FreeCAD: An Open Reply to TeachingTech
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- Michael compared FreeCAD, the new Ondsel version, and some proprietary CAD packages.
Some of his criticisms of FreeCAD were dead on, others seemed more a reflection on being less familiar with FreeCAD.
00:00 Intro
00:37 1st design
05:34 2nd design
12:05 Topological Naming Problem (TNP)
12:56 Conclusion - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 63 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ยอดภูผา vs โซเนอร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RGVmBsegKEI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D3 | Summer | ไม่อยากเหนื่อยวันเสาร์ ก็ต้องจัดเต็ม](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CbsHmoJXjvE/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello, and thanks for making this video. In my opinion you've been respectful, honest and fair. For me, this shows the workflow of an experienced user. It also affirms my opinion that FreeCAD/Ondsel is still significantly behind compared to other proprietary options (sadly). I've put my thoughts and a general response to some of the comments as a pinned post on my video/community post: th-cam.com/channels/bgBDBrwsikmtoLqtpc59Bw.htmlcommunity
I think the real take away from Michael's video, and a similar video from Angus of Maker's Muse, is that FreeCAD has a very steep learning curve even for people familiar with other CAD packages. Clearly you can overcome the problems they outlined, but FreeCAD does things in its own unique and not always intuitive way.
No. It also has glaring deficiencies specifically. Your attitude of just continuously saying its only a learning curve is so frustrating to read over and over again with people basically screaming skill issue.
@@BeefIngot/ Istg they never brushed about lacking/worse features equivalency. Fillet and Chamfer in particular is absolutely horrible when it comes to intersection...
I wish they had pointed them out for prioritization or something. UI/UX has marginally improved ever since MWL(Thomas) broke the pitch about it.
@@m4ki9h76 They kinda did though, by implying that its just about learning curve just because you can work around the deficiencies and where they state what the _real_ takeaway is, as if that the software also has glaring flaws is not one of them.
The real takeaway from the two videos you mention is that expecting a technical application with advanced capabilities to behave like other programs you have used is a recipe for frustration and failure. It is even worse when the person (people in these two videos) refuse to do any research on the product to see how it worked. I normally love Michael’s (Teaching Tech) videos but I found it very unfair that he made no mention of trying to find solutions his problems but he looked up an issue to solve in Fusion. That is not a fair comparison. And Angus claimed he couldn’t even create a new document in FreeCAD. That is willful ignorance on his part. He didn’t want to review FreeCAD and so he made an excuse not to review it. Watching a couple of quick videos would have helped both of these and still been less effort than they put towards many of their videos. Just because an application works differently than the applications one has used in the past doesn’t mean that the application is bad.
I note that Angus didn’t include OpenSCAD in his review of “all” free CAD applications in 2024. I guess he really didn’t want to the effort into it even though building his project would have been fairly simple using this.
@linventor4823You really did not watch the video if you think he didnt talk about his troubleshooting steps. Ironic that you are being so completely biased and unfair to him by doing so.
Your Angus take is even worse. You read a lot of nonsense between the lines. He clearly had tried it in the past, and didnt find it decent enough to bother. There is nothing wrong with that. He doesn't owe you making that comparison.
As for the SCAD take, Im pretty sure he actually did mention it, but mentioned the truth, that obviously its for a very particular type of person.
It also doesnt even use brep or similar maths, so it basically produces meshes from code rather than what you would expect from a cad tool.
This was an important video, thankyou for taking the time to make it.
I agree. Cheers.
Thank you. This was well presented. I keep dabbling in freecad, because I don't want to keep paying personally for fusion. So getting these lessons helped. You should make more. It was a good presentation.
Thank you! Check out my other videos. I will be making more.
Also check out channels like MangoJellySolutions - there are tons of good FreeCAD tutorials on YT. I personally am very happy to never have deep dived into any commercial CAD before I started learning FreeCAD. After understandig some basic concepts, FreeCAD is easy and efficient for many (most of my) design tasks.
@@4axisprinting Thank you very much. Appreciated.
Greetings from Santiago de Chile. South America. Juan.
Great video! Thanks. Agree 100% with the concerns about corporations holding your designs hostage. That's why I've forced myself to learn FreeCAD as well. Still ongoing, but I'm slowly getting better. It definitely seems to have a tougher learning curve and some quirks, but I'm willing to deal with those in order to know that what I'm learning can't be made irrelevant by some greedy corporate executives. Once I learn it, it seems quite capable of doing anything I'd need. And it's improving all the time. If I ever start making money from my designs, I'll probably donate a portion of that back to the FreeCAD project and feel a lot better about doing that than I would paying a software rental fee.
You know you can export your files in a large number of different formats from most paid CAD software, some even allow you to import other CAD software's files. Then you would still have your design even if you lose access to the CAD software.
You act as if with paid CAD software their cloud or proprietary file format is the only way your design can exist.
@@conorstewart2214Onshape blocked my account entirely, just because I'm from Russia. No way to recover my models, and even if I was able to export them - I couldn't get them in "editable" state, partly because with models I've lost my favorite and familiar CAD too. And trust me, you NEVER know until such thing happens to you. So, there are bugs and downsides, but (hopefully) with Freecad no one could repeat that to me.
upd: maybe I wasn't clear enough so here it is - Onshape blocked ALL russian accounts at once. Thousands at the very least. That's how many people lost all they work, just because of single corporate desision, based on political reasons. I assure you, most of those people couldn't do anything with our goverment and their actions.
