do it in the orientation with the facets / edges running radially (90° from where he showed it) like down from the North Pole rather than sideways into the equator. It will cut and bevel much nicer. Or just sweep/lathe the profile round a circle with the cut and fillet already included.
Here's hoping the Blender foundation finds it in their hearts to help engineers with by making a great open source CAD software that you don't have to know assembly to make shapes. Autodesk has squashed all competition that had a chance.
Great video just the final verdict is a little flat. U could have really went into all the differences between a polygon modeler and a boundary defined cad software. I would boil it down to an example. If u model the hallways of a futuristic spaceship u would be a lot faster with blender because u don’t need precision. Nobody cares if a pipe is of 30 or 40cm diameter. On the other hand if u would need to make a realistic hallway of a let’s say boing 747 than u would be off far better with cad software because u would need to reference the documentation and measurements anyway. In this case a software like blender would be totally disadvantageous. That said knowing and being proficient on a polygon modeler like blender is an amazing thing and a real creative superpower. I started with cad and really regret that I didn’t start with blender. If somebody has the choice I highly recommend they start with a polygon modeler - so much possibilities and fast results (if one is proficient).
I used Autodesk for my bachelor thesis, but without a free license, I now downloaded Blender. It really freaks me out, that Blender is so less based on exact distances and more like on "put it where it looks right". Slowly I discover the possibilities to get that accuracy into Blender, but sometimes i just ask me why its not the default. Also, I'm a bit sad, that you seem to "need" to pay 50$ to fix artifacts on very basic operations. But everything is better than buying an Autodesk license xD Anyhow, it seems to work too and since I'm not an expert in any of that tools, ill learn on Blender. Mostly because I want to do mechanic and creative stuff for 3D printing, Blender seems to fit better for both.
I had a hard time understanding the difference untill someone said: it's basically the 3D world's equivalent of pixels vs. vector. Photoshop vs. Illustrator. JPG vs. SVG.
I'll just say this blender is by definition cad since it is computer-aided design(drafting only in the sense that that is what it became known as post 2010's by old drafters)
Josh you should check out a new CAD modeler called Plasticity. It is designed to be "CAD for artists" and in my opinion it serves that role really well. It is still in beta but I suspect it will replace MoI for a lot of modelers.
So CAD in itself is just computer aided desing by definition so Blender belongs in it as well. But when it comes to usability it is good to know the differences. I work in a space with lots of engineers and startups and what we found to be most usefull way to work is to use Blender for the protoyping, fast iteration steps and presentations while for the final products true engineering suits like Fusion 360, Solidworks etc. are the way to go.
Nice but the bevels should have an option for nice G2 acceleration. Not smooth enough - subdivision based bevels are inherently G2 (although the acceleration curve is not pretty in most cases.. but still G2)
Noob question here. Let's say I want to create 3D assets for a game, like buildings or cars, or smaller stuff. In order to use them for a game, let's say in Unreal Engine, do they need to be converted in objects made of polygons? If so, then in the videogame industry the CAD programs are useful only for sketches, or 2D assets (like the 2D front face of a house, that can be covered with a texture or painted)?
Does someone know if there is a plugin in blender that actually allows you to parameterize the objects you create? I think that that is the most important aspect that CAD brings to the table, and as of such, it does not really matter that you can drag&drop objects around, because you typically want to TYPE IN EVERYTHING... However, a friend of mine has been trying to use blender for visual theater stage compositions and this is a usecase that falls smack in the middle of what CAD and Blender provides: You need to enter exact (or semi exact) sizes of the objects you are using (and the stage floor of course), but then composing them in blender in a more creative way is a lot more easy to do... and the render engine for creating a visual representation is superb... Not sure if it exists, but something that ALSO allows parameterization in blender, maybe some integration between SCAD and blender?! would be awesome. (and yes, there is an ANCIENT project form 10 years ago called BlenderSCAD... but well.. 10 years ago!!! look at the screenshots :D)
The future is definitely in favor of polygon modeling. As new algorithms/AI will give us more and more cad like controls with all the benefits of polygon modeling. Node modeling is basically just that. Just a matter of time until we have full control down to the numbers in blender at any stage of modeling. There are already add-ons for cad software on curved surfaces which basically mimic polygon modeling. Same applies to outdated problematic file formats. Rather than changing the file format, the software will make sure it will fix potential errors automatically for the format. Soon we will have step like controls even on stl files.
Uhm, I have definitely decided to replace Sketchup due to its pricing policy, to do this in Blender I need at least 3 addons but with some limitations (Construction Lines + Mesh Machine + CAD Sketcher). This video clarifies a lot about the workflow to follow with Mesh Machine, which from what I see doesn't seem to allow me to precisely manage the measurements of the changes I would make, I should also combine the Contruction Lines and Cad Sketcher workflow. In the end, the most convenient thing seems to me to be to use the power of Plasticty with Blender Bridge, are there alternatives in your opinion?
Do blender bros work as modelers for any projects in vfx or games industry or are they teachers exclusively? I recently engaged with some senior modelers and was told that boolean modeling workflow produces undesirable meshes for 95% of the pipelines, I've heard the "if geo does not need to be deformed then topology does not matter" argument and I genuinely believed that was the case, but if the employers request something done a certain way, one cannot really debate, I guess I'm worried that i'll waste my time learning to model using booleans, can anyone confirm working with boolean workflow in any kind of industry? thanks in advance.
i don't know the answer to your question, but i will say that you can always retopologise if necessary. using booleans to do the sort of thing for which they're well-suited--i.e. creating subtractive hard-surface meshes--is so much quicker and more straightforward than trying to model those sorts of meshes from scratch that even factoring in time for retopologising them, you may well still come out ahead
Modellers are not game artists, they simply are modellers who just model from reference and make sure everything is quaded. They get enjoyment of creating the perfect polymesh with clean and even quads and good edgeflow from reference. While game artists want to save time and can triangle everything anyways. Modeling from reference 100% is not Art, it's a craft and high technical skill. Artists want speed, especially game artists and they design or reiterate much quicker. Have you ever seen a designer or an artist who actually spend time moving too many verts on hardsurface and wasting time? Don't think so, because artist recreates and designs from reference all the time. Modeling the reference 1-1 is a craft, and a skill, but not an art
what is the real reason you use Blender vs CAD? what is your end goal? are you creating art? or are you creating models that will be cnc machined or 3d printed?
A good comparison between CAD and blender would be like Adobe illustrator vs Adobe Photoshop because Illustrator can be zoomed in without loosing quality because it doesn't use pixels.
