It seems to me that many in the comment section don't understand the difference; it is not that Blender is lacking, it is an entirely different technique. You don't do technical design on 3ds max, Maya or Blender because they are based on polygonal modeling. Solidworks, Ironcad and others are based on solid modeling. They are never going to replace each other, they are completely different takes on 3d. Techniques don't compete, they are different and complement each other.
Completely agree. It would be like saying photoshop and powerpoint can be used for the same thing, because they can both push pixels to the screen - they're still completely different and have completely different use cases although they have some minor similarities.
yeah but what if you make a plugin that include all the cad system? you ll never have to use anything else again! I already have my browser on blender, my image editor and my torrent client all in one!
@@meredocu That is not possible; cad is not only about the design itself, it is about data. From cad models you get all sorts of data (like measurements, drawings and BOM) with relative ease. That is not what polygonal modeling is meant for. The parametrical essence of cad has a lot of benefits as does polygonal modeling, just for different things. Again, they are not at odds, they complement each other.
@@phantomapprentice6749 In the 90's your analogy would have definitely been even stronger. Adobe has been pushing lots of vector features into Photoshop for years now, and adding (relatively) few raster operations to Illustrator. But yes, the broad strokes of your analogy are certainly sound.
so whats the "polygonal modeling" that Blender has ?! how does it differ from CAD? I studied the CAD software's in the engineering school but never heard of polygonal modeling! , whats the difference?
As a product designer myself, I understand that there are limits to what you can do when developing products that need to be fabricated in the industry and I agree with her presentation. I still hope that Blender keeps evolving with functionalities that allow people to engineer things that have a real world connection. I think Blender has an opportunity here to bridge the gap to CAD and inspire whole generation of future engineers that are growing up with 3D printers in their bedrooms. Go Blender, be the Swiss Army knife for us designers!
you mean jack of all trades master of none, you really think that for things like engineering the all singing and all dancing blender would ever take over autocad, solidworks or even rhino, just looking at its nurbs toolset makes me wince after being on rhino, i normally love 3d software but i actually hate blender, any program that requires you ro spend more time finding out how to do something rather than doing something, blender will always be that freebie that people fanboy over until it gets both its interface sorted out and its coding mentality
@@mack7963 Well I would rather agree with your opinion. Over the years the blender has evolved but it's stil lacking many cool features that many CADs have. Such features are often provided by extensions that you have to buy...
@@alexa.davronov1537 yeah basic cad features like snapping, what's annoying is blender will heavily invest in things like liquid physics and hair animation yet it is unusable to me in the first place because it cant even get the basics right for me to create anything in the first place.
@@mack7963 them blendlets ruin the experience for many. They'll always say that blender is the best because-------(insert typical reason on why other softwares are not as good as blender)-----.
@@paponjolie5717 Makes more sense as an official addon that changes core components to make it work like a CAD program, rather than to make blender even more complex right out of the box.
To me, one of the great things about Blender is how it manages to slide into so many varied pipelines and excel so well. I still use CAD for most hard surface modelling, but I use Blender to assemble everything else, and everything organic.
I now use Blender for designing complex jewelry and mathematical designs for 3d printing using just the standard tools and addons in Blender. When it comes to designing and fast iteration of designs, it's one of the best tools I've used.
@1 conscience 0 dimension The intention of the videos is actually to show how these mathematically inspired shapes can be created easily, without the need for scripting, using standard polygonal modeling tools already inside Blender (or any capable 3d modeling package). The models are geared for professional SLS printing, although some models can be created on a typical home printer with proper support material.
I was looking forward to this talk as I was in constant doubt of learning CAD to design my prints with. Currently i design in Blender, and my workflow is blazing fast. But iterating a design can be cumbersome when small parts need to change that affect the whole model. I agree with you’re conclusion that both have their uses and can be useful in the 3d printing workflow. Learning CAD seams unavoidable:) Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
I'm sticking with blender so far I've only designed a Thrust-Vetor controlled rocket and 2 First Tech Challenge robots with it, but I feel like I'm pushing a boundry further than anyone ever did (mainly because there's not a lot of people interrested in fully non-destructive modellig in Blender, well other than Chris Prenninger and Chipp Walters) I will probably start a tutorial series, (by the utilitatian categorical imperative if I know something most don't, I HAVE to start making tutorials) I think imma call it the "Blender 4 NGNearz" series or something like that also, you have to realise, because the math to make nurbs work is publicly available, I am going to prophecy here and speak of the day Blender will have full parametric capabilities ... one day ...
If blender can combine the ability of CAD software too, then it'll be the perfect choice. They should integrate CAD support. Fusion 360,Inventor and AutoCAD will be out of business If this happens.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 regretably, I'll have to inform you that is so far at of yet still non-existent. But i promise I will start making it soon Like in a couple of weeks
That was actually a very good unbiased presentation. As a Blender employee (which i assume she is), she could very well have tried to punt Blender into capabilities it is not designed for. There is a right and wrong (less right) tool for everything. Good job Daphne!
It's great to know what Blender can do, but it's also great to know what you shouldn't do in Blender. Excellent talk! (Yes, I'm still watching the 2019 conference. Hope I finish it before 2020 conference)
Dimensions, simulation, accurate dimensions, relative constraints and relative motion, manufacturing code - CAD artistic visual, asthetic appearance with technical details in later stage - animation software Note fluid simulation in animation software are artistic not real world value.(particle soft body physics vs navier strokes equation) Moreover topology in animation software modelling are not optimized for simulation Well I love blender, I just wish it had a better workflow with Ansys, open foam, simens and engineering simulation software. I am tired of inputting dimension after every line in Cad. Blender doesn't have to actually go into cad, just connect it to simulation software.
Blender devs can just make some file format with parameters required for CAD machine and tools to read. If anything is missing, just include it. I guess those file format are proprietary.
I typically design in Blender, print, then use the caliper to calculate print scalars in excel. Almost every dimension warps differently depending on local geometry. I change it up, then print again. Like iterative calculus, you have to do it a couple times to get it right. It would be nice if software was made to adjust for this function and get real world results just by detailing the printer and materials used.
