[008] Prototype Enclosures with FreeCAD & OpenSCAD
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2017
- Introduction to 3D Modelling in FreeCAD and OpenSCAD for designing 3D printed mountings for prototype electronics.
Show Notes: opentechlab.org.uk/videos:008...
Twitter: @OpenTechLabChan
Mastadon: @opentechlab@mstdn.io
SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/opentec...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/opentechlab
Bitcoin: 18CU9LxwRuiLHy9HsuMj2vzobbW4J3QVC2 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[007] Anet A8 3D Printer - Review, Upgrades and Experiments](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/37MsqteL3gk/mqdefault.jpg)
43 minutes long and none of it wasted. Very clear introduction to open source CAD. Excellent.
The demo of OpenSCAD was mind-blowing. I was watching loads of videos on FreeCAD, thinking this would be another tutorial video for it, but now I am going to switch my efforts to looking at OpenSCAD.
24:39 another thing that looks encouraging: seeing the lines of code graph not just going up, but also down. freecad has some serious structural problems (like the topological naming problem) that require fundamental changes to the way the app represents objects internally, so it's a good sign that there appears to be a willingness to not just add, but also replace code. (and no you can't fully work around the topological naming problem with good practices, if you wanna see the problem in action, load in a complex step file, make a drawing of it in techdraw, and see what happens when you save, exit, and reload)
First class tutorial video! Presentations don't get any better than this. Thank you Joel
Hi Joel, your videos are extraordinary good. Thanks! And keep it up!
Thanks a lot! I still feel like such a n00b. Practice makes perfect, I suppose.
excellent explanation, thanks for your contribution to the community!!
I just wanted to say thank you !!!
A very clear explanation of the two
That was a great review really. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
This was a very interesting video indeed. Thanks for posting!
Awesome video, simply, clearly, detailed explained two CAD softwares. Thank you very much!
Very impressive - you have taken project cases to a new level. This concept is perfect for tough environments like my track car.
That was a great overview. Thank you so much.
I like the scad explanation! since now the best tutorial for this powerful tool. keep it up!
Please don't stop making videos. They're very high quality and well thought out.
Awesome vid. I was able to follow your steps as you went along. Will be trying to create an enclosure for my Arduino Nano with a separate relayboard now. Thanks and subbed.
Amazing video sir. I have looked at OpenSCAD before and it seemed interesting but I didn't feel like learning another DSL (Domain Specific Language) but having seen your demo of it, I am convinced. This is what I am using in the future. Very high quality content you have here! Thank you!
It`s a joy ho hear you talking so enthusiastically about open source software. Thanks for sharing such specific and in deep content.
Very interesting and informative. Choosing to adamantly stay away from all proprietary CAD tools I'm all too aware that there isn't exactly a deluge of usable, intuitive free CAD tools. I've been aware of both of these (as well as a few others) but FreeCAD's interface simply ties my brain in a knot each time I look at it and I happen to think that text-based tools for graphical tasks are the work of the Devil, so I stayed away from OpenSCAD too; what I use instead is SolveSpace - much like FreeCAD it's open source, parametric, constraint / hierarchy based and can do assemblies and even some motion analysis, but the GUI is soothingly simple. It's drawback is that its solver slows down horrendously past a certain level of complexity, so it's best used in moderation, but so far it has served me astonishingly well...
Fantastic video. Openscad looks very nice.
Wonderful! Very clear and concise.
Top-notch presentation. Thanks
Thank you man, just what I was looking for :)
Very well done! Thanks!
I like the OpenSCAD philosophy because of 2 reasons: Parametric design, Reusability. As an engineer, changing design parametrically can make changes so quick and hastlefree.
Great video! Thank you!
Man, this is a good one!
Awesome video. Have only been working in openscad before because of the parametrization, but now that you have shown freecad, that looks like something I should try, too. Thanks for sharing this video with us.
So long as your expectations aren't set too high, I think you'll find FreeCAD well worth trying out.
