I don't see this moving very fast. On Solvespace we recently had a bunch of commits by Claude to fix NURBS boolean issues. The analysis was actually very impressive and most of the fixes were accepted after a lot of review by multiple experts on the code. I don't see this project getting far on the hard problems they still have open.
IMHO they should have had AI convert OCCT kernel to rust, or just wrap it and use as-is.
BTW we are on the verge of solvespace 3.3 with those AI fixes. After that I'm adding the named parameters that have been prototypes 12 times already. There are also a couple forks out there with MCP server added, but I want to focus on missing features.
I am already doing that, the new kernel will be called martensite, for now it lives here: https://github.com/Oblikovati/RustyCADKernel, I am about 70% of all OCCT apis ported with ported rust tests and using OCCT as oracle.
In about a week of two i expect to finalise the porting, then I will remove all the porting harnessing to decouple from OCCT. that will the basis for new innovation, after the cleanup the new kernel will live on this repo, where i already started to create a roadmap with my vision for improvements: https://github.com/Oblikovati/Martensite/milestones
Thanks for your work on Solvespace. I have been using it for years. When I no longer had access to commercial CAD programs I tried all the open source stuff. My conclusions were:
* OpenSCAD -- cool idea, good for a few types of highly procedural parts, but most of the time I'd rather a parametric sketch-based interface over pure code.
* FreeCAD -- the most features of any open source CAD, but poor UI, tendency to crash, and the advanced features like loft kind of fall flat compared to commercial equivalents. You think you'll be able to model a part, but it becomes extremely frustrating if you actually need the advanced tools.
* SolveSpace -- pretty stable and reliable. Fast, compact, great sketching interface, good discoverable UI. You can predict what types of parts you can model with it and what types you can't. Doesn't try to do everything but is good at what it does.
You can tell which one is my favorite! N features done to a good level of polish and with somebody making sure it all "makes sense together" beats 10xN features all 80% done and haphazardly mashed together in different menus/workbenches, for any tools I want to rely on.
I am noodling around with a slopcoded CAD tool of my own these days, just out of curiosity to see how far Opus5.5/GPT6 can get doing it in F# and to experiment with some workflow concepts that match the way I like to design parts. But like you said, progress is slow. For stuff I actually want to get done, SolveSpace remains my go-to, and I greatly admire its coherent design.
I think I've seen ports of OCCT to Rust as well as Rust wrappers for OCCT floating around Github once or twice already.
However, OpenCascade being C++ instead of Rust is the least of its problems, the main issue is OCCT's boolean/blend engines aren't really as robust as the commercial kernels, and handling arbitrary 3D boolean edge cases one by one correctly is one of the main difficulties of a geometry kernel.
Very interested in SolveSpace's progress on this really.
>> Very interested in SolveSpace's progress on this really
Its good progress but still too easy to have a failed boolean. Previously you had to know how to work around bugs to cut a fillet off an edge. Now thats pretty easy and robust, but as soon as you do two of them that intersect there may be a problem. Like you said, the list of corner cases never end. I suspect a bit more Claude use might fix that one too.
IMHO they should have had AI convert OCCT kernel to rust, or just wrap it and use as-is.
BTW we are on the verge of solvespace 3.3 with those AI fixes. After that I'm adding the named parameters that have been prototypes 12 times already. There are also a couple forks out there with MCP server added, but I want to focus on missing features.