If the 3D printers were sufficiently robust and the printhead and materials behaved extremely consistently, you could do this. In fact, some of the really complex technical 3d print processes do precisely this. You just need a few million dollars to have a sufficiently bad-ass printer. :)
Turn on subtitles. They are in Dutch. Turn on translator to English subtitles. The results are hilarious. eg. at 9:08, you get: "I know you have all those sperm donor times takes to do the final and gravel check desk and lure it, and there you have such a great design historical weekend jeans." Yes, makes perfect sense! Lol! (That's not even close to what she actually said.) Thank you Daphne Lameris for addressing the CAD/Blender comparison. With Fusion 360 removing features all the time to try to force us to pay, I was thinking about switching to Blender as a CAD option. You brought up some valid considerations. Thank you!
With modifiers like boolean and array it's possible to get something similar to CAD parametric modeling, but still not even close to the same thing. Would work for 3d prints of simple parts though.
With modifier you can do a lot more that it may seem I can confidently say that, with drivers, vertex groups and custom properties I can make virtually any canonical CAD part in Blender, fully Non-destructive The only things which at the moment I can't do is AI optimisation : like having the program optimise the size of something for a specific load force, but even in proprietary software, these things aren't computed parametrically : în Fusion 360 ut basically returns a mesh when you do shape optimisation and that technology is pretty new anyway. For anything else, though, basically, if you can imagine it I think I can make it
@1 conscience 0 dimension I don't understand what you mean at all, but for example to create a simple hole pattern in your model for screws you could create a cylinder, array it and use boolean to cut it.. Pretty simple. But her mechanical model is far too advanced for Blender.
@1 conscience 0 dimension okay then ... I'm a masochist apparently Not even gonna deny that lol I stand in defiance to "the way people do things" just because it's fun, and I don't work for no company yet, I'm not even a student, yet, I'm just a highschooler doing stuff "just because": I got my own 3D printer and CNC and I can do whatever I goddamn like I didn't say it was elegant, just that it's possible, of there's one guy that don't have nothing better to do (personified in this case by me) So let's run through that again : This guy says Blender is cool for simple prints but for proper designed parts you need CAD in order to achieve them. I say you can still do it in Blender : "there are ways, dude, you're not gonna like'em, but there are ways" And you say "but WHY bother because CAD is more convenient and it was built for engineers and itst like more precise and it doesn't have any problems and it's more precise and why use Blender when CAD is better, you absolutely masochist XD this comment made my day
Very Insightful Presentation. I like how Daphne kept the technical jargon to a minimum. CAD is really boring, but Blender can make it more enjoyable. I like that.
Tried to model up a conference phone with blender a while back, it was impossible. Had to use inventor and then take it blender to pretty it up cosmeticaly. I don't see how blender would be faster if you know how to use CAD software correctly. CAD is precise and retains a part history that can be edited.
yeah, I totally agree with this one, at this moment, working with CAD software to achieve precision models and ease of change, while Blender is just for finishing (render, animation, etc.) is the best possible way to get the best benefit of both softwares, it may take times to move from one to another but it's worth the result instead of using only one software to cover both modelling and finishing works for the same expected results,
Blender and Jobs. Companies and organizations are now having to upgrade their Training Manuals, User Manuals, and moving alot of this ONLINE. They want employees to log onto their website and watch new training procedures, maintenance methods, repair, etc ,etc. Blender having the ability to combine 2D(pictures) and 3D in a viewport, allows companies to use old material by scanning it in as a JPEG and then add 3D animation and notation to clarify NEW procedures, etc. Love Blender
most people who want to do 'CAD' in blender want to work on a model they intend to 3D print. these people are looking for basic CAD tools. they don't need to design an entire sewage waste facility or blueprints for an ocean liner. including some basic CAD tools in blender is not a big ask
the lack of blender from my perspective is modeling tools...because I been using Lightwave for a long time now and suddenly jump to blender 2.8...the only problem I face in blender is modeling(not sculpt), else is tiptop and awesome...hope one day blender developer can add more features on modeling tools
im basically totally new to 3d modeling and printing but the problem she is explaining i experienced really fast.. i used sketchup a few times to create furniture or computer cases it was pretty easy to keep everythign true to size even as beginner... then i used blender to create characters... didnt took me very long to realize if u need to work with true to size sizes blender isnt working very good at all...
NO, because step is totally different thing, is like bitmap vs vector, what you can do is to convert the mesh in another application, like Maya, fusion 360, rhino or maybe moi3d, just watch some videos about tspline to see how to convert
There is a line tool built into Blender but it's just not turned on by default. Please turn this on Blender team. It basically allows you to use Blender as a CAD system for free.
And one thing, CAD is not free, right!! Its mainly targeted to be used by production companies, and so are most of its functions, use cases and also, cost. For those customers, there is a huge amount of risk and money involved in CAD if things dont work out how they are supposed to be, right!! [There's a good reason behind its target audience not being hobbyists, which is that not everyone has a 50 thousand dollar CNC machine sitting in there garage.]
@@yash1152 just because you can use Fusion 369 doesn't mean it's free It says in the EULA anything you make with the free version of F360 anything you make with it is not yours. You don't own what you make, because you don't own the program. It's leased to you on some pretty devious terms It's not free if it costs nothing but they're screwing with you on the legal side
I came here because I am having trouble comprehending the difference between Blender and CAD, while using the internet to learn Blender. I'm currently working on a huge art project where I'm designing a 1:1 scale of the 1960's Enterprise based on blue prints because of all "the things I will learn by the time I'm finished". I'm doing this because I can't afford to go to college for this kind of work. I want to eventually CAD things into existence. So I guess if I become good at blender, I would work as part of a design team in the future where I design stuff in Blender, and then pass it on to a guy who does CAD....or if I learn CAD as well as Blender, I would use Blender to speed up the process of me designing a part to a complex machine into existence?