@@conorstewart2214"export" and "save" are two different operations. being able to export is better than nothing (although, that is not something you can always take for granted with some of the cloud shit out there), but it's not the same. most of a CAD program's features won't cleanly map to the features of an interchange format like step or stl, so you lose a lot of information; even if it's a format that can losslessly represent the final geometry, and even some basic features of the model's topology, you're still losing a ton of information about how those features are defined using the CAD program's native features, and thus how to modify them using the CAD program's native tools. and If you do parametric modeling, an "export" is basically worthless for anything other than the parameter values you happened to export for before losing access. think of the difference between a PNG file and the original Photoshop file.
if a CAD program lets you directly import another CAD program's native files, then... maybe. but there's a million caveats with that, especially if the source format is proprietary. the developer is basically guessing how the objects are represented in the source format, and with no documentation on how those objects actually work, then has to figure out how to best represent them in their own program's data model. and if you don't have, like, the entire SM64 TAS community's worth of reverse engineering capacity, that ambiguity will show. the people building those features are doing valuable work, it will help people transition to more sustainable software, and more acutely it will help people recover after their commercial cad package inevitably rug pulls them. but that doesn't mean you should rely on it; just because firefighters are cool and brave doesn't mean you leave your stove on all the time.
@@spambot7110 yes I know all that, I was more meaning in a better than nothing kind of way like you suggested so if the CAD software does try to lock it all down then you can still have a usable file in some form, like an STL or step file. Most of the things I design are not parametric anyway, although I could make them more parametric if I wanted too but there wouldn't be much point.
Fusion 360 can import solidworks files, you do lose the timeline and all that though but the model can be measured, edited, etc, still. This may only be available in the student version rather than the hobbyist version though.
If for whatever reason I could no longer use the CAD software I would be fine (although still unhappy) with the step files, I can continue to print the pieces as I need them, I can continue to use the step or STL files in my design and then if I need to make a major change that isn't easy to do to the stl or step files then it is probably worth me remaking them in another CAD program.
The best solution is for CAD companies to just agree on a format, but obviously they don't want to do that. Hopefully the EU or similar can force it for compatibility reasons.
@@conorstewart2214 That is not what is being said. The ethos behind paid software is to offer a product at a price that first will provide a profit for investors, second to maintain engagement and finally to serve user utility. Because of this paid software often makes changes to suit the first of these objectives and suffers either massive push back from end-users, as in the case of Fusion 360 in recent years, threatening loss of engagement or suffers simple loss of patronage with a minor effect on profitability. For those with the means to support paid software, such as some TH-camrs, that is fine.Those of us without such means, including some who follow such TH-camrs, need to find alternatives and I assume this is the motivation behind both Michael and Angus attempting to keep in touch with changes in open source software. The main value to me in following Angus and Michael is in the end product, rather than the means of achieving it. In order to learn how to achieve similar thing,s utilising open source software, I follow those who can already demonstrate their understanding of the alternatives.It would enhance their credibility if they deferred to those with greater open source experience, perhaps even entering collaborations which benefits both.
Really appreciate the thoughtful, informative, and timely response the TeachingTech video. Thank you!
You are a natural at teaching this kind of content. I was a long time Fusion user up until about 6 months ago when I got disillusioned with their Free-But-Not-Free-Cloud-Only shenanigans. I switched to FreeCAD and it was a brutal learning curve. But after a few months I'm feeling much more confident with FreeCAD. It's all about practise and watching great videos like yours.
I found this series of tutorials to be a big help in understanding some of what can be done in FreeCAD.
th-cam.com/video/NXN7TOg3kj4/w-d-xo.html
Imagine, Onshape blocked access to all russian accouts. That's how I've lost all my models, several years of work. That lesson was hard but I learned it well. That's why Freecad now is my only option, doesn't matter how buggy or unpolished it is.
@@jnarical Dang, that would suck!
Thank you for taking the time for the thoughtful reply to Michael's video. I'm just a 3D printing hobbyist and I currently use Fusion360 and have been growing more concerned that the free personal license will either disappear or become constrained to the point of being unusable. Quite frankly, I'm generally concerned about any cloud based solution. I have many home automation devices that are perfectly good, except the cloud provider died or shut them down. I don't want that to happen to my 3D designs.
I have more time than money these days, so think I will take a shot at learning FreeCAD.
Quick update to my previous post. I spent a few hours learning FreeCAD in the last day. In that time, I have successfully designed (and 3D printed) a custom 2-part camera and lens mounting bracket to use them with my computer guided telescope mount. Not super complex, but not a simple design either. Honestly, I don't think the learning curve was much more significant for me than when I started with Fusion360 6 or 7 years ago. It did take a minor mindset shift going from the F360 timeline to the model tree, which was not a big deal.
I will also say I have probably 3 times as many sketches than I would have had with F360 since you extrude or cut full sketches. That actually made my sketches cleaner and less confusing, so I think that's really a wash. And once I figured it out, the symmetrical constraint is way more versatile than the F360 mid-point constraint, so that was a net positive.
And after all that, I decided to try out the 0.22.0 dev build, and all I can say is, Wow! Just the improvements to dimensioning put it over the top for me.
It's only been 1 day, but at this point I don't think I'll be going back to Fusion360.
Thanks for your video that inspired me to give FreeCAD a try!
Most of what you said is above my pay grade at this time.
But the fact that you quickly responded in a very postive, and honest way, has led me to try FreeCAD again.
Fantastic response and tutorial. I especially liked seeing a real world problem I was familiar with, being solved by step by step.
I also didn't know you could use the PART workbench tools with the sketch -- in fact the vast array of workbenches is still confusing to me -- and which ones can be used together, which ones are stable vs not recommended, etc.
I love the idea of freecad but have been unable to incorporate it into my workflow due to models breaking, cryptic errors, etc. Content like this helps a lot.
Stepped over this by accident. Thank you. As a FC beginner didn't know I can use symmetry constraint this way (used to use construction geometry). I will stick to FC mainly for reasons said at the end - it is good enough for my hobby use. (looking forward to have topology naming improved)
I found it very useful, I started with Freecad and you and mango-jelly helped a lot. I did NOT find it hard to start using it and even have a patent on a design made with FreeCad 😁👍
1:43 The dev releases of FreeCAD currently have the updated sketcher, with the updated constraint system, so you can constrain just about everything with one short cut.