I personally like FreeCAD for my windows 2-in-1. It's not powerful enough to run fusion 360 or solidworks but it goes literally anywhere, so with FreeCAD I can start projects anywhere.
this is DEFINITELY all i need to get started with 3D printing basic components! thanks for the basics, the interface is VERY non-discoverable but once i started getting how constraints reduce degrees of freedom it clicks! its like.. ohwow this is a GREAT way to make sure there's nothing left undefined on a blueprint! now if only it could be parametric!!! like, literally for a project define constants and use those constants instead of numbers on parts.
Very Good work , Very Impressive
nice video and enclosures!!
Amazing presentation, I just wanted to add: We all have the right to learn what we need or want and FreeCAD does that, granted it lacks some features but is a work in progress that the developers do in their free time and it is Open Source and free. I always wanted to learn CAD and that didn't justified an expensive solution, this goes above and beyond what I expected.
Last: The first time I installed this program I took a look at it, couldn't even draw a line then deleted it,,,, human curiosity and tenacity brought me back to it, now I make some technical drawings, in time as I mature and I will venture into surfaces but more education on that arena which is not the same as what I wanted in the first place. Thanks for such a great video and no, I will not venture into SCAD, is beyond me and I will not put the time required for it.
I really enjoyed this video. I recently started using OpenSCAD and I really like it. I have tried FreeCAD, but since I have never used a 3D modeling program before and since Fusion 360 is no longer available to hobbyists unless you have some sort of home business I went ahead and tried using FreeCAD. I find it difficult to use, but OpenSCAD is much easier for me.
Thanks for your excellent and well presented video on the subject with clear narration. I would like to suggest, you should think seriously about making more instructional video professionally for beginners.
Dude you are a genius.
It seems like iteration around be easier to iterate with OpenSCAD. If I need to move a number of components, it would simple as finding the declaration and adjusting the transformation. With a point and click tool you'd have to grab each one and drag then to the correct place.
If the design had sub assemblies and variables it could be even easier. Need to change the diameter for all the standoffs in your enclosure, just change the variable for the diameter.
Very slick. Thanks for the video.
Great intruduction of OpenSCAD.
I remembered many years ago. my friends who are using CAD such as AutoCaD an Microstation , were using both GUI and text command at the same time. They use mouse to pick point/object with right hand, and change the properties using left hand. I amazed with their skills. Those days, we are using DOS or Windows 95 for CAD Not to mention the computer hardware during that time..
Thank you.
I used AutoCAD for a summer years ago. Got quite good at it. It's not much of a tool though - it's more just a vector graphics drawing application optimized for the work of a draftsman. You draw lines and arcs on a page - but that's all it is. It's not any kind of 3D object.
If you need that sort of thing today in 2019, I think LibreCAD is the go-to for 2D CAD tool for the open-source aficionado.
31:40 modules are great, one thing that often gets overlooked is the children() function. you can use that to bundle up a set of transformations (say a complicated move and rotate). I end up with a lot of modules in my project with names like at_screws(), where it'll position a copy of the module's children at each screw hole, for example. this can be useful because it gives you a lot more topological flexibility; instead of having one transformation that positions the children at the screws, and have all the hole related features (standoff, holes, and lateral supports) be children of that one transform, you can distribute your screw features throughout the code. this can be useful if you want the screw holes to drill through not just the standoffs, but also the base plate they're attached to, despite the fact that the base plate is outside the scope of that transform and therefore can't be modified by it. so it would be useful to be able to move one of the screw related features elsewhere in the tree, in this case move the hole geometry up into some outer difference() that contains all the stuff you want it to be able to go through. you can either write your transform (probably some for loops and a translate call) twice, or you define an at_mounting_holes() module, and just invoke that whenever you need to position something at each screw hole, anywhere in your model tree. that way also, if you need to change the screw positioning code later, there's one named and easy to find place where all of it lives.
