I'm using it as my main 3D modeling tool for three years, and I even gave I course about it last year. No regrets, and I never felt that I needed to learn Fusion or similar
OpenSCAD does very little to help me with these maths as it doesn't have a solver. Not to my knowledge at least.
FreeCAD supports the openscad language plugin, and can generate proper solids. Many classic CAD/CAM users often see the parametric design workflow as baffling... not an entirely undeserved reputation.
Freecad tutorials:
https://www.youtube.com/@4axisprinting/videos
Blender geometry nodes tutorials:
https://www.youtube.com/@Entagma/videos
Best of luck, =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AEHI2o-6Q
OpenSCAD's strength --- that it makes it easy to create 3D designs which are easily represented mathematically using cubes, spheres, cylinders, cones, and assemblies and distortions thereof is also its weakness --- what one can do in OpenSCAD is strongly bounded by one's fluency in mathematics/geometry/trigonometry (says the guy who is stuck on conic sections in a particular project and needs a solution which is faster to calculate).
Still waiting for the Python-enabled version to make it big:
I like the measuring tool but I prefer doing something more permanent like labeling it.
Sadly, in the GUI, it would be really nice if I could do something like:
module myObj() { import("bla.stl"); }
myObjDimensions = dimensions(myObj);
translate([0, 0, myObjDimensions.z]) cube();
But this couldn't even be a valid SCAD code...
I started learning OpenSCAD over the weekend to try out an idea to 3d print a 70" dome to make my own Star Wars Battlepod after seeing that video on making the replica Space War cabinet.
One guy got an acrylic forming shop to make him one about 10 years ago for $700, but I was calculating in how much it would cost to 3d print and stich a dome screen together. My test sample that I started used a sort of ribbed dome that I was trying to figure out how to split the file and bolt it together - https://www.reddit.com/r/openscad/comments/1i922ed/trying_to...
I started playing around with thickness because at 1/2 inch, it was looking like about $200 in filament. But if I can reduce the thickness because of having the jigsaw edging to make it easier to align, it might get cheaper.
Currently tried running this in Windows and it isn't happy. I'll make a Linux VM and give it a go again.
>>WARNING: Too many unnamed arguments supplied in file in.scad, line 6 Geometries in cache: 20 Geometry cache size in bytes: 3802608 CGAL Polyhedrons in cache: 182 CGAL cache size in bytes: 0 Total rendering time: 0:00:01.063 Top level object is a 3D object (manifold): Status: NoError Genus: 1 Vertices: 39078 Facets: 78156 Num. beds: 0
While true, dovetail and other traditional woodworking joints borrow their strength from using the wood grain to support the joint.
I don't know a lot about 3D printing but I'm guessing a lot of the assumptions about woodworking joints strength aren't applicable.
But I do know about 3d printering. :)
Strength in printing is usually a function of the mass used to print with. So more plastic used at the boundary layers will mean stronger joints.
Eg. A PET plastic soda bottle (pepsi, coke) will flex in the body where it's thin, but not on the threads on the top of the bottle. In fact, those are pretty strong, because they need to hold on a cap which keeps the carbonation in.
A good question to ask is if the dovetail joint in plastic as strong as wood? The answer may likely be no, but it may not also need to be. It just needs to be "good enough". And this looks like it might be.
This came at a perfect time, then - you can cause each adjacent layer to be offset by half the layer height, to maximize the strength.
Annealing parts by baking them at the right temperature for a sufficient length of time is relatively easy to do. Printing at higher temperatures and slower speeds to ensure layers are melted together also results in higher strength parts.
Imagine running a custom action or pipeline and getting a physical object pop out in the shed. Pretty awesome.
I also like the idea as git as the way to share and remix 3d printing instead of (as well as) the various STL sites.
The simple language IDE preview pane sometimes chokes on the surfaces that are compiled, and on rare occasion must be done via command line. Thus, some complex designs may take hours to generate a model.
The slicers are meant to be more CAM tool than CAD utility, but people are mixing features as use-cases increase in complexity.
Best of luck, =3
I don't know if other slicers have a better CLI, or even if they have a CLI...
Makerworlds customizer is simply a web version of OpenScad. Upload your OpenSCAD script and good to go
But when printing the plates separately, every face is equally strong.
Great project!
I know that at least one person doing 3D printing was making it a point of picking up old projection TVs and recycling the ABS housing to make new filament using a Filastruder.
Maybe I'll have to get huge commercial refrigerator for the proper effect, but it will be worth it.
3d printed life size Han Solo in Carbonite replica Part 1:
Of course 3d printers lay these strands in a 2d plane (and stack layers of these 2d planes), whereas trees grow in more-or-less one dimension. So wood has one strong direction and two weak ones, while 3d prints have two strong directions and one weak direction. And obviously 3d printed strands are layed out by boring and often naive algorithms that lack any of the beauty of naturally grown wood. Then again, for structural applications you also want the most bland and boring wood patterns possible.
With 3D printing, despite the analogy, I couldn't find any sources for strength along/across the "grain" so i'm not sure how accurate that analogy really is.
CNC kitchen on youtube does a lot of strength and impact testing, e.g. [1] (results at 9:55). "Across the grain" you have half the strength in PLA (and similar numbers in all filament types except TPU). Or if you prefer manufacturer numbers, [2] is the datasheet for a random PLA filament. It also shows worse numbers in every metric in the Z direction (across the grain).
The difference isn't as severe as in wood, but it's big enough that it is something you have to consider in structural parts
[1] https://youtu.be/dOzVuoBP9gY?t=535
[2] https://polymaker.com/wp-content/uploads/lana-downloads/Poly...
That said, if the part is small, and one can afford to print w/ 100% infill just put it in a tray of salt and bake to re-melt/re-flow to make a (more) solid part.
https://x3d.com.au/blogs/tips-and-tricks/pla-baking-the-secr...