Glad I scanned down before posting a dup of this comment. Nightly builds aren't a big chore to install.
There is a master sketch workflow. Just select the geometries you need and make a sub-shape binder. As long as the wires are closed this face can be used for whatever operation you want. You can then modify the binder and place it parametricly where needed, map somewhere else on a datum plane, make an offset etc. It's extremely powerful and saves a lot of time if you implement it in the workflow.
Aren't shape binders prone for TNP? I prefer to create new sketches; switch to non construction (GN); carbon copy (GW) the master; then select anything I want and make it construction (GN); and if needed add some geometry. Of course, the master sketch(es) MUST BE fully constrained.
One fine addition is to FIRST start with a sketch or spreadsheet containing all the parameters an user is intended to change later on. This makes documentation and handling parameters easier than to have them spread around the whole project.
Sadly, there are too many people on the web complaining about the way they're thinking is not the way FreeCAD handles features. Same quality of ppl panicking when being confronted w/ LibreOffice because they only know M$ products.
That "TT" guy is mainly a presenter of other' ppl ideas and projects. Thanks to everyone proving where he's wrong.
@@NUeB_RCFPVThe topological naming problem is not an issue in the latest versions of FreeCAD. I personally haven't encountered it for years, and sometimes I sketch directly on faces and use sub-shabe binder extensively in my workflow.
These content creators just regurgarate the same shit they heard before. I can assure you none of them actually encountered the problem themselves.
@@demirmahir I just encountered TNP in 0.21 in a current project w/ sub-shape binders.
@@NUeB_RCFPVConsider youself extremely lucky then, maybe play the lotto today 😄Jokes aside, if you're using sub-shape binder with a master sketch workflow, you won't get any issues, given that the support is a sketch, not changing faces or edges.
Also try 0.22 dev edition, it's quite stable and it will be a game changer when it gets out. Or better yet use the Link branch.
@@demirmahir Okay, *now* I got it - subshapes of the master sketch itself. Thanks, pal! 🙂
Every time I see or am forced to use FreeCAD it reminds me the old IT rule that programmers should never be in charge user interface systems.
Our society is too accepting of people who say "this sucks" without offering any advice for how to make it better.
The UI isn't what's the worst about it. The UI is ok enough
Fix the damn cad engine
@@freemandrew Except woth FreeCad there is no shortage of solution suggesters and even implementers.
Amazing response, would not be able to do it better myself. Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH ! for this *Great Vid*
You have earned one more subscriber
Cheers !, from Chile. South America
This is John.
The change you made at the end was worth platinum! As to the TNP, Solidworks actually makes a bewt guest based on last knon good and goes from there. All is well until expprt. Somewhere in the FreeCAD forums there is a post about trying to convert a shape into a solid. Someone dug into the design and found a bunch of open shapes that were probably the result of bandaid and "hide the bug" fixes that large no compition software ends up. This could be also a result of buying tech to include so people keep buying the new version. Adobe did this with Photoshop and many of the addons that I have install files for but are no longer on the market but are now in Photoshop.
But I am rambling and the screen keyboard is driving me crazy with the typos. Thanks again for the really cool time travel tip.
I'm pretty sure I have seen F360 do that too. Silently dropping an attachment means breaking the parametric characteristic of the design. I find it a bit horrifying when I think about what can happen when someone goes back and makes a small change that SHOULD have been no big deal and the model becomes a nightmare shape with little idea how it got there. If it's going to break, I'd like to know immediately so I can address it, preferably by re-attaching the feature somewhere.
for a long time I used Turbo Cad...quite good...but running only on Windows...so when I switched on Linux OS...needed to use a parametric CAD...
FreeCad even if at the time was not perfect, it allowed me to learn every day something new. the more I learn, the more I expand my 3D printing capabilities.
If you want to be free...you need to learn...and Freecad gives you this opportunity!
Well done good Sir! And "Refine=true" should come in handy in the future, thank you.
You can make freecad "autorefine" every step in the settings. However refine has messed up a couple of models for me in the past, where there was too much refining going on and faces became missing. So use the feature wisely.
Great answer. I would have proceeded the same way with the PartDesign wb ! Thanks for having taking time for posting it. Very much appreciated you 've got a new suscriber 🙂
Thank you for giving a balanced reply to TeachingTech's video.
Thank you so very much for making this video and sharing your experience with us.
I watched Michael's video and thought that some of his difficulties are related with lack of experience with FreeCAD, namely the transfer of geometries. I admit, though, that I now have hundreds of hours testing and experimenting with this software and that my perspective is quite skewed. Still, great job!
While FreeCAD users are likely to defend it, part of Michael's "review" was also around ease of use and from personal experience I must agree with Michael that some aspects of FreeCAD can be difficult to master, but alas I learned something today and it will I expect help me in my use of FreeCAD which BTW is my preferred cad software. Thanks for the video and thanks to the developers of FreeCAD.
I'm aligned with your view that I want all of my data and tools to be as unencumbered as possible, and so all of my modeling is with free tools like FreeCAD. But we have to be willing to admit that the FreeCAD UI is... kind of atrocious. It's powerful and you can do just about anything you need, but it has quirks, is inconsistent, unintuitive, and downright frustrating sometimes.
My view on Michael's video is that it's a good overview of some reasons *why* the FreeCAD UI is bad because you can see how much more direct manipulations are in professional packages, and the convenient shortcuts they give you (midpoint constraints). I had no prior assumptions about how 3D modelling worked when I started learning FreeCAD, and in retrospect it probably took me at least 2-3x longer to become proficient in FreeCAD than it would have taken me if I started with a professional package. Even now, each non-trivial model I design takes at least twice as long, and breaks regularly while making adjustments due to topological naming issues (or takes 3x longer if I more carefully design it to avoid tripping over topological naming issues).
