Hacker News Reader

I agree with the feel. I have used Pro/E, AutoCAD, and currently use TurboCAD for doing 3D CAD design (mostly for printing on FDM printers these days). There is, with all of these systems, a "zen" where you get the point of view of the developer in your head and then it all makes sense. Before that, it seems hopelessly complicated and impossible for anyone to use.

Whenever I use TurboCAD it has all the feature check boxes and they seem to function reasonably well. It just feels like they invested a ton of time, research and money into figuring out the worst possible way to expose those features in the UI/UX.

Edit: I posted because I was curious about your opinion, but now I realize it just looks like I stopped by to insult TurboCAD for no reason.

> Perhaps this is inherent complexity?

I don't think so. I use Solid Edge, which is quite good at this. You can push geometry out of the history based parametric scheme into freeform modeling. There's some pretty fascinating YouTube videos from Siemens showing importing of 3d cad models from other programs, and then repairing parts of them. Granted, I've never done anything on a truly massive project like an assembly with ten thousand rivets or something.

The author sells two different CAD products that supposedly do the same (zw3d and ironcad), but I haven't used either of them

In my own personal experience, using Solid Edge outside of the consumed-sketch history mode and in free form mode (which still has both sketches and a history stack) has been much much more pleasant. I started using it long after they introduced that "synchronous technology" as they call it, and didn't even realize that history/consumed-sketch mode was an option for quite a while.

I took a look at my own history (heh) but couldn't find the original video series I saw. I did see this which demonstrates a bit of editing of imported models: https://youtu.be/ZQb1GNVKy74

The design intent inferring is pretty slick, some other videos do a good job showing it off (and also how to turn it off if it doesn't get it right). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nPQOalmlrc for one of those.

I've used IronCAD, Solidworks, pro/e and AutoDesk Inventor. If you're approaching 3D modelling as a draftsperson, IronCAD was much more productive. Want to change this part, just do it. Want to specify a relationship, you can but it's entirely optional. It's hard to describe how much faster it becomes. This was particularly noticeable in the hands of our 2D drafties who converted.

But I have also had the joy of trying to program IronCAD. The parametric solver is not as good as the other programs (who live and die by it). I suspect, though cannot prove, that the little automation system we used to create a base design would have been a lot more stable running on a different system. But it was too much work to completely re-implement (and convert all the old designs etc.). So I had the joy of fixing changes between versions by e.g. swapping the direction of a constraint, or hard-coding an initial offset so that you approach a solution from a particular direction.

Also, adding 2D annotations to create a production drawing were painfully slow and finicky in IronCAD.

I think I agree with the author that history-based editing caused the whole industry to go down a less-efficient path, but I also think it's too late to change the past now.

parametric modelling is good for minor changes that don't change the general topology of the part. Otherwise you'll run into topology naming issues that you have to fix by hand (at best) or a complete redesign of the part. (at worst)

there are ways to mitigate the side effects (e.g. using reference planes instead of part topology as feature references) but it's a chore sometimes.

software equivalent of topology changes would be perhaps changing from using a certain set of APIs to another for reasons. If only equivalent functions are used it's not an issue. But if there's missing functions that you have no choice but to recompile the library and add logic to manipulate the information, that's a lot of work!

it's the same as if that hole that you parametrically positioned hits a spar and you have to redesign the surrounding structures.

His outright dismissal of Solidworks...

It's funny I've been using Solidworks for years and would love to find an alternative that hits the right notes. Closest I've come is OnShape (which I believe was started by Solidworks' x-founder and some top engineers he took with him). Tried a few alternatives like SolidEdge, SpaceClaim etc. but they either didn't offer as intuitive usability (particularly the sketching interface) or weren't stable.

It's really funny how everyone has a CAD program that clicks with them, and the rest ends up infuriating them.

Myself, I clicked with Inventor when I had a free educational license. I later got a solidworks license through EAA (a benefit that no longer exists, thanks Dassault!) and found it frustrating and unstable in so many ways. It felt like so many submodules just jammed together without any concern about consistency of interface or experience. Though it did have more options for putting assemblies together than Inventor did. Comparing and contrasting the two was really enlightening.

Eventually my educational license for Inventor ran out and I got upon Solid Edge. Like you (I presume) I found the sketching to be different from what I was used to. Then I learned that it actually had a completely separate mode that turned on the classic history CAD and suddenly it looked like Inventor again.

These programs all have so much functionality that can be so hidden behind years of changes and updates and best practices. Somehow though, I wouldn't call them UI or discoverability nightmares (though I think solidworks is both, haha). Both Inventor and Solid Edge really did a good job holding my hand as I gradually learn to use more and more of their power. Some of their help systems are really well designed. I'm impressed by how they both can have (mostly) consistent interfaces between their various features so learning a new part feels more natural. The way Solid Edge integrates its help system is really neat too. Maybe the rest of the computer industry can learn a thing or two from how these CAD programs provide gradual discoverability.

You probably already know this, but EAA does still get a discount for the maker license of Solidworks. $50/year. I'm actually designing a mold for some generative art with it right now :)

Not quite, unfortunately. EAA now gives a discount for "3DEXPERIENCE Solidworks", not Solidworks proper.

I'm not too torn up about it though. I really didn't like Solidworks (as you probably saw in my other posts) and losing the $50/year license for it led me to Siemens Solid Edge, which I'm substantially more productive in. For me the only downside to the free edition of Solid Edge is that it doesn't come with the fastener / standard part library that you get with the commercial license. But hey, guess what, 3DEXPERIENCE Solidworks has the exact same problem! No Solidworks toolbox (when I used it, their version of the standard parts library). Hilarious that that's their offer for the EAA though, you'd think something for designing aircraft parts would at least come with standardized rivets you could use in your assembly!

If the part reaches any amount of complexity at all, i’ll just go in and intentionally break references.

I usually just want to focus on designing a part, and not having to consider if I selected this edge when building the mating part and what will happen if I edit the wrong sketch 20 hours from now.