I'm probably adding fire, but i've used Fusion 360 for roughly 2/3 years, and switched to Blender, and they are night and day. The thing is, no matter the addon (if you will, maybe CAD Sketcher), you'll never have the same workflow. In CAD there's many things that are easier than doing it in Blender. For example, you have always the mesurements, and you can always get back on the time line. Depending on the complexity of the model, i'll probably use both next time i'm making something with mesurements. I once tried to cut many holes into a face, and it went soo wrong, that is the main thing i switched for in the first place xD. You said, you prefer to have a headashe, but stay with Blender, and i don't blame you for this, but when you have more than 3 measurements, working with Blender is just harder :/. I Hope they can make CAD Sketcher better, so i'll also have the opportunity to use it in future :). Have a good day/night fellas :D
Yep. I have been using blender since I was in highschool, and I swore I'd prefer it to cad. I study engineering now and after getting used to CAD, I struggle so hard when going back to blender to make models for cgi. I naturally want to give things measurements and cut holes in stuff but it messes up so easily. I wish the two workflows were more compatible. If I could CAD stuff in blender as an alternative to poly modelling, I'd jump straight back headfirst into cgi. Right now it's just too much effort to relearn poly modelling
@@ParallaxDimensions-RUclipsYT You can use both. Yes, its not easy to get the hand out of working with 2 different sets of commands (pivot, that's always a mess), but you get the hand out of it. It can be really beneficial to do measurements in CAD and then make the artistic side in Blender. This is problematic only when you have to iterate the CAD part, for example with 3D printing. That's why they make CAD sketcher, they are almost at the 1.0 Version :)
The ONLY reason why I use FreeCAD over Blender. Is their 'Technical Drawing' workspace. If Blender had a addon which could place an object into views, and could automatically add a numerical value when placing dimensions. As well as having access to your usual GD&T symbols, and formats. I would probably be using FreeCAD a lot less. Plus, FreeCAD is absolutely incompatible with my computer. I don't know what I did to my PC, but when I use the program I effortlessly create bugs that don't exist for anyone else when confronting stack exchange for help.
I learned the old fashioned polygon way with sub-d. This all goes well over my head because what advantage does it have for others? I.e can you sell models like these? I guess for portfolios and the like this method would be fine, but again, don't studios etc prefer the poly method of creation?
Yea that.... That is why I'm confused in Life... And that is why they hire Maya school trained people Tho I would like a tool that would completely set me free without worrying about ngons and ringons and I would only focus on the creative part of the model...
@@lavatr8322 they hire for maya only because they have been using it for years when blender wasnt a thing as a free 3d software, maya is pretty outdated in many ways now
Nothing wrong with subd, depending on your goals. Ngons and booleans are super common for the workflows we teach on this channel, but if you’re going a VFX route for example, clean topo and subd may be helpful for you.
@@JoshGambrell Thanks for the reply. What would you say is best for this route? I.e if I took time to learn this method, can you sell models for use? Or is it more for personal work?
There seem to be a lot of hardsurface tools like hardops and boxcutter. What distinguishes meshmachine from those two? Are they meant to be used together?
bascially yes. boxcutter is just boolean on crack, hardops has handy tools to speed up your workflow but meshmachine really help you unfuck your topology
I work in CAD but in my free time I learn Blender. In the CAD vs Poly discussion I would like to know how adding materials/shaders, rigging, sculpting and animation in general would look like in a CAD workflow if thats possible at all.
For texturing or shaders you could go Keyshot, or simply export it as an fbx and render in Blender. Rigging is a different ball game entirely. I don’t rig personally but you’d probably need to be careful with the CAD approach depending on what is being rigged or deformed
I've used Fusion360 to create game assets, I make a low detail version, then add bevels and high detail to bake into the low. A low detail obj from Fusion360 is triagulated which is annoying to UV but it does give the lowest vert count imo.
@@pygmalion8952 Not in Fusion, I export the low and high made in Fusion into Blender, UV the low in 3dCoat and texture in Substance. Its a real pain to UV a triangulated mesh though. This workflow is very fast as there it no retopo.
It depends on what you mean by animation. You can certainly animate assemblies by careful mating in CAD, but you can't do skeletal mesh based animations. Anything mechanical is easy, organic no. Materials are possible but I think the shading options are much more limited.
MeshMachine is amazing, but it doesn't turn Blender into CAD. at the end of the day, your model is still defined by vertex positions and the linear relationships between them. Blender does have some rudimentary CAD features--its NURBS curves and surfaces, basically--but ultimately comparing Blender and something like MOI is comparing apples and oranges. it's easy to do some stuff in Blender that's hard to do in CAD, and vice versa--it really just depends on what you're trying to do, and why. you wouldn't try to model a character in AutoCAD, and you wouldn't try to design a house in Blender!
As a 3rd year mechanical engineering major who actually started with Blender before CAD (i.e. Solidworks and Fusion 360), here's my opinion. Because there are no 'features' in blender, only polygons defined by vertices, there is no way to really dimension 'things.' Blender doesn't recognize 'things' (e.g. this circular element, this fillet, this extrusion) but only the vertices resulting from these operations. A circle is not a circle but rather a collection of edges that looks like a circle. Thus, you can't really tell blender "make the radius of this circle 3 inches". I am aware of the workarounds to dimension in Blender (and that, for example, you can call an object a 'circle' and make that 2R wide), but nonetheless mesh-work is fundamentally flawed for engineering work. Just as CAD is fundamentally flawed for artistic work. I entreat people watching this video to learn both. I'm also stoked that something like this exists in Blender to help bridge -- albeit not close -- the gap from CAD. But to have a truly versatile 3D capacity, you should know both software types. And I am doubtful there is any way to make mesh work sufficiently suitable for engineers.
Very interesting, I'm at the fork in the road on this. Trying to learn Shapr3D so I can generate an IGES file to be able to generate shapes milled in metal. Looking for a solution that doesn't stray too far away from poly modelling of which I have 20+ years of experience in LW, but coming to sad conclusion that CAD SW must be a separate but equal path in my workflow to address real world manufacture vs strictly visual work. Mesh Machine looks cool as hell.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
CAD real strength is iteration and measurements. If you need to iterate a design more than 2 to 3 times, CAD is way faster because it keeps all of its build history and relationships between things. It does look like that plug-in is bringing the gap between both styles. The other advantage of CAD is measurements, every part of the modeling workflow has measurements which can be easily changed at any point. Really handy if you want to scale up a part but keep gaps the same 2mm.
If you need any sort of fitting two parts together, that should be done in CAD. However if you only need a really complicated accurate-to-eye shape, then just use blender and forget about absolute precision.
I sometimes get the best of both by modeling the aesthetic surfaces in blender and importing the dimensions that need fitting from cad as STL after I am done and then export STL to manufacture. Or just use CAD to give you dimensions to begin with then work on the rest. just remember not to touch those surfaces that need to be precise and don't use any modifiers that might ruin the mesh
Not every CAD editor uses absolute constraints, and there are a lot of times when they're the last thing that you could possibly want even in a complex precision model. Worse is that some editors FORCE absolute constraints whenever an edge (or even a node) touches another edge or face, and that will inevitably wreck your design completely if you have any motor control or eyesight issues and aren't using script based modeling.
I love both software, learning is fun!
Homie this shits free auto desk owns THE MARKET and charges out the ass
I really like how free blender is but I also like how straight forward solidworks operates, having a best of both worlds really is nice to see so thank you for this video!