This I think was Michael's point: you only have so much time to do the things you want to do. If, like you and I, it's important to not get locked down, then it's going to cost you in FreeCAD 's learning curve. Things are improving, but they're not nearly there yet.
An amazing follow up. I do not fault michael, i love his content. As you have mentioned it comes down to experience in using the software. Thank you for making this content.
Your video is well-articulated and I could not agree more with your assement. I have only recently started designing in CAD as part of my dive into the hobby of 3D printing and have only used FreeCAD -- as I, too, am committed to free and open-source utilities so that I am never beholden to will of corporate software giants. Unencumbered by having to first "unlearn" a competing software package, I have found FreeCAD to be easy to pick up and use effectively. Your video; however, has in minutes taught me enough to shave hours off my designs. Keep them coming and be well!
So much messaging about the value of open source gets mangled by folks who juat arent quite erudite enough to get the point across without sounding conspiratorial. Your closing remarks were succinct, level-headed, and in no way felt heavy-handed. Thank you so much for your fantastic work as always!
Good video, as someone still learning, it taught me a few new tricks.
I have gotten used to the part design workbench and never really use part workbench myself, and the TPN is a very annoying issue as I no longer dare to attach sketches to surfaces of the part, but use data planes with the position "=" to imitate the feature and keep it parametric. I have however never tried to rewrite earlier features by switching the source object to modify, that will be fun to try at some point.
I know this does not apply to everyone, probably not most, but for me the biggest reason I prefer open tools even though they are a bit more clunky is because I know that my knowledge can grow deeper over time. This means I will only get better and faster. Any corporate strategy tax that might affect other tools like fusion 360 might mean I will get slower if features are removed, or I might even have to abandon all my knowledge and learn another tool if it becomes too bad. In short, I prefer the option where my skills will grow deeper over time instead of the option where I will grow shallow skills for a wider set of proprietary tools.
Keep in mind, that he showed this on an outdated version (0.21.0) - stable today is 0.21.2. Seems that the next release 0.22 has massive improvements (as usual).
Updating to the latest version is highly recommended for FreeCAD-users.
To be honest, in the beginning FreeCAD was a bit frustrating due to the steep learning curve. Today it's my first choose.
Wow what a great reply where everyone learns something, ❤
I was expecting and excited to see this video from you! I remembered seeing your response to Thomas Sanladerer when he made a similar video about his issue with FreeCAD. I was surprised to see the Michael seemed to not have looked into really any of the constraint options aside from lengths in FreeCAD. I would personally enjoy seeing your take on the challenges from his video in the part design workbench if you find the time! Angus from Makers Muse also made a video the day after Michael where he labeled FreeCAD as "unusable" if your looking for anything else to reply to.
I saw that MM video and I could not tell the difference between what he did in onsel vs what I would do in freecad, so I think people are a bit prejudice.
Granted: I watched it while cooking dinner so the concentration was less than full.
Angus was right.
Amazing! As developer i first tried these proprietary easy ones, but idk - i didn't like them, for me FreeCAD was intuitive - everything should go step-by-step just like coding/programming.
A well presented argument for free-cad. If you want to drive a powerful machine it is useful to know how it works. My biggest praise for free-cad is that it is a stand alone, off cloud programme.
My internet connection is good SOMETIMES.
@5:21 You proove that it is parametric, not that it has a time line ! A true time line makes possible to insert new operations at any time or to swap or shift operations like on f360.
Thats how every one of these hyper defensive responses is. They just bend over backwards to ignore flaws and do anything to call them differences rather than flaws.
Isn't that basically what he does @11:35
@@Di3LeberwurstNot exactly ! If you're a F360 user, you know what I mean...
@@filetdelumiere5037Well, that explains everything...
The tree is the time-line. You can totally pick some time in the tree, press "set tip" and insert a new operation there and then.
Came here because I was curious how the filet in the second design was done correctly for the full size. The workaround is what I do regularly too that kind of freaks me out. If I want to create a fully parametric design I don't want to set the value for the fillet to something fixed. So for me it's creating (sort of) a master-sketch with random lines I use for creating named references and later using them in the design (or using a data table (forgot if this is the correct name)) via the function handle. (Which is where I would love to see a possibility to directly enter the variable-name instead of clicking the icon first).
Anyways, like the video response to Tom Sanladerer this was a fair, acknowledeging and non-judging reply and I wish more people would do them this way!
Yes, in a real design, I would make the fillet Extrusion001.LengthFwd-0.0001mm
Thank you for your kind words. I really would like to see more polite discourse on the Internet.
Smart constraint tool is already available in current dev version.
Thanks for the rebuttal. I’ve tried FreeCAD a little and would like to have a different option than F360.
I'm a free acct onshape user and fusion360 user (not often now), and have tried to get used to freeCAD in the past. This video is VERY good and very informative, and I wish it could have existed sooner. I couldn't get used to FreeCAD when I tried. I wish it was more like onshape, which I find very comfortable to use most of the time. I know one of these days my onshape models are going to either cease to exist, or not be possible for me to edit any longer, so I suppose I should get decent with freeCAD.
I am in the exact postion as you, I too am an OnShape user as it is so intuitive. Like you I also have a bit of angst that one day my designs will be held hostage by OnShape until I pay for it. Like you I'm going to take a second run at FreeCAD - which I just been able to install on my works Laptop without admin rights! Game on!
I've been using FreeCAD for 3 or 4 years now. I admit that getting into FreeCAD can be quite the grind (at least a few days of "work"). It doesn't help that naming can be confusing (e. g. the "Part" workbench, the "Part Design" workbench and the "Part" object are different things that don't depend on each other at all) and error messages can be cryptic or lacking information. But after you've come to know FreeCAD's kinks, "best practices" and limitations (not many really), it's a very powerful tool. I've created models (which are maybe too parametric 😅), where I change a single number and hundred parts get shifted around and/or reshaped. Almost all parameters of almost all objects can be a formula that can reference properties of all other objects. I don't know if that's something that's even possible in all other CAD programs.
