FreeCAD: An open reply to Tom Sanladerer

[@macrumpton]

Very clear and informative video. I think of how Blender spent over 20 years being a niche product before they realized that ignoring the way the other players in the arena did things might be a mistake. They changed their user interface to something less "unique" and the popularity of the product exploded. Having a different way to do things when there is a overwhelming advantage to that method is fine, but making users learn your way of doing something just because you thought it was cool or easier to program is just shooting yourself in the foot.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

They built blender the way they wanted. If it changed, it's because new people contributed what they wanted. If you want something designed by the marketing department, buy it. Otherwise, you are welcome to contribute code.

[@gesshoku92]

​@@ernststravoblofeld Doesn't it take years for them to approve any code which is why there are splinter flavours forming like linkstage3

[@ernststravoblofeld]

@@gesshoku92 I don't know. It varies from project to project. But you can always fork your own.

[@DiThi]

Blender devs have always been aware of its differences with other UIs. It's not really about being "unique", but about being able to use it as effectively as possible. Blender is *still* unique and nearly all the tools and workflows it previously had still exist in it, but at the same time it's easier for newcomers from other packages to discover the desired functionality. The difficulty was to reconcile the two, but they eventually achieved it.

[@ozr2222]

@@ernststravoblofeld his argument still stands. being different for the purpose of beeing different has no advantage to anyone, besides maybe your ego. After all blender is a community project, so if you want to have a big community which enables you to do bigger things, you should cater to their preferences - if you want to stay niche, obviously, you dont care. But to my knowledge, blender showed a lot of the industry what an open source perspective can have for incredible possibilities. And alone getting this knowledge out there is worth stop beeing cool and niche and try to cater to peoples preferences - some of which might be even there for a good reason other than its always been this way or the people want nicve and shiny things. I would be thrilled if freeCAD went the blender way and did the same thing for the cad world what blender did to CGI Robots and even 3d printing. Especially because i hate autodesk, dassault and all the other corporate shitholes

[@RotarySMP]

You are very talented with both Freecad, and explaining clearly. Thanks for sharing this.

[@4axisprinting]

You're very welcome!

[@RegularOldDan]

I appreciate this. I wasn't aware of half of this. (My workflow in FreeCAD has been pretty set and I have not worked with surfaces yet.) I also appreciate you being respectful of Tom's statements and providing a way to solve the issues he was encountering while acknowledging the issues he encountered. All around, great!

[@AndriusJankauskasJankiz]

The part at 4:40 is really useful for understanding. So many times I was frustrated and gave up on certain design features just because the fill tool would error out on me.... I don't understand why Intersection is not the default mode instead of Arc. Would have saved newbies like me the confusion 😅 but I'm glad videos like this exist in this community. Thank you so much for a detailed explanation

[@brianmi40]

Only using it for 5 months, I've run across a lot of gotchas, like undoing a boolean operation that was preventing other changes to the body, then reapplying afterward... So far it's done everything I've tried, and I've learned a lot to where I can come up with workflows for the design I have in mind.

[@barrag3463]

The issue with FreeCAD I feel isn't necessarily one of features (well except TNP, which really needs a solution implemented other than telling someone to "just fully design the part"), it's one of UX and UI, and how in addition to requiring a different approach to making the part, many features and tools for those workflows are hidden and not obvious for a new user. This combined with the awesome number of different features and tools available in FreeCAD, makes learning an unreasonably daunting task, not because the new user is lazy but because the obtuseness of everything in the program makes it feel hostile to their experience, on top of demanding a different workflow; responding to this with "users of Fusion and Solidworks will just have to work harder" further emphasizes that feeling of hostility, whether it is intended or not. Yes, a User has to make some concessions when working on a new tool, but Devs also need to meet them in the middle and compromise as well; telling people to just deal with it is not conducive to the program actually being adopted. In my opinion at the least there needs to be some option for a "consolidated" UI with just a few main workbenches / toolbars (both on the larger level of there being more than a half dozen workbenches and within the workbenches; there should be a single dimension tool under sketch, for example) and serious work to at least try making the workflow more analogous to what it is in the major CAD software used by people. Whether you like it or not, Fusion and Solidworks are industry standards that most other software in that usage niche attempts to emulate for a reason, and the majority of people are used to the kind of workflow found in them.

[@4axisprinting]

Notably, FreeCAD is at version 0.20, so completeness is not really a question, it is not complete, it does not claim to be. The question is "Is it useful in that state". I find it to be, as do others. Still other people do not.

[@testboga5991]

Spot on

[@ExplodingWaffle101]

OSS seems to struggle with this in general. FreeCAD hasn’t yet had its Blender 2.8 or KiCad 5 moment. Neither has Inkscape. Or GIMP…

[@SlinkySlonkyWaffle]

@@4axisprinting You seem to miss the point Bar Rag was trying to make; functionally FreeCAD is adequate, but its workflow and usability are so poor and backwards compared to the expectations and requirements of the *industry*. Be this product design in general or more niche industries. FreeCAD definitely needs it's Blender 2.8 moment to be taken seriously to any extent, since right now it's another OSS with the functionality there, but not the stability, transparency or usability. I've had a much better time with CATIA than with FreeCAD, and the few friends i have actually doing CAD professionally don't want to touch FreeCAD with a 50 meter pole; With good reason.

[@pyalot]

@@4axisprinting The first release of Freecad was 2002, and the first stable designated release 2022. It isnt about completeness, but about that 20y+ of freecad development spent aproximately zero minutes in UX. This isnt uncommon for open source, the dearth of UX designers in open source is a well known phenomenon. Watch some Tantracul videos sometime.

[@xenotrixx]

There is Properbly a RFC that requires that. This had me laughing so hard.

[@jcugnoni]

This is exactly what I wanted Tom to include in his video: show the solution of how to do it in Freecad. In my opinion, it is way faster for beginner to stick to the sketch then operation (pad/revolve...) in part design workbench; it is the closest to how commercial CAD works. But the tools in the part / curve are very powerfull and I use them a lot... But this is another type of approach, closer to direct edition surface/volume modeling (Rhino) and older CSG / boolean modeling methods.

[@4axisprinting]

When I started using FreeCAD, I mostly used Part Design. I ended up moving to mostly working in Part both because I kept wanting to do things Part would do and because I wanted some tools from other workbenches that don't really work well with Part Design.

[@GrayghostAlpha]

Great video! I wish there was more FreeCAD content that explained why, in addition to how. Your points from 10:30 onward are exactly why I chose to use FreeCAD (and other open source software in general) instead of more "industry standard" pieces of software. I'm a hobbyist, and while that technically means I can use some "free versions" of more mature commercial software, I don't like the uncertainty that what constitutes acceptable "personal use" today may be different tomorrow.

[@Ryan_Tidwell]

I'm new to Freecad and have made a few models. Most of what you did here was way over my head. Every time I run into something I want to do I have to search the net to find out how. I find that a lot of the procedures are not intuitive for me but I'm not sure it would be easier in another CAD program. I'm just a hobbyist and want to make things to print on my 3d printer that I don't have models for. I have been successful in making a few simple models and one more complicated one. What you said about pricing and things becoming unavailable hit home for me. I used to use several programs that are now too expensive for me to use. I wish I had a free CAD program that was a bit more user friendly and intuitive. I probably only use 25% of the features available. I liked your presentation and response to Tom. You earned a subscriber. If I need to learn more Freecad I'll definitely look through your vids. Thanks.

[@MeeBilt]

Thank you for this video. I was about to make the jump from F360 to FreeCAD, but after watching Toms video I was like; "Naahhh, maybe I'll wait some more..." :) But this video puts me back on track again.

[@X4R2]

This is an excellent video demonstrating the viability and workflow of FreeCAD, thank you. I started CAD many years ago and have been using Autodesk products by default. With FreeCAD, I can seriously consider installing Linux on my laptop and running primarily free software.

[@contra_plano]

That is i do at work. Even with the worst computer I made my draws and sent then to the 3d printer, in Linux

[@surfingnoid]

Outstanding video! Perfectly clear and concise. As with most things in life, be it programming a computer for my day job, or designing in CAD for my hobby, my imagination of what I want to do always outstrips my knowledge of and abilities for getting it done.

[@4axisprinting]

Glad you liked it!

[@serhanakdeniz]

Good video. Shows if people have the ability to reach developers can find solutions or reasons for their troubles using a cad software. You should produce tutorial videos for freecad. I've learned cad-cam on catia 16years ago and after a very brief, limited course of sketch, part, assembly and cam modules, it was a pain in the ass when software slapped me with an error pop-up to find out what's missing. For today's situation I see FreeCAD is in the same place. back then 16 years ago, there were only funny cat videos on youtube but today you can really boost the usability, awareness, and community for it by making good educational videos.

[@AthenaEryma]

I think this is why I’m closing in on defaulting to Solvespace- it does fewer things, but at least the things it does do don’t break in nearly-inexplicable ways that you need years of experience with the tool to understand.

[@allisterbullock213]

I was in agreement with Thomas (and in part yourself) on the sometimes difficulty of using FreeCad. I am so happy that you have made this video, please keep up the good work. Now I've subscribed. Thanks.

[@4axisprinting]

You are so welcome!