Defining models using polygons is also "mathematical". A better term for how geometries are defined in cad is "procedural", in that a function (a "procedure") is used to define the object's surface, rather than a bunch of triangles. Also, as many others have mentioned, the parametric nature of CAD software (being able to change variables and steps in the history of the construction of the model) is essential because parts often need adjustments and fine-tuning. Blender can't do any of this and I highly recommend anyone who doesn't agree to try making parts in an actual CAD program to experience the difference.
Mesh Machine seem like a good solution if you want to make CAD-looking art in Blender, but the workflow you've explored looks like a nightmare compared to actual CAD software.
Fusion 360 is a fantastic CAD package that is also free for personal use, so in the end just use the right tool for the right job.
Also important: CAD software uses a more compact representation of surfaces by not only allowing flat surfaces but arbitrary curved surfaces but also basic geometric shapes. The end result will be more precise.
technically, vanilla Blender is also capable of procedural generation, but the UI is significantly more complicated. You have to define the geometry as a directed graph of mathematical operations or equations in a node editor, instead of using the 3D mesh editing interface, making it difficult to see what dimension each parameter corresponds to. However, this interface is similar to the interface used by some topology optimisation software such as Rhino/Grasshopper.
Alternatively, you can use NURBS which also procedurally generates surfaces and can be interacted with directly in the model editor interface, but currently NURBS in Blender are not parametric and also not compatible with boolean operations.
I believe there is another add-on not mentioned in this video which allows you to observe and change parameters directly in the model editing interface without switching to node editor, but I don't know how it interacts with boolean operations.
everything else u said, i agree with. except the trailing parah in end recommending fusion 360
Thanks for the explanation. I rolled my eyes a bit when he said 'cad works by using math'
Geometries defined in terms of polygons are also procedural; namely, the procedure is to go through the list of polygons and draw them. The other word you used -- "parametric" -- is a much better fit.
The great thing about CAD modeling is that you can define those size parameters as later changeable variables. And you define constraints (how geometry relates to other geometry) for everything. This allows you to fine tweak certain parameters at any point in time by changing the variables, and the software will correctly recalculate the whole object with the newly specified sizes. This is indispensable when modeling parts for manufacturing and allows iterating quickly.
For me, the main advantage of parametric modeling (CAD software) over polygon modeling (Blender) is:
- you can control the dimensions of features much more precisely while also having the size of less important features be driven and changed automatically as necessary. (Whenever I watch you model anything it's always an arbitrary size, which is hard to come to terms with as a mechanical engineer)
- changing the model is super easy. Even after it's completely modeled, changing something is often as simple as changing a number, whereas with a polygon model I'd almost have to re-do the whole thing.
Now, I have yet to find a way to turn these parametric models into clean polygon meshes. Exporting these models to a polygon mesh is easy, but often gives horrendous meshes and is a nightmare to clean up for further work.
I use both Solidworks and Blender (and AutoCAD) in my day to day work. I'm glad I don't have to use any complex CAD stuff in Blender, and when I do they are minor players so I don't care much about shading errors. But there is also no way I would use Blender for any CAD work. CAD parametric modeling isn't about "infinitely subdivided meshes", but about NURBS surfaces/patches containing desired/described tangencies that blend into each other, using zebra stripes and curvature combs to ensure things works as intended. Also it's used for stress analysis, technical documentation and communication, flow modeling, cost analysis, material reduction, evaluating physical properties, assembly simulation and interference checking, machining exports and g-codes (via builtin CAM), plastic mold injection, cut and bend sheets for sheet metal, nested parts lists, drawings for fabrication, installation, and inspection (and likely others); and that's just within my own discipline. As far as surfacing and surface smoothness goes, Blender doesn't stand a chance. When I use Blender, I fillet for highlight catching. When I use Solidworks, I fillet for "how it feels in you hand" and "how reflections run". It's not like Solidworks can't run into issues with simple circular fillets we tend to use out of sheer lazyness, but Blender just can't do many of the much tougher fillets we can do in Solidworks - although they can be tricky af and require a lot of fiddling around. He should check out "Will It Fillet?" on the DiMonte Group Inc youtube channel and try to recreate those in Blender.
But if I don't need that accuracy and it's not for product production and only visuals, yeah Blender all the way. Solidworks absolutely sucks in the rendering department as far as general purpose goes, although it can be decent enough for basic product rendering if you already have the model. Mesh machine doesn't turn Blender into CAD, it just makes Blender an improved poly modeler. I swear to both Solidworks and Blender for different uses. I also swear *AT* both sometimes...
Idk what you're using your exported meshes for, but I 3D print STLs straight out of SOLIDWORKS/NX/fusion and have never needed to clean anything up for any reason
@@mattmurphy7030 With STL we get a triangulated mess with no information about "custom normals". For 3D printing that doesn't matter. For rendering it means a lot of work (depending on mesh complexity and data within it) cleaning the mesh up in order to be able to use smooth shading. Rendering within SW doesn't cause these issues, as custom normals are likely calculated under the hood but cannot be part of the STL export.
@@gottagowork I see
@@gottagowork I totally agree, but something kinda funny is that the one I picked was about blending the ends of fillets using surface fill, and Blender just had to implement curvature aware fills as part of their bevel upgrade project, so hopefully they expose those tools soon! not expecting the same level of control, but as a Fusion 360 user I don't even have "surface fill" available, so...
EXCELLENT. I have no experience in CAD and simply searching if I can even export a Blender model, or any polygon-designed model in CAD, led me to here. Just understanding the basic difference via a quick introduction really helps. Thank you!
I finally understood the difference between the CAD modeling and mesh modeling. My thoughts were, why people use expensive CAD softwares if you can do all types of precise 3d modeling in blender as well.
I really love your designs and love that u explained everything so accurately, ive done almost all your tutorials :D
If a model is based on mathematical calculations (as is usual in CAD), this has another disadvantage: parallel processing is much more difficult to implement in software terms. Therefore, most CAD programs benefit little from the number of CPU cores during the main part of the work, but much more from the clock frequency.
But, I would like to add a few things about some daily needed advantages of CAD:
- A construction history (important in mechanical engineering) can be stored directly in a STEP-file.
- When handing over drawings (design data) to manufacturing companies, the STEP format (including all dimensional tolerances, surface quality, etc.) is almost mandatory.
- And, the most annoying part: Authorities require correctly dimensioned and standard-compliant 2D(!) drawn plans. This calls for appropriate options (keyword: paper space).
I've been working with CAD (in the field of factory planning) professionally for more than 30 years and quite honestly: I hate it more and more. And as much as I love Blender and try to use it in as many areas as possible (as an example, Blender was surprisingly proven to be incredibly flexible and fast when it comes to creating cable layout plans in industrial electrics and automatisation), it lacks so many basic things to compare it to professional CAD in this area.
Thanks for the input. Lots of stuff I wasn’t aware of!