Paul, theres a video on Adam Savage's TH-cam channel in Wich he goes to an auction store and is able to see and I tract with the original model of the 60's enterprise. Check it!
Hopefully there's some python plugins showing up recently to help with scientific stuff in Blender (although not for engineering yet). Until there are perfect CAE workflow tools, including but not limited to CAD, FEA, CFD, etc. engineers are far from shifting to free software for actual work. For a complete open-source CAE workflow, we have software and packages like FreeCAD, OpenFOAM, FreeFEM++, etc. that can get things done but they're not on par with their proprietary counterparts, i.e., not 'production ready' yet. They're improving everyday and hopefully get very close to production standards soon. Blender doesn't seem to fit anywhere in this workflow, except for product visualization, even in which, one has to struggle a lot to be able to import CAD data into Blender has always been a pain (for large assemblies, eg. a car). I hope Blender devs look a little bit into improving CAD import to Blender.
If blender can combine the ability of CAD software too, then it'll be the perfect choice. They should integrate CAD support. Fusion 360,Inventor and AutoCAD will be out of business If this happens.
@@paponjolie5717 lol integrate CAD support? what a clueless comment, go look at a solidworks video kid..IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNIVERSE..blender can stick to poor kids at home making astronaut sunsets and shit, because its already peaked.
CAD in Blender with the Fusion360, Solidworks style that has parametric system is not likely to happen. Take a look at Rhino, Moi3D it's the way to go.
I work in 3D design with nx, and 2D is actually being fased out. PMI is more and more done on 3D and tablets are being used to not have to use 2D drawings. For the rest this video is 100% accurate.
@@yash1152 PMI stands for Product and Manufacturing Information (it's easier to google that way). To quote wikipedia : "Product and manufacturing information, also abbreviated PMI, conveys non-geometric attributes in 3D computer-aided design (CAD) and Collaborative Product Development systems necessary for manufacturing product components and assemblies. PMI may include geometric dimensions and tolerances, 3D annotation (text) and dimensions, surface finish, and material specifications. PMI is used in conjunction with the 3D model within model-based definition to allow for the elimination of 2D drawings for data set utilization. " When designing, you put all measurements in 3D. Then, in cam (computer aided manufacturing) you can automatically generate your cnc program with the right tolerances, with extra code for the measurement machine who knows what measurements to check. It is quite hard to setup such automated workflow tough.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +3
Thanks for this nice talk! i like both - Blender and FreeCAD :-) as she says - every tool has its nice things ;-) and yes - in comparison with for example SolidWorks FreeCAD has potential to grow ;-) and it is evolving quite nicely! (with only a really small mostly spare-time developer team..) if you ever need to convert from FreeCAD to Blender - have a look at this Blender importer addon: github.com/s-light/io_import_fcstd i currently try to expand on it and get most of the features of the Object-Tree recreated in Blender... :-)
Can you do it the other way? Going from blender to freecad? I'm know how to convert a polygon into nurbs using tsplines but I think freecad can't do that
When you create a primitive (a cylinder) in blender, you can specify the params of the object (diameter, height,...) but the next edit you do, the concept of 'cylinder' is forgotten and the object is just a conceptless blob of polygons. In order for Blender to be able to be parametric, you would need immutable primitives, that retain there params. This is very easy to implement. It's just a checkbox in the primitive's params palette: "Immutable". Done. Ok, maybe not that easy, but still - would this be an idea? Obviously, you're only half way. You'd still need to be able to provide 'constraints', which define a relationship between a parameter of one object and a parameter of another object (or a fixed value). This would be a whole new concept in Blender. How to specify that the cylinder should be 10mm to the left of the cube? Or that the diameter should be inferred from a given margin of 5mm from the edge of the cube. I think that it's easier to implement the "conceptless polygon blobs" into existing CAD software than it is to implement parametric objects into 3D modeling software. But still...would it be possible to integrate a very rudimentary parametric model into Blender? And is it worth the effort? Who is waiting for it?
The sheer complexity of changing Blender's whole data model and its interactions with all of the other modifiers, operations, etc., really makes this a no-go. Blender is *not* a parametric modeler. If you want that, use FreeCAD.
You did not understand what she said. As long as Blender does not have proper relations or NURBS, the CAD world does not care. Subdivision is the first bridging step, but so far it’s not really suited for mass production due to poor surface quality (look up A-class surface modeling if you want to know more).
The idea that every tool has its specific use case struck a chord with me - it’s like trying to use VFX software like After Effects for speedy editing. Sure you can do it, but dedicated tools like Sony Vegas or Premiere Pro will likely be the better choice!
If blender ever get serious about cad it will seriously make revolution in mechanical industry or at least make optional official package for blender for those who do cad
it is an improper comparison. Two different things are being compared. CAD is not this, it makes no sense to compare Blender with this workflow in CAD, to real CAD made with Solidworks. or others. They are different techniques, and they are different things those described in the video.
(TRIGGER) WARNING: long read ahead! I have professionally worked on all kind of technical drawings, since the mid 90s. Mostly with commercial tools (e.g. from AutoCAD), on anything from heavy industry to microelectronics. I’ve also worked with Blender for many years, although never professionally. Making technical models in Blender (e.g. my apartment, with everything in it and technically accurate) has always been a breeze. The idea that Blender isn’t suitable for technical designs just isn’t true. Sure, other tools might be far more efficient at specific (specialized) task, but that is to be expected from specialized tools. Also, you need to know your tools and be a proper engineer. The bigger problem I’ve seen (time and and again) is more of a cultural nature, rather than technical. I’ve seen many engineers which should probably be first and foremost classified as good “tool jockeys” (granted, often great ones at that). It’s more about culturally accepted work flows and everyone doing things the same way. That is also of not to be underestimated importance to anyone running a business: to have a predictable and similarly trained workforce. But that doesn’t really say all that much about the quality of the tools being used. In fact, I would argue that all the money that commercial companies spend on getting their tools firmly embedded into education, is of far more significance than the quality of their products. I would even go as far as argue that this often involves borderline corruption. Sadly, this talk has quite a number of half-truths, if not a few blatant falsehoods. The notion of these (supposedly) fundamental differences between CAD and Blender sound mostly like a false dichotomies to me (I stopped counting after a while). If anything, it probably says more about how Blender is usually/mostly used, rather than what Blender is actually capable of. If this talks proves anything, it probably is that the CAD industry is firmly entrenched with (huge) commercial interests. Nothing new there: true in the 90s, still true today. So far, Blender has taken over many traditional industry “standards” by storm, which likely has a number of CAD vendors worried. Something to keep in mind, while listening to this talk.