[@dalektrekkie]

FreeCAD's biggest limitation is the UI. The software is fully capable of doing everything in a similar way to everyone else, but not much of it is automated and the tools you actually need to do it manually are rarely where you would expect them to be given the way other CAD packages handle their UI. I usually design at home because of projects, and when I run into something that doesn't work with no clear reason why it's very hard to justify powering though and figuring it out given that I am probably focused on other tasks. I keep FreeCAD around because it really is quite powerful when you get down to it, but I often find that I end up turning to Solid Edge when I just need to design a simple part to 3d print quickly.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

For me I think designing simple part in FreeCAD really is the easiest thing. With "simple" I mean a 2d sketch extruded. That's straight forward but not obvious to do in FreeCAD. Everything else might get trickier. But I made huge leaps when I understood the reason for "datum planes", "shape binders", sketches outside a part and a couple other non-obvious things...

[@anterprites]

It needs redesign as blender from 2.8

[@sebbrue01]

Thank you. I ran into the issue with the revolved sketch a few times and now I now why. I see two issues with many OSS programs. There are hobby and professional users that expect the software to work exactly the same as a similar commercial software they are used to. And there are companies that use OSS software, save a lot of money doing so but they don't give anything back to the project. It would help many projects if there was some form of support from the commercial user base. It might be sharing code and plugins, helping with documentation or donations.

[@carbonbased5041]

Ondsel?

[@mistaecco]

The RFC comment nearly had me in stitches, and the rest of the video had me utterly fixated. You most certainly earned my like, comment, subscribe, and share. Hats off to you - this is one of the most level-headed response videos I think I've ever seen.

[@NiksSofa]

Beautiful reply. Well presented, well reasoned, respectful, yet straight. All the thumbs up.

[@als1023]

Same thoughts. This is what the internet was designed for. People can invent, design, publish and communicate. This thoughtful and detailed reply earned myself and my sons ( engs) a serious try at this software. We currently use Solidworks and Fusion 360. I am willing to try a new approach and help promote it.

[@matthiasmartin1975]

Wow, you sure know your way around Freecad. So much to learn...

[@lornablewettandlee504]

I have used FreeCAD since 0.18 and have often thought that there was no-one in command, no leadership. Many of the weaknesses of FreeCAD that were in 0.18 were still in .2. I couldn't get The latest release of FreeCAD to run (2.2). It installed OK on two computers, but wouldn't run so I don't know if it still has the same weaknesses as 0.18. But saying all that I still agree with you! FreeCAD is an amazing piece of software. It's just a shame there is no obvious leadership. I prefer using 0.18 rather than 0.19, 0.2 wouldn't work properly and .2.2 wouldn't run. I will download and try the next version.

[@TMS5100]

i think thats one of the other problems with the project. freecad has been around many years but the fundamental design flaws remain and it feels like it isn't making any progress. people try to use freecad, get frustrated and give up. come back a few years later to try it again, still find it unusable, give up again. meanwhile tons of other opensource projects are making huge leaps all the time.

[@brianmi40]

@@TMS5100 Those "tons" of OSS that are getting the fast track love are in hotter industries, like Blender... where gaming and animation have huge interest and user bases. As for finding it "unusable" that's based upon using other software, expecting it to work the same, ignoring the hundreds of YT videos that SHOW you how to actually use it. In 5 months, there isn't anything I've found it can't do and that includes creating a part for a window regulator that is curved in two ways with tons of precision to replace a broken one in a power window, grabbing the glass and pulling it up and down in just 5 test prints, since I was just taking measurements from the old piece. If people just new to watch a set of tutorials that match the order you should learn the program (Sketch, Pad/Loft, Hole, etc.) they wouldn't have near the frustration and could almost certainly do what they wanted to do with the program. And that's exactly the mistake Thomas made in his video; trying to use knowledge of how another entirely different piece of software works, assuming this "must" work the same, and not only failing, but failing to recognize there are TONS of videos that could have taught him what he needed to know.

[@martinmajewski]

Still, one of Tom's points remains valid: working with FreeCAD could be more visually obvious and intuitive. Making a plane in a form rather than in the 3D viewport puts too much offset from intuition. Making mistakes without getting visual feedback, but textual info, at best, is very nerdy and reminds me of working with Linux. True, it is doable, and with enough time put into FreeCAD, it may eventually become second nature. But: if you need a tool to get quick results to realize a business case and then build on top of it to master it in more detail, FreeCAD is not the way to go, unfortunately - at the moment.

[@brianmi40]

Why would anyone think that a version .2 of any product could possibly be "a tool to get quick results to realize a business case"??? What we basically have here in these comments is a bunch of whining about a PRE-RELEASE VERSION not meeting the needs or smooth workflow of FINISHED PRODUCTS. To which I say, "DUH".

[@martinmajewski]

@@brianmi40 Dude! I don't want to attack you, but I have a different opinion on your statement. 1. What does FreeCAD's version number tell us anyway? FreeCAD uses a version numbering that follows no common standards or intuition. 2. FreeCAD has been around for 21 years. This is long enough to at least get into beta status. 😀 3. I do not criticize FreeCAD or the dev's efforts! I applaud them! However, a lot has changed in 21 years of how people learned to use such tools, and FreeCAD has failed to adopt, but on the other hand (which was also Tom's argument), there are so many unnecessary workbenches that took a lot of effort making. It needs a reorganization of the entire endeavor to make FreeCAD... 4. ... an alternative that it claims to be for Fusion 360 and other CAD tools out there. I have followed the FreeCAD project for years, and they always mock users for paying for other tools. When Autodesk changed its policies, FreeCAD was all over social media claiming that "refugees are incoming." So when you have the guts to compare yourself to multi-million corporation products, you should deliver at least a solid foundation where people don't get lost trying. Blaming them for not understanding your UI and open-source philosophy or telling them they are unwilling to put the effort into relearning workflows just because your project is not keeping up with the world, something is wrong. I am the last person on earth not wishing FreeCAD all the best, and I reconsider it to be my tool of choice multiple times per year. However, I think for open-source makers and small one-man businesses, there are better freemium options that get you faster on track than with FreeCAD. I hope they will branch out into a foundation-like structure like Blender or Godot did and collect steady funding to pay full-time devs. So... no bad blood!

[@brianmi40]

@@martinmajewski Well,,, 1. FreeCAD's version number can tell us the same thing every other pre-release version number has since software was being first developed: it's NOT a FINISHED PRODUCT, and as such should expect BUGS and WORKFLOW to NOT be otpimized, as well as be FEATURE LIMITED. 2. If YOU had been a developer for FreeCAD all that time, you might be qualified to make that statement. However, given the NATURE OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, in that it depends ENTIRELY ON DONATED PROGRAMMING EFFORT, no one is qualified to complain about how fast or slow a product has come together. Want it faster? Feel free to get out your checkbook. Despite it's .2 version, there are literally HUNDREDS of YT videos showing it ably accomplishing hundreds of designs, from simple to very complex. In anyone's software book, that's impressive for a .2 release. 3. See #2 for a reminder about how OPEN SOURCE DEPENDS ON THE EFFORTS FROM VOLUNTEER PROGRAMMERS. Claiming there are unnecessary workbenches without specifying what functionality overlaps won't get you very far. Also, as a .2 release, I'll remind you it is entirely dependent on DONATED PROGRAMMING TIME from developers, who, in such early stages of a project, are prone to have an interest in a specific area of functionality, therefore it is natural for some overlap between workbenches to occur, again, in a .2 version. 4. I've never seen FreeCAD "mock" paid tools. Happy to have a URL to see the history of that. In fact, just scanned both their home page and blog and see no such references, so be sure to share that URL. However, I see it as a natural argument / benefit of ALL open source software to be FREE and for that to appear "in opposition" to paid alternatives. As an open source initiative it's pretty hard to fault them for not having a professional marketing department and for VOLUNTEERS overstating their case, which is pretty much what every TV commercial has done since the beginning of time. Maybe FreeCAD will be better funded in the future, however, I'll still wish for it to be open source, and after 4 months applying myself to learn it, as opposed to Thomas errantly assuming it "must" work like his prior CAD knowledge has taught him despite it being obviously and hugely PRE-RELEASE, I watched many of the HUNDREDS of YT videos that very capably teach the scope of its functionality, to where today, I can create moderately complex designs from it in minutes. To ME, that is WELL punching above a .2 version number.

[@MrKuncol]

@@brianmi40 It's 20 years old software that cannot make even most basic tasks properly. When it will be comparable with other even most basic CAD software? In 2099 or later? From my perspective nothing changed for better in FreeCAD in more than 12 years.

[@33KK]

​​​@@MrKuncol20 year old software maintained by a few volunteers in their free time with very little funding* It is comparable to other CAD, it can do a lot, even if it's not always as easy as in other commercial CAD software with millions in funding and a full-time development team

[@andybrice2711]

Would you say the FreeCAD ways are better though? I'd argue that user interface design should follow the "Principle of Least Surprise". Developers should follow the same conventions as popular software by default. Unless they've invented some new interaction model which cannot co-exist with the conventional approach, and offers a substantial advantage worth the learning-curve.

[@andybrice2711]

For example: VS Code's _"Command Pallet"_ is usually superior to a menubar, and worth getting used to. Whereas Blender's original _"Right-click to select"_ was just confusing with no real benefit.