Btw. I find that people who have used other CAD programs have a lot more problems to get into FreeCAD than people who are complete "noobs".
@@superdau onshape, fusion360, that sort of parametric design capability is a lot of the draw, because they both do it pretty intuitively (more intuitively IMO than freeCAD last I looked). I have no doubt that freeCAD does this well, but it's not really something you can boast about to someone who already uses onshape or fusion 360, because that's normal, expected behavior for them.
@@lienmeat
As I said, I don't know what other programs can do. But I'm thinking about formulas where you for example set the step distance of a linear pattern by referencing the length of an edge in a sketch somewhere and dividing it by number of objects in another pattern. Or you calculate the number of repetitions in the pattern by using parameters of objects not related to the pattern itself at all. I'm using the linear pattern as an example here, because it's easy to visualize. I'm talking about values for parameters of an object, where there's no "intuitive" way, because you can only arrive at those values by formulas.
@@superdauI don't know the other systems either but it is really cool that any place you type a number, you can type a formula, and that formula can refer to values defined elsewhere in the model, and those values can in turn be defined by formulas with references, and some of those references can be to aliases of spreadsheet cells, and onwards recursively.
Very interesting. I get the feeling that "external geometry" is a key tool in resolving many things that I, and others, have problems with in Freecad.
Not quite resolve. Its a much less efficient way to do things.
That and using expressions and naming of parameters
Tip. Any external geometry can be converted to sketch geometry by first selecting the external geometry (read), then by using the toggle button or the key combo g n will turn in to geometry (pink) that can be extruded, pocketed or what ever regular geometry is used for.
Is that a Link branch feature? I'm not quite sure as it doesn't work in my main repository 0.22dev(weekly).
@@m4ki9h76 It could be as I use the link branch. But I think it works in normal FreeCAD.
It doesn't.
@@4axisprintingA ok. Thanks.
I have seen TTs video also and had the same video idea in mind, but in german language 😉
There are so much ways to do those things. For example you could have done the pad (3:13) symmetric to the sketch, then you could also use the midpoint in your Sketch001 without the need for a symmetric constarint 😀
My friend is a brilliant coder. He wants to help make an FOSS CAD program. He said that he considered joining FreeCAD, until he took a look at their horrible code base
Very nice but you really should have used the part design as that is what people default to.
this was great. along with teaching techs video, it was very insightful.
i am still unsure as to what CAD programm to use, as i don't earn any money with this, yet. As FreeCAD is free and works on many operating systems, even the most niche ones, thanks to open source, for me it would be an amazing tool to use.
i mean, i managed to switch from Milkshape3D to Blender 2.79, how much harder can it be?
You can constrain the size of the rectangle without specifying horizontal or vertical by using the length constraint on the sides.
Maker's Muse recently made a video comparing free (as in beer) CAD tools, but he only tested Ondsel. He didn't test FreeCAD saying "it isn't usable in [his] opinion." Maybe you could demonstrate how to make that coin for him. :) :) :)
Nothing but love for Maker's Muse though, a decent channel.
I think it was just paid promotion of Ondsel. Actually right now Ondsel is just 0.22 dev version of freecad with ondsel lens addon and assembly workbench - nothing special + tons of bugs since it is in early stage and based on a dev version. From one side it's good for the FreeCad community - a lot of new features will be merged back into mainstream, but from other side such unfair comparison leads to lot of hate toward mainstream version. What I want to say - 0.22 is pretty usable if you know how to use it. Linkstage3 is even better, but lack some new features from sketcher wb introduced recently.
i feel that would be somewhat redundant? he was quite ok working with the ondsel version and it would not be too long for the ondsel's feature to trickle back to main branch
Onsdel is just freecad dev with lens and their own workbench added.
Ondsel is FreeCAD. The workflow is exactly the same. It's just the buttons are (sometimes) in different places.
i suspect that maker's muse got stuck right at the beginning when it comes to FreeCAD: picking which workbench to use. "Part" and "Part Design" have a lot of overlaps as well as different workflows, and the program gives zero hints as to which you should use.
this is where Ondsel does better, by basically dropping you right into the equivalent of the "Part Design" workbench.
Most of the limitations explained in the video are, at least in my opinion, quite manageable, as it mostly boils down to adding some extra clicks and is a fair trade for what the software allows for. However, I swear that this part 9:00 just hurts my soul. I know it won't make any perceivable difference, yet it seems so dirty to leave it like that. Does anyone know if there is a planned fix for this issue, or a more elegant workaround?
I hope that you and @teachingtech have seen the news regarding the "light at the end of the tunnel" for the topological naming problem!
The key takeaway from both videos is that while the other CAD software allow the user to click-and-draw, FreeCAD requires the user to carefully plan ahead, and place his object in the 3D space carefully so that we can use the Origin and axes. (or he could have used drivers to place the centerline in the middle of the rectangle.).
Apart from planning, it also requires a lot of extra steps, such as creating the same elements twice.
Further, this paradigm would not occur to a user of other CAD software, because he can draw multiple shapes in the same space, so he won't have to use the Origin and 3D space axes.
Put another way, it requires you to actually understand your design geometrically. That includes questions like will this existing geometry always be what's needed here or is this just a happy accident that'll be back to bite later.
It IS more demanding. Sometimes a design needs that.
Thanks,subscribed.
People should just use what they are comfortable with and what suits their needs.
I use blender for pretty much everything, including technical work. You can easily have a non-destructive workflow for most things in blender besides text for some reason (And I bet there is a solution to this using geometry nodes). Sure there will be cases where Blender can't do something as gracefully as CAD constraints, but you can usually get around it, if everything fails there is a Python interpreter that you can do pretty much anything with.
But a person comming from a CAD suite would not find Blender useful. I like to prototype all sorts of things, and I want to do it in the weekend or something usually, for me Blender is THE tool for this kind of stuff, its precise enough and fast enough using a CSG workflow. I don't think in 2D sketches and constraints when I design, I think in shapes and function, so to me I find Blender more useful than any CAD program i tried.
