- #DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD MOD#
- #DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD CODE#
- #DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD LICENSE#
- #DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD FREE#
#DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD MOD#
> mixed together (did the whole Wades mod in OpenSCAD and built the rest > I made a modification to Wade's extruder using OpenSCAD and Solidworks Not day to day, but sometimes - and it can be a > modelling program and hope to have any interoperability with other CAD If you actually want to use OpenSCAD as a real 3D
> modeller and for you it's useful for 2D stuff, so that's not the most > do "real engineering' with popsicle sticks too. > convenient as it could be if we had arcs.
> It's possible to do "real engineering" with OpenSCAD, but not as > enough so the facets aren't noticeable. > I use the DXF export to route things so it is possible to do "real > right? That could be useful for introducing arcs as an alpha feature > with curved surfaces simply fail, leaving it up to the user to get it
#DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD CODE#
> example, could the code be designed so that unsupported operations > One question - would it be plausible to partially implement arcs? For > vested interest in improving FLOSS CAD, so maybe I'll run that by him. > understanding, it may be easier to solve. > Marius - thanks for explaining the issue! Now that I have some I'm slowly refactoring my way to having a more flexible backend. Same could go for curves, and eventually things like NURBS.
CSG, and only then respect the $fn parameter. That way we could store primitives as implicit objects and render them in high resolution until it's needed for e.g. I've been thinking in that direction - my idea was to keep as much geometry as possible in an as exact form as possible and perform a lazy evaluation to a polygonal level when needed. > One question - would it be plausible to partially implement arcs? For example, could the code be designed so that unsupported operations with curved surfaces simply fail, leaving it up to the user to get it right? That could be useful for introducing arcs as an alpha feature for testing. We're constantly on the lookout for better engines (this is the holy grail of CAD software), so any suggestions are welcome!
#DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD FREE#
One free alternative is OpenCascade, but as far as I understand, they also do all CSG operations on triangle meshes, not smooth curves and surfaces.
#DESKCNC GCODE CONVERT FROM CAD LICENSE#
There are other engines out there, but most such engines are commercial and not possible to license for use in an Open Source program like OpenSCAD (in addition to being prohibitively expensive). We're using an engine called CGAL, which operates on a polygonal level. The issue is not the format used, but the geometry engine which does the calculations. True arcs could be defined by setting facets to zero or by leaving out that parameter (though I think that's already used?). Apparent IGES is a CSG based format or whatever, so some chatter back when I joined the list seemed to think it's possible. If it did, it could export to IGES and DXF and the files would actually be useful for real engineering and machining, not just tinkering and 3D printing. > Would it be possible to turn a part inside out, and create G-code for milling away, matching circles and arcs &c. > wherein I learned that it is limited to an internal polygonal representation. > I was quite thrilled w/ OpenSCAD until the following exchange:
0 kommentar(er)