[@4axisprinting]

I don't know that I would say better, since that will be a very individual preference. Personally, I like entering exact values in the data pane and some times find it easier to deal with than trying to move things in 3 dimensions with a mouse and a 2D monitor. Others probably hate that. I also find using geometry to modify other geometry to be quite natural and to better reflect formal geometry. Again, I'm sure others hate that. Least surprise is a great principle, but like most easily stated principles isn't really a single metric. As a software developer, I am sometimes surprised at what surprises some people. Most of the surprises to me are missing implementation or bugs rather than design decisions. Those will just take time to work out.

[@andybrice2711]

​@@4axisprinting I'd say mouse and keyboard editing are two interface paradigms which can (and should) co-exist, like in Blender. Though obviously that's more work to implement. Yes, _Least Surprise_ is obviously relative. I get the impression that perhaps FreeCAD is taking its primary inspiration from AutoCad, when more people are used to Fusion and SolidWorks now.

[@terrylembke8100]

you can't forget copyright . it may be an issue and that's because it's different ?? each program has it's own nomenclature and learning curve . get over it or make it better . I love freecad . I salute the developers and their fine job they are doing . here is another channel I owe a great deal to with my FreeCad education . Deron at mango Jelly solutions . Great Guy Very good at it . check him out .

[@brianmi40]

@@andybrice2711 All I can add on the topic is that it's hugely customisable for a .2 version (shortcut keys, etc.) and that if you take the approach of decide what you want to do, and watch the video that shows the methods to do it in the program, there's nothing I haven't found a way to get it done. That includes recreating a window regulator part with two curved surfaces to ride in the curved track of the car window along with a host of other elements to the design to have the cable power it up and down the track. 5 test prints got me there, as I was simply trying to recreate the part from incomplete data. About 8 designs in, culminating in that one, I now feel confident enough to quickly design most moderate complexity parts I'm imagining to then 3D print. All over 4 months of very part time experience. The version .2, to me, highly under sells what it is capable of, and speaks more of some bugs and future integration of tools that will lead it to be a sound 1.0

[@MNbenMN]

The price of FreeCAD is the extra time and effort it takes to get the same result. I am still keeping my eye on it. Things like the curves bench should really be integrated by default. It's those little things that take the user out of the design mindspace and force troubleshooting mode that ruin the experience. But, that's not limited to FreeCAD. It's probably about time I try a current build, of FreeCAD, it's been a few months.

[@EMILE12345678901]

all the workarounds explained in this video kinda just prove the points tom said tho... nothing is intuitive and there's so much weird super specific knowledge to have that any error is just confusing

[@TMS5100]

it's weird people seem to make excuses for freecad's flaws instead of anyone trying to improve it. as long as that continues, people will use fusion 360 instead.

[@EMILE12345678901]

@@TMS5100 to me it's more just that we already know what works, the formula has already been almost perfected in the form of Solid Edge, Solidworks and the other look-alikes. So having freecad not follow that same design style and usability, instead opting for weird design steps and intermediary steps of zero-thickness objects breaks all expectations we've come to have with all the other options that do a way better job of getting to a finished part that can be manufactured.

[@YippeePlopFork]

Agreed. And people just repeating "we do things differently" is missing the point that FreeCAD unnecessarily complicates even the simplest of tasks and that doing things so out of step with the workflow people are used to is just not a clever thing to do. I have a lot of patience but it ran out when I was trying to design parts in FreeCAD. IMO it’s a long way from being a viable alternative and - depressingly - headed in the wrong direction. I want FreeCAD to succeed and I would do anything (within reason) to help it succeed, except that I feel it’s headed in the wrong direction and I feel that my time, money and effort would be wasted. It’s a shame.

[@brianmi40]

So you're saying it's appropriate it has a version number of .2 then and shouldn't be compared to finished and polished products. Got it.

[@EMILE12345678901]

@@brianmi40 it's not even past 1.0 and they are still trying to implement so many unnecessary things like flow simulation and robot or whatever even tho the very core of the software is completely unfinished and unintuitive? wow, that's some very bad resource management by the dev team I understand it's a "small dev team with limited resources" but that's exactly why they should spend way more time doing better management than trying to do everything and spreading their resources so thin. having a proper project manager that doesn't do any technical work is a very valuable member of a dev team, I hope they get one soon

[@mrrgstuff]

Interesting video. I did basically agree with Tom, except that I have decided to stick with FreeCAD and am gradually getting better with it. There is no doubt that it is very powerful but takes a lot of effort to unlock that. Thanks 😀 👍

[@CedarMcKay]

I’m a big fan of open source software, and I appreciate that a lot of people are working hard on this product for free. But unfortunately I think you just created an ad for not switching to Freecad any time soon. My repeated attempts at switching to freecad have always ended in frustration. That it is so difficult and convoluted to do such a simple task, one that is almost trivial in Fusion 360, tells me to say away and try again in a few years.

[@todd4471]

When you go into modeling with FreeCAD with the expectations it is going to be EXACTLY like Fusion or Solidworks, you're going to have a bad time. FreeCAD is on par for simple modeling and is great for home user with say a 3D printer wanting to create custom parts.

[@CedarMcKay]

@@todd4471 I certainly don’t expect Freecad to be a clone of Fusion 360. I don’t mind if it uses some different paradigms. That said, I wonder what is the advantage of being not only open source, but “different” than other modeling programs? In the end, if it was different but equally approachable, that would be fine with me. Modeling the example part in fusion 360 would be quick and simple for me (I am hobbiest level), in only a few steps. Using Freecad took a domain expert with intimate knowledge of the application many steps including having to anticipate limitations of the application that would be very derailing to a beginner. I simply do not believe that if I put a similar amount of effort into learning Freecad that I would be as far along as I am with Fusion. I hope it gets better, I’m rooting for it, and I appreciate all the sweat put into it by the developers, completely uncompensated. But no matter how much I like the development model, or have good wishes for the developers, it still isn’t usable for me at this point.

[@todd4471]

@@CedarMcKay Yeah the part where he changed 'Join type to intersection' was extremely challenging!

[@agnichatian]

Yep.. But I've come back to it a few years later, several times; still a mess. It seems to me that something else is wrong, at the people level, not just the tech level. Someone on the team is perhaps holding it back ?

[@timop6340]

I agree, basically it is admitted that there is the industry standard way and then there is freecad way that requires thorough understanding about how the geometry is being created in the first place behind the scenes before one can know how to build relatively simple geometry. This was really hard to follow and I have something like 5 official solidworks certificates telling that I know little bit about 3d modelling. Ps. I also agree that solidworks update model and everything around it is practically pulling as much money from paying customers as possible.

[@BTom16]

Great response. I think Thomas' points were fair. FreeCAD is the path less travelled. To operate it well requires a lot of skill and knowledge. To be fair, every CAD has its funky behaviour that require knowing how to jiggle the key to start the CAD car.

[@WW-wp4gh]

Just found your video/channel. This is a great and very productive approach. I am looking at switching from Fusion 360 to FreeCAD. Having more content that helps to explain common issues when switching from Fusion's way of doing things is extremely helpful. Look at it this way, if someone is looking at FreeCAD in the first place, they are motivated, so giving them access to more tips/videos showing how to adjust their old work flow to the FreeCAD workflow is a very powerful approach and I suspect very good way to increase your user base, which will then increase support available for FreeCAD.

[@PhoneAppS1]

as someone who uses solidworks, i had trouble with the learning curve when i tried fusion 360 just to see how the two programs stack up i cant even imagine where i would start would FreeCAD. sorry if im not understanding what exactly is trying to be achieved and dont use FreeCAD so dont know if these methods are possible but, can you not make a solid than extrude cut one half?

[@roberson607]

Thank you for doing this. I am new to 3D printing and CAD so I began learning FreeCAD by following the great tutorials found on KZbin. I found it still a little confusing, however I was progressing. I had also heard about Fusion360 and saw Toms video so I thought that maybe I was trying to learn the wrong program. Actually I had just as much frustration with Fusion360 as I had with FreeCAD, so I will continue with FreeCAD realizing that it is just CAD in general that for me is a little bit harder to learn than other things. Again thank you.

[@Krmpfpks]

Same for me. FreeCAD is in many ways more logical than Fusion. Why is dimension not found under constraints in fusion? Especially the constraints list in sketches is something I sorely miss in fusion.

[@brianmi40]

I'm on the same path, but so far have been able to find a good YT video for anything i try to do, most advanced of which so far was a window actuator part for a power car window, which had to be curved in two ways with lots of precise measurements to get it to work. 5 Test prints later, it works fine in the car, and I learned a TON along the way doing it. Being new to CAD is actually a benefit for you as you don't try things that don't work from prior experience. I haven't found anything I can't do in FreeCAD, just tons I haven't tried yet. I almost attempted this video myself, as I was certain it could do what Tom tried and failed with it when I watched his video.