Literally a CAD package designed by a committee and everything about it reflects that. It is the "linux" of CAD packages 🙂(and I've been a linux user since the beginning).
The "freak out" when you are exactly on an edge or face is one of the most irritating things in FreeCad. It's so fun to click extrude and get a barf window and have the model disappear. But i learned on it, and was a bit disappointed in the other two videos. As a non-professional, it does everything i need it to.
The way i hear the difference with FreeCad v other Cad software is FreeCAD is the CAD software a programner would use. I tried to use FreeCAD years ago and found it was harder to understand than F360. But the pount of comnercial v OSS is perfectly illustrated by F360 and its licencing shenanigans
Good video. The circle shape could have had a pocket from side axis through all. Less operations
Absolutely, but I didn't want to deviate Too far from his workflow in order to better demonstrate the bits he was missing.
@@4axisprinting I agree it's better to think of blocks you carve from planes in freecad or any cad rather than just keep adding to faces
That part in the center, is it a circle? Oh, I get it now, it's a well actually.
Great video. 🎉
Thank you!
my problem with freecad is i cant read the menu text and drop down boxes, no matter what i do unless i put my display resolution to 200% recommended and i dont know how to fix it. otherwise i would be only using freecad,
it would be great if it were a little more visual impaired user friendly,
I did a search on that and forum.freecad.org/viewtopic.php?t=63750 seems to have a couple solutions.
@@4axisprinting thank you, its a shame it does not just havea drop down menu feature in the preferrence but beggar cant be chooses
but now i can see says the blind man
Looks like I need to play with Part workbench more. I've been exclusively using part design workbench, didn't realize you could do sketch & pad operations in part workbench. The Boolean operations are easier in part workbench, but once you do a "Part" operation on a "part design" body, you can't go backwards. Bit confusing to be honest
Some find the Part workbench harder since it makes less effort to resemble other CAD programs, but I appreciate it's versatility and flexibility. It will be a lot easier to use if you add a custom toolbar with things like New Sketch and some of the Draft tools in it for quick access. See my video on that: th-cam.com/video/N8jpKo9uAEs/w-d-xo.html
@@4axisprinting Thanks mate perfect! I'll check it out
trying to make the same symmetrical constrain at 6:38 and my free cad fail miserably "Redundant constrain (5)"
You probably need to enable "Remove redundants". It's a checkbox in the dropdown at the upper right of the Constraints list.
Maybe I use Freecad in 10 years when it’s more convenient to use. In the meantime I use fusion360 and pay for the CAM and use the CAD too.
If I didn’t need the CAM I would buy Alibre design.
First, i like the idea of freecad... however, hate the execution. Stop defending terrible ui and ux. The foundation is there, but the usability needs to be addressed. I want to see it succeed and the only way that will happen is when, like blender, it addresses those two issues.
I would never ever rely on proprietary software for anything I care about. That includes any creative creation, like programming or CAD. If it isn't free as in freedom, then it's not a viable alternative
One thing I like particularly about freecad, and I don't see this mentioned much, is how it helps teach best practice. Coming from fusion 360, I would frequently find myself breaking my more complex models when I needed to make a simple design change. I found freecad's unique workflow and more rigid input requirements, really emphasize designing with intent. Previously I was focused mostly on what would work to simply create a geometry. After freecad I now focus on the intent of those geometries which allows me to better constrain my models for improved robustness. I don't think it's all just the fact that it's a harder program to work with either. It really seems like it's easier to design with intent than with others cad packages. From my interactions with the forum, it appears that is a primary philosophy of development. Yes, the learning curve is steep, but the extra work is not a waste. If anything I feel the time I spent learning fusion 360 was a significant waste after they locked it down so much that I decided to move on. I'm comfortable with freecad knowing the time I invest is not going to be a waste, and what happened with fusion will never happen to me again.
This is an important point. FreeCAD really does push the user to be more rigorous in the model and that pays off later in stability and precision. Papering over problems makes things seem easy, but that all comes back to bite you when you make a small change later and nothing lines up.
I did comment in his video and I think his approach falls short because he's expecting FreeCAD to be a FLOSS version of Fusion 360 and this is usually where disappointment regarding free software happens because people don't want to change or learn a new tool.
I'll say the same thing here: FreeCAD looks and works like a horse designed by a committee. The fact you have enough experience with the thing to work around its faults absolutely does not matter.
I told him in the comments that he needed the symmetry constraint.
Thank you for this great tutorial...
In the comments section of Micheal's video I tried to convey that it is really hard to assess an application without knowing how to use it in the first place. I didn't say anything that will gloss over the problems with FreeCAD, nor acted as a fun boy... All I was trying to say was, that I need to know about the weaknesses and strengths of a particular applicaiton to build my workflow around them and although I love Micheal's videos and follow him for years now, that video was not good to help me assess the applications... At the same time Angus from Makers Muse created a similar video, and that was great, because he spent the time to learn each application and show what is good and not good about that application, again that was a great video....
Thank you for this great video again.
Well played. FreeCAD still feels worth it, all things considered.
IMO developing parts and machines involves trial and error. Your models in CAD will break. Some of your ideas will be dead-ends. Learing how to repair those models in FreeCad is not really taught much on youTube.I think this leads to much of the frustration with FreeCad. I try FreeCad out every year but then return to Fusion 360. I am using the Autodesk hobby license and worry they could stop it at any time.
It's not just your creations that can't be locked up by proprietary developers, it's also your knowledge and experience with the tool. Fusion 3D is a great example of a proprietary tool that is given away free to students in order to lock them in by dint of their experience, and TeachingTech effectively demonstrated that very thing. He learned how to use the proprietary tool while using it for free, and is now paying hundreds of dollars a year. He's fortunate that he took the locked-in price when he did, or he'd probably find himself justifying the even higher expense of the current price.
