
Where is the Modelling Software for 3D Printing? - Corun
http://makethingsnow.com/blog/where-is-the-modelling-software-for-3d-printing/
======
georgemcbay
I design all of my parts (mostly camera/lens accessories and quadcopter
frames) in OpenSCAD.

[http://www.openscad.org/](http://www.openscad.org/)

Not really a good candidate for a general-audience "easy to use" 3D design
program (and thus doesn't preclude their plan to build something like that),
but likely highly relevant for any HN readers who are looking for such a thing
who are comfortable with code/markup and are wired to be able to pre-visualize
things in their head prior to building them.

There are off-shoots like OpenJSCAD (see:
[http://openjscad.org/](http://openjscad.org/)) as well, which actually give
you more of a complete language. The OpenSCAD language is really simple and is
more like a markup language with some limited flow-control than a real full-
blown programming language -- but I kind of like it that way, and if you need
to get really algorithmic with your designs you can always generate OpenSCAD
"code" from other languages (of your choice) since it is all just text.

------
errantspark
Designing and printing a 3D object is fundamentally much more complex than
typing out an essay and hitting print. There's always going to be a big
learning curve for someone trying to get into 3D printing/modelling for the
first time. There's no way to get around that, it's especially hard for people
who do not have a lot of spatial reasoning experience.

The most important point in the article, and I think the most valuable
potential feature of new 3D printing oriented design software is this:

Communication of 3D printing limitations to the user at design time

For someone experienced with 3D printing (someone who's messed up a few prints
and thought about why) it's easy to see why certain features are unlikely to
print correctly because they have had the opportunity to build a mental model
of the 3D printing process in their head. Helping people build up this mental
model quicker, especially without having to actually print and iterate
physically is invaluable to being able to efficiently design 3D parts.

~~~
loopbit
For basic things like model checking, I'd recommend NetFabb model checker[0]
and/or uploading the file to Shapeways[1].

The first will try to do basic model checking and close any holes it finds.
Shapeways uploading process will go into much more detail, trying to find
areas that might be too thin for the printer to print, or too close
together...

Also, I long for the day where other 3D printing technologies reach the
general public. FDM (the process all makerbots and clones use) is fine, but
the quality is not as goood as it could be and things like support material
are a necessity when doing complex pieces.

BTW, just in case anyone needs this, a great program to convert a 3D model to
gcode is Cura[2].

[0] [https://netfabb.azurewebsites.net/](https://netfabb.azurewebsites.net/)
[1] [http://www.shapeways.com/](http://www.shapeways.com/) [2]
[https://ultimaker.com/en/products/software](https://ultimaker.com/en/products/software)

------
candu
I'm surprised they don't mention OpenSCAD [1], which in conjunction with a
decent vector graphics editor works wonders for a wide range of objects.

Yes, it has a programming interface, but I'd argue the visual/spatial context
makes it much easier to pick up than most programming languages. I've seen it
successfully taught to people who otherwise have little to no coding
experience.

(If I had to gripe about something in OpenSCAD, it would probably be lack of
spline support.)

[1] [http://www.openscad.org/](http://www.openscad.org/)

~~~
joshuapants
OpenSCAD is great, I went from no 3D modeling experience to making the part I
wanted in a about a weekend. I could see it being a bit cumbersome for large
parts or dealing with assemblies of parts (can it even do that?), but it was
really much easier than I thought it would be.

------
Animats
Not sure what the author means by "freeform". He seems to use that term to
refer to mesh editors, which do surfaces for graphics, vs. solid geometry
editors, which understand volumes. Mesh editors are more for 3D graphics.

Learning to use a constructive solid geometry system used to be hard, but
Autodesk came out with low-end tools based on their their Inventor product
line which make it easier. There's 123D, 123Make, 123Sculpt, Meshmixer, etc.
The heavy CSG machinery of Autodesk Inventor is inside, but it's not dumped on
the user all at once.

~~~
delhanty
They also have Inventor Fusion, which is gratis (or at least used to be) on
the Mac App Store - not sure what the Windows version costs. That and OnShape
are probably the most capable $0 options for parametric solid CAD.

------
Htsthbjig
We used to teach little children to use OpenScad years ago along with
programming(I volunteered for that). Kids learn fast.

Now we teach them FreeCAD, and python scripting for the advanced ones.

I have no idea what the author is talking about, designing a 3d editor is not
trivial, most kids don't need very advanced 3D editing either. They will just
ask the one who is good at it, or download it from the Internet from already
made models.

There is a need for 3D curves in the Open source world. This will be worked on
over time.

------
JeremyHerrman
"The problem is that these requirements are not communicated to the user
during the modelling process, so the model that the user designs is not well
optimised to be printed, and must often be fixed with other software."

I couldn't agree more - finding out your design won't work after you've
manufactured it is sort of like finding out your code won't compile after
you've deployed. There needs to be better feedback during the design phase to
make hardware as easy and fast as software.

This is exactly the problem we're trying to solve at Plethora, albeit with CNC
milling instead of 3D printing. We have an add-in for 3D modelling programs
that tells you manufacturability issues in real time as you design.

For those who are interested, check it out here:
[https://www.plethora.com/how](https://www.plethora.com/how)

------
lambdaelite
For parametric CAD, there's Solvespace. GPL'd as of version 2.0. I like it
better than OpenSCAD, and the price is equally right. I don't know why, but it
doesn't get much attention.

[http://solvespace.com](http://solvespace.com)

