Yeah I mostly stuck with Blender because I didn’t want to tackle a whole new program at the time, and it has fit my needs pretty well since. But I do agree that you are better off with a real CAD program for most things, especially if you are starting from scratch. I haven’t used OpenSCAD much, but it will probably be one of my choices if I need to do more precise/portable work.
Comment on 3D design software for 3d printing?
squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 days agoI already knew my way around blender before I got into 3D printing, so I used that ever since. It’s ok. It’s certainly no CAD tool. Parameterization would be great and if you use a fair bit of boolean modifiers without applying them (so you can edit parts later on) it does get laggy.
If you already know Blender it’s a decent choice to cut down on learning time, but if not I would not recommend it.
I used OpenSCAD quite a bit as well, which is the polar opposite of Blender. It’s perfect for parametrization and editing stuff later into the project is super easy, but the handling is really bad, even as a software developer.
The language has some evil quirks, like e.g. that the resolution of curved shapes isn’t a parameter of the function used to create the shape, but instead it uses a global variable. It clearly looks like a language designed by mathematicians.
Snafucode@lemmy.world 4 days ago
jonfairbairn@hostux.social 5 days ago
@squaresinger @Snafucode In OpenSCAD you can pass the resolution variables as arguments to the function, so it’s not quite as bad as you are implying. See eg https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/OpenSCAD_User_Manual/Primitive_Solids#sphere