I seriously disagree. I've been doing CAD and rendering work since the 90's too, but currently I'm using Solidworks (with a little experience with SolidEdge and very old Catia) on a daily basis for technical communication that I would never tried to do with Blender. Blender work is rare, and never for product design but other rendering tasks. Sheet metal unfolds, structural cut lists, welds, definition of tolerances, material and physical properties and simulations, surface roughness (from machining, not glossy roughness), assembly instructions and manuals - all of which fall under the category of technical documentation. Oh, and you have a time limit to deliver it. As far as definition goes, we can't easily create complex bevels and chamfers, use design relations as she mentioned (even from externally referenced files). Hell, even a simple thing like a hole is a challenge due to being polygonally defined. Try constructing a part with G3 continuity in Blender without combs - important for industrial design (but not what I do). Stress, flow, thermal, and even optical (with addins) simulations can be run and documented to industry accepted standards. "Can it hold the 40 tonnes specified in the design criteria?" "Yes, here is the analysis, safety factors used etc." "And here is the G-Codes for the mill" (CAM work). The list goes on and on for what CAD operations Blender can't do. But the opposite is also true - I wouldn't touch (early stage) organic design, particles (lol), rendering, or mesh modelling in Solidworks. There are tons of easy Blender tasks that is a nightmare in Solidworks - and vice versa. Preview the ideas in Blender for industrial design to find the shape you want. When you're happy, then remake it in CAD - both in order to get those G3's but also to be able to communicate the designs to a manufacturer or get a list of standard parts to purchase. Blender is a polygonal mesh modeler, with near zero NURBS capabilities and very limited transitions and booleans. Modern CAD are parametric modelers that can produce documentation, prototyping with cost analysis, and simulations. But near zero mesh modeling capabilities. Two completely different worlds that will never merge. Blender may get some CAD like tools, but it will never be a CAD like application. I'm sorry, but she is absolutely right. And for the manifold example - how would you do it in Blender? If you're forced to do a reroute you may have a limit on acceptable delta pressure (Darcy-Weisbach equation). There is more to CAD than making a block with some kind of hole in it.
gottagowork thank you for your answer. As a mechanical and optical designer, it summarises exactly my thoughts. I use both solidworks and blender but for very different tasks. I don’t know why people always try to compare both. They are both powerful but they just don’t have the same use.
As a normal human, I'm not as good at math as a machine I make to do the math for me. And by math, I mean straight calculations, not the creative maths that Fields medal mathematicians construct from the ether. So, I see the direction this is all heading to using the emerging AI technologies to evolve all these disparate 3D applications into a singularity from which each and every 3D app provides essentially identical capabilities, the key differences will be in the user design interfaces. So, I think the best user design interface of all 3D platforms will have the edge. Granted, the user interface for building natural terrain may not be the best user interface for creating a skyscraper building. So there may still be more than one winner in the end with regard to the 3d software platform. With regards to the human element in all of this, it's clear that the advantage here is with the humans who ask the most creative questions of the interaction of AI with the 3D software platforms. As a human, you should begin learning how to ask AI great questions that the AI can fully comprehend. Then train yourself to be creative and ask creative questions that are world changing. AI and 3D apps are simply a stick with a sharp end. As humans, we need to use this tool to survive into the future. Using creativity. Just as we've always done.
Recently I was modelling two really simple mechanical parts to be 3D printed in blender and the process of doing this was crazy. I then recreated the same in FreeCAD and it took me just a fracture of the time with even better results. After the print I needed to do some modifications which were then pretty easy thanks to the parametic concept. So the bottom line is: CAD for mechanical parts (unless it is for the visual or concept only), Polygon-based for Organic-ish objects.
i like it when someone accomplishes something using Freecad, it motivates me too to try it once again. well, can u recoment some tutorials or series u found great??
@@yash1152 unfortunately I can't. I checked out some basics about free cad and went on. I should mention that I studied engineering, and free cad is similar to catia or solid works for example
It seems to me that many in the comment section don't understand the difference; it is not that Blender is lacking, it is an entirely different technique. You don't do technical design on 3ds max, Maya or Blender because they are based on polygonal modeling. Solidworks, Ironcad and others are based on solid modeling. They are never going to replace each other, they are completely different takes on 3d. Techniques don't compete, they are different and complement each other.
Completely agree. It would be like saying photoshop and powerpoint can be used for the same thing, because they can both push pixels to the screen - they're still completely different and have completely different use cases although they have some minor similarities.
yeah but what if you make a plugin that include all the cad system? you ll never have to use anything else again! I already have my browser on blender, my image editor and my torrent client all in one!
@@meredocu That is not possible; cad is not only about the design itself, it is about data. From cad models you get all sorts of data (like measurements, drawings and BOM) with relative ease. That is not what polygonal modeling is meant for. The parametrical essence of cad has a lot of benefits as does polygonal modeling, just for different things. Again, they are not at odds, they complement each other.
@@phantomapprentice6749 In the 90's your analogy would have definitely been even stronger. Adobe has been pushing lots of vector features into Photoshop for years now, and adding (relatively) few raster operations to Illustrator. But yes, the broad strokes of your analogy are certainly sound.
so whats the "polygonal modeling" that Blender has ?! how does it differ from CAD? I studied the CAD software's in the engineering school but never heard of polygonal modeling! , whats the difference?