@@JoshGambrell For another CAD option for Blender with *REALLY* precise geometry definition, check out 'CAD Sketcher': ruclips.net/p/PL6Fiih6ItYsXlk87595sDny7VnvQu3PoS
Cheers!
CAD depends on single core performance because it uses a linear model history, not because it's mathematical. You obviously can't calculate a feature until you calculate the features it depends on.
Nice. This plugin looks freaking sweet and a big time saver.
The point of cad isn't things like being able to add or change a round on intersects faster. It's mainly about the different functionality that engineers need after the model is done that matters, and honestly the workflow with it is just a necessary hassle at this point.
You can do so many things with cad models now, it's insane:
-take your geometry with it's material data and see how it will handle the stress your part is expected to take, and then optimize the shape to take the least material required
-see how high-pressure molten plastic will flow when injection molding said part, where spouts will work best, where liquid jet fronts will meet and leave an ugly line, etc.
-send the model directly with annotations embedded into it for machining instead of having to draw it, but even if you do have to draw it makes it 3x faster than 2d autocad and about 7x faster than hand drawing it, now you can even get fast free machining price estimation just by uploading a model
-with cam you can make cnc programs for your machine and tools for a given part
-simulating complex behavior like an entire turbine's thermal cycles that would take actual years with pen and paper calculations
-things like running mass amounts of tubing/wiring or generating entire gearboxes with simple prebuilt conversational tools
-you can take an entire machine's plans and check if any components will intersect (meaning you've made a mistake)
-we can simulate for example what vibratory modes you have to look out for that would cause catastrophic damage seemingly out of nowhere with 0 early warning signs in the past
-simulating gravity or vibration driven processes, like dispensing machines and such
-creating press dies for things like car structural elements with only minimal post-production work required
-generating automatic bill of material for your product
-simulating the effects of processes like welding or heat treatment on materials or things like how strands break apart over time in polymers from fatigue stress
-skip modelling and placing connecting elements (like screws, locating pins, etc.) manually
-new stuff like generative design that makes geometry automatically based on what forces will act upon the part
This list is incomplete even on the mechanical front, and as far as I know there are lists just as large for electrical and civil engineering as well.
Any good cad software's worth (and insane price) lies in these baked in functionalities that merely use the 3d model as something to build upon. It's theoretically possible to develop a massive suite of blender add-ons to fulfill all of these purposes, but I suspect that parametricity as a programming technicality is what made the insanely fast development of these tools possible in the first place.
"parametricity as a programming technicality is what made the insanely fast development of these tools possible in the first place"
Thank you, beautifully explained. Been working in Blender for 7 years, but you just compelled me to look into CAD too!
I come from a background of using CAD for over a decade and recently have started to learn modeling in Blender and Maya. I've had headaches trying to figure out how to do things that are so easy in CAD. This add-on seems like a huge advantage.
question is, whyyy? why go through those headaches? i also couldn't ever get blender to work for me. CAD is _much_ more pleasant and manageable.
@@yash1152 I have different uses for them. CAD I use for my engineering projects, product design, and 3D printing. I use Blender for animation and some modeling. I guess more generally, I use CAD for work and a little hobby, but Blender strictly for hobby. Most anything I make in CAD, will eventually come together in real life too, but my Blender projects remain virtual, for the most part.
@@ktcottrell thanks for the input.
1. have u tried direct modelling paradigm in CAD - though not all CAD software provide it.
2. Is there anything (tangible) that u'd like to see improve or become available in CAD systems which will reduce ur use of Blender?
@@yash1152 I mean I use whichever one depending on what I'm doing. You can't really make high quality animation or renderings in CAD, so I use Blender. I might make some scene objects in CAD if I know I can do it faster in CAD, but generally I'd use Blender because I'm already there and I can likely get better details and edit whatever I'm doing later down the line much easier if I just do it in Blender. There's nothing that would reduce my usage of either, really. They're 2 separate things more or less. Its like asking if there's any changes to Word that would reduce my usage of Excel.
@@ktcottrell yeah makes sense. and for "direct modelling" part of the question?
As a retired engineer with 37 years of experience I very very STRONGLY prefer working in PTC's (Parametric Technology Corp.) high end CAD program Creo (Formerly Pro-Engineer). At least for modeling. But I'd never want to go back to Creo for several reasons. First it costs THOUSANDS of dollars AND requires regular extremely expensive yearly payments for each "seat" or user, that I just can't afford. Secondly what keeps me busy in retirement is learning how to make my own animated shorts that get as close to photo-realistic as possible, something that really isn't practical in Creo. Creo does do rendering, sort of. But photo-realistic it most definitely is not. Creo doesn't come close to the same level of control you get using Blender for things like lighting, texture control, and a list of other things far too long to detail here. And there's just no way you could animate a human in clothes with cloth simulation in any reasonable amount of time without an entire team of people to do it. Even then the results would be pretty crappy. I have tried outputting meshes from Creo to bring in to Blender back when I was still a working stiff, but Creo has all the same problems Blender does with messed up n-gons, overlaping geo, and vertices that are way too close to edges they aren't a part of. So basically, that solution is a non-starter that won't save you any time or headaches. (Yes I've seen all those videos about importing CAD meshes from Cad programs but all of them involve very simple examples that are easy to work with, not the really tough stuff that requires literally a week of exasperating clean up ).
For those who say try the CAD Sketcher addon... I would. I have it. I even have it installed. But sadly (or actually wonderfully) that addon is developing SO quickly that as far as I can tell there isn't a tutorial up to date enough to bother watching. And those that do exist are pretty poorly produced. Basically you have to download those videos so that you can go frame by frame to catch things they do - just for example - with hotkeys, that they assume everyone knows about, when many of us don't, so you always get to a point where you're permanently stuck and can go no farther. Always a HARD FAIL for any tutorial.
The bottom line: If you're designing a machine for manufacture, use a sufficiently advanced piece of CAD software. But if you're working more in the visual arts end of things use BLENDER (or if you're independently wealthy something like Unreal Engine which I still think produces the most realistic looking renders and animations).
If you like Creo but don't want to pay then just use Fusion. That doesn't solve your animation needs, but CAD isn't the tool to use for organic animation period
I feel like it's worth adding that Moi 3d is the only cad application that can export fbx's with ngons, making for way easier mesh cleanup.
I like to think of CAD as 3D modeling without understanding point cloud, and Blender is 3D modeling without understanding part tolerances. I used both but I've found the workflow in blender to be a lot easier, especially if I'm designing something that requires organic curves. I just use the measureit plug-in to get my tolerances right. Sure it requires a little preconfig of the start file to make the environment and tool to scale 1:1 with reality, but once I had set that up... All of my CNC/resin/additive projects were being done through blender within 0.01mm tolerance.
It's not for everyone and it may not even be the best method, but it's worked great for me. And the only reason I take this route is because the plethora of programs out there that are just as complex to learn are also ungodly expensive. Blender came up to me as a starving, overworked student and said; "No charge, and we have a ton of in-depth tutorials for you online at no charge too."