~~~
stefanix
Just checked it out...on Linux. Cross-plateform packages have been posted to
their forum. Solvespace is fairly intuitive and quite functional. Happy to
have found it.

Linux:
[http://solvespace.com/forum.pl?action=viewthread&parent=574](http://solvespace.com/forum.pl?action=viewthread&parent=574)

OSX:
[http://solvespace.com/forum.pl?action=viewthread&parent=586](http://solvespace.com/forum.pl?action=viewthread&parent=586)

------
greggman
I thought Tinkercad's goals were for 3d printing. No idea if it actually meets
the criteria

[https://www.tinkercad.com/](https://www.tinkercad.com/)

There's also Clara.io but I think it's targeting rendering

[https://clara.io/](https://clara.io/)

~~~
bhouston
TinkerCAD is used a lot for 3D Printing, but at the low end.

At the higher end, there is [http://onshape.com](http://onshape.com), an
online professionally-oriented CAD tool that is aimed at mechanical engineers.
Onshape is from the team that brought you SolidWorks.

While [http://Clara.io](http://Clara.io) does have some capabilities for 3D
printing, it is best to think of Clara.io as like an online Blender with
publishing. Like Blender, Clara.io is oriented towards media creation (stills,
animations, videos, etc.) but not necessarily restricted to __solid __models.

Examples of what Clara.io can do:

PRS Guitar:
[https://clara.io/view/d39a6ee1-d542-4390-89f8-481bc1dbb011](https://clara.io/view/d39a6ee1-d542-4390-89f8-481bc1dbb011)

Dirty Armor:
[https://clara.io/view/193070f2-e8af-4afc-a531-9d82338b5288](https://clara.io/view/193070f2-e8af-4afc-a531-9d82338b5288)

Leather Sofa: [https://clara.io/view/f4e5a5ec-a086-4add-
aee6-2d2a35730b06](https://clara.io/view/f4e5a5ec-a086-4add-aee6-2d2a35730b06)

------
MarcScott
We use SolidWorks at my school, and my students don't seem to have any issues.
It's fairly easy to use and easy to generate files that our 3d printer can
handle.

~~~
georgemcbay
While the linked blog post focuses on usability rather than price, it is
perhaps important to note that a single SolidWorks license costs about 8 times
as much as you might pay for a pretty decent (if basic) FDM 3D printer.

I'm not arguing that the software isn't worth that price because its scope is
vast, but that price makes it basically a non-starter as a suggestion for a
software package for hobbyists.

~~~
TTPrograms
Onshape is pretty terrific in that regard, and its interface is like a much
more elegant Solidworks:

[https://www.onshape.com/](https://www.onshape.com/)

------
typedweb
AutoDesk has 123D Modeler[1]. I'm not sure which printers it works with, but
it probably uses the Spark platform[2] for the actual print drivers.

    
    
        [1] http://www.123dapp.com/design
        [2] https://spark.autodesk.com/

------
xsmasher
I tried 3D printing for the first time this year, and I used Blender. It was
as easy as exporting an .STL file and uploading it to Shapeways.

------
crimsonalucard
[http://moi3d.com/](http://moi3d.com/)

------
rahhul
Sounds interesting. When do you expect to launch ?

------
dmfdmf
Another alternative I saw at the Maker Faire last weekend.
[http://www.sketchup.com/](http://www.sketchup.com/)

~~~
Corun
Yup SketchUp is pretty good, but it's really not ideal for 3D printable
objects. And it's still not easy enough to help enable the widespread
adoptions of 3D printing.

~~~
chrissyb
I think there are free ruby addons you can add to make SketchUp models more
printer friendly(adjusting wall thickness etc).

I don't have a link I looked at it a while back now.

