Follow-up: I know some do not like tutorial videos, but for those who do, JOKO Engineering is an interesting resource; he makes videos on FreeCAD and Alibre both, and IIRC uses both professionally.
Total new-comer to CAD. Which programme to choose.
- Thread starter edholly
- Start date
Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 244
MangoJelly is another good source for FreeCAD tutorials - not too much extraneous BS.
I still fall back on Designspark when I get frustrated with FreeCAD - which is most of the time. I've got FreeCAD installed on 2 machines and I STILL haven't figured out what I did to the navigation cube on one of those machines - see the FreeCAD Blunder thread. I can convince Designspark to do what I want it to do, but it would be SOOO nice to be able to use it to mirror a 3D object .
I still fall back on Designspark when I get frustrated with FreeCAD - which is most of the time. I've got FreeCAD installed on 2 machines and I STILL haven't figured out what I did to the navigation cube on one of those machines - see the FreeCAD Blunder thread. I can convince Designspark to do what I want it to do, but it would be SOOO nice to be able to use it to mirror a 3D object .
lee webster
Well-Known Member
A trick to try with Design Spark when you want to mirror a part is this. Save the part as an STL, import it into a slicer programme, use the slicer to flip the STL and save the file as an STL again, import it into DS and it will try its best to convert it into a solid for you. Success not guaranteed!
Very strange. Your link works and shows the software, but if I go to their website, there is no CAD software available. The couple reviews I did find were not very encouraging. I do tend to be a harsh judge and not spend much time researching if something does not grab me as looking good right away.
For what it's worth, it worked for me.
NEW: BeckerCAD14 3D Pro
Draft | Planning | 3D Design | Visualization
![MeshMagic 3D Free 3D Modeling Software [Download]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/B1U+p8ewjGS._SL500_.png)
And as I stated in my post, it works for me too. But go into the website by typing the address into your browser and see if that product shows up in their website.
Richard Hed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2018
- Messages
- 2,686
- Reaction score
- 699
ajoeiam
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,039
- Reaction score
- 306
Don't y'all be hating on my favorite 3D CAD program (FreeCAD)!
Okay, I admit that some things are non-intuitive, not helped by the fact that different workbenches have been developed by different people at different times, so there can be an irritating lack of consistency. That said, it did not take me very long to get the basic hang of it, and now that I've been using fairly frequently, it all feels natural to me. There are times when I watch a video on "how to make this in Fusion 360" when I think, "Oh, that would be nice to do it that way in FreeCAD" ... but there are other times when I think, "That would be SO much easier in FreeCAD!"
Hmmmmmm - - - not trying to hate on FreeCAD but what you call 'an irritating lack of consistency' I find really frustrating.
I find the expected procedure to be different in most every group (you don't do much in most any 1 workbench - - - one has to use 3 or 4 or even more) most times illogical and then I get to the very frustrating, imo largely truncated materials specifications and I still haven't got to where there is no understanding of the difference between a pipe and a tube - - - - - and I just have a hard time with the program.
Add in that I'm supposed to watch umpteen videos where things happen 4 to 10 per minute to try and figure out how to do things (and the screenshots are from the program in a different language - - - - I can function well in more than even 2 languages but find that technical terms is where most of my bugaboos hide) and - - - - - - well - - - - I'm still trying to figure out how to use things - - - - although its supposed to be super easy.
(If I could only figure out how to constrain a figure - - - - I think I might get it - - - - - just when I build something I can find 3 or sometimes even more ways to constrain something and in FreeCAD there is only ONE way and you better start it from this ONE point and work in this direction - - - - or you're left with an unconstrained item which means that you can't manipulate it or do any of the other nifty things that are supposed to be possible.)
So do I hate it - - - - nope - - - - - just not terribly logical and I'm not going to even touch how to learn how to use its huge list of possibilities.
(That huge list of possibilities is why its so intriguing!!!!)
Last edited:
Sure does. I get exactly the same site I got last night.