I likely would not have continued 3D work if not for blender, because there was no way in hell I was going to pay thousands a year for a subscription to an industry-standard program.
really liking the new style of editing on your videos!
05:25 ALT-Click the SAME EDGE !!!
My goodness, It's been years I wonder how to master that ALT-Click properly, cause I never ever got it right. I alt-clicked nearly everywhere wondering why it didn't work.
Thanks a gazillion times, Josh !!!
MOI3d is not CAD but NURBS-modeling software. It's not the same, not at all. For example In CAD bevels/chamfers are some sort "objects" which you can select and change radius in any time or just delete. Deleting will not cause holes in geometry, but Moi3D will leave holes.
Fusion 360 uses 3 types of geometry workflows: 1)Solid-geometry pipeline, which is its main 2) NURBS 3) Sub-D tools which resembles Polygonal Subdivision in polygon 3D-software.
That's called CAM not CAD. MOI3D is CAD. Fusion 360 is CAM.
@@NIXO3D Fusion 360 is the first and only integrated cloud CAD, CAM, CAE, and PCB software platform of its kind - that's Autodesk statement. Moi3D is neither. Does NURBS makes Maya also a CAD?
@@SuperSuperka You said: "For example In CAD bevels/chamfers are some sort of "objects" which you can select and change radius at any time or just delete. Deleting will not cause holes in geometry, but Moi3D will leave holes."
That's exactly CAD. In CAD, if you delete the bevel you create a hole.
You have to know what the focus of each software is. For example, I work with Rhino which is CAD software and it has also Sub D and mesh and polygon modeling, but in the end, Is CAD software.
You can't select and change the radius of your bevel in CAD that's called CAM. Like Fusion and Solidworks and NX and CATIA.
@@SuperSuperka And also NURBS curves are commonly used in computer-aided design (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and engineering (CAE). And usually, CAM software is also CAE software.
@@NIXO3D Robert McNeel & Associates never ever named Rhino3D a CAD, so its you who did it. Also SolidWorks, which has bevels, holes, etc as objects *is a CAD* and that is what about you can read in WIKI or on Solidworks site itself
Technically all models are defined mathematically, but I understand what you're saying. It's the 3d version of raster vs vector
ye man
In simpler terms: CAD preserves the accuracy of the features of the model. This hole is exactly this size in exactly this position relative to these two other features. That way when you build the real-world object, everything fits. But the mesh it generates is just a visualization, and the geometry of the mesh is none of your business.
3d modeling tools like blender, OTOH, preserve the accuracy of the mesh. The vertices, edges, and faces are precisely defined, and whether a given shape is interpreted as an octagon or a circle is up to you. The software guarantees it won't mess with your mesh geometry unless you say so, but it doesn't preserve any of the original *meaning* around any shapes.
CAD tools are for people who need to preserve what the geometry represents, while modeling tools are for people who need to preserve the geometry itself.
I like this explanation. I'd add to it that CAD preserves history and polygonal modeling doesn't.
@@mattmurphy7030 both *can* preserve history, but neither is required to. It's just that cad history is more rigidly defined and easier to incorporate. But things like modifier stacks in blender are examples of preserving a mutable history of operations on a mesh using roughly the same technique as cad programs use.
@@TylerLarson good points
I'm complete noob in 3d modeling, but I guess main difference is that Blender works with meshes, CAD works with rules ... like this hole has 3mm radius and it's located 15mm from this edge and 50mm from that edge. You may change any of these anytime. If you move the edge, hole moves as well. If there is some object bound to the hole, it moves with the hole. If you want to make array from that hole, it's easy. In Blender, you make box, you make cylinder, you substract cylinder from the box. Both object are destroyed - you may remove some faces, fill the hole in the mesh model, but all the information about object like shape or geometry does not even exists - box are 6 vertices, I think 18 edges and 12 faces.
I found myself using Blender extremely hard and/or hard to learn. Same applies to FreeCAD, SolidWorks is likely easier despite it can do much more. If I need some simple 3D model, I use OpenSCAD, where definition is a text file. If I want to render it, blender is quite handy.
Three areas where I see Blender working in manufacturing are subdivision surfacing, sculpting, and geometry nodes (+excel fields, attributes). Subdivision surfacing can be used and converted to B-surfaces if done carefully in low poly. The surfaces can then be tweaked and constrained later in CAD. The old fashioned way of surface matching is very expensive, slow and tedious. Hi poly sculpted geo can now be processed to create tooling. Hasbro has painfully forced Zbrush to do this but has managed well. Geometry Nodes can be used to generate parametric models in niche ways CAD packages can only do simplistically or inefficiently. It actually works very nicely for mathematically optimizing a complex design, because all your parameters aren't stuffed into a one dimensional expression menu, but can be customized in a visual way. Engineering departments have gotten rid of designers over time, but not everything you manufacture should or will be fillet machined into blocks and cylinders. I think we have a lot of untapped talent focusing only on video game development that design departments could use if they were to think outside the "box".
Plasticity is the next gen for hard surface. Really like its user friendly approach. Blender is too troublesome in that regad, unless modeling with quads )
i will look into it for sure but don't forget that you still need to export and import it back to blender or any 3d software if you want to do anything with it rly. Which is why i still want to master poly modeling but i am open for CAD approaches
Yeah I love it... But do we remesh it in Blender?... Like how do we do low poly?
@@lavatr8322 cant u export it as polygons? and there is many things that u wont make in cad
All you need for blender is Quad remesher, Hardops and boxcutter for hard surface. Mesh machine is cool and all but I am not buying it just for it to cleanup a boolean mesh. I would rather manually clean up the mesh so I can understand how to create quads and do manual topology.
AGREED THIS RUclips CHANEL IS A JOKE WHEN IT COMES TO MODELING DONT LISTEN THIS GUY
One critical thing for CAD software is the ability to make drawings from your models... But for simple 3D printed stuff with wide tolerance and so on it's great. Or visualization of course.
Some shops have moved away from paper based definition to model based definition, or a combination of both. Despite what people might think, faceted "dumb solid" data (instead of B-surf) could still be used for that purpose. A ref is ASME Y14.41-XXXX Digital Product Data Definition Practices and ISO 1101:2004 Geometrical Product Specifications. Some of the measuring addons coming out are looking pretty good and templates can be put together for sheet sizes. I would still use CAD for manufacturing, but I don't see why a company couldn't use Blender in their pipeline if it's the right fit.
@@modelenginerding6996 Please show me the CAM software that can deal with faceted bodies because I had no idea that exists. I can't possibly imagine a machine shop accepting faceted models and no drawings.
@@mattmurphy7030 Solidworks and F360, etc can convert to breps. Blender's subdivision surfacing converts directly to bsurfaces in Rhino or SW, NX. Shops have been handling mesh geo for years, it's just slow to be adopted and not something you want to use for high rate production without further processing. Hasbro uses high density voxels in zbrush for their product definitions, as an example. It's up to their tooling shops to make it happen.
