> I think OpenSCAD is currently the best and most feature complete choice As much as I love OpenSCAD, I would strongly disagree with you...
> I think OpenSCAD is currently the best and most feature complete choice As much as I love OpenSCAD, I would strongly disagree with your conclusion. All the OpenSCAD language can do is boolean operations and moreover, the engine can only implement those on polygonal (triangle actually) meshes. That's a very far cry from what a modern commercial CAD engine can do. For example, the following things are very, very hard to do, or even specify using OpenScad: - Smooth surfaces, especially spline-based - Fillets / Chamfers between two arbitrary surfaces - Trimming surfaces - Querying partly built models and using the outcome in the subsequent construction (e.g. find the shortest segment between two smooth surfaces, building a cylinder around it and filleting it with the two surfaces, this is an effing nightmare to do within the confines of OpenSCAD) - Last but not least: there is no native constraint solver in OpenSCAD, neither in the language nor in the engine (unlike - say - SolveSpace) I might have misunderstood what you're looking to do, but, yeah, digging deeper feels very much like the right thing to do.
Posted by ur-whale on Mar 31, 2026, 2:47 PM
Tags
Related issues
- To be fair, Inform7 can't succeed, generally, because there is no market for the kind of games that you create with Inform7.
- > The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc.
- Custom trigger IDs are not displayed in the new 2026.10 trigger selector
- I hate that too, but I think it’s more the ux than the concept of a default.
- > The biggest problem with UX developers is they know better than you AND force you into their paradigm.
- "Focus follows mouse" is what I use to keep the file manager from popping up when click-dragging files.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,000 issues0 comments
ux (Other)
To be fair, Inform7 can't succeed, generally, because there is no market for the kind of games that you create with Inform7.
New> The notion that somehow LR reliability is misunderstood by Consumer Reports, JD Power, Car & Driver, Automobile etc.
Custom trigger IDs are not displayed in the new 2026.10 trigger selector
I hate that too, but I think it’s more the ux than the concept of a default.
> The biggest problem with UX developers is they know better than you AND force you into their paradigm.
"Focus follows mouse" is what I use to keep the file manager from popping up when click-dragging files.
The biggest problem with this is if the target URL doesn't load but also doesn't quickly error out, like e.g.
Google wants to build up a private web here.
> I think OpenSCAD is currently the best and most feature complete choice As much as I love OpenSCAD, I would strongly disagree with you...
> I think OpenSCAD is currently the best and most feature complete choice As much as I love OpenSCAD, I would strongly disagree with your conclusion. All the OpenSCAD language can do is boolean operations and moreover, the engine can only implement those on polygonal (triangle actually) meshes. That's a very far cry from what a modern commercial CAD engine can do. For example, the following things are very, very hard to do, or even specify using OpenScad: - Smooth surfaces, especially spline-based - Fillets / Chamfers between two arbitrary surfaces - Trimming surfaces - Querying partly built models and using the outcome in the subsequent construction (e.g. find the shortest segment between two smooth surfaces, building a cylinder around it and filleting it with the two surfaces, this is an effing nightmare to do within the confines of OpenSCAD) - Last but not least: there is no native constraint solver in OpenSCAD, neither in the language nor in the engine (unlike - say - SolveSpace) I might have misunderstood what you're looking to do, but, yeah, digging deeper feels very much like the right thing to do.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.