[@alessiozamboni4694]

Yep... Since software engineering in my piece of cake I can say that at 5:20 you said something that would sound like a big alarm to a product manager: the fill option will not work because... there there is a missing feature in this mod. But you can import it as an add-on. This is simply not an expected behaviour in a user story. From the UX you have many ways to mitigate or solve the issue... From the easiest one to the better one: 1. You give a meaningful error with a solution "the fill cannot be done because[...] You can complete this action by installing the Add-on [...] and use the tool [...] to fill the missing parts" 2. Disable the toggle for the fill and give an hint on why it's disable (as in 1) 3. When toggle the fill option and is not possible to proceed prompt the user to install the missing add-on, and then use that function. 4. Reimplement the fill toolbox to behave better implementing the missing commands in the main toolbox. Since the number of features (point, lane, arc, etc) are a finite, so generating all the possible combination is doable, and probably can be metaprogrammed with some macro or preprocessors. Even if you are a small team, solution 1) is still very very fast to implement and makes UX so much better Btw very useful video, I got much more understanding of freecad with just this video

[@4axisprinting]

It's definitely an item for the punchlist. The rest of the explanation there is notes to be attached. It should be addressed but I can well see why that isn't top priority. It's important to remember that at some point most proprietary software existed in states like this as well, it's just that nobody outside of the dev team ever got to see it (and exposing it to public view might be a termination offense). At least, in theory. In practice, I have seen proprietary software being actively sold that had bugs like that in it. All that said, bugs and all, FreeCAD is useful today and it would be a shame for it to be kept jealously under wraps unless/until every punchlist could be addressed.

[@jocramkrispy305]

You sound like a pointy haired boss. (user stories, bah) How is the software supposed to know what add-ons can solve an issue?

[@alessiozamboni4694]

@@jocramkrispy305 you can call me as you wish but still someone might ask how a user is supposed to know what to do after the pretty generic error. That said I support and love free software, however as today, there is a big difference between the usability of freecad and any commercial products IMHO, even for not professional users... If I consider other free softwares (i.e. blender) I don't see such a gap, at least considering non professional use.

[@jocramkrispy305]

@@alessiozamboni4694 I'll try again. The way software could recommend an add on, is if the add on is part of the product, but disabled for charging or reliability reasons.

[@alessiozamboni4694]

@@jocramkrispy305 yes, or just the developer might know that someone implemented some important features that are not (yet) in the product, even if the addon is not part of the product itself. After all, in OS software, the developers are often also users. Furthermore, as I already wrote, I would be happy also to have the checkbox disabled when the current selection cannot perform an operation; as last resort even prompt a user-readable error rather than a developer-readable one. Again, no hard feelings against Freecad. It just didn't leave me (until now) the same good impression as other free software, even if there is not much of an OS alternative, AFAIK.

[@shminz6093]

Great video, thank you for helping us understand, and for being so understanding yourself!

[@321ooo123]

I tried so hard to learn the FreeCAD way of doing things, watched countless videos, looked at the code... Its UI is such a lump of disconnected workbenches and icons that even trivial tasks require rather illogical workflows, jumping from one workbench to another, each with its own limitations and quirks, with duplicated (but not quite) functionality. For a newbie it's a giant headache. I ended up paying for Fusion 360, as much as I hate Autodesk and the subscription model. I decided that it's more important to make the models, rather than learn the convoluted way you need to go to get things done in FreeCAD. I have some Inventor and SolidWorks experience and I have to say that switching between those is maybe not exactly painless, but at least you don't feel as lost.

[@arbjful]

Have you tried Onshape?

[@321ooo123]

It's browser-based, which is a big "no-no" in my book.

[@EngineerNick]

I have tried freecad several times over the years, it has been slowly improving, but every time I bounce off it and go crawling back to some freeware commercial product. I want freecad to be good, and I always feel sad that I cant do much to improve the situation. I am glad you made this video in its defense. It is obvious to me that the devs have poured a lot of love into this software.

[@SJ-co6nk]

I keep crawling back to tinkercad which works for me as a tradesman, but using a proprietary cloud based product as such a key piece of my 3d design and printing workflow scares the hell out of me so I often come back and try to learn FreeCAD again. It seems like it's just a little ways away from being a top tier tool, but I haven't been able to successfully use the interface yet.

[@GrantRamm]

I tried to learn 3D CAD on FreeCAD 5 years ago and it was painful. I moved to Fusion 360 and was able to cross to "the other side"where I could design everything my mind visualised. FreeCAD makes so much more sense now and this video has inspired me to endure the pain of it's clunkiness instead of the pain of being constantly shafted by Autodesk and it's ever increasing extortion attempts. Cloud and subscription software is for suckers.

[@imacmill]

I LOVE FreeCAD! Also... I HATE FreeCAD! Also, for creating the seed cup, I would have gone straight to fully defining the cup's profile in Sketcher, then doing a 180° revolve on it. I probably would have even added a spreadsheet to define the various dimensions of the profile, making it trivial to print off different-sized cups.

[@4axisprinting]

If it wasn't just a demonstration, I might have gone with the spreadsheet but I would still do the 360 revolve and split. Certainly I would have actually constrained the sketch :-)

[@imacmill]

@@4axisprinting Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done anything other than what you did for your demonstration. I was simply saying that it could have easily been done by drawing a full profile, avoiding any offset/thickness issues. The spreadsheet comment is ignorable as it was just something I threw in because it's something I pretty much always do for any FreeCAD project. (I will note that I think a full profile sketch is better because it gives me full control over the shape, including things like varying the thickness at various locations on the pot (filament-saving measures?).

[@ianhaylock7409]

This certainly seems a much cleaner and quicker method than that shown in the demonstration.

[@talbech]

Excellent reply. I love the software. It reminds me of the old days working with solid modelling on my SGIs. It works once you know the little quirks.

[@Cybernetic_Systems]

I love open source software (I moved to KiCad from a paid app back in version 4 and love it) but IMO FreeCad is not a viable tool for 3D modelling. Just to elaborate: Structure tree breaks when changing upper features; you can’t use reference dimensions as parameters; you can’t use linked edges as active sketch entities to build volumes Each one of these is a deal breaker on its own, together they are unforgivable fundamental flaws. FWIW, I pay $500 a year for Fusion 360 and would much rather support OS software.

[@33KK]

1) solved in the realthunder fork, slowly being merged into the main codebase 2) you need to use an expression, it works in most input fields, not sure whats the issue here

[@Cybernetic_Systems]

@@33KK it’s still crap! I’d rather pay $500 a year to the greedy Autodesk corporation than subject myself to FreeCad.

[@33KK]

@@Cybernetic_Systems oh so even though most of your issues are solved it's still crap. Oh also, your third point, I'm pretty sure that's what the "import defining geometry" tool does, unless I misunderstood what you mean by that.

[@Cybernetic_Systems]

@@33KK yes, because it's still a horrid user experience for me. Just look at KiCad vs Eagle - the opposite is true, KiCad has an amazing user experience and Eagle is horrid.

[@eebasement4530]

thx U , very well explained and helpful, I get a grasp of freecad at the end. Now ... I did what you did in the first example , sketch , rotation 360, offset 2mm fill, surface, split and my "cup" is split only in the outer part, inside i still have the rotation solid. where is the mistake ?

[@4axisprinting]

I think you're probably just seeing the original revolve. Using it for the offset doesn't consume it, it just gets moved inside the offset in the tree. You can select it with the mouse and hit space to make it invisible.

[@markvels3039]

Just happy to see a normal constructive discussion again!

[@mariannehansen2691]

Love a program that is updated often - but does it tell the user there's an update and install it by a click or three? Also, does the user then get some kind of info-sheet saying what the updates are and (big bonus) how to use them?

[@dantheman1998]

I ran into the exact issue the Tom talks about. I wanted to do a offset sketch from the original sketch....it doesnt exist in the sketch tool box apparently. You have to go to the Part workbench and do alllll this extra crap, just do create a offset sketch. Every single CAD package i every used had a simple offset tool for sketching, but not Freecad. I was watching a DEV stream where he was working on this exact offset tool for the sketch toolbox and the stream was a year old and still not in the main build. Like....something as basic as offset sketches in the sketch toobox dont exist that just blows my mind.

[@clansmenelder]

Very cool video. While Tom wasn't wrong per se in his video I feel like he gave up a bit too early. I definitely learned something from your video today

[@brianmi40]

Anyone who assumes some different software operates the way a different package they've learned behaves, and then seeing it fail, and not researching any tutorials to learn where they errored, was "wrong" per se.

[@joseguevara184]

Amazingly good. Maybe this kind of counter arguments or teaching will make Freecad the best free software to replace Autodesk insanity of costs.

[@SergiySokolenko]

I have been using FreeCAD for about a year now, and I don't even consider switching to a proprietary alternative, especially if it requires an internet connection. However, I would like to see FreeCAD change its direction from trying to do everything poorly to focusing on doing one or a few things well. Initially, I was confused by the conflicting workbenches like "Part" and "Part Design." It took me some time to understand that "Part" is for quick and rough prototyping, whereas "Part Design" is better suited for more complex designs with the ability to apply changes more efficiently. Nonetheless, I would gladly say goodbye to the "Part" workbench if it could free up more resources for making the "Part Design" workbench more robust and user-friendly. Finally, I would love to see a video like this one using the Part Design workbench instead of the Part workbench.

[@MrBCRC]

Absolutely. I only switch to part for boolean operations on bodies designed in part design.

[@dantheman1998]

@@MrBCRC I just ran into a really silly issue. I wanted to do a offset sketch from an original sketch. The tool isnt the sketch tools, you have to go to the Part workbench to do a 2d offset of your sketch. Now if i didnt have interent access, How was I ever going to figure it that out? Plus when you the 2d offset you still need to do extra steps to implement it into your original sketch to do a pad on it. Its actually kinda silly a simple offset tool doesnt exist in the sketch workbench.