@@modelenginerding6996 very interesting, thanks for the info. Our shop still only uses STEP and drawings so that's all new to me
Cad is the SVG of the 3d world.
As someone who learned simple modeling on CAD software first, Blender has always been a challenge for me to wrap my head around and conceptualize how to take advantage of it. This plugin might finally get me to use Blender more often, since it will help me preserve the workflow I already understand.
For me the biggest advantages of CAD are parametric modelling and constraints. And the biggest struggle is that it's pretty often can't do some intuitively obvious modifications, like adding bevels, to a complex geometry. Sometimes history breaks after parameters change and it becomes a complete mess.
If you're doing product design or ID, learning both is really valuable.
I feel like you're kind of misrepresenting what CAD is about. It's not just about infinite resolution. Everything in CAD is parametric and dimensional. You can edit features upstream and the whole model history updates to incorporate the changes. You can make engineering drawings directly from models. There's no analogue to these features in polygonal modeling. This plugin might let you edit the subdivision of a fillet, but that's a hack--editing the fillet is innate in CAD.
Very true, however that's from a product industrial design and mechanical engineering point of view. Producing real objects for manufacture or construction. That world is a completely different kind of design discipline from the 3D modeling done for entertainment industries, tv, movie, effects, game assets, virtual props, etc. "Hard surface modelling" - these objects may look like the kind of things that could be manufactured, but the vast majority of these "assets" never will be (unless for actual one-off physical movie props or costumes or the like.) High precision and parametrics and production mechanical drawings are all pretty much irrelevant in the 3D asset world. It's all about visuals and renders and animations and effects in the end and this is where a tool like Blender has vastly better abilities. Meanwhile in the CAD engineering world none of THAT stuff matters. These are two different universes. Josh is pretty clearly all about 3D asset creation and not mechanical engineering.
Try send the hard-surface blender file to manufacturer, and they'll be happy to tell you to redrawn it in proper CAD software.
Mesh is not friendly in manufacturing world. Visualization is what it's good for.
literally no one would use blender in the real life industry for production. And if so you are 10 times fucked or actually would never get the job in the first place.
I finished watching this video, and I started reading through the comments here and while I don't typically chime in, I had to for this topic. There is an amazing new addon by Johnny Mathews that uses geonodes to create highly customizable (and also renderable) model dimensions. So for those who are worried about schematic drawings, this could you could probably help with the creation process, especially if you can templatize the setups. Historically, there have been two ends to the spectrum when it comes to modeling, precision (as in CAD "nurbs" based) and organic (as in zBrush pixol based). Adding some degree of additional precision to zBrush, or in this case Blender by way of "work around" addons, does not make these tools CAD like. The problem with this whole premise, is that CAD modeling is not about shading...or working arounds for shading errors...it's not the speed at which you can drill a hole...or bevel an edge. it's not about being able to provide technical drawings, although that is getting a little closer. The main benefit of CAD is "proceduralism"...the thing that Modo added to their pipeline YEARS ago, and Blender is slowly moving towards...Houdini does, but it's throughout their entire system...so good luck using it for simple modeling or layout tasks. No, you need CAD so that you can define dependancies, dimensions, and then iterate on your design making changes to that hierarchy and having it propagate throughout the model. This is not how polygonal modeling works in blender, at least not yet. There are plenty of tutorial videos discussing procedural modeling techniques using geonodes in blender, but that still feels a long ways from where it would be a truly viable option...but who knows, maybe an addon or future LTS release will come along and turn the game on it's head.
I found Fusion360 was very easy to create weapon game assets. I export as a low detail obj , then duplicate the project and add all the bevels, chamfers, the details I want to bake into the low using Substance Painter. That means no retopology and very low vert count with very good overall accuracy. Making UV's can be a pain because the low is triangulated, but I use 3dCoat and just follow the hard edges for the most part.
The problem with Fusion360 is the price for game art its no worth the price.
I like blender becuase I want to accomplish everything, but know nothing. You do great work Josh!
And job descriptions don't mention blender...
_my case😅_
The difference between polygons and CAD math graphics,
reminds me of raster graphics (pixels) vs. vector graphics.
That's why we call "Design for Manufacturing" instead of just design for media purposes.
CAD lets us define tolerances and real parameters to manufacture any item, while software for graphic design is not focus on the state of the art related the work flow to come to reality things from raw materials.
Awesome vid josh! Ur amazing
I love fusion and find it so intuitive but struggle with blender and if i'm honest I didn't even know why. I can create some intricate mechanical models with fusion that print and work every time. Thankyou for this
Are you by any chance familiar with add-ons like Cad Sketcher or Cad Transform that add CAD functionality to Blender? I haven't had a chance to try them, but would be interested to hear what you think about them and if they're any good.
thanks, videos that explain these differences have helped me a lot.
Blender should spend a little time improving their nurbs surface workflow and tools so we can create basic plane fuselages and wings easily.
In Blender, you can link a math model through the Python scripting and have it automatically added as you model. The model will build as you do it manually a few times, and then it will basically adapt to your modeling style.
You use CAD because its 100% accurate. 3D modelling software, Maya, Max, Blender use single-precision floating-point accuracy - meaning its useless to design anything that will later be manufactured in the real world (figurines on your 3d printer don't count).
One thing to note is that some of cad software uses polygons similarly to the way blender does, for example sketchup (with i think is more tailored for architectural work) uses polygons rather than mathematicaly smooth surfaces
Thanks bro
it was awesome , thank you for the free content too!
I didn't take this video as claiming this would make Blender into a replacement for CAD software but as a way to give Blender some of the user friendly features found in CAD software for modeling previz or artistic renders of products/structures.
Just at a 3 month old company. Somebody makes animation videos about the house in Blender. Another makes technical construction in Solid Edge CAD. But this is something to avoid, because Solid Edge is an extreme expensive software. First thought to change him to FreeCAD. But what are pros and cons to have people work in FreeCAD and Blender vs Blender for all?
For anyone cutting a Boolean cylinder In to a sphere like that in polys, Do it in the orientation with the facets / edges running radially (90° from where he showed it) like down from the North Pole rather than sideways into the equator. It will cut and bevel much nicer. Or just sweep/lathe the profile round a circle with the cut and fillet already included.
Here's hoping the Blender foundation finds it in their hearts to help engineers with by making a great open source CAD software that you don't have to know assembly to make shapes. Autodesk has squashed all competition that had a chance.
The thing I used to learn the difference between CAD and Polygons, is like the difference between a raster image and a vector image :)
Great video just the final verdict is a little flat. U could have really went into all the differences between a polygon modeler and a boundary defined cad software. I would boil it down to an example. If u model the hallways of a futuristic spaceship u would be a lot faster with blender because u don’t need precision. Nobody cares if a pipe is of 30 or 40cm diameter. On the other hand if u would need to make a realistic hallway of a let’s say boing 747 than u would be off far better with cad software because u would need to reference the documentation and measurements anyway. In this case a software like blender would be totally disadvantageous. That said knowing and being proficient on a polygon modeler like blender is an amazing thing and a real creative superpower. I started with cad and really regret that I didn’t start with blender. If somebody has the choice I highly recommend they start with a polygon modeler - so much possibilities and fast results (if one is proficient).
