RoadSide Maker

Пікірлер

@jbdawinna 3 күн бұрын

Here’s the plan, we get someone with a big computer to download the full version of deepseek and the FreeCAD GitHub. Then, deepseek is sent on a mission to implement every feature and quality of life function that’s currently present in fusion in the local freecad github. Then after like a couple weeks of it running, we see what happened.

@ilokiwi 4 күн бұрын

3:15 FreeCAD always crashes when I do this and I have a powerful pc. what did i miss? Edit: I had to decimate mesh because it was too big i guess. 25k vertices... should be ok

@RoadSideMaker Күн бұрын

Hey, never had problems in this step. But stls I print and sonetimes are mostly functional with not much details.

@rancmeat 7 күн бұрын

The well-presented concepts in this video are essential yet unobvious to the new user. I'm starting my project over to apply what I've learned here. Excellent information.

@RoadSideMaker 6 күн бұрын

Thank you!

@jnarical 10 күн бұрын

Hi. At 14:00 there is not TNP problem, actually. It's more about how solver works, the order it applies constrains. After you changed width, solver starts to calculate your sketch. All "hardcoded" values like those from variable set - apply first, as there is nothing to solve. Just place the point at set coordinates, that's it. Then it begins to gradually apply constrains. That way, top left corner of your rectangle moves right, and former top right corner becomes top left BEFORE the solver applied dimension constraint. That way, after applying it - you get your dimension right but on another side of its base element. That's not TNP.

@RoadSideMaker 10 күн бұрын

Hey, yes, agreed. That is not a TNP. But would you agree, that it should not happen? I could not replicate same behavior in any other CAD I have access to. But, just like yesterday, I delved into and enabled advanced solver options. The Default DogLeg solver gives me this undesirable behavior. But when I change it to LevenbergMarquardt solver, the problem goes away. Haven't played enough with it as it can come short elsewhere, but it solved this particular issue.

@jnarical 10 күн бұрын

@RoadSideMaker of course that shouldn't happen, and as I know in Alibre (for example) it doesn't as for advanced solver options.. just wow, man, I'll try those by myself!

@RoadSideMaker 10 күн бұрын

Try and let me know how it works out for you!

@zk_6312 11 күн бұрын

Great video. A lot of useful tips. I recently tried a weekly build of 1.1dev. I don't care much for the new external geometry tools. I much prefer the old tool.

@RoadSideMaker 11 күн бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@VitoVituccio 12 күн бұрын

Excellent! very very simple procedures! I'm trying to do the same feature to convert a mesh in solid to modify in a simple manner as you can do on Fusion 360 (with the free functionalities) and your procedure do it in FreeCad VERY VERY WELL! I've only 3 questions: 1) why you make a copy of the body? only to refine surfaces? 2): why this options are only in Part workbench and not also in Part Design? 3) in Part menu I've seen also a "Convert in solid" command, when you think it will be usefull ? Tank you

@RoadSideMaker 11 күн бұрын

Hey and thank you! 1) Yes, it simplifies the model and removes unnecessary edges on flat surfaces. 2) Part design is classic feature-based modeling workflow. As such, it is more restrictive and uses B-rep approach. Part workbench is an attempt to create the CSG approach (however it is still b-rep underneath) and as such, you work not with features but with "bodies" and their combinations. So I would guess that converting and simplifying bodies are more appropriate for Part workbench than Part Design workflow. 3) In the video I use the "Convert to solid" command as a last step. in 2) I mentioned the B-rep representation of the model. Well basically it is a solid. So the command converts the "shape" to the usable "solid" (that is a b-rep) that we can operate with.

@sbr-synrosimbugracing9338 14 күн бұрын

It's so buggy I can't get much done with this software.

@RoadSideMaker 13 күн бұрын

yes, that is unfortunate

@rockyhill3 15 күн бұрын

Excellent video, Thank you!

@RoadSideMaker 15 күн бұрын

Glad you liked it!

@chenrushan219 16 күн бұрын

thanks, I'll export to setp from now on 😄

@RoadSideMaker 16 күн бұрын

Glad to hear!

@GrumpBurger 17 күн бұрын

Legend, thank you!

@RoadSideMaker 17 күн бұрын

You're welcome!

@Johncrazy365 17 күн бұрын

Very Nice Video friend, very informative and brief absolutely appreciate it and thankful

@RoadSideMaker 17 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

@oqueeutofazendoaqui 18 күн бұрын

Nice! I think the goal is compare how the free and cheap can handle remix stl and step. As far I can remember, alibre cheapest one cant handle stl

@RoadSideMaker 18 күн бұрын

Hey, STEP is universal CAD format. Any parametric cad software will handle it no problems, Alibre Atom3d (cheapest) included. Now STL is a mesh and that is a problem. Alibre just does not support STL in any tier. One would need to convert it to STEP first, to import it in Alibre.