[@4axisprinting]

It's worth noting though that the part workbench is the central one. Part Design is implemented by calling on tools from the part workbench.

[@clutteredchicagogarage2720]

It depends what you're designing. If you're designing a part that you want to 3d-print then you generally want part design. However, I personally also use FreeCAD to design assemblies of simple "parts" quite often, and the Part workbench has its place for this. I wish FreeCAD would standardize on a workbench and system for assemblies and constraints between multiple parts. There are several competing projects for this. That's fine, but I wish the core devs could pick one that gets bundled with the core product.

[@leeburrowdotcom]

Thanks. I think you’ve both got valid perspectives. I’m not switching to freecad anytime soon, but I’m hoping more people see the value in it as an option and contribute to it. One day, I hope it will be right for me.

[@raumo123]

People will contribute if they listen to what the people want, not only the hardcore users/devs.

[@tomkardy5775]

A very elegant feedback.

[@constantinosschinas4503]

Can Freecad revolve an already offset, closed curve, so you don't have to offset surfaces? This will pretty much bypass the issue, as well.

[@4axisprinting]

Yes, it can revolve any closed shape into a solid.

[@dougj8186]

One way to avoid splitting and surfaces is to revolve 1/2 of the cup from a 2mm profile. Create a sketch on both sides with a 1mm profile from the inner edge. Then revolve/extrude a lip on one side. On the other side revolve/cut the same distance. The result is a part that fits into a copy of itself to form both sides of the cup. Alternately, one side can be made with a lip revolved on both sides and the cuts on the opposite side, as per the video.

[@4axisprinting]

Yes. Alternatively, instead of translating the inner cut plane and the outer cut plane, you could rotate them a degree or 2.

[@redheadsg1]

"FreeCAD does thigs differently". That "differently" is an understatement. What bothers me a lot that it is extremally hard to do prototyping parts fast because you need to fully constrain sketch (in Part Design). Another thing that bothers me is why the F you need 3 separated dimension buttons ??? Do you actually realize how much clicking is required to put those dimensions comparting to F360 ? Also 5:05, just look how much is he clicking to make a face. At 5:34 you explained what is also a FreeCAD problem .. there functions that works ONLY on separated workbenches. How about combining all of those useful functions into ONE workbench ?? You don't need 10 work evorioment to make 1 part. 11:41 i am hobbyist but i don't to waste my time figure how to design a simple part for hours in FreeCAD if i can do same design in F360 in 30 min.

[@4axisprinting]

Certainly there are infelicities there. However, note in my video I did not constrain the sketch at all since it was just a quick illustration. The separate dimension constraints come in handy sometimes. I have actually had cases where I wanted to constrain something only horizontally or vertically while allowing free movement in the other dimension. At the end of the day, personal preference comes in to play as well, and so it's good that there are choices out there.

[@tymoteuszkazubski2755]

Because Vertical, Horizontal and (arbitrary) Distance are three separate constrains that do different things and you can't have one button to do three things unless you go NX way of suggesting constrains and dimensions on selection.

[@brianmi40]

Huh? I've created entire parts without bothering with even partial constraints. Constraints are best practice as any real engineer will tell you, and without them you can get in trouble with FreeCAD, but they are far from a must have. And at 5:05, as he clearly stated, he's illustrating a WORKAROUND TO A FUNCTIONAL LIMITATION in a version .2 of a product. Let me repeat that: it's a VERSION .2 -- literally a PRE-RELEASE PRODUCT, so there will be plenty of optimization of the workspace in future releases. Lastly, a few hours watching well done applicable tutorials in YT will preclude hours of digging around in menus. Doing so, I've been able to teach myself well enough over 4 months of part time effort to design complex bodies with curved boolean cuts in two planes as well as other complex features.

[@clutteredchicagogarage2720]

Good video. I've designed a bunch of things in FreeCAD, although I've never designed parts that used inner and outer shells, and I haven't split parts according to a plane. It was interesting to see how you used the tools to do this. Having said that, I do think that the final solution that you implemented is a bit conceptually complex, although I do think that having an object with overlapping shells of different dimensions isn't a trivial design. I'm going to continue to use FreeCAD because I want a tool that will never cease to be available if the developers change the price or licensing model. One of the great things about open source software is that it never suddenly becomes unavailable if the developers stop maintaining the project. So if you invest time into learning a tool, you don't run the risk of suddenly losing your entire time investment on a tool that stops being available for download.

[@4axisprinting]

Continued availability is also one of my big reasons to choose FreeCAD. I also like that the price doesn't suddenly go way up should I actually go commercial with a design or end up arguing over what exactly constitutes commercial use. The multi-shell design is a little complex to keep track of. I have a followup video where I used a more conventional tongue and groove approach that is quite easy to implement in FreeCAD.

[@thomassutrina8296]

I am glad I found your site. I am a retired engineer that has been using low cost or free cad software starting with ProEs Granite and Creo and even purchasing a hobby cad. My requirement is that I can import or export to other cad programs and there is a blue print capacity. I have used ProE, Unigraphics, and solid works at my employers businesses. I always point out that FreeCAD isn't own by someone with a commercial product they make money at. It isn't going to suddenly end like Granite or become a cost to license like Creo. It doesn't limit the number of parts and the output file formats. And finally one of the most important is that the user base for FreeCad exceed that of all but Solid Works the last time I checked. It isn't going away.

[@chaosopher23]

I started out with CAD when I bought DesignCAD3d at a thrift shop for $1. It works on my Linux computer just fine, but lacks a lot of modern stuff. It was 2001 when I bought it, and it was several editions old already, and upgrading for $200 wasn't an option. My biggest complaint about FreeCAD is that the help system was written by a computer programmer, rather than a CAD nerd. The CAD nerd needs to get on board with the programmer and rewrite the help system.

[@tim1398]

I noticed you did it (almost) all in the Part workbench. I'm under the impression that they really mean for solid parts to be made in the Part Design workbench, have you looked at how that might go?

[@4axisprinting]

Really, Part and Part Design are just different ways of working.Part Design looks a little more like other CAD programs in some ways, but is a bit less versatile and doesn't play well with tools from other workbenches. The design can be accomplished in Part Design, but personally I find it more awkward.

[@malakov5]

As a hobbyist 3D printer I use fusion 360. Wonder if I should give freeCAD a try

[@samanthaqiu3416]

What features does freecad have that solvespace does not?

[@tinkerman5220]

It's still easier than doing my taxes, so I have no complaints Thank you for the video. I am a hobbyist and really want to see freecad succeed.

[@JorgenHenningsen]

A very elegant and straight forward solution. Just shows that 3d design is hard to master no matter what software you use. I like FreeCAD for all the toolboxes and functions (e g. Lasercut interlock) but it takes some time to learn. In an industrial setting your designers will be specialized in specific tools (often SolidWorks). Fusion 360 has become the choice of the typical maker/small business because of the price, but this can change...

[@yertelt5570]

1. Combine all the ambiguously similar workbenches, part and part design for example, these should be one bench. 2. Strip the basic UI down to three workbenches- one for part design and creation, one for building assemblies, and one to create drawings of the parts and assemblies. 3. Sketch should be a tool within workbenches, not a separate workbench. 4. Make all the other workbenches optional, they can be turned on or installed as needed so there are fewer things to distract or confuse new users.

[@4axisprinting]

Part and Part Design represent two different ways of thinking about the geometry and creating the model. Part design actually calls on the functionality of the Part workbench internally. Many people like the approach of Part Design. Personally I find that Part works better with the way I approach geometry, so I'm glad they are separate entities. In general, Part Design does not work well with the other workbenches while Part interoperates just fine. Much of this is based on the way Free and Open software development happens. Imagine as an outsider trying to add a possibly specialized new tool to F360 for example. Sketch needs to be it's own workbench since when you're editing or creating a sketch, you'll need very different tools available. Part Design has the new sketch tool in it's own toolbar. In the latest versions, so does Part. Before that, I added NewSketch to a custom toolbar in Part. It's not quite what you're asking for, but in edit->preferences->workbenchs you can re-order the list of workbenches to put the ones you use at the top of the list at least.

[@mmiscool]

That was a rather painful workflow to watch. It was however able to do the operation.

[@4axisprinting]

Yeah, manually closing the shell should be a last resort.

[@Tom-ku8bu]

​​@@4axisprinting that's why I changed to part design. Doesn't need to do this complicated operatione,is easier to change things and more control over Details. Just draw the inner and outer shell in one sketch all lines connected and extrude it to a circle. Also using different bodies and name them after the piece that belongs to them.

[@DFX2KX]

Freecad user here: I look at Freecad like the pre 2.8 days of Blender, before the old UI was overhauled. It's functional, but rather unwieldly. At some point there needs to be a confluence of features/useablity improvements that are analogous to that set of Blender updates if you want Freecad to succeed long-term. "Make your own plugin!" I hear people say, but why do that when *all* of the major engines allow for plugins, you could spend that time making a plugin for an engine that has a nicer UI and add truly unique functionality. Sure, you're going to have some die hards that'll use it regardless and they'll be the ones that ultimately push it past the threashold into mainstream, but until then it'll be unwieldly. Only reason I use it instead of something like Onshape is because I can make whatever I want and not have to worry about whatever's buried in Onshape's TOS. Hell I can make *illegal* things with it if I wish. Otherwise it's a bit of a blunt instrument to work with.