Do you type the entire URL or just www.softmaker.com? I don't know what sort of hardware and browser you have but if I hover my mouse over the large type BeckerCAD in the URL I can see there's more. It's www.softmaker.com/en/beckercad.
When I typed that in by hand, I got the same website.
Now, I know nothing about BeckerCAD, but the main reason I keep an eye on this thread is that I'm using an old version of Rhino3D and would like to replace it. Rhino has a lot going for it, but the version I have is pretty old. I have ver5 and they're readying ver 8 for release. They just seem to have gone in directions I don't particularly care about.
I was just typing in "softmaker.com". I can click on your first link and go to their site and no CAD product. Yes, it is there with the second link, but why do they not show that product with their main link?
Rhino 5 was the last to support the T-splines addon before it got autodesk'd, which I hear was pretty nice. Some guys still run version 5 because of that. If surfacing is your thing, even version 5 is going to do most of what the big players can do. That version seems to be a keeper.
I've been looking at version 7. There's always this feeling an investor is going to chop up McNeel into a rental service before they go into version 8. I'm not sure why they are headed to subdivision modeling instead of sticking to their core competency, but maybe it's because industry is moving that way.
For engine buiding, it would be difficult to use Rhino not having an easy assembly/constraint system and a destructive workflow. You can force it to do parametric with grasshopper, but it just isn't practical. Very nice though for engine castings, exhausts, and cowlings.
Well, that's a question for their web designer, not us users. It makes it look like it's either a recent add-on product or one they don't care about keeping alive.
And that would be my concern.
Since no one has chimed in about it (that I've seen!), I wonder about how good it is.
One advantage of Rhino5 is that it has a massive list of file types it can import and export. By default it saves things in its own format, and since I have Rhino files (*.3dm) dating back to 2004, anything I get has to be able to read those. I suppose read them or some format I can export from Rhino.
One advantage of Rhino5 is that it has a massive list of file types it can import and export. By default it saves things in its own format, and since I have Rhino files (*.3dm) dating back to 2004, anything I get has to be able to read those. I suppose read them or some format I can export from Rhino.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 244
When I went to the BeckerCAD site, I kept thinking "This sounds too good to be true - what's the catch?"
There's not a lot of details that I could find on the site, what files it will import, what files it will it export, more info about its' features and functions. There's lots of visual flash, much not much info that an engineer would be interested in. I can't even find any info about BeckerCAD, as in how long have they been around. I get the feeling that they haven't been around long, and if this application doesn't fly they probably won't be around long, even though Softmaker has been around since '87.
There's not a lot of details that I could find on the site, what files it will import, what files it will it export, more info about its' features and functions. There's lots of visual flash, much not much info that an engineer would be interested in. I can't even find any info about BeckerCAD, as in how long have they been around. I get the feeling that they haven't been around long, and if this application doesn't fly they probably won't be around long, even though Softmaker has been around since '87.
I see references to lower numbers, like BeckerCAD 12 with reviews back to '21 and a BeckerCAD 10 apparently from 2019. One review contains info that it's a repackaging or rebranding of another program. Apparently a German software package that has either been acquired by the British company or perhaps some sort of merger of the companies?
https://www.keypressure.com/blog/a-sudden-beckercad-review-part-2/
If the numbers are versions, the few I can track down imply yearly updates, which is a lot of support. They would imply the program first was released in '09.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 967
I used Rhino for many years, to V4 I believe. It had a decent interface & pretty good for 3D parts. Lots of import/export formats. But unless its changed, some shortcomings for basic mechanical design. Maybe current users can chime in & correct me, as maybe they improved it and/or the various plug-ins like Bongo, Grasshopper... other names I've forgotten may influence this. Maybe its now integrated but those were cost adds at the time.