If you merge verts in blender it'll take care of the n-gon shading issue. It's not a shading issue, it's a bad topology problem.
I used Autodesk for my bachelor thesis, but without a free license, I now downloaded Blender.
It really freaks me out, that Blender is so less based on exact distances and more like on "put it where it looks right".
Slowly I discover the possibilities to get that accuracy into Blender, but sometimes i just ask me why its not the default.
Also, I'm a bit sad, that you seem to "need" to pay 50$ to fix artifacts on very basic operations. But everything is better than buying an Autodesk license xD
Anyhow, it seems to work too and since I'm not an expert in any of that tools, ill learn on Blender.
Mostly because I want to do mechanic and creative stuff for 3D printing, Blender seems to fit better for both.
I had a hard time understanding the difference untill someone said: it's basically the 3D world's equivalent of pixels vs. vector. Photoshop vs. Illustrator. JPG vs. SVG.
I'll just say this blender is by definition cad since it is computer-aided design(drafting only in the sense that that is what it became known as post 2010's by old drafters)
Josh you should check out a new CAD modeler called Plasticity. It is designed to be "CAD for artists" and in my opinion it serves that role really well. It is still in beta but I suspect it will replace MoI for a lot of modelers.
how is its exporter?
- Great presentation.
- Thx.
So CAD in itself is just computer aided desing by definition so Blender belongs in it as well. But when it comes to usability it is good to know the differences. I work in a space with lots of engineers and startups and what we found to be most usefull way to work is to use Blender for the protoyping, fast iteration steps and presentations while for the final products true engineering suits like Fusion 360, Solidworks etc. are the way to go.
Nice but the bevels should have an option for nice G2 acceleration. Not smooth enough - subdivision based bevels are inherently G2 (although the acceleration curve is not pretty in most cases.. but still G2)
Amazing!
Noob question here. Let's say I want to create 3D assets for a game, like buildings or cars, or smaller stuff. In order to use them for a game, let's say in Unreal Engine, do they need to be converted in objects made of polygons? If so, then in the videogame industry the CAD programs are useful only for sketches, or 2D assets (like the 2D front face of a house, that can be covered with a texture or painted)?
one thing not replicated is CAD's ability to extend a fillet/chamfer past a surface.
Good Job Josh ! Thanks !
Isn't it time for the offset cut feature to leave the experimental stage?
boolens sphere with cilinder pog , magic blender addon in 2023...
Shit is starting to get real. It's great to see you two taking off in your endeavors. God speed. :)
"..shit gets real" finally the correct words to describe blender booleans
wow that's quite amazing
Nice going! I love it!
Thanks for sharing!! Super helpful ⚙
Does someone know if there is a plugin in blender that actually allows you to parameterize the objects you create? I think that that is the most important aspect that CAD brings to the table, and as of such, it does not really matter that you can drag&drop objects around, because you typically want to TYPE IN EVERYTHING... However, a friend of mine has been trying to use blender for visual theater stage compositions and this is a usecase that falls smack in the middle of what CAD and Blender provides: You need to enter exact (or semi exact) sizes of the objects you are using (and the stage floor of course), but then composing them in blender in a more creative way is a lot more easy to do... and the render engine for creating a visual representation is superb...
Not sure if it exists, but something that ALSO allows parameterization in blender, maybe some integration between SCAD and blender?! would be awesome. (and yes, there is an ANCIENT project form 10 years ago called BlenderSCAD... but well.. 10 years ago!!! look at the screenshots :D)
The future is definitely in favor of polygon modeling. As new algorithms/AI will give us more and more cad like controls with all the benefits of polygon modeling. Node modeling is basically just that. Just a matter of time until we have full control down to the numbers in blender at any stage of modeling. There are already add-ons for cad software on curved surfaces which basically mimic polygon modeling. Same applies to outdated problematic file formats. Rather than changing the file format, the software will make sure it will fix potential errors automatically for the format. Soon we will have step like controls even on stl files.
Uhm, I have definitely decided to replace Sketchup due to its pricing policy, to do this in Blender I need at least 3 addons but with some limitations (Construction Lines + Mesh Machine + CAD Sketcher).
This video clarifies a lot about the workflow to follow with Mesh Machine, which from what I see doesn't seem to allow me to precisely manage the measurements of the changes I would make,
I should also combine the Contruction Lines and Cad Sketcher workflow.
In the end, the most convenient thing seems to me to be to use the power of Plasticty with Blender Bridge, are there alternatives in your opinion?
Where is the respect for the GOAT of CAD??? How could you not mention AutoCAD??? It's literally the OG
What do you think about cad sketcher? Only what I miss is round the edges.
Do blender bros work as modelers for any projects in vfx or games industry or are they teachers exclusively? I recently engaged with some senior modelers and was told that boolean modeling workflow produces undesirable meshes for 95% of the pipelines, I've heard the "if geo does not need to be deformed then topology does not matter" argument and I genuinely believed that was the case, but if the employers request something done a certain way, one cannot really debate, I guess I'm worried that i'll waste my time learning to model using booleans, can anyone confirm working with boolean workflow in any kind of industry? thanks in advance.
i don't know the answer to your question, but i will say that you can always retopologise if necessary. using booleans to do the sort of thing for which they're well-suited--i.e. creating subtractive hard-surface meshes--is so much quicker and more straightforward than trying to model those sorts of meshes from scratch that even factoring in time for retopologising them, you may well still come out ahead
Modellers are not game artists, they simply are modellers who just model from reference and make sure everything is quaded. They get enjoyment of creating the perfect polymesh with clean and even quads and good edgeflow from reference. While game artists want to save time and can triangle everything anyways.
Modeling from reference 100% is not Art, it's a craft and high technical skill.
Artists want speed, especially game artists and they design or reiterate much quicker. Have you ever seen a designer or an artist who actually spend time moving too many verts on hardsurface and wasting time? Don't think so, because artist recreates and designs from reference all the time.
Modeling the reference 1-1 is a craft, and a skill, but not an art
cad models are volumetric vs polygon models which are surface based
You can also do surface modeling in CAD. That's not the primary difference.
How the hell have I never heard of Mesh Machine before!!!!!!
in CAD you have to manage the topology of surfaces too, it is not automatic as laypeople and hobbyist making chamfered cubes think
what is the real reason you use Blender vs CAD?
what is your end goal?
are you creating art?
or are you creating models that will be cnc machined or 3d printed?
Legitimate question. Will the advantages of Mesh Machine also be advantages when making models for 3D printing?
A good comparison between CAD and blender would be like Adobe illustrator vs Adobe Photoshop because Illustrator can be zoomed in without loosing quality because it doesn't use pixels.