[@IshCaudron]

This. There is another thread comparing today's blender with freecad and it really looks like nobody used blender before 2019.

[@Grunchy005]

I started years ago with Pro/Engineer on a Sun workstation and the excellent book “Inside Pro/Engineer” by James Utz and Robert Cox. To this day I draw everything off the 3 intersecting, infinite planes and completely ignore the origin. If I have any kind of rotated feature (with an axis) I will create an axis from intersecting planes and use that axis as the datum reference for every single feature. I can’t remember the last model I did that couldn’t have every single sketch survive every solid feature being deleted all at once. My models never “crash.”

[@4axisprinting]

That's very much like the advice for avoiding run-ins with the topological naming problem in FreeCAD. In Part design there's the datum plane and in Part just directly position the plane of a sketch or primitive.

[@oliveraurich9642]

Thanks for that. Although I see it is possible I also see you need to know where to look at for the feature you are looking for... As a nooby in CAD I am also struggling to use a feature as it is intended to be used and do not know how to find a description (as I do not know the name of the feature I need)....going in circles like that....

[@4axisprinting]

It takes a little while to get oriented in CAD. Keep watching videos and look at other people's designs. Soon it will seen second nature to you.

[@cspower7259]

Thanks you for a cracking video. Been trying to work revolve for ages, didnt get how to make it solid, offset was the key. haha was just there all along. Now just need to figure out arrays and copying stuff in the sketch. Its definately an learning curve this help very much.

[@Validole]

The issue with creating a physical plane of finite size for splitting is that if you now go back and make the cup bigger than the plane, you will now most likely run into errors. The point of CAD should be that you _dont_ have to keep the model (mental model of how the part was constructed, not the part/"model" on screen) in your head, the computer aids you in keeping the steps visible and easy.

[@4axisprinting]

While I agree that an infinite plane would be nice, it isn't a deal breaker to me. The plane is still in the tree, can be made visible, and can be expanded. For what it's worth, any surface can be used to split a solid, including extruded bsplines, so there will always be cases where the splitting tool must be re-sized if the split solid is resized.

[@worldpeace1822]

Uhg the thing nice about free cad is that it is free … but it’s still far from being an alternative

[@JWAM]

Like he correctly pointed out in the video, whether or not it is an alternative depends on external factors. To me it is the only alternative.

[@Geostationary0rbit]

I love videos by developers of open source projects that completely miss the point of someone's criticism. It really reveals the mindset of it's developers.

[@4axisprinting]

I'm not sure why you believe I am one of the developers. I am a software developer, so I understand what is going on in FreeCAD, but I am not the developer of FreeCAD. I AM a user of FreeCAD and I appreciate the efforts of it's developers. Perhaps if I gain enough understanding of it's code, I will contribute where I can.

[@33KK]

Comments like this really reveal how entitled are the users of such projects. It's made by unpaid developers. Solving all your "basic" issues is much harder than it seems on the surface, CAD modeling is very complex under the hood

[@BStott]

Thank you. That sure made the idea of a simple cup - extremely convoluted and difficult. I am a beginner, learning. This explanation has me truly confused about all the offsetting, inner shell, outer shell, cutting plane, slicing, assembling, fusion, etc. The OP needs to vary his voice a little, also. The drone shut my brain off and I couldn't understand what he was doing. Then, the half cups are mirrored & symmetric . Why is anyone slicing/cutting, etc.??? Just create two cup halves? Or create one half, mirror, join. Wow, it sure gives me great appreciation to drive cars and fly in planes. Ring??? I like rubber bands. Zip ties if you are monied, cumbersome and complicated. To Tom - possibly make your cup perforated and just bury the whole thing. Let the roots grow through the holes and move on to the next project?

[@GeirAtleStorhaug]

Really good video explaining both how and why. Thanks a lot!

[@4axisprinting]

Glad it was helpful!

[@isaacschmitz4192]

I feel like this entire issue could be solved quite simply by using the part design workbench instead and not complicating things by switching between workbenches or added custom toolbars. Sketching the actual profile of the pot and then revolving then splitting and so on. I understand why he attempted to do it that way but coming from any parametric CAD software starting with a surface seems backwards.

[@SnorreSelmer]

Very nice, I’m sure Thomas Sanladerer is happy to be proven wrong. The whole point of the video wasn’t necessarily to trash FreeCAD, but to air some frustration. If/when he sees this, he’ll learn how to do it the FreeCAD way. ❤

[@cyberlizardcouk]

As much as I like FreeCAD, I do prefer the Fusion360 interface.

[@stenc5547]

I have huge respect for people that use personal time and resources to create and maintain projects like this. But, vast majority of those projects are made by geeks for geeks, while commercial software like Fusion 360 is made by paid geeks guided with hard fist to make it usable for users. It's simple logic, if I pay for it I want it to be with simple GUI with intuitive functions and without excessive amount of time and effort involved to re learn everything I know. Example: 3:07. It's move. Transform means reshaping into something different. That was a move. Not intuitive at all. Freecad developers, keep your work and enthusiasm, but please keep in mind, as long as it is not intuitive and requires searching and digging through menus to perform a simple task, people like me won't use it.

[@4axisprinting]

In geometry, transform is a move or rotation. Solidworks calls it that too. But you are naturally free to use what you want.

[@hahahayi1017]

@@4axisprinting actually in solidworks they call some things like that move as well, like the move body command

[@brianmi40]

Despite him only using the Transform tool to move a body, the circles on it do rotations, so yes, Transform applies and Move would be equally confusing as an oversimplification. Additionally it has an Advanced Transform capability which goes even further. Seeing something in a quick video demonstration is a bad way to assume how something works fully. Much better than digging through menus is to watch any of hundreds of excellent video tutorials on YT for any function within FreeCAD. Doing so over 4 months I'm now able to create fairly complex parts with boolean curved cuts in 2 planes along with other advanced features.

[@hahahayi1017]

@@brianmi40 move definitely would not be equally as confusing when you’re simply moving an object, not objecting anything else, just saying move is not confusing at all to move an object

[@brianmi40]

@@hahahayi1017 Yes, but back to the discussion of FreeCAD as opposed to musing about something imaginary, since there is NO MOVE TOOL in FreeCAD, then the tool that does Moves and Rotations in FreeCAD is rightly called the Transform tool, since, as already also stated, in Geometry, Moving and Rotating are called TRANSFORMING.

[@antoniomromo]

I tried freeCAD a few years ago having never used CAD software. It took a lot to learn to design things. It did not feel intuitive at all. I will have to give it a try. Hopefully the UX/UI has improved.

[@4axisprinting]

Admittedly, FreeCAD does have it's rough edges, but it's worth keeping in mind that CAD in general has a fairly steep learning curve until you get into the right mindset for it.

[@sidar87]

I love the idea of Freecad, I hate UX tho. There is so much clicking and mouse movements. I wish they made operations more compact and direct and not convoluted.

[@GUCR44]

I guess that it's the same thing as the difference between Apple and Microsoft.. I'm just used to the one and do find it very difficult to change.. I do think that if I started with freecad I'd be saying the same thing about fusion.. Peace man great video. Right to the point.!

[@tearandfix]

Thank for the video! That is a completely different approach to what I had. I've uploaded a two variants of the design of this part using conventional FreeCAD and a RealThunder's fork.

[@adaycj]

I appreciate what you have done here. However, watching every minute of your example, this just shows me that I would never be able to settle on a workflow that would work in FreeCAD. It would have literally taken me 10 hours to figure all of that stuff out. It isn't and never was that there isn't some way to make things work in FreeCAD for a seasoned an experienced user. Especially one that has contributed to the project and understands the guts of it. It's that for everyone else there is literally no way to figure this out efficiently, and then have those solutions apply, even in similar use cases.

[@brianmi40]

That's the problem, everyone just attempts to noodle around in a modern UI, thinking it should be somewhat obvious to figure out if you have any 3D experience. But if you take the alternative path: assume you know nothing and watch a tutorial video (hundreds on YT) for what you want to learn, I haven't found anything I can't do, even making sense most of the time of the workflow involved for future use. What I think any product needs, is a well graded sequence to watch the tutorial videos in to get up to speed on a product. If someone had simply told me to watch Sketch, then Pad, then Hole then Work Plane, then Raised Lettering tutorials right up front (I'm skipping many but you should get the idea), I would have save hours over figuring out that sequence on my own. The rest is ignoring it's a .2 version pre-release product.

[@adaycj]

@@brianmi40 I think every user has their motivation to use FreeCAD. Most are not commercial, and many are not to learn a skill to earn a living. The rest of us are really in two camps. One is trying to get a project done and possibly retain a skill for later. The other is leaning design/cad to have it as a skill for the future. None of that aligns with how FreeCAD currently works. The Wikis, Forums, and plethora of videos are a clown show. If you are lucky enough to find one that isn't terribly out of date, it only targets one specific task. Many lead the user directly into a topological naming problem, and practically none really discuss how to develop a workflow plan to help with success for repeated use. Your video was great for showing how to het to a solid from a revolve. But now I need a polar pattern? Look at the documentation, not a thing there that any normal human could use to learn the tools.

