3D-printing - do you mostly design or download?

[RWD3M]

Sorry, I don't consider Sketchup a good option. I'd probably choose tinkercad if I wanted a mesh editor, but a good option for me is importing into parametric CAD like you can with STEP or Parasolid. Fundamentally STL is just a bad format for sharing and editing.

I use Tinkercad and find it very intuitive.

 

[Dr.Al]

Out of interest, have any of the Sketchup/Tinkercad fans on here ever tried Plasticity? It isn't free (although there's a free trial) but it's one-off rather than subscription.

It looks more Sketchup-y to my uneducated eyes than most "proper" CAD is (even more so than Solid Edge's synchronous mode).

It's based on the Parasolid CAD kernel used by Solidworks, Onshape, Solid Edge, NX etc etc.

I've never tried it as I like the traditional parametric style of CAD, but was curious whether others had.

 

[MattF]

Sorry, I don't consider Sketchup a good option. I'd probably choose tinkercad if I wanted a mesh editor

Curious as to reasoning. I've not tried either, so wondering what makes one preferable over the other.

 

[Dr.Al]

Curious as to reasoning. I've not tried either, so wondering what makes one preferable over the other.

I don't really consider either of them very good in my sense of "proper" CAD. Neither of them are parametric design tools, neither offer STEP export. Neither offer constrained sketches that are automatically solved to meet those constraints. If I really wanted to directly edit an STL mesh, I'd choose tinkercad simply because it seems a bit more intuitive to me and is built around directly editing STLs rather than a proprietary (SKP) file format with import/export. In practice, I'd open the STL in Solidworks, model something properly based on the STL and then delete the mesh.

I'd never design anything in either (or anything else that didn't support STEP, and preferably also Parasolid, export).

 

[ukracer]

The only things I've downloaded are mods for the new Centauri Carbon printer itself - everything else, I've designed in Fusion 360.

It may just be me but I've found the whole download experience utterly frustrating, from having to jump through hoops to get it into whatever tool (Fusion or the Slicer) to getting them aligned on the board, to even understanding how to fit them together. That last point is a grumble - obviously I've benefited from someone else's work, but it would be good if the downloads came with adequate "instructions".

So I would always try to design myself.

Strange. I can't design so perhaps it's a "need" that make it easy to print others designs. Lol

 

[Dev]

Curious as to reasoning. I've not tried either, so wondering what makes one preferable over the other.

The models sketchup produces are just awful for 3d printing, they have internal intersecting faces and voids. The slicer programs have a much harder time trying to resolve them and often as not will produce weird results. Sketchup wasn’t really made for making 3d printable solids so it’s not its fault I suppose.

Tinkercad will produce correctly watertight simple solids.

 

[Screwdriver]

Oh yeah. Sketchup is just awful. Had a lucky accident using it to draw this model, from a series of photographs, 40th scale, fully articulating, unfolding pallets, with telescopic arms, folding mirror, folding secondary and a hidden mechanism to raise the instrument assembly. Complete with removable ISIM and all instrument packages with an accurate light path through the light collector.

So a fully deployable, exact scale model of the entire JWST and I even printed up a scale Ariane 5 nosecone section to make sure it fitted. All using Sketchup.

Printed fine on my old Ender3. Like to see anyone do that in Tinkercad, or Fusion/Autocad come to think of it. I am a complete amateur at 3d design for print. I assume a professional would be able to pull this off - given the full dimensions. But if those dimensions do not exist, these super fabulous CAD packages that could build you an F1 car are hopeless at helping you to come up with a part that looks right, works and is also printable.

The key property of Sketchup is in the name, you can literally sketch the item you want to design, modify it for 3d printing, without having someone give you all the dimensions or drawings because the drawings do not exist. You have a blank page to work from and you have to make a part that works and prints. All you have is a picture or a picture in your mind.

While it is an architectural program, I have tried ALL of the others and NONE of them have the speed and flexibility of Sketchup for blank page, make-it-up-as-you-go CAD.