It has no concept of mates or parts assemblies like most current 3D modelers. I have seen nice examples of multi-part models, even like engines. But I suspect they manually imported one part to another, essentially one big 'part' file? This is better than nothing I suppose, but not quite the same as mated assembly model in the conventional sense. For example if I use Part-A in a 300 part model & subsequently modify Part-A, I don't think the composite model is aware of that change & auto-refreshes accordingly?
It is not parametric which makes it very dated workflow. Making drawings was quite clunky if I recall. Again, this is going back many years so I may well be out of touch. The student version was worth the cost but full version looks expensive unless it is a real good match to unique needs.
It has no concept of mates or parts assemblies like most current 3D modelers. I have seen nice examples of multi-part models, even like engines. But I suspect they manually imported one part to another, essentially one big 'part' file? This is better than nothing I suppose, but not quite the same as mated assembly model in the conventional sense. For example if I use Part-A in a 300 part model & subsequently modify Part-A, I don't think the composite model is aware of that change & auto-refreshes accordingly?
It is not parametric which makes it very dated workflow. Making drawings was quite clunky if I recall. Again, this is going back many years so I may well be out of touch. The student version was worth the cost but full version looks expensive unless it is a real good match to unique needs.
It's pretty much that way now. It is still very good for repairing broken surfacing from other modelers like SW, or file conversions as someone else stated. When you reimport back it becomes a dumb solid again though.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 967
I have to chuckle there. My experience is 180-deg opposite. The broken models always started in Rhino, LOL. It had a habit of blowing its brains on the most harmless of operations. First 3 identical fillets work fine, unlucky number 4 causes a crash. The distressing aspect was very limited diagnostic tools. And I don't consider Ctrl-Z & try again a tool. The forums were chock full of mysterious 'please help me' issues. Sometimes it was a 'micro-gap' error on the 16th decimal place where you assumed a line or point was connected & it never told you otherwise. SW provides feedback every step of the way so you don't build layers of errors that eventually bite you. When a sketch or features says 'fully defined' it means exactly that. Because Rhino is not parametric you cant back up a step or modify a mid step. Sometimes it was like a stack overflow or just lost its way in the calculations. Sometimes it was like steps 1,2,3,4 crashed, but 1,2,3 (refresh/save) 4 worked doing the exact same thing. Some compliant solids would split on a plane, others just refused. Weird.
I found the Rhino forums & admins were fantastic for Q&A, documenting bugs, considering enhancement suggestions and even evaluating problems by sharing files. Small community feel. What I noticed was (assuming it wasn't a fundamental error ) the solution was more of a putty fix technique - patch the missing geometry or force entities slightly... so it calculated as a water tight solid & be on yer way. And don't let the distressed Zebra lines bother you too much LOL. Now SW forum help has gone to sh*t IMO. As one user put it, its like they hired a D-grade teenage Facebook programmer. Bling-blang, Cloud this, Collaborate that, product services I don't have or want. It USED to be type in a keyword & up comes 10 years of relevant, targeted content & 5 willing posters jumping in to help.
I've noticed a repeated misconception that Rhino is somehow the premier app for 3D organic shapes & smooth swerving surfaces vs. the rigid mechanical 3D CAD modelers like SW, Inventor, F360... are confined to clunky Lego block models. This is 100% BS & typically originates from people who either never used the apps or to their capability. I would venture to say there is nothing Rhino can do in a surface model that SW cannot do, probably in multiple different ways & with definable, traceable constraints which don't even have an equivalence in Rhino. Splines types & their control are much richer, more sophisticated capability. Control points, degrees of tangency... I could go on & on. One caveat is free-form tools like T-splines are certainly powerful, albeit niche. But this is available to other modelers AFAIK. Now one app cost 4X the other so we are not talking affordability or $-value here, just capabilities.
So could Rhino patch some bad geometry & fix a broken 3D model from another app? Sure. Well, maybe. As long as you know here to look & how to stich a surface. But the opposite is also true. The difference is, significantly more 'fixit' tools exist at your disposal & a targeted idea of where the problem is.