As a product designer myself, I understand that there are limits to what you can do when developing products that need to be fabricated in the industry and I agree with her presentation. I still hope that Blender keeps evolving with functionalities that allow people to engineer things that have a real world connection. I think Blender has an opportunity here to bridge the gap to CAD and inspire whole generation of future engineers that are growing up with 3D printers in their bedrooms. Go Blender, be the Swiss Army knife for us designers!
you mean jack of all trades master of none, you really think that for things like engineering the all singing and all dancing blender would ever take over autocad, solidworks or even rhino, just looking at its nurbs toolset makes me wince after being on rhino, i normally love 3d software but i actually hate blender, any program that requires you ro spend more time finding out how to do something rather than doing something, blender will always be that freebie that people fanboy over until it gets both its interface sorted out and its coding mentality
@@mack7963 Well I would rather agree with your opinion. Over the years the blender has evolved but it's stil lacking many cool features that many CADs have. Such features are often provided by extensions that you have to buy...
@@alexa.davronov1537 yeah basic cad features like snapping, what's annoying is blender will heavily invest in things like liquid physics and hair animation yet it is unusable to me in the first place because it cant even get the basics right for me to create anything in the first place.
@@quackcement Even though blender is not fully fledged in many ways even I was able to make a few nice things in it.
@@mack7963 them blendlets ruin the experience for many. They'll always say that blender is the best because-------(insert typical reason on why other softwares are not as good as blender)-----.
If blender can combine the ability of CAD software too, then it'll be the perfect choice.
Only if someone made an addon.
@@BounciestSky152 no need of addon just integrate with orignal software.
@@paponjolie5717 Makes more sense as an official addon that changes core components to make it work like a CAD program, rather than to make blender even more complex right out of the box.
They already have a few addons that do many of the cad functions.
I'm curious how many people commenting work or have worked as professional design engineers?
Truly great presentation, I'm impressed by both your technical knowledge and your presentation skills!
To me, one of the great things about Blender is how it manages to slide into so many varied pipelines and excel so well. I still use CAD for most hard surface modelling, but I use Blender to assemble everything else, and everything organic.
I now use Blender for designing complex jewelry and mathematical designs for 3d printing using just the standard tools and addons in Blender. When it comes to designing and fast iteration of designs, it's one of the best tools I've used.
Tutorial please! Or maybe there is one that you'll recommend? Thanks!
@1 conscience 0 dimension The intention of the videos is actually to show how these mathematically inspired shapes can be created easily, without the need for scripting, using standard polygonal modeling tools already inside Blender (or any capable 3d modeling package). The models are geared for professional SLS printing, although some models can be created on a typical home printer with proper support material.
learn rhino3d mate.. you'll never use blender for jewellery again
Thank you. 3D printing and Blender will continue to mature by which we all benefit.
Excellent , interesting, informative, and fun presentation!
I was looking forward to this talk as I was in constant doubt of learning CAD to design my prints with. Currently i design in Blender, and my workflow is blazing fast. But iterating a design can be cumbersome when small parts need to change that affect the whole model.
I agree with you’re conclusion that both have their uses and can be useful in the 3d printing workflow.
Learning CAD seams unavoidable:)
Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
I'm sticking with blender
so far I've only designed a Thrust-Vetor controlled rocket and 2 First Tech Challenge robots with it, but I feel like I'm pushing a boundry further than anyone ever did (mainly because there's not a lot of people interrested in fully non-destructive modellig in Blender, well other than Chris Prenninger and Chipp Walters)
I will probably start a tutorial series, (by the utilitatian categorical imperative if I know something most don't, I HAVE to start making tutorials)
I think imma call it the "Blender 4 NGNearz" series or something like that
also, you have to realise, because the math to make nurbs work is publicly available, I am going to prophecy here and speak of the day Blender will have full parametric capabilities ... one day ...
i know it's not the same but for those parts you can use instances (alt+d) then a change in any instance will change all of them
If blender can combine the ability of CAD software too, then it'll be the perfect choice. They should integrate CAD support. Fusion 360,Inventor and AutoCAD will be out of business If this happens.
@@mihailazar2487 where iy your tutorial series? :O
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 regretably, I'll have to inform you that is so far at of yet still non-existent.
But i promise I will start making it soon
Like in a couple of weeks
That was actually a very good unbiased presentation. As a Blender employee (which i assume she is), she could very well have tried to punt Blender into capabilities it is not designed for. There is a right and wrong (less right) tool for everything. Good job Daphne!
It's great to know what Blender can do, but it's also great to know what you shouldn't do in Blender. Excellent talk!
(Yes, I'm still watching the 2019 conference. Hope I finish it before 2020 conference)
Dimensions, simulation, accurate dimensions, relative constraints and relative motion, manufacturing code - CAD
artistic visual, asthetic appearance with technical details in later stage - animation software
Note fluid simulation in animation software are artistic not real world value.(particle soft body physics vs navier strokes equation)
Moreover topology in animation software modelling are not optimized for simulation
Well I love blender, I just wish it had a better workflow with Ansys, open foam, simens and engineering simulation software. I am tired of inputting dimension after every line in Cad.
Blender doesn't have to actually go into cad, just connect it to simulation software.
Blender devs can just make some file format with parameters required for CAD machine and tools to read. If anything is missing, just include it. I guess those file format are proprietary.
I typically design in Blender, print, then use the caliper to calculate print scalars in excel. Almost every dimension warps differently depending on local geometry. I change it up, then print again. Like iterative calculus, you have to do it a couple times to get it right. It would be nice if software was made to adjust for this function and get real world results just by detailing the printer and materials used.
If the 3D printers were sufficiently robust and the printhead and materials behaved extremely consistently, you could do this. In fact, some of the really complex technical 3d print processes do precisely this. You just need a few million dollars to have a sufficiently bad-ass printer. :)
Turn on subtitles. They are in Dutch. Turn on translator to English subtitles. The results are hilarious. eg. at 9:08, you get: "I know you have all those sperm donor times takes to do the final and gravel check desk and lure it, and there you have such a great design historical weekend jeans." Yes, makes perfect sense! Lol! (That's not even close to what she actually said.)