@theobarbosa 18 күн бұрын

This is the best FreeCAD video I ever seen!!

@RoadSideMaker 18 күн бұрын

Thank you for your kind words!

@Paul_______ 20 күн бұрын

alibre would be nice if i could import stl

@RoadSideMaker 18 күн бұрын

Agreed

@JustAnotherAlchemist 22 күн бұрын

This is pure Gold! TY.

@RoadSideMaker 21 күн бұрын

Thank you for kind words!

@eaman11 Ай бұрын

Dam it is so overcomplicated: in Fusion you just type length = 20 in the dimension.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

As the title states - "The Art of Overdoing It". You do not need to do that if you do not plan the model to be dynamic - changing dimensions in the future. If you just model it and forget, there is no problem doing it just like Fusion. Especially with newest development builds

@eaman11 Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker FC is overcomplicted: scope and group to define a var? WTH! You should not need any of those.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Cannot see any complications in this example. You can group variables. Like for main model body I want one group, but for fasteners I would like another group so I can easily find necessary value at a glance. If one does not need that, it is Base by default, no change required.

@ichbrauchmehrkaffee5785 Ай бұрын

My personal most ciritical setting that I changed was in Sketcher -> General: disable "Esc can leave sketch edit mode" coming from Inventor, I was used to spam Esc to abort any action I was currently in, but FreeCad used to kick me out of the sketch-editor, which annoyed me to death. I don't know if this option was available prior to v1.0, but I'm very glad it exists, nonetheless

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Great setting

@Discover-Hidden Ай бұрын

Most of the videos on youtube teach about adding the body or union of primitive solids to converted paatzs, but no in is able to edit the pre existing lines on these bodies.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

These lines are from meshes. FreeCAD is not natively mesh software. Blender would be a proper tool to edit meshes. Here we try to conver mesh to geometric representation and work with that

@Discover-Hidden Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker ok thank you

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

You are welcome!

@nufnuf816 Ай бұрын

I use freecad for last 3 years - but always avoided importing STLs as I had issues with those and it was easier to create the modely by myself :D This tutorial is a gem and should be linked to FreeCAD wiki / help page! Huge thanks!

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Great to hear!

@jonnytango3852 Ай бұрын

Excellent, just about to throw Freecad away after using it for 7 years and you came to it's rescue.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Try 1.1 weekly dev version. It has great improvements for projecting external geometry. It is usable now. One of my biggest gripes fixed

@Jordan-dr9hq Ай бұрын

You forgot Rhino

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Hey, this is not an exaustive list of CAD packages. It is list of flags to check when choosing package. One can apply same checks for Rhino

@sebastiendenis7332 Ай бұрын

I use Sketchup :(

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

If it suits your needs, then great 👍 Keep at it

@atilasatilmis9986 Ай бұрын

I hate customizations. Just provide a “sane” default to users and call it a day.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

The default set is sane. Some may like different settings. It is great that one can tweak those. Much better than being locked in to some devs understanding of sane satup

@atilasatilmis9986 Ай бұрын

@ then why do you need to customize it? When I look at the default “sane” GUI of FreeCAD, I see wasted screen estate and extra one or more clicks to do a basic thing.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

is your definition of sane universal?

@atilasatilmis9986 Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker yes. Effective usage of screen estate, less clicks / key strokes and ergonomics is universal sane. Eye candy is no universal tho, that’s up to user preference.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Good for you

@aberba Ай бұрын

Too much tweaking just confuses beginners. This is like a plague in the open source software community.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

No need to tweak at all, but if one wants, there are options

@AlceuCosta Ай бұрын

Excelent class! I was trying to figure out how to use variables in freecad. In this video I have learned much more than I was expecting. The concept of reference always to the center point is new for me. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@noanyobiseniss7462 Ай бұрын

Hi, I'm going nuts trying to extend the length of this model, AL_3030_T_Slot_cover.3mf, can you give me a clue why i'm getting an error when trying to extrude a pad. I am @4:00 trying to follow your steps.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Hey, if you do it for 3d print, then there is an easier way. Load this 3mf file in slicer of your choice. I use Orca, select the model and click "scale". Uncheck the Uniform box and set the length as needed (if the model sits vertical, it would be Z axis scaling). Let me know if it helped

@noanyobiseniss7462 Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker Sweet, Thx, I'm using super slicer on nix. Can't get Orca Slicer working because Webkit is a security threat.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Should work with SuperSlicer just the same, cheers

@noanyobiseniss7462 Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker It did, thanks. :) Turns out at 300mm its a good test of your part Cooling! :D

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Great, some big print volume you have there 👍

@goldkat94 Ай бұрын

Pure gold! Thanks

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

You're welcome!