you can also chain together these modules, which can be useful for assemblies. any time you call rotate() or translate() (or a module that applies these transformations to its children), you can think of it as creating a new coordinate system for its children. so, you can make a bunch of parts, each one positioned at the origin, and then use translate() and rotate() to assemble the parts into the final assembly. but instead of just calling rotate and translate, you define a module for each part's assembly position (called to_mypart()), and a second module that performs the inverse transformation (moving it back to the origin, called from_mypart()). then you use these modules to build up a preview of the assembly, and even better, you can use these modules to transfer geometry between different parts' coordinate systems. so if you define a module to position a set of, say, alignment pins on Part A, you call that function within part A's local coordinate system:
part_a_at_alignment_pins() cylinder(d=pin_d, h=pin_h)
and then on part b, you convert that transform from a Part A's local coordinate system to global coordinates, and then from global coordinates to Part B's local coordinate system:
to_part_b() from_part_a() part_a_at_alignment_pins() cylinder(d=pin_d + pin_clearance*2, h=pin_h + clearance)
since openscad doesn't have any proper namespacing, if you're making a multi part assembly, you'll need to use a scheme (like prefixes) to make your different parts' module names unique, and you'll probably want to have a separate file per part, so you can protect each part's global variables by importing with "use" (which limits access to just modules and functions, compared to "include" which gives you everything). then in each part file, you have your to_ and from_ modules defined, and a single outer module containing all the geometry of the part, which you then call in the file. you open this file when you want to work on that part in isolation, in its "natural" position, and then you have a separate "assembly" file that just imports all the part modules, and calls to_mypart() mypart(); for each part, and you view that in openscad to preview how it'll all fit together, as well as to have visual feedback as you write those coordinate transforms. (and if you wanna get really fancy, you might end up defining some parts in relation to other parts' origins, rather than the global origin. so if part_b is defined as rotated 45 degrees and 10mm above of part_a, then to_part_b would look like this:
module to_part_b() to_part_a() rotate(45) translate([0, 0, 10]) children();
and from_part_b() would just be this in reverse. then if you later decide part_a should attach to the assembly in a totally different place, you modify to_ and from_part_a, and part_b will automatically tag along since it references part_a's origin.
oh also hull() is wonderful in 3d but especially in 2d, to quickly build up complex shapes out of a few primitives. and roof() is... extremely powerful but limited in usefulness as it's still experimental and often broken :(
Thanks for a great video. Some folks at the local Makerspace have been recommending openSCAD. I wasn't convinced, and thought I'd be more comfortable with something like FreeCAD. You have convinced me that openSCAD is the better choice for me. Thanks!
i know Im asking randomly but does anybody know of a trick to log back into an instagram account??
I stupidly forgot the account password. I would love any help you can give me!
well done thankyou
I've been using TinkerCAD. I tired FreeCAD once but thought it looked too complicated. After watching your video I want to go back and try and learn how to use it. I like the idea I can download a copy and it's not going to change where as a cloud tool like TinkerCAD or Fusion360 can change, disappear, or they could decide to charge for it at anytime.
Nice comparison :) To fix the preview issue in OpenSCAD you can enable "enforce goldfeather algorithmus" in the settings. It solved the issue for me under windows. Also a note about the "perfect geometry". If you do 3D modeling for animations, renderings or whatever displays you model on a computer screen, then you are right and the perfect geometry shown e.g. by FreeCAD is better. But if you do 3D printing / CNC machining etc. it doesn't help at all, because your resulting model will always have discrete faces and OpenSCAD will actually represent exactly that.
I recently did some 3D prints for a friend that he had designed by his own. He was pretty surprised that the round faces he designed were not round at all at the end. He never actually had seen the STL file his tool created out of his perfect world model... I had to print them all a second time.
8:50
First Select "Create Body" to get the option to "Create Sketch"
Next select the X-Y Axis on the left hand menu. Then there is an oddly placed "Ok/Cancel" box above the window to select the plane. Select "OK" and it will unlock the polygon tools.
(FreeCAD 0.17/Ubuntu/fresh install of "Stable" PPA from command line on 10/10/18)
Hey Joel,
Thanks for this upload. I keep coming back to this as a reference. I finally got a 3D printer bc I want to make stuff like this.
However, it seems like I learn freecad for a project then wait just long enough to forget everything I learned before the next time I want to use it.
I know your contributions to Sigrok. As a UI Dev, do you think we will ever see (or is there) a more intuitive FOSS persistent 3D CAD tool?
When I'm using the latest freecad now in 2021, I'm reminded of KiCAD in the 3.x era, when I started using it. IIRC, at Chris Gammell's KiCon, it was mentioned that a retired/ex- UI Dev from Adobe had begun reworking the KiCAD UI. I wish we would see the same kind of overhaul with freecad. The freecad workflow is like playing a deep game of Simon Says mixed with grade school 1st foreign language flash cards. I'm about to relearn it for the 4th time. Is freecad still your FOSS tool of choice for designing models for printing?