You have it completely backwards. Fusion360's operation is pretty much industry standard. The skills you learn in Fusion are directly transferable to packages like Inventor, SolidWorks, CATIA, and others that you would be using in any sort of real engineering environment. FreeCAD is the outlier that does things in strange and mostly nonsensical ways that locks you into their methodology.
If you are doing a reply video to someone else's video, it is usually considered too be a good idea to link to that video in your description.
A wonderful capable program, and free, there can be no complaints. But it is a totally cryptic way of working, nuts, it's the 'implementation' of the way you have to work with it that is the total put off. Just by way of example in say a direct modeling system the second example for a hobbyist, like myself, can generate it perfectly in about a minute, that's not because it can do it better than FreeCAD, just the 'implementation' UI. Such a shame, that UI wants tearing down and completely bringing up to date and then FreeCAD would be fantastic, free, and most of all 'useable', because as it is there is just not enough time in a day/life to get even the most basic shapes done, BUT, it CAN already do it, which is the shame of things. Many Thks for the vid but what you created here I can do those both examples in 2 - 3mins and I am a newbee to cad.
Two things to keep in mind. The first is that FreeCAD can do much more complex models to exact specifications, parametrically which makes it more complex. The other is that it takes longer to do things when you are also explaining it.
Totally agree that FreeCAD first impressions are riddled with the misunderstanding of its CAD kernel. Other commercial kernels have many features included that suggest convenience when the user is building something that has mathematical/topological issues. Commercial CAD kernels do then "figure out" a way or two how to remedy the model and try to guess what the user meant by that operation. Typically they are right with their guess.
Not so openCASCADE, the FreeCAD kernel. When you do a questionable mathematical operation, you get immediately a slap to your face. Yes, that is annoying and inconvenient as user in the beginning, but this forces you to structure your model *mathematically reasonable* which is THE skill you want to learn because that is the only skill transferable from one CAD software to the next! All those convenience features are solved differently in other CAD software. All those interfaces are structured differently, and so on... Whenever you pick up a different CAD software you always start at bottom zero in terms of user experience/convenience.
What is left is the knowledge of logically structuring a model that stays the same for different CAD software (perhaps Siemens' synchronous technology changes this a little).
All the other points with the interface and workbenches, I totally agree. It is an unoptimized interface where some items are available in all workbenches and others not and everytime you change the workbench, the interface slightly changes.
What an unbearably gentoo linux bro response. You describe a defficiency as a skill issue. People so not care about being mathematically perfect. They want the best use of their time possible. It is a positive, not negative, that other peices of software let you get away with what you call mistakes.
This is a great video and I hope a lot of people will watch it. However I think the point of the original video was not to show what FreeCAD can do, but rather to prove that it does not work the same as other tools. I've seen a half-dozen such videos, all by experienced CAD users, and wondered if they did any research at all. I came to realise they didn't really WANT to learn something else, they just want it to work like they are used to. They usually describe working in many CAD programs and being able to switch between them - until FreeCAD. Is this a problem of the software? I don't think so, but I suppose it depends how you look at it.
More importantly, they *paid* for something else and they didn't want to learn FreeCAD could do the job.
AKA Confirmation bias
FreeCAD has some genuine issues. There are some useful features it's missing and the fragmented nature of even pretty basic workbenches is pretty confusing with how there are multiple tools that do very similar things without much explanation of the nuances. The UI could definitely be better too.
But the things that people complain about usually are exactly what you said, they want it to work the same as everything else. Most CAD software allows for intuitive workflows, but they often lead to very fragile models that are difficult to work with. It's kinda crazy how badly constrained the models are of many very succesful maker youtubers. FreeCAD makes less assumptions, sometimes making it tedious to use as you have to spell out what you want it to do, but in most cases that's good practice anyway.
@@Bruno-cb5gk This is a very fair assessment. And it matches what my coworker (a real Fusion pro) said when he got serious about learning FreeCAD.
I've seen a bunch of videos where people say "I usually work in X, but I was able to work out how to do it in package Y, even though the commands were different, because it was INTUITIVE". Then they say "I couldn't work out how to do it in FreeCad without delving into the manual or forum posts". For myself, I learned on DesignSpark Mechanical and switched to Fusion and found it very easy, even though practically every command was different.
If FreeCAD is different from other CAD tools, learning it does not benefit much (education and industries use "normal" CAD tools anyway).
Is it somehow impossible (technically, or mindset-ily) to bring FreeCAD workflow, UI and concepts in line with other CAD tools? Is it some sort of open-source or linux _curse_ to stick to own ideas and forget _ordinary_ users?
While i'm thankful you for video freecad is still a weird thing. It's just not made for people period. It not viable in current state. Even this video shows this. Way too much troubles to do a simple things.
I feel that this video and some of the comments miss the point and actually reinforce his points rather than dispute them.
He never said that it would be impossible to create things in FreeCAD so just because someone with a lot more experience in it can create it better it doesn't mean FreeCAD is anywhere near as good as other CAD software.
What was shown here in the video was creating an object with a lot more extra steps and potential mistakes than you would need or encounter if you used other CAD software.
Just saying "it has a steep learning curve but once you learn it, it is fine", is not really a valid argument when most of that learning curve is learning workarounds or unintuitive ways of doing things. Why can other CAD software have a much shallower and more intuitive learning curve and still provide better results?
As for timelines, what you showed seems like another workaround and FreeCAD still lacks a proper timeline.
From Teaching Tech's video and this one it definitely seems like FreeCAD is not there as a true competitor to other CAD software yet and still has a long way to go.
My problem is that every defense of FreeCAD seems to start with 'Your problem is you are trying to do it the way EVERY OTHER CAD PRODUCT on the face of god's green earth works.' As a software dev myself, this is a huge red flag regarding the product and the team behind it if they have ignored decades of convention.
