More engineering function?

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Post Reply
Vorg
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:45 am

More engineering function?

Post by Vorg » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:39 am

Is there any plans to give more, I guess you call it engineering functionality? Things such as defined grid, sub grid and snap grid sizes, definable chamfer and angle beveling? Tools for more control over dimensions/placement of objects.

stiv
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:58 am
Location: 45N 86W

Post by stiv » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:00 am

Current plans are here: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Projects

Blender at it's heart is more of a mesh modeler than a CAD app. It lacks some fundamental CAD data structures like Dimensions and those implicit surfaces that are so nice for doing Boolean operations - all those CSG things than end up being a total pain when applied to Meshes.

Not to say it couldn't be done. But someone would have to pick up the ball and run with it.

Vorg
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:45 am

Post by Vorg » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:40 am

Too me, that is all it is really missing. I tried rhino for awhile. Got in on it when it was still beta, but gave up at v3. Way too much money I don't have never will be any good with mesh, and is a royal pain to get nurbs stuff to shape the way you want or expect. I wish I had the money I wasted on it and the time wasted on it to lean Blender. I will say that Rhino had a really nice easy to use control system for moving zooming view and objects.

CoDEmanX
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:42 pm
Location: Germany

Post by CoDEmanX » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:12 pm

Blender is really not a CAD-application, and probably never will. If you wasted time on learning blender, you shoud have read about it before:

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CAD_tools

It's a DCC software, not to be used for engineering (it uses single precision for floating point operations all over).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_creation
I'm sitting, waiting, wishing, building Blender in superstition...

Vorg
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:45 am

Post by Vorg » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:10 pm

I was talking about Rhino when I said wasted. Even with the limited cad side that Blender has, it works better. Just a lot harder to get some thing exact.

CoDEmanX
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:42 pm
Location: Germany

Post by CoDEmanX » Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:29 am

I'm sorry, I misread that!

Well, if you really wanna stay with Blender, you might find some addons to facilitate your modelling.

Check this out:

http://blendermama.com/precision-work-in-blender.html

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Exten ... cise_Align

http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthr ... ost2484720
I'm sitting, waiting, wishing, building Blender in superstition...

Spacedaniel
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:21 pm

Post by Spacedaniel » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:43 pm

Do not mix what Rhino does with what Blender does! Rhino is a NURBS-modeler which is capable of producing mathematically correct surfaces for manufacturing (tooling, high grade milling etc, depends on your needs), even a car body which is just a redicously peckish business. Blender is an artistic tool first of all - if it looks good it is good. Doing a model for a 3D print does not require engineering tools due to the poor tolerances of the manufacturing. If you really need to do work with engineering there's really no alternative to paying for software. If it cocts money to make it most likely requires money to model. Unless you are just doing drawings of crap to be welded or assembled, then you can do it by hand just as well. BUT the good news are that there are a few cheap and capable programs out there (Alibre for instance). To make Blender a serious contender in engineering (which I think would be a waste off effort although I'd like to see it) a new mode is needed with support for geometry tolerances (or a 2D-module), booleans etc but it would still not be sufficiently accurate for engineering work. A converting module between, for instance, NURBS and quad-modelling is expensive (MODO has it and it costs nearly as much as MODO itself). Do the visualization and prototyping models in Blender but when it comes to engineering it's just not the right tool.

Post Reply