-Jake
I'm a CAD student looking for new programs to play around in. I really appreciate the video and thought it was very interesting. I want to learn OpenSCAD so this video helped me get an idea of what it actually does. You got me thinking about Free CAD as well haha. Thumbs up!
+E.R.O. Glad you found it helpful :-)
OpenSCAD is so cool! I wish I had an actual use for it!
u r soo good =D kudos
Hi Joel,
Great video, very informative with just the right amount of detail!
By the way, the rendering 'artifacts' you noticed in OpenSCAD preview mode (around 37:30 in your video) are caused by linear_extrude making assumptions about the convexity of the shape to be extruded. This can be overridden with the 'convexity' parameter to linear_extrude; i.e. writing 'linear_extrude(thickness, convexity=2)' (or more than 2) will preview correctly. This option has no effect in render mode, which does the correct thing either way.
Marko
Thanks - that's good to know. That seems like a bug to me though - OpenSCAD should be able to figure all that stuff out automatically even in the preview. Not a major issue though.
Thank you for the informative video. I want to print the insert for the RF Synthesizer Board. Could you provide your model? In the project notes I could only find two other models, which are not the insert for the RF Board.
Hi Joel. Thanks for your sharing. One thing I am curious about that is there any thread kind of details on connection holes?
i be leave detective Frost has found this video most interesting and would like to investigate them in greater depth and so would I. :) Thanks
great! vim is must have. 🙂
Thank you for the video! I think I'll start to use OpenSCAD for all my new projects now. BTW I noticed that the sound in your videos is a bit quiet and sometimes changes, probably because it was recorded in different environments. You can easily solve all these issues with Audacity. Just run Noise Reduction filter, then the Compressor, and probably Normalize afterwards.
I'm sorry, I've just noticed that I messed with sound configuration on my laptop and forgot about this. This is why the sound seemed quiet. It's actually OK. Using Compressor is still a good idea though unless you are using it already.
@26:43 Could put some 6inch nails into the board, bit of a safety-hazard, but my prototype only goes up to 360VDC so i guess i'll be good.
But serious, just bought a 3d printer to do exactly that, supports for my pcb's, Just started on freeCAD, since i don't use Windows anymore and abandoned Sketchup (feeCad). Nice Vid!
thanks.
That was superb ! ........ great video mate, wish I could give two thumbs up ; )
If I use FreeCAD to design a small project like your 3D printed part at the beginning ( which was a brilliant bit of engineering btw ), can I send my design to a GCode generator for use on a CNC machine ?
Off to see what other tutorials videos you have !
TURK
As I originally asked the question over 9 months ago ( and no one answered! ) I've since then learned a few new things concerning FreeCAD ; )
You can indeed use FreeCAD to generate GCode for milling and creating parts on your CNC machine. The 'Work Bench' options provide a tool called 'PATH', designed to create tool paths for machining purposes. And for those of you who run the GRBL post processors on your CNC machines, FreeCAD also includes GRBL in it's list of post processors.
So far, FreeCAD is ticking all the right boxes for me : )
TURK
К FreeCAD еще пока много вопросов, но он идет в правильном направлении!
Freecad has become much more stable in the last year, but I will try OpenSCAD.
Actually in a FreeCad you can make a spreadsheet, fill your dimensions there and use them as variables in part design.
34:45 I follow why variables are handy but do not get why you place all those width height for the one square. The - or not is offset from 0 point right?
hgow dso you like freecad and where do you learn it
+OpenTechLab Instead of mounting the SSD on top of that mini PC, why not install it from under?
So this is 3 years late but that funny rendering issue you were having with OpenSCAD seems to be with the circle cutout you do on the 2D plane. If you do a cylinder difference after the linear_extrude the rendering seems fine.