Thank you Daphne Lameris for addressing the CAD/Blender comparison. With Fusion 360 removing features all the time to try to force us to pay, I was thinking about switching to Blender as a CAD option. You brought up some valid considerations. Thank you!
I can tell you that they are equally funny in Dutch.
With modifiers like boolean and array it's possible to get something similar to CAD parametric modeling, but still not even close to the same thing. Would work for 3d prints of simple parts though.
With modifier you can do a lot more that it may seem
I can confidently say that, with drivers, vertex groups and custom properties I can make virtually any canonical CAD part in Blender, fully Non-destructive
The only things which at the moment I can't do is AI optimisation : like having the program optimise the size of something for a specific load force, but even in proprietary software, these things aren't computed parametrically : în Fusion 360 ut basically returns a mesh when you do shape optimisation and that technology is pretty new anyway.
For anything else, though, basically, if you can imagine it I think I can make it
@1 conscience 0 dimension I don't understand what you mean at all, but for example to create a simple hole pattern in your model for screws you could create a cylinder, array it and use boolean to cut it.. Pretty simple. But her mechanical model is far too advanced for Blender.
@1 conscience 0 dimension okay then ... I'm a masochist apparently
Not even gonna deny that lol
I stand in defiance to "the way people do things" just because it's fun, and I don't work for no company yet, I'm not even a student, yet, I'm just a highschooler doing stuff "just because": I got my own 3D printer and CNC and I can do whatever I goddamn like
I didn't say it was elegant, just that it's possible, of there's one guy that don't have nothing better to do (personified in this case by me)
So let's run through that again :
This guy says Blender is cool for simple prints but for proper designed parts you need CAD in order to achieve them.
I say you can still do it in Blender : "there are ways, dude, you're not gonna like'em, but there are ways"
And you say "but WHY bother because CAD is more convenient and it was built for engineers and itst like more precise and it doesn't have any problems and it's more precise and why use Blender when CAD is better, you absolutely masochist XD
this comment made my day
Very Insightful Presentation. I like how Daphne kept the technical jargon to a minimum. CAD is really boring, but Blender can make it more enjoyable. I like that.
Tried to model up a conference phone with blender a while back, it was impossible. Had to use inventor and then take it blender to pretty it up cosmeticaly. I don't see how blender would be faster if you know how to use CAD software correctly. CAD is precise and retains a part history that can be edited.
yeah, I totally agree with this one,
at this moment, working with CAD software to achieve precision models and ease of change, while Blender is just for finishing (render, animation, etc.) is the best possible way to get the best benefit of both softwares,
it may take times to move from one to another but it's worth the result instead of using only one software to cover both modelling and finishing works for the same expected results,
bro, if u dont pedal to the metal, it doesnt mean that the car is slow
Blender and Jobs. Companies and organizations are now having to upgrade their Training Manuals, User Manuals, and moving alot of this ONLINE. They want employees to log onto their website and watch new training procedures, maintenance methods, repair, etc ,etc. Blender having the ability to combine 2D(pictures) and 3D in a viewport, allows companies to use old material by scanning it in as a JPEG and then add 3D animation and notation to clarify NEW procedures, etc. Love Blender
most people who want to do 'CAD' in blender want to work on a model they intend to 3D print. these people are looking for basic CAD tools. they don't need to design an entire sewage waste facility or blueprints for an ocean liner. including some basic CAD tools in blender is not a big ask
well yeah, that is the point they miss i guess
the lack of blender from my perspective is modeling tools...because I been using Lightwave for a long time now and suddenly jump to blender 2.8...the only problem I face in blender is modeling(not sculpt), else is tiptop and awesome...hope one day blender developer can add more features on modeling tools
yeah, id quite understand why the modelling improvements are being taken lightly by them..... just sculpt sculpt and sculpt
dude use addons, Mira tools is free, there SpeedFlow, Hardops, BoxCutter etc.
im basically totally new to 3d modeling and printing but the problem she is explaining i experienced really fast.. i used sketchup a few times to create furniture or computer cases it was pretty easy to keep everythign true to size even as beginner... then i used blender to create characters... didnt took me very long to realize if u need to work with true to size sizes blender isnt working very good at all...
is there an addon to export the meshe to Iges or Step extentions to solve the errors since when using the Stl format, one always finds the problems.
NO, because step is totally different thing, is like bitmap vs vector, what you can do is to convert the mesh in another application, like Maya, fusion 360, rhino or maybe moi3d, just watch some videos about tspline to see how to convert
07:49 but you don't actually need add-ons for the first 3
Blender should develop cad tools too.
There is a line tool built into Blender but it's just not turned on by default. Please turn this on Blender team. It basically allows you to use Blender as a CAD system for free.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA line tools are not CAD
@@mrmachine5632 these blendlets really make me laugh all the time lol
just to resum this lady explain the differance betwin parametric programe like solid work and non parametric programe like blender and others that it
08:23 Well, actually, YES !
it is good that Blender is compared to CAD, which means sooner or later developers will catch up
lol..they bloody wont. blender is art, cad is engineering. go look at solidworks..its FAR more than just some tools you can add to blender.
I LOLd at "this is bull$#!t" ... then I proceeded to hit the like button :D
08:37 Now I'm not an NGNear yet, but I accept that as a challenge
08:12 slide is misleading because out of those only OpenSCAD and FreeCAD are actually "Free" (as in "Richard Stallman" -Free, like Blender)
u mean 8:12, well, she didn't mention the "Free as in Freedom", so better u dont become a stupid critique or a a 'FREE' frog.
And one thing, CAD is not free, right!! Its mainly targeted to be used by production companies, and so are most of its functions, use cases and also, cost. For those customers, there is a huge amount of risk and money involved in CAD if things dont work out how they are supposed to be, right!!
[There's a good reason behind its target audience not being hobbyists, which is that not everyone has a 50 thousand dollar CNC machine sitting in there garage.]