I'm probably adding fire, but i've used Fusion 360 for roughly 2/3 years, and switched to Blender, and they are night and day. The thing is, no matter the addon (if you will, maybe CAD Sketcher), you'll never have the same workflow. In CAD there's many things that are easier than doing it in Blender. For example, you have always the mesurements, and you can always get back on the time line. Depending on the complexity of the model, i'll probably use both next time i'm making something with mesurements. I once tried to cut many holes into a face, and it went soo wrong, that is the main thing i switched for in the first place xD. You said, you prefer to have a headashe, but stay with Blender, and i don't blame you for this, but when you have more than 3 measurements, working with Blender is just harder :/. I Hope they can make CAD Sketcher better, so i'll also have the opportunity to use it in future :).
Have a good day/night fellas :D
Yup
I learn it too in hard way. Those work flow are 100% incompatible. Also the messed GUI of blender only made thing even worse
Yep. I have been using blender since I was in highschool, and I swore I'd prefer it to cad. I study engineering now and after getting used to CAD, I struggle so hard when going back to blender to make models for cgi. I naturally want to give things measurements and cut holes in stuff but it messes up so easily. I wish the two workflows were more compatible. If I could CAD stuff in blender as an alternative to poly modelling, I'd jump straight back headfirst into cgi. Right now it's just too much effort to relearn poly modelling
@@ParallaxDimensions-RUclipsYT You can use both. Yes, its not easy to get the hand out of working with 2 different sets of commands (pivot, that's always a mess), but you get the hand out of it. It can be really beneficial to do measurements in CAD and then make the artistic side in Blender. This is problematic only when you have to iterate the CAD part, for example with 3D printing. That's why they make CAD sketcher, they are almost at the 1.0 Version :)
The ONLY reason why I use FreeCAD over Blender. Is their 'Technical Drawing' workspace. If Blender had a addon which could place an object into views, and could automatically add a numerical value when placing dimensions. As well as having access to your usual GD&T symbols, and formats. I would probably be using FreeCAD a lot less. Plus, FreeCAD is absolutely incompatible with my computer. I don't know what I did to my PC, but when I use the program I effortlessly create bugs that don't exist for anyone else when confronting stack exchange for help.
Issue is not shapes in Blender but the measurments . I think it is alot easier to measure and do correct measurments in cad
Tell your neighbours to knock the bass off when you're recording
Kind of surprises me blender doesn’t come with these features yet.
I learned the old fashioned polygon way with sub-d.
This all goes well over my head because what advantage does it have for others? I.e can you sell models like these?
I guess for portfolios and the like this method would be fine, but again, don't studios etc prefer the poly method of creation?
Yea that.... That is why I'm confused in Life... And that is why they hire Maya school trained people
Tho I would like a tool that would completely set me free without worrying about ngons and ringons and I would only focus on the creative part of the model...
@@lavatr8322 they hire for maya only because they have been using it for years when blender wasnt a thing as a free 3d software, maya is pretty outdated in many ways now
Nothing wrong with subd, depending on your goals. Ngons and booleans are super common for the workflows we teach on this channel, but if you’re going a VFX route for example, clean topo and subd may be helpful for you.
@@JoshGambrell Thanks for the reply. What would you say is best for this route? I.e if I took time to learn this method, can you sell models for use? Or is it more for personal work?
Oh... I have mesh machine and didn't even know the experimental section was there. Offset cut here we come.
There seem to be a lot of hardsurface tools like hardops and boxcutter. What distinguishes meshmachine from those two? Are they meant to be used together?
bascially yes. boxcutter is just boolean on crack, hardops has handy tools to speed up your workflow but meshmachine really help you unfuck your topology
Than you bro
Thank you for video👍👍
I work in CAD but in my free time I learn Blender. In the CAD vs Poly discussion I would like to know how adding materials/shaders, rigging, sculpting and animation in general would look like in a CAD workflow if thats possible at all.
For texturing or shaders you could go Keyshot, or simply export it as an fbx and render in Blender. Rigging is a different ball game entirely. I don’t rig personally but you’d probably need to be careful with the CAD approach depending on what is being rigged or deformed
I've used Fusion360 to create game assets, I make a low detail version, then add bevels and high detail to bake into the low. A low detail obj from Fusion360 is triagulated which is annoying to UV but it does give the lowest vert count imo.
it is not possible.
@@pygmalion8952 Not in Fusion, I export the low and high made in Fusion into Blender, UV the low in 3dCoat and texture in Substance. Its a real pain to UV a triangulated mesh though. This workflow is very fast as there it no retopo.
It depends on what you mean by animation. You can certainly animate assemblies by careful mating in CAD, but you can't do skeletal mesh based animations. Anything mechanical is easy, organic no. Materials are possible but I think the shading options are much more limited.
Gold!
I'm looking for an Addon which is similar to Zentool on Maya where I can select vertices and control them with a generated curve
I really like blender because thinks look great but I feel limited because the mesh acts like this. ima get thus addon
MeshMachine is amazing, but it doesn't turn Blender into CAD. at the end of the day, your model is still defined by vertex positions and the linear relationships between them. Blender does have some rudimentary CAD features--its NURBS curves and surfaces, basically--but ultimately comparing Blender and something like MOI is comparing apples and oranges. it's easy to do some stuff in Blender that's hard to do in CAD, and vice versa--it really just depends on what you're trying to do, and why. you wouldn't try to model a character in AutoCAD, and you wouldn't try to design a house in Blender!
As a 3rd year mechanical engineering major who actually started with Blender before CAD (i.e. Solidworks and Fusion 360), here's my opinion.
Because there are no 'features' in blender, only polygons defined by vertices, there is no way to really dimension 'things.' Blender doesn't recognize 'things' (e.g. this circular element, this fillet, this extrusion) but only the vertices resulting from these operations. A circle is not a circle but rather a collection of edges that looks like a circle. Thus, you can't really tell blender "make the radius of this circle 3 inches". I am aware of the workarounds to dimension in Blender (and that, for example, you can call an object a 'circle' and make that 2R wide), but nonetheless mesh-work is fundamentally flawed for engineering work. Just as CAD is fundamentally flawed for artistic work.
I entreat people watching this video to learn both. I'm also stoked that something like this exists in Blender to help bridge -- albeit not close -- the gap from CAD. But to have a truly versatile 3D capacity, you should know both software types. And I am doubtful there is any way to make mesh work sufficiently suitable for engineers.
I model straight things in Fusion 360 and import it into blender for materials.
I wonder if meshmachine is useful for subd type of modeling?
Very interesting, I'm at the fork in the road on this. Trying to learn Shapr3D so I can generate an IGES file to be able to generate shapes milled in metal. Looking for a solution that doesn't stray too far away from poly modelling of which I have 20+ years of experience in LW, but coming to sad conclusion that CAD SW must be a separate but equal path in my workflow to address real world manufacture vs strictly visual work. Mesh Machine looks cool as hell.