But you would have to derive and write down the formulas for every parameter of every part, and so in practice you'll end up with too many hardcoded numbers, and your model won't be that easy to change. In theory, openscad's approach is superior. * Freecad's constraint solving based approach tends to make your models easier to change than Openscad's scripting approach. In Freecad you click the edge and click fillet, and it works even in complicated cases (e.g. * Even simple fillets (rounded edges) are so annoying in openscad people leave them out. * Openscad is unitless (lengths are like "1", not "1mm"). In addition to what the two (at this time) sibling posts mentioned, even for hobbyist level 3d printing: Protip: prefix a negative shape with # to see it in the preview - like in the above replace cube with #cube So we change the cut cube to be out of the origin line by 0.05mm: Make a watertight join between the two - you want to make sure the two shapes overlap a tiny bit. Because this is so similar, you can reuse the code: Import the part again, translate it by 5mm in negative x direction, and subtract from it a centered cube larger than the part that is moved in negative x direction so that it ends at x=0. Import the part, translate it by 5mm in positive x direction, and subtract from it a centered cube larger than the part that is moved in positive x direction so that it ends at x=0: Say you have a centered 30x10x10 mm part and you want to remove the central 10mm.
Openscad is the best for working with existing STLs. Most users use conda to get all the dependencies going which is a horrible monstrosity. That is extremely good for businesses, not so good to grow an economy or a free society.Ĭadquery is a massive pain to install. And, the owners can decide who passes or not by their streets, and how much they pay. It is the equivalent of a country were all streets and roads are private. And that foundations not only are used for businesses but also for society. Our current problem is that almost all platforms are designed for profit but platforms, by definition, are foundations. The goal would be more aligned with citizens needs instead of maximizing profit.Īt the same time, companies can still capitalize on the different needs of the enterprise software. Many institutions (schools, universities, or even the military) could spend resources on creating the tools that their students, and society as a whole can use.
#Fusion 360 free for startups software#
Maybe the solution is to remove part of the software from the market. And, it makes a lot of economic sense.Īs, I think that capitalism works. You get a customer base, but as your company grows you leave the less profitable customers behind. Because that is how basically business work. I'm sick of companies building their products off the backs of the personal/hobbiest/small business market, and then when they get enough recognition and buzz, switch to essentially an "enterprise-only" pricing structure, completely screwing over the users who made them successful in the first place.Īs someone said on the Internet, what you are sick of is capitalism.
0 kommentar(er)