@@yash1152 just because you can use Fusion 369 doesn't mean it's free
It says in the EULA anything you make with the free version of F360 anything you make with it is not yours. You don't own what you make, because you don't own the program. It's leased to you on some pretty devious terms
It's not free if it costs nothing but they're screwing with you on the legal side
I came here because I am having trouble comprehending the difference between Blender and CAD, while using the internet to learn Blender. I'm currently working on a huge art project where I'm designing a 1:1 scale of the 1960's Enterprise based on blue prints because of all "the things I will learn by the time I'm finished". I'm doing this because I can't afford to go to college for this kind of work. I want to eventually CAD things into existence. So I guess if I become good at blender, I would work as part of a design team in the future where I design stuff in Blender, and then pass it on to a guy who does CAD....or if I learn CAD as well as Blender, I would use Blender to speed up the process of me designing a part to a complex machine into existence?
Paul, theres a video on Adam Savage's TH-cam channel in Wich he goes to an auction store and is able to see and I tract with the original model of the 60's enterprise. Check it!
Hopefully there's some python plugins showing up recently to help with scientific stuff in Blender (although not for engineering yet). Until there are perfect CAE workflow tools, including but not limited to CAD, FEA, CFD, etc. engineers are far from shifting to free software for actual work. For a complete open-source CAE workflow, we have software and packages like FreeCAD, OpenFOAM, FreeFEM++, etc. that can get things done but they're not on par with their proprietary counterparts, i.e., not 'production ready' yet. They're improving everyday and hopefully get very close to production standards soon. Blender doesn't seem to fit anywhere in this workflow, except for product visualization, even in which, one has to struggle a lot to be able to import CAD data into Blender has always been a pain (for large assemblies, eg. a car). I hope Blender devs look a little bit into improving CAD import to Blender.
i wish blender was good at nurbs modeling as well
If blender can combine the ability of CAD software too, then it'll be the perfect choice. They should integrate CAD support. Fusion 360,Inventor and AutoCAD will be out of business If this happens.
@@paponjolie5717 lol integrate CAD support? what a clueless comment, go look at a solidworks video kid..IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNIVERSE..blender can stick to poor kids at home making astronaut sunsets and shit, because its already peaked.
CAD in Blender with the Fusion360, Solidworks style that has parametric system is not likely to happen. Take a look at Rhino, Moi3D it's the way to go.
I work in 3D design with nx, and 2D is actually being fased out. PMI is more and more done on 3D and tablets are being used to not have to use 2D drawings. For the rest this video is 100% accurate.
whats PMI?
@@yash1152 PMI stands for Product and Manufacturing Information (it's easier to google that way).
To quote wikipedia : "Product and manufacturing information, also abbreviated PMI, conveys non-geometric attributes in 3D computer-aided design (CAD) and Collaborative Product Development systems necessary for manufacturing product components and assemblies. PMI may include geometric dimensions and tolerances, 3D annotation (text) and dimensions, surface finish, and material specifications. PMI is used in conjunction with the 3D model within model-based definition to allow for the elimination of 2D drawings for data set utilization. "
When designing, you put all measurements in 3D. Then, in cam (computer aided manufacturing) you can automatically generate your cnc program with the right tolerances, with extra code for the measurement machine who knows what measurements to check. It is quite hard to setup such automated workflow tough.
Thanks for this nice talk!
i like both - Blender and FreeCAD :-)
as she says - every tool has its nice things ;-)
and yes - in comparison with for example SolidWorks FreeCAD has potential to grow ;-)
and it is evolving quite nicely! (with only a really small mostly spare-time developer team..)
if you ever need to convert from FreeCAD to Blender - have a look at this Blender importer addon:
github.com/s-light/io_import_fcstd
i currently try to expand on it and get most of the features of the Object-Tree recreated in Blender... :-)
Can you do it the other way? Going from blender to freecad? I'm know how to convert a polygon into nurbs using tsplines but I think freecad can't do that
English subtitles please!
When you create a primitive (a cylinder) in blender, you can specify the params of the object (diameter, height,...) but the next edit you do, the concept of 'cylinder' is forgotten and the object is just a conceptless blob of polygons. In order for Blender to be able to be parametric, you would need immutable primitives, that retain there params.
This is very easy to implement. It's just a checkbox in the primitive's params palette: "Immutable". Done.
Ok, maybe not that easy, but still - would this be an idea?
Obviously, you're only half way. You'd still need to be able to provide 'constraints', which define a relationship between a parameter of one object and a parameter of another object (or a fixed value).
This would be a whole new concept in Blender. How to specify that the cylinder should be 10mm to the left of the cube? Or that the diameter should be inferred from a given margin of 5mm from the edge of the cube.
I think that it's easier to implement the "conceptless polygon blobs" into existing CAD software than it is to implement parametric objects into 3D modeling software.
But still...would it be possible to integrate a very rudimentary parametric model into Blender? And is it worth the effort? Who is waiting for it?
That can be added as a new type of object (like a NURBSball is not a polygonal model), but the real question is why.
The sheer complexity of changing Blender's whole data model and its interactions with all of the other modifiers, operations, etc., really makes this a no-go. Blender is *not* a parametric modeler. If you want that, use FreeCAD.
so basically Rhino + Grasshopper
Puts hand on CAD industry
It’s afraid.
It’s afraid!
You did not understand what she said. As long as Blender does not have proper relations or NURBS, the CAD world does not care. Subdivision is the first bridging step, but so far it’s not really suited for mass production due to poor surface quality (look up A-class surface modeling if you want to know more).
The idea that every tool has its specific use case struck a chord with me - it’s like trying to use VFX software like After Effects for speedy editing. Sure you can do it, but dedicated tools like Sony Vegas or Premiere Pro will likely be the better choice!
Can I use blender for space rover simulations
C4D C4D C4D C4D C4D In my chanting voice 😂
Sketchup combines the best of both worlds
Daphne Lameris, how has AI been used to resolve the myriad of challenges?
Heaven forbid we could have 1 talk that doesn't reference machine learning and deep neural networks.... :)
If blender ever get serious about cad
it will seriously make revolution in mechanical industry
or at least make optional official package for blender for those who do cad
Please add CAD feature to blender.
it is an improper comparison. Two different things are being compared. CAD is not this, it makes no sense to compare Blender with this workflow in CAD, to real CAD made with Solidworks. or others.