[@brianmi40]

@@adaycj I disagree on several points, starting with it's not "my" video. First off, none of the motivations for learning FreeCAD should be commercial other than a shoestring 3D printing farm startup on a strict budget for a relatively limited number of straightforward designs. And no one trying to learn CAD skills for a future possible career should be using a .2 pre-release of an open source CAD program. There are free or low cost Student editions of virtually all of the commercial CAD systems so that is a complete strawman argument. As for "trying to get a project done" the hundreds of tutorial videos on YT testify to the ability to do that. In my personal experience learning it over 4 months, there's nothing it hasn't done for me, including creating a replacement part for a window regulator that included a 3dspace curve boolean subtraction and complex internal geometry. With thousands of active users any claim that FreeCAD can't yield functional results is ludicrous. A lack of knowledge of how to do something in it is a very different thing from the inability of the tool to do it, as Thomas was shown in this video. With over 100 KZbin videos covering version.2 your statement about videos being outdated is also false. There are many many KZbin tutorials where you can read the positive comments about their quality. Documentation covers how a product button or tool functions, it is not a tutorial in any way, you should stop trying to make it something it was never intended to be, that's what the literally hundreds of KZbin videos do, including the 3 that cover polar patterns in 3 minutes or less. And the point of short single topic videos is that is what most users want thereby are what created by the experts doing them and they also eliminate searching through a 2 hour video to be reminded of a couple key steps to do something. As for polar patterns, I counted 7 videos from 2022, so plenty that are not out of date.

[@D4mations]

Its never ever EVER the softwares problem. Its always you and your lack of ability. How dare you or Thomas not think this is the greatest bit of software engineering ever to grace Mother Earth. Shame on you blasphemer!!!

[@JJFX-]

I'm still scratching my head as to how Tom didn't think to use a plane to split the body since this is even how the split tool works in F360.

[@yosyp5905]

you can't have two different "bodies" in a single body in vanilla FC

[@JJFX-]

@@yosyp5905 Sorry, are you implying the method shown isn't vanilla FC or that the issue may have been because the result creates 2 "slices" under the body instead 2 individual bodies? Looking back again I see he did gloss over attempts to use the slice tools so perhaps he did try something similar.

[@4axisprinting]

@Yosyp He was using tools from the Part workbench though. No body and you can split things freely.

[@KaspersMC]

thanks for show Thomas Sanladerer : )

[@TinkeringNerd]

I see a potential for trouble with this double shell design tactic, especially if trying to 3D print it and needing to change dimensions for better fit.

[@4axisprinting]

Adding clearance would be a matter of making 2 cups, one where the inner cup thickness is reduced by 1/2 of the clearance and one where the inner cup thickness is increased by the same amount. Half of the cup where the inner shell protrudes would be matched with the opposing half of the other cup and so they would fit with the desired clearance. I didn't go in to that since it would complicate the basic point. But see kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4Wnn4eGbNiEeJowhere I use a shape binder with an offset to form a tongue and groove. Different offsets on the binders could be used to create the clearance.

[@ExMachinaEngineering]

In my opinion, the workbenches paradigm is itself a problem. Some workbenches operate like a complete separate CAD tool (BIM Workbench) and others are just additional tool that may or may not work with parametric design (Curves Workbench). The Curves workbench is amazingly powerful but is really hidden underneath tons of layers and very poorly documented. P.S. I agree completely with your analysis of for whim FreeCAD is a good match. I am keeping an eye on it and I'm looking for the right time to switch to it for my business use. It's not there yet, although I already use it as a back up tool. For example the FEA workbench works really well. But as for another example, I have now lost the ability to download add-ons from the add on manager, and the time to troubleshoot that costs real money for me.

[@4axisprinting]

I get the concerns about the workbench paradigm, but without it, we might not have the very useful tools that Curves, Lattice2, and others bring at all.

[@SomeGuyInSandy]

They come from those other programs for a reason. FreeCAD rocks!

[@Rcbeacon]

Thanks, very good response. I must learn to use 3D CAD for occasional small projects. FreeCAD looks like the way to go. We only use Linux and don't use cloud services which greatly limits the options.

[@4axisprinting]

I'm using Linux myself. I have many concerns about the long term availability and reliability of cloud services (AKA someone else's computer).

[@Rcbeacon]

@@4axisprinting Another concern is future access. Services come and go but I have files that I can still refer to from 25+ years ago. I've been designing circuit boards since about 1983 and the DOS software I used then still runs under Linux today. Way back I used a 2D CAD program (Visio Technical), until it sold out to Microsoft, the license changed and they told me I'd have to buy it again. Not heavily used so I abandoned several years of drawings and went entirely open format.

[@alexsafonov7270]

thanks for this helpful demonstration :)

[@luke_fabis]

3:50 As of this comment. Most CAD programs, parametric or otherwise, can split objects using construction geometry such as planes or surfaces, or even curves in some situations. The problem isn't so much that FreeCAD expects you to use a surface as the reference geometry for a split feature. Again, other CAD has that. The problem with FreeCAD is that there is zero indication that this is the right way to go about it, and the "wrong" tools don't even try to work. If the user gives it bad input, FreeCAD just straight up fails, and it doesn't give any user-understandable details on the problem. 6:15 As of this edit. Individual patches to bridge surfaces, then an external addon to fill the filleted corners? Okay, annoying, but not terrible. I've worked with more fiddly software than that. Wait, you can't sew/join it into a solid? Why do you need to use a shell feature? Shells are for hollowing out solids, as for casting or injection molding. And the shell still didn't do it, you need to explicitly turn it into a solid? I appreciate that you took the time to make a response to Thomas Sanladerer and provide a resource to prospective FreeCAD users, but I'm sorry to say that you didn't really assuage anyone's doubts about FreeCAD. I argue that you rather reinforced all of his complaints with an entirely new layer of complaints. This isn't just the FreeCAD way of doing things. This is just bad.

[@4axisprinting]

I did manually what I would prefer that FreeCAD do automatically primarily to explain the reason for the failure. I did that only after I showed a way to accomplish the primary task in exactly the way Tom wanted to do it in the first place. In a followup, I showed yet another approach to the problem that also features no workarounds. If that won't cut it for you, that's fine, you'll just have to pay for a license to some other software.

[@MrNathanstenzel]

For what it is worth, I tried to post on his video and his Twitter post about it that you replied to him.

[@brianmi40]

I like Thomas, but think he owes an apology, not for what he said, but for his failure to realize that his experience in one polished, finished product, doesn't necessarily carry over to a OSS version .2 product and THEN just not realizing he needed to learn how THIS product actually works without those assumptions and just spend a bit of time watching videos (hundreds for FreeCAD on YT) which could have gotten him there... I've watched his videos a lot and expected better from him.

[@ozr2222]

can you revolve a closed contour from the sketch?

[@4axisprinting]

Yes. In fact, if you want the result to be a solid, you must close the shape.

[@ozr2222]

@@4axisprinting but you drew the sketch, then offset it, and then selected the close option in the revolve window? What I mean is, you draw the same sketch, offset the line, connect the old and the offset line and then revolve this to directly get a solid

[@4axisprinting]

@@ozr2222 That is an option. There are multiple approaches to the problem. In many cases, it's as much a matter of personal taste and style as anything else.

[@ozr2222]

@@4axisprinting yeah i also believe that, but the more i think about it i dont believe thomas actually is that fluent in cad, if he couldnt get this to work. His video also left me with that impression

[@WilliamWallace14051]

@@ozr2222 Having work in AutoCAD professionally for nearly 2 decades I can tell you I have found FreeCAD so frustrating to get started with I haven't yet finished a project with it that would be well less than half an hour of work in AutoCAAD. As good as this video is, he has made changes to the default to get the fillet to work. At least that is mentioned here, many tutorials don't include such information. Having worked on programming projects for nearly 4 decades, I can tell you that it does feel like it could benefit from a usability and integration team. There was a guy at Palm whose job was to reduce the number of clinks to complete a task to as few as possible. Being an opensource project that isn't likely to happen unless / until it frustrates someone enough they jump in. Sadly my eyesight is bad enough now it won't be me.

[@markusstaden]

I had no doubt, that you can do everything in freecad. In the end both are 'just' CAD programs. But I think most other applications are way more intuitive to use

[@extectic]

Yes, but this is open source and has benefits just from that, and it's of course still under constant development. It's not a problem free product, but it is free. Nobody's going to just suddenly decide to erase your account or dramatically change the licence up or start demanding cloud logins just to use a local app. For hobbyists, FreeCAD is very compelling and I decided to learn it rather than anything else for my modest 3D design needs. There's no reason to assume it can't be a 100% pro tool as well, currently not optimally so, but the future looks bright.

[@dac7046]

Maybe if all FC development stopped for a month to focus solely on enhancing documentation and creating or at least cataloging the best of short tutorials on KZbin. Much as I love learning and using these types of tools they are only a means to an end. I spent probably 60 hrs learning/drawing copy in FreeCad a small plastic part not unlike your example to replace a broken item in my home and 10 minutes 3D printing the result. Something wrong with that ratio!

[@4axisprinting]

It's not that surprising really. As you do more projects, the ratio will change since you won't need to re-learn FreeCAD each time.

[@drewcourtney376]

"On the other side of things the price for FreeCAD is certainly right. There's no rental no chance the price will be raised tomorrow... your work won't be locked" Nearly spit out my coffee....

[@jovanmilosevic2494]

I think you just proved his point.

