software open source

[rawdraw]

Hello, everyone.

I am trying to evaluate an open source tool for:
1) modeling (mainly mechanical and cut/rolled sheets, if possible even complex curved surfaces)

and obtain from the above model:
2) single components 3d
3) quotated (quotatable) flat views based on components and assembly

4) assonometric plane views
5) Prospect flat views

6) rendering
7) Other

I would also like to be able to extract files from automated machines, as already years behind the dxf used to cut laser plates.

the first 3 points are unreliable, the other ones away are less. for example the assonometric plane views of help to the 2d representation, and the perspectives, I can accept to obtain them from prints on image files, or even from "stupid" screenshots.

rendering would not be functional to the physical realization of objects, but could still interest me in expanding the use of the software; as well as, if available, the possibility to create animations (cinematisms or similar things), and other things like fem, towards which I never had any approach.

the purpose is not professional, so I'm interested enough accuracy (compatibly with how much you are around) and less speed, both intrinsic to code and operational.

I installed brl-cad, with some trouble due to problems of my hardware. it has a somewhat unusual approach (it seems to use hp calculators when I went to school, with operator sequence, operating, entering, operating; or something like that), but without yet seeing well where it goes to parare, I seem to understand that a support to the creation of quotaable orthogonal views do not have it. I have not even understood until what level of complexity of curved surfaces can arrive, but the question of orthogonal views comes first.

I understand that salome-meca corresponds to what I look for, and that you subscribe, even if I am not sure and among the screenshots of the site there is no listed view. Moreover, the brl-cad source package weighs a third of that of salome, which makes me "come the creeps" about the complexity and time of learning of the second. there is also freecad, which seems to be quite serious and leans on the same kernel, but will not be at the same level (still comparing spannometrically the size of the source package). did someone have the opportunity to use both freecad and salome and know why to use one rather than the other?

 

[cacciatorino]

did someone have the opportunity to use both freecad and salome and know why to use one rather than the other?

the part cad of salome is very poor: The modeling is difficult, and the module does not exist. In essence its geometric modeler should only be used to prepare solids to pass to fem analysis, and if possible it is better to use other anyway (some solid* on windows in short).

freecad didn't use it almost for nothing, so I don't comment.

 

[rawdraw]

Thank you, then I think the road is "obligated." the freecad table module still seems acerbo, especially regarding the quotation, but I want to at least try it.

 

[cacciatorino]

Thank you, then I think the road is "obligated." the freecad table module still seems acerbo, especially regarding the quotation, but I want to at least try it.

Unfortunately, opensource software is still totally non-competitive in cad-3d, compared to other sectors.

 

[rawdraw]

Of course! and perhaps it will always be because it is too "niche" in relation to the cost of its development. a "open" developer will most likely use a text editor or web browser, to whose development will be more likely to contribute. the more difficult it will be motivated to develop "for glory" a cad. moreover the big contribution for the cicciotti software that work benign comes from sponsors, patrons, releases "improvvisi" of proprietary code (see the same brl-cad, or blender). but for my needs I still give him preference to less than limitless, or unless I have to crash more than 100:1 in time. windows however I do not particularly love it, and I avoid using it online to not stuff it with antivirus.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I see it differently.
opensource software currently available is for use [anche / potenzialmente] private. a cad instead is used usually for professional reasons, or to make us money. working free for the good of the community is a feeling that many have. work for free so that someone gains on it, much less. I think that's why.

 

[rawdraw]

<off topic="">In my opinion, open source is not necessarily synonymous with "free work", when it leads to increase the income of others. can mean working for a lower compensation than that made by others with the product of that job, but it is the same condition as millions of workers, firstly perhaps employees. there are those who work full-time (rependied) to the development of the linux kernel, which is licensed gpl. There are at least two non-free distribution modes. one in which a company finances a project (I have not deepened, but it seems precisely the case of ef), counting on a direct or indirect return, long term or immediate. the other in which I write a portion of code for something I need, you write another one, he another, and in the end we have a finished product with minimum per capita expenditure, usable at our liking (it is the case of freecad, according to what they declare). This second mode has its own because it is for the proliferation of proprietary projects more or less competitive at a qualitative level, both for the presence on the market of proprietary projects of a considerably higher quality, that would make it inseparable if not at discounted prices and to very few customers, and at the same time at the risk of further development slowed by the "closed number" of participants.
off topic</off>