@majormojo Ай бұрын

Well done. I learned about “defeature” today! Excellent. 😊

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@weldingempire Ай бұрын

Great breakdown of the differences, mate. I have Alibre for the ownership of my designs and the perpetual license. The UI is nice and clean, too.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Great to hear, I settled on Alibre as well

@bennguyen1313 Ай бұрын

I understand all tools (Tinkercad, Freecad, OnShape, etc) can generate a design file (STL) that can be sent to a print-farm.. Do you have any favorite 3d printer service that will print a small part most affordably? Do they charge by amount of material/time, or how complex the shape is, or ??? Since I don't know any of these CAD software tools, is there any one that is especially better when designing a very simple enclosure (with a couple cutouts and standoffs)?

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

No, unfortunatelly I do not have experience with 3d printing services

@VonGuusistoff Ай бұрын

Am i doing something wrong. I can't see the most upper bar that contains File, view, tools, macro etc. The bar i completely hidden behind the black outline of my screen.

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

That is weird, never seen that before

@x_ph1l Ай бұрын

Watching your second video and learning so much! Thank you!

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

You are so welcome!

@x_ph1l Ай бұрын

I didn't know that STEP files are so easy to edit in FreeCAD. Thanks!

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Happy to help!

@Hilmi12 Ай бұрын

I moved to Alibre to avoid subscriptions

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Great, me as well! How does it work for you out?

@Hilmi12 Ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker I got the mid tear package, it's great and intuitive, I didn't get the maintenance package so I missed out on the update that introduced slots. Only feature I miss from fusion is modelled threads

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

Yes, I kinda miss threads as well, but I very rarely need those. Had just one project when needed. I see the area for improvement, might make a video on that.

@atommrav Ай бұрын

Thank you for this outstanding tutorial! I really appreciate how clearly and simply you explained everything. As someone with very limited knowledge of FreeCAD, I found it easy to follow and understand your step-by-step approach. The pace was just right, and your examples made even complex concepts seem approachable. This video has boosted my confidence to start using FreeCAD more effectively. Great job!

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

You are welcome!

@Dude902 Ай бұрын

It took me until 1:28 until I realized this is about usability friction not mechanical property friction. Awesome video by the way!

@RoadSideMaker Ай бұрын

You made me giggle, thank you!

@maksberlec4832 2 ай бұрын

The wrong position of the screw insertion square is not due to re-indexation, but accordingly to the constraints of the square may be on both side of the vertical line. If for example a line is constrained to be tangential to s circle, the line might be on both side of the circle. Such situations may break any CAD program.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Yes, however I would assume that the sequence of the application of constraints is important to determine where it can be located. If it is indeed sequence, then it is indexed by definition, but my assumption could be wrong. By the same logic, in an extreme example one could argue that a point constrained to the Origin axes can be calculated in 4 different quadrants as it is constrained to the distance (always positive) and not coordinates (like -10X / 20Y which would be lock constraint). The problem is that this behavior is mitigated in other CAD packages. This is video (#2) in Workflow series, if you check video (#1) you will see similar scenario compared to Alibre Atom3D. I also checked same in Fusion and Onshape - none exhibit this recalculation problem. I also show how to avoid it in FreeCAD right after this demonstration.

@ummduhgmail 2 ай бұрын

Wow, thanks! I am very, very, new, and just a hobbyist. I managed an OK amount of stuff in a pirated SW, but freecad has been absolutely kicking my butt and many of the things you brought up will make it easier.

@DonovanBrown 2 ай бұрын

I was trying to follow along. After I click ok to create first datum plane I am asked for a Reference that I did not see you have to address in your video. When I select the (recommended) option Make independent copy. I get an additional item in my model tree CopyXY_Plane. I don't see in your video. I am using 1.0 but not sure why my experience is different than yours.

@DonovanBrown 2 ай бұрын

Ah I figured it out. Replying for anyone that sees the same issue. I was showing the "wrong" origin. I created a part to put my body in. I have to select origin under the body not the one for the part. Then it works as you show above.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Glad you figured it out! FreeCAD is sensitive in what you have selected or even the sequence of selection+action

@fgg45g 2 ай бұрын

the first thing i get screwed in 1.0.0 is the joint points I need to get around this :(

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Sorry didn't quite get what you mean

@DonovanBrown 2 ай бұрын

I have watched countless FreeCad videos but I learned more in this single video than all of them. Great Work!.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Thank you! Much appreciated!

@SatyajitRoy2048 2 ай бұрын

I just copied all the settings.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Great to hear you found those useful!

@hv1461 2 ай бұрын

Great analysis, thank you. My takeaway is that FreeCAD, even the new version 1.0 is not usable, from a practical point of view, when compared to Fusion360 (free version) in the sense that the necessary workflow is tedious. Just the fact that you can't easily project geometries from existing bodies onto sketch planes seems like a show stopper to me. Also, not facility for 3D sketching seems like a show stopper too as 3D sketching is very useful in many situations. Do you (or anyone) agree or disagree ?