[@Thomllama]

Yea, like 10 extra, kinda odd and confusing steps to do the same thing I can do in one or two common sense steps in most other CAD apps. I’m glad Free CAD is a thing, but it’s still got some maturing to do. Like Tom I download it and try it every now and then because it’s a cool idea, just takes way to much time to get simple things done.

[@m4ki9h76]

@@Thomllama / What Tom tried to do, aka Split a part by Origin XZ Plane, didn't work as FreeCAD doesn't have valid shape property for that plane. Instead, he could've used other plane objects like Datum Plane or primitive Plane surface part which has valid shape properties. This is also way cleaner on FreeCAD's logical project structure, with linked object.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

​@@Thomllama the problem lies in a misconception about what the tools are. Fusion is like sandbox castle building. You just operate like making a cake. Nice, intuitive and easy. BUT going back and changing things mostly means tossing the sand back into the cast and start over. The FreeCAD way uses a very different approach, and I still have trouble handling it, but if done right, you can change some early components and everything else falls into its new place. Really impressive, but it feels very cumbersome.

[@mairmatt]

So true.

[@marcus3d]

@@Thomllama First of all, there wasn't 10 extra steps, he was just doing extra steps to show you exactly what is happening. And they weren't less common sense than in "most other CAD apps". Right after Tom's video I tried to do the same as Tom claimed, and had no problem doing it the way he explained it, although I personally would've done it another way. Tom said he struggled for a long time, but it took just moments to do, and I encountered no problems. Second, I've come from SolidWorks and Inventor, and in both of them I've encountered things failing for no apparent reason, countless times. In fact, I used to use one program for about a year until I lost my nerves with its stupidities, then switch to the other. Then used that for a year until losing my nerves with its moronic restrictions, and switch back. And this was my CAD circle. Then when Fusion 360 became popular I decided to try that instead, because people praised it and because it was free, although it also had very annoying and complicated ways of doing things. When they added restrictions on what you can do with the free version I then decided to try FreeCAD instead. In FreeCAD the workbenches were a bit confusing for a day or so, but the real problem was what I later learned was called the topological naming problem. That required jumping through hoops, and made things needlessly complicated. But then I found realthunder's version. O-M-G! It was bloody perfect. Now I'm practically never experiencing the problems so common in SolidWorks, Inventor, and Fusion360, but everything just works logically, and everything can be easily modified later. I love it! Ok, not pure bliss, because the assemblies are still annoying to use. But at least for designing parts I'm now perfectly happy, and will absolutely never go back to the IMHO inferior "common CAD apps".

[@Bonjour-World]

The other outstanding advantage (other than price) of FreeCad is that it runs on Linux (which also has a cost advantage).

[@dont-want-no-wrench]

no dog in this one, but appreciate your clear reply

[@scottk3292]

Very amicably and professionally handled - well done! Thomas Sanladerer really should update his video, pointing to the solutions which you've provided here. I appreciate that the ruled surface failed when it was asked to basically do what I would consider an illegal operation. Along the coplanar edges, you had 5 inner edges, but 7 outer edges, and I actually like that FreeCad didn't just assume what the user wanted. "With increased power comes increased responsibility."

[@tsunghsueh1271]

The challenge I have with free CAD is that it requires me to change my design so that it can be done in FreeCAD. IMHO, while it is ok for a CAD to have unique methods of doing things, it shouldn't put constraints on the shape on my design.

[@regularfryt]

With respect, this isn't the result of a small team with limited time and resources. It's the result of that team prioritising number of features over completeness and quality of those features. There's another interesting thing going on here though, which is that the underlying problem has been solved, just in a way that's hard to find if you don't already know what you're looking for. There was no feedback loop to apply the solution to where the problem is. This isn't "there aren't enough developers" it's "the development community is dysfunctional".

[@4axisprinting]

Also with respect, only in some sense. Remember, FreeCAD is an open project and the core developers have no authority over what contributors choose to work on. They can only decide if it's good enough to include or not after someone else has already done the hard part. You may believe that chore X is important, but perhaps not as important as chore Y that you're working on. But if I hand you a shiny new feature giftwrapped and it will only take you a minute to incorporate it, will you reject it and tell me to go work on x, knowing that I'll just go away never to be heard from again, or will you accept it and keep working on Y until it's done so you can do x? As a side note, currently Y seems to be getting Realthunder's TNP fix into the mainline code. I have to say that really IS pretty darn important. Probably more important than the deficient fill option of the offset tool.

[@davidskidmore3442]

A lot of your comment is great, but I feel it ended poorly; The community around FreeCAD has produced a working product, and continues to produce addons and updates, so it clearly functions. That said, the lack of "completeness and quality" of features is a common in FOS software, and a not-uncommon situation in many large and long-running projects even in the paid software arena. The much-maligned 'ribbon bar' in Office 2010 was an effort to expose users to many features that had long existed in Word and Excel, but that no one used because they were buried in menus. Many of those features had been around for a decade or more. It takes (a) regularly talking to non-expert users of your software about their usability problems to find issues like this, and then (b) a will to improve the situation for new users, possibly at the expense of existing expert users. This happens rarely enough in commercial projects where new users are a major source of income; in FOSS projects, many of the developers ARE the expert users, and as long as the software meets their own needs, they lack motivation to do 'unnecessary' UI/UX work to make features more available or usable for new users. In CAD (or photo, or video, or audio, many domains, really) tools, this problem is made worse by the complexity of the tools; there are so many features, that you either hide features in menus or sub-windows, or your UI has so many buttons and widgets that it looks like an aircraft cockpit and overwhelms the user, and many projects manage to do both. Many industries are divided into 'people who use toolchain X' and 'people who use toolchain Y', not because of features, but purely because they learned one or the other, and the tools have incompatible UI paradigms. Learning the alternate paradigm puts you back at square one, and it may take tens to hundreds of hours to relearn tasks you find automatic in your old software. From a 'big corporate software' company, this is great as it locks users into using your toolchain, and provides a barrier to entry to other companies trying to compete with you.

[@regularfryt]

@@4axisprinting you're absolutely correct: the users can't make demands of open source contributors. But that goes both ways: the developers can't use their own prioritisation choices as an excuse for a poor experience.

[@regularfryt]

@@davidskidmore3442 yes, the fact that the core application exists is an achievement. I'm not denying that. However what I would say is that the where you have add-ons that exist *because of flaws in that core product* that have existed for years and fixed haven't been upstreamed... Yeah, that's dysfunction. Whether a) is happening I don't know, but you can see elsewhere in these comments what the community reaction to feedback is. That has two effects: first, gaslighting users reinforces the status quo making it harder to get real fixes past the "expert user" old guard; second it discourages people who might be perfectly competent developers from engaging with the project to fix those problems when they see the "skin in the game" macho gauntlet they're expected to run. None of this is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. FreeCAD specifically has a bad history of gaslighting users: for *years* the TNP was "not a bug, you're holding it wrong, it's actually better this way" issue. And to be absolutely honest I don't think it's necessarily the core developers who do this, it's more the sort of people who crop up in the first 5 minutes of asking a question in the forum to tell you you're an idiot for thinking FreeCAD would do what you want before an actual core dev turns up a day later to tell you that yes, you've found a bug. It's just toxic. And I would make the argument that complexity in the problem space does not make complexity in the UI inevitable: that's a failure of UI design. But that's fine, it's failure at a very hard task. It's entirely reasonable not to get it right first time. But that means you do need to be able to iterate and not just leave the original developer's first idea in place. And again, to be fair, I do see tweaks happening that improve things. The Sketcher has seen improvements recently, for instance - but I don't see big workflow improvements making any headway. Except on realthunder's branch. They're clearly possible, achievable, and good: it's the community that's prevented that sort of improvement on the main branch, not the complexity of the problem or technical blockers.

[@paulathomas4944]

@@regularfryt I'm not quite sure what you mean about add-ons that only exist because of flaws in that core product that have existed for years and fixed but haven't been upstreamed? Unless you're referring to the Curves workbench? But that wasn't developed to fix that bug/limitation in the Part workbench; it just happens to do the job. I agree with you third paragraph. Their forum is a toxic place (or was the last time I visited it a couple of years ago). It does the project no favours. Yes the UI is rather clunky. But it was written by a couple of self-taught amateurs so that shouldn't come as a surprise really. But it works well enough for hobbyists like me. I use FreeCAD mainly to help in my model making 93D printing, CNC and laser). I actually maintain my own fork (of 0.19) because I was very unhappy about the code quality of the Path workbench. I've done quite a lot fixes and enhancements but I'm probably fortunate in that I have 30+ years of experience as a profession software developer. I appreciate that others who don't have the programming experience might find the idea of maintaining their own fork rather daunting.

[@jorgennorberg7113]

Seem like a cumbersome way to produce a physical part. Why not just start with a cylinder, reshape it to a truncated cone, copy it, resize the copy and use it to remove the inner part of the cup, giving the desired shape, no sweat. Add a rim in a similar way. And so on. And, yes, you split parts using planes and shapes as suggested.

[@4axisprinting]

It's mostly a matter of different approaches for different people. In this case, I wanted to stick fairly close to Tom's approach to make a better comparison. See also my re-visit to the problem using a sketcher offset (not available at that time): kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5qYlaiZhsRgj5Y

[@fbujold]

thanks