They are different techniques, and they are different things those described in the video.
(TRIGGER) WARNING: long read ahead!
I have professionally worked on all kind of technical drawings, since the mid 90s. Mostly with commercial tools (e.g. from AutoCAD), on anything from heavy industry to microelectronics. I’ve also worked with Blender for many years, although never professionally. Making technical models in Blender (e.g. my apartment, with everything in it and technically accurate) has always been a breeze. The idea that Blender isn’t suitable for technical designs just isn’t true. Sure, other tools might be far more efficient at specific (specialized) task, but that is to be expected from specialized tools. Also, you need to know your tools and be a proper engineer.
The bigger problem I’ve seen (time and and again) is more of a cultural nature, rather than technical. I’ve seen many engineers which should probably be first and foremost classified as good “tool jockeys” (granted, often great ones at that). It’s more about culturally accepted work flows and everyone doing things the same way. That is also of not to be underestimated importance to anyone running a business: to have a predictable and similarly trained workforce. But that doesn’t really say all that much about the quality of the tools being used. In fact, I would argue that all the money that commercial companies spend on getting their tools firmly embedded into education, is of far more significance than the quality of their products. I would even go as far as argue that this often involves borderline corruption.
Sadly, this talk has quite a number of half-truths, if not a few blatant falsehoods. The notion of these (supposedly) fundamental differences between CAD and Blender sound mostly like a false dichotomies to me (I stopped counting after a while). If anything, it probably says more about how Blender is usually/mostly used, rather than what Blender is actually capable of. If this talks proves anything, it probably is that the CAD industry is firmly entrenched with (huge) commercial interests. Nothing new there: true in the 90s, still true today.
So far, Blender has taken over many traditional industry “standards” by storm, which likely has a number of CAD vendors worried. Something to keep in mind, while listening to this talk.
I seriously disagree. I've been doing CAD and rendering work since the 90's too, but currently I'm using Solidworks (with a little experience with SolidEdge and very old Catia) on a daily basis for technical communication that I would never tried to do with Blender. Blender work is rare, and never for product design but other rendering tasks. Sheet metal unfolds, structural cut lists, welds, definition of tolerances, material and physical properties and simulations, surface roughness (from machining, not glossy roughness), assembly instructions and manuals - all of which fall under the category of technical documentation. Oh, and you have a time limit to deliver it.
As far as definition goes, we can't easily create complex bevels and chamfers, use design relations as she mentioned (even from externally referenced files). Hell, even a simple thing like a hole is a challenge due to being polygonally defined. Try constructing a part with G3 continuity in Blender without combs - important for industrial design (but not what I do). Stress, flow, thermal, and even optical (with addins) simulations can be run and documented to industry accepted standards. "Can it hold the 40 tonnes specified in the design criteria?" "Yes, here is the analysis, safety factors used etc." "And here is the G-Codes for the mill" (CAM work).
The list goes on and on for what CAD operations Blender can't do. But the opposite is also true - I wouldn't touch (early stage) organic design, particles (lol), rendering, or mesh modelling in Solidworks. There are tons of easy Blender tasks that is a nightmare in Solidworks - and vice versa. Preview the ideas in Blender for industrial design to find the shape you want. When you're happy, then remake it in CAD - both in order to get those G3's but also to be able to communicate the designs to a manufacturer or get a list of standard parts to purchase.
Blender is a polygonal mesh modeler, with near zero NURBS capabilities and very limited transitions and booleans.
Modern CAD are parametric modelers that can produce documentation, prototyping with cost analysis, and simulations. But near zero mesh modeling capabilities.
Two completely different worlds that will never merge. Blender may get some CAD like tools, but it will never be a CAD like application.
I'm sorry, but she is absolutely right. And for the manifold example - how would you do it in Blender? If you're forced to do a reroute you may have a limit on acceptable delta pressure (Darcy-Weisbach equation). There is more to CAD than making a block with some kind of hole in it.
gottagowork thank you for your answer. As a mechanical and optical designer, it summarises exactly my thoughts. I use both solidworks and blender but for very different tasks. I don’t know why people always try to compare both. They are both powerful but they just don’t have the same use.
CAD Sketcher
As a normal human, I'm not as good at math as a machine I make to do the math for me. And by math, I mean straight calculations, not the creative maths that Fields medal mathematicians construct from the ether. So, I see the direction this is all heading to using the emerging AI technologies to evolve all these disparate 3D applications into a singularity from which each and every 3D app provides essentially identical capabilities, the key differences will be in the user design interfaces. So, I think the best user design interface of all 3D platforms will have the edge. Granted, the user interface for building natural terrain may not be the best user interface for creating a skyscraper building. So there may still be more than one winner in the end with regard to the 3d software platform.
With regards to the human element in all of this, it's clear that the advantage here is with the humans who ask the most creative questions of the interaction of AI with the 3D software platforms. As a human, you should begin learning how to ask AI great questions that the AI can fully comprehend. Then train yourself to be creative and ask creative questions that are world changing. AI and 3D apps are simply a stick with a sharp end. As humans, we need to use this tool to survive into the future. Using creativity. Just as we've always done.
Subtitles needed,the speech impediment and the very strong accent make this unintelligible.
Recently I was modelling two really simple mechanical parts to be 3D printed in blender and the process of doing this was crazy. I then recreated the same in FreeCAD and it took me just a fracture of the time with even better results. After the print I needed to do some modifications which were then pretty easy thanks to the parametic concept. So the bottom line is: CAD for mechanical parts (unless it is for the visual or concept only), Polygon-based for Organic-ish objects.
i like it when someone accomplishes something using Freecad, it motivates me too to try it once again. well, can u recoment some tutorials or series u found great??
@@yash1152 unfortunately I can't. I checked out some basics about free cad and went on. I should mention that I studied engineering, and free cad is similar to catia or solid works for example