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Thank you. I would disagree that it is unusable. Just not for the top-down approach. I see there is active work on github to improve projection tool. Looks like it will be on par with other CAD software's. But remember, that Fusion360 free version is not without it gotchas - no commercial use (1000$ a year is very tight) and project files are online. I am not exactly comfortable with that

@hv1461 2 ай бұрын

@@RoadSideMaker Thanks. I am watching your other videos now. With the release of FreeCAD 1.0 I think there are going to be a large number of people who are lets say advanced hobbyists who are quite proficient at Fusion 360 (free version) that are giving consideration to FreeCAD. In fact, we want to use FreeCAD if at all possible for a variety of reasons like the ones you mentioned and more (limit of 10 editable files is annoying). But if the FreeCAD workflow is highly encumbered, we don't want to invest the time into making the transition. It seems to me you have exactly the right knowledge and experience to address this discussion and I think if you had a series on this it could help a lot of people and help your channel grow. Is is really feasible to move from Fusion 360 to FreeCAD 1.0 ? And if so, what modifications do we need to make to our workflow. It's great news that projection is being worked on. I'll follow the issues on GitHub now too. I had thought that 3D sketching is also a pretty big limitation too. There might be others. But then again, maybe there are reasonable workarounds with mods to our workflow ? Or, it could be that in the coming months it could be time to jump in if certain key features like projection are developed. I do already like that FreeCAD is not cloud based and it is much more responsive on my system (Mac Mini M4). Thanks again for your videos and for sharing your knowledge on these matters. KZbin is amazing when you find capable people willing to share their knowledge on specific issues and when I find such channels I always contribute.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Hey, I appreciate longer format engagement in comments! So here you have some more - I totally get you. I am coming from IT industry and am familiar what vendor locking is and how hard is to escape it. So agnostic solutions are getting track, meaning they will work same without regard for the platform. For CAD your experience is agnostic. All parametric feature based CAD solutions are very similar. So moving between them should be pretty easy. Forgive me if I am wrong, but if you are using free Fusion tier I would assume you are not doing CAD for business so there should be less friction and "cost" of moving to different CAD package. If you are not regularly reusing an modifying previous parts in new projects, there should be little to no dependency to the vendor. What I am trying to say is, if it is possible in your case, take your knowledge and experience and try other options. Will you find your forever cad? Probably not. I look at software as tools. For example this week I had modeled and printed like 5 different parts for adapting lenses to enlargers. (I will probably do the video on those) These parts require printed threads that are not a part of my usual workflow. I could model those in any cad, but why suffer. Quick google and it happens that Onshape has great community plugin to make threads with a click of a button. Never used Onshape for projects, but now this was the right tool for the job. Fun fact, I watched like 10 hour course for SolidWorks on youtube (vertanux1 if you are interested). I will probably never work with or especially own Solidworks licence. However I use techniques from the course both in FreeCAD and Alibre. Basically knowledge is transferable and don't limit yourself, experiment and have fun :)

@hv1461 2 ай бұрын

@RoadSideMaker Thanks. Those are really interesting points of view which got me thinking about different things. Much appreciated.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

You are welcome!

@balazsnagy2916 2 ай бұрын

Stupidest practical what i see in 2024! Unusable.

@loughkb 2 ай бұрын

Freecad is an incredible value for the price.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Unbeatable, I'd say

@langrock74 2 ай бұрын

Saying that Atom3D and their higher-end solutions do the same just with a different number of clicks is not correct. There are significant difference between these versions, one being direct modeling capability in their Design Pro version, for example. Also, there are no boolean operations in Atom3D as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, Atom3D is great for the price, especially when on sale, but you quickly realize that the feature set lacks significantly behind what Freecad offers. With V1 of Freecad, it appears that the stability was greatly improved and there are now more and more solid tutorials that teach how to use the tool. Furthermore, as a macOS / Linux user, it's a native solution and doesn't require Wine or VMs.

@RoadSideMaker 2 ай бұрын

Hey, I see your point. In all of my projects I needed boolean only once. Direct modeling features in higher tiers are nice, but you usually do not design arround them. I discuss my usecase for offset face as tool for clearances in one of my videos. But it can can be achieved with design spark mechanical that costs 10$ per months and easily cancelled after parts are modified if one would really need it. So I would say that in 95% of my usecases, Atom is more than enough, just more clicks. But those clicks do stack up and i see how it is a turnoff. Had a chance to upgrade to Design, but not for the Atom limitations reasons. However I agree that FreeCAD 1.0 should create pressure on Atom3D as new sketcher is fantastic. Atom and Alibre in general are superior compared to FreeCAD in top down design scenarios. And those are almost exlusivelly my usecases. By the way on Alibre forums i see buzz that linux and mac versions might be comming.