So something like:
difference(){
linear_extrude(thickness) difference(){
polygon([
[-width/2, -height/2],
[-width/2, height/2],
[width/2-height/2, height/2],
[width/2,0],
[width/2,-height/2]
]);
}
translate([-width/4, 0]) cylinder(h=100, d=hole_dia, center=true);
translate([width/4, 0]) cylinder(h=100, d=hole_dia, center=true);
translate([0, -height/2, thickness/2])
rotate([90, 0, -45])
cylinder(h=1000, d=hole_dia, center=true);
}
Hello
Why You consider Vim a better editor for OpenSCAD?
By the way Freecad now has a toolbox for OpenSCAD so you can use both ways in freecad :) . Although I do not agree with you on the fact that freecad works with perfect mathematical shapes. If i zoom in on a cylinder I can see some edges.
Slightly off topic, but I noticed you said that you need to have access to the SWD pins to reprogram the STM32
There are several DFU bootloaders that would allow you to update via USB
I have the one thats used for Arduino on STM32 in my github account (which is based on the LeafLab MapleBootloader)
Or as you are using LibOpenCM3, you could take a look at the bootloader that Blacksphere use on their BlackMagic Probe
You would need to change your code start address to 0x80002000 to use either, and also do the trick to force USB re-enumeration but that's about all.
But perhaps if you're not updating the firmware that often its not worth the hassle (and also the 1 sec or so delay while the bootloader initially waits for upload when you power it up).
+Roger Clark I've used dfu bootloaders on other projects. I just didn't bother here. Having the slot was a nice little freeby to insert into the design. I doubt I will ever use it.
It's cool you're maintaining a bootloader. How does it compare with Gareth McMullin's one?
I've not done a direct comparison between the libmaple bootloader and the Gareth's version, but the libmaple one was originally written years ago and pre-dates libopencm3 so is more bare metal access to the hardware and is consequentially harder to port to any other STM32Fx MCU's
I think Gareth's version requires a DFUSe compliant DFU-Util where as the libmaple one is happy with the standard DFU protocol.
The libmaple one operates a bit differently when it starts up, as it checks whether it has an application binary at 0x80002000 or 0x80005000 and jumps to the application after a short timeout.
Gareth's checks for a GPIO before entering its DFU mode, otherwise it jumps immediately to the main BMP code at 0x80002000
If I get time, I was going to take Gareths version and port it to the STM32F4, because although the F4 has built in USB DFU, it needs DFUSe which I've had a problem getting to work on Windows.
And I'd also need to modify Gareths to support plain old DFU.
But I have so many projects underway, I never seem to have time to do this sort of thing.
+Roger Clark that's interesting to know. Thanks!
you should have mentioned that OpenSCAD is fully compatible with FreeCAD in that you can always import SCAN files into it and then change parameters without breaking them
Take a look at OpenJSCAD project too.
псевдонимы vimrc для работы с openscad, можете не благодарить
:imap ii :w
:imap .d difference () o{}O
:imap .u union () o{}O
:imap .i intersection () o{}O
:imap .t translate([0,0,0]);
:imap .r rotate([0,0,0]);
:imap .s scale([1,1,1]);
:imap .k cube([5,5,5],center=true);
:imap .c cylinder(d=5,h=10,center=true);
:imap .s sphere(d=5,center=true);
Biggest problem with Frecad is stability. Almost every single time, it crashes and erasing the work since last save. By comparison, Openscad never crash. Even if it did, text editor does not crash.
8:20 FreeCAD tut starts about here
OpenSCAD is great, but it is easy to produce an incomprehensible mess - spaghetti code. The language is easy to learn, but what is needed is a structured disciplined way of using it.
Yeah I find it helps a lot to wrap features of the design up into modules. It can get a bit ugly when you want to add ad-hoc details to the design. Still, if I find it it easier to refactor an OpenSCAD file, than a graphical 3D CAD model, especially when using git as a safety rope.
As a fan and frequent user of OpenSCAD, there are more than a couple of problems with OpenSCAD.
1) The #$@#$%# IDE. Ow, ow, ow, owww... Simply horrible. Use it, prove me wrong.
2) The rendering process. Godawful slow.
3) The ever present mesh errors from imported parts that show up by not showing your model at all. Not helpful.
On the plus side, still better than Blender.
Hi Joel, your videos are extraordinary good. Thanks! And keep it up!
Great video! Thank you!