As Thomas, Michael, and Angus, have all demonstrated, every other CAD program behaves similarly enough that there is a minimal learning curve to jump between them. FreeCAD seems to be the only CAD program that falls outside the standard manner of doing things.
When the first version of FreeCAD came out, Fusion 360 was 11 years in the future. I could make equally comical videos by trying to use Word like it was Wordstar or use Windows like it was MacOS or vice versa.
The last point is arguably the most important one. Single entities should not have authority to make decisions unilaterally that are against the will of the majority.
Sorry but you have proven Michael’s - and others - points.
You just wasted time demonstrating the FreeCAD is indeed clunky, regressive, non-conforming to standard CAD software ui and ux conventions and FreeCAD takes considerably longer to do something that takes half the time in Solidworks, fusion or OnShape.
You love FreeCAD and you have invested time to work around freecads foibles. Good for you. But don’t be surprised that user take up continues to be shockingly low for a FOSS project because unless things change, that’s what will continue to happen.
Yes, FreeCAD does things differently from other CAD systems and there is a steep learning curve too,
but once mastered, FreeCAD is all you ever need. The world's only, parametric and standalone 3D CAD system.
It's the poor UI/UX which is the main reason that puts me off FreeCAD, and most open source software in general. Never let programmers do UI/UX!!
I swear every criticism is the same. Minor nitpicks as if they dismiss the overall point. The Freecad community based on the respomses to that video has to be one of the most toxic communities for an open source thing.
So much toxic positivity where you arent allowed to point out glaring flaws with the software and every defficiency is called a skill issue or non issue because some horrible, inefficient workaround exists.
Its like Freecad has become a part of peoples identity with the rawr rawr companies cant take my stuff mentality so theyre willing to put the blinders on and go after and attack anyone who tarnishes their escape from reality.
Im only a minute in but Im already seeing more of that in these comments so I expect to be frustrated watching this video explain to me how really painful workflows that someone has had to get used to are actually perfectly reasonable and not at all slow by comparison.
To be very clear Im not somehow anti open source, as that would be dumb. Kicad is amazing. Blender is awesome. Freecad in particular is just a little bit more useable than Gimp.
There really is a split in OS software mangagement between how much the "leet", "git gud", "skills issue" people, who think "knowing how to use this arcane application is a sign im clever" dominate vs people who care about good and intuitive application design.
For me, FreeCAD, gimp and darktable are often on the side of the former and Kicad, Blender, Godot are on the side of the latter.
(Id also argue git is more former than latter too but thats a whole other can of worms)
It tends to be projects which don't have a clear sense of direction that fall into this, or ones helmed by someone who just does not care about UX.
Fundamentally i've spent a significant amount of time trying to understand why there is a Part and PartDesign workbench and not got a good answer. Why is there a web browser in there?! who's using that?!
The whole "Workbench" approach is incredibly strange and feels like someone's half-baked idea which simply won't go away.
@@ChrisUG my first CAD program was Pro/E Wildfire (version 3 or 4), and i recall that it had a similar "workbench" concept as FreeCAD. i suspect that FreeCAD simply copied that existing model. this might also explain why i had little trouble picking up FreeCAD years later. at least, until i figured out which workbench to use for what purpose.
as such, it's not so much that FreeCAD is using some "arcane" workflow, it's just an old one. and since this kind of design doesn't actually stop the program from being useful, there hasn't been much incentive to change it. though on that front, Ondsel and current dev versions of FreeCAD has been making progress.
my main issue with Teaching Tech's video, is that he erroneously presented things that he didn't know how to do in Ondsel/FreeCAD, as MISSING features. there's a pretty big difference between "unintuitive feature" and "missing feature". i also believe that people should generally try to learn the basics of something, before making a review of that something. saying that Ondsel/FreeCAD is awkward and confusing to use is entirely valid; saying that Ondsel/FreeCAD can't constrain to the midpoint of a line is just wrong.
FreeCAD is horrific
It seems a fair number of hobbyist 3D printing channels have done... not exactly 'hitpieces', but 'public dismissals' of Freecad in favour of their current proprietary darling(s) of choice recently. It's kind of disheartening.
Your c9mment is just toxic positivity. You, instead of admitting freecad has glaring deficiencies (not just a steep learning curve), blame people for not drinking the koolaid with you. Such a Gentoo Linux bro mentality.
This is what is disheartening. Freecad community comes off looking hyper toxic from the comments sections of all of those videos. Hyper toxoc and cult like.
It's probably not intentional but you're making it quite clear why people end up steering well away from FreeCAD, and why something like Ondsel is necessary. These workarounds are all insider knowledge gleaned from extensive experience with the foibles of the program. Number one why is there a part design bench as well as a part bench? I've actually listened to the explanations for this and I'm not at all convinced that the distinctions are worth the confusion of having two completely different workbenches. Not only that but what about the 13 other workbenches? Why not just hide all that and have one workbench when you open the app? If you want those other functions then make the user dig through a menu or something. Ondsel has it right in just exposing the part design workbench and the assembly workbench. There are four cryptic text boxes surrounding the 3D viewport, whereas most other CAD programs make do with just one project tree. It's almost like FreeCAD was designed specifically to confuse and confound not just the new user but also the experienced designer who's used to almost any other CAD package.
Its funny how people think it should be the same as the software their coming from, haha - I was one of them once upon a time but after a few years of commitment I can honestly say theres still more to learn and there always will be in this community.
Sorry mate, but everything in native FC is just so freaking laborious compared to most other platforms!
Nice video, you're very competent and would like more of this "actually, you just have a skill issue, here's how you do it" 😎
A user interface / workflow is like a joke; if you have to explain it, it's not that good, unfortunately :/
Freecad sucks, using it is like having teeth pulled.
Well... it was created for intelligent people.
@@andrzejwasik5159 that's probably why I have a problem using it, also I'm too used to the way solidworks and Autocad do things