Would I recommend it for someone just starting out? Probably not but don't tell me it is "awful".

 

[Dr.Al]

While it is an architectural program, I have tried ALL of the others

ALL of them? Including Plasticity? No-one answered when I asked whether any Sketchup fans had tried it.

and NONE of them have the speed and flexibility of Sketchup for blank page, make-it-up-as-you-go CAD.

I don't doubt that Sketchup is fast for an initial mock-up (once you're familiar with it), but I do think that tools like Solid Edge and Solidworks come pretty close (once you're familiar with them) and they're a lot quicker when you want to adjust things precisely.

Would I recommend it for someone just starting out? Probably not but don't tell me it is "awful".

I don't think I did tell you it's awful. I said "I don't think it's very good in my sense of what is proper CAD", which isn't really the same thing as saying it's "awful". I know people do some incredible work with Sketchup and props to them (you). I used it to do some architectural-ish stuff many years ago and it worked well for that. I just wouldn't use it for the sort of things I want to do now and, having got familiar with Solidworks, I find parametric CAD quicker now.

 

[Screwdriver]

Horses for courses. I offer my opinion when asked what people may wish to consider for their chosen workflow. I object when constantly being told its not "proper" CAD or if it's "awful".

Even "mock up" sound dismissive as if it's some sort of hack rubbish good for nothing. It was good enough to "mock up" a fully working grab bucket just by copying the concept off a video.

I did look at Plasticity and I didn't need to spend too much time deciding it could not do what I need it to do. I can revisit that program if anyone wants to know the reason(s) but I do not recall exactly why I reject it. Then again, I would simply be criticising something which is probably perfect for a given application.

I can remember exctly why I lost interest in Fusion. They did the old trick for hooking you in with "free" then chopping out the useful bits unless you pay. Sketchup has done the same but you can still download the 2017 version for free, no cloud nonsense, no rental fee. But it is getting old and I will soon be forced to find something to replace it. Currently, as I said, like Shapr3d.

 

[Dr.Al]

I agree with you on Fusion (for that reason and others). I see it as a triumph of marketing but not much else.

I didn't mean to be dismissive by using the term "mock-up"; perhaps a poor choice of words for which I apologise. I would, however, never recommend Sketchup to anyone starting up as I think it will limit them in the future.

 

[Screwdriver]

Thank you. In fact that is the very reason I would not recommend Sketchup either.

Damn shame though. It is an excellent design package, especially for 3d printing where ease of use and speed (and low/no cost!) outweigh the versatility of vastly more capable systems.

 

[Screwdriver]

Bonus heavily edited (!) video of the JWST. Short and sweet version.

Returning to the original question, did I design this or merely download the idea from the superbrains at NASA (+ESA/CSA) who came up with this fantastic instrument?

Similarly, even if I nick something off Thingiverse, I will almost always have to edit it (in Sketchup) so that it fully meets my requirements for accuracy, precision or often as not, just to make the damned thing printable.

This is why I think .STL is so popular. It is more difficult to steal. I even hesitate to post the screenshot above because it's effectively a blueprint for a model.

I have always wanted to be some sort of inventor who comes up with a gadget, makes his fortune, retires to an island in the Bahamas. Those days are gone. It is almost horrifying to discover someone else has had the same/similar idea and just "given it away" on t'internet. It's why I refer to downloaded stuff as "theft" - even if it is given away, it feels so wrong...

 

[Dr.Al]

This is why I think .STL is so popular. It is more difficult to steal. I even hesitate to post the screenshot above because it's effectively a blueprint for a model.

I disagree regarding the reason. I think STL is so popular because it was the only option for a long time and old habits die hard. I'm sure some people don't like the idea of others editing their model, but I'm sure the old habits thing covers a greater number of people.

I know some people choose to share STLs instead of STEPs for the reason of it being harder to "steal", but for anyone who thinks they're going to get some commercial benefit out of modifying a design, it's not **that** hard to work with STLs.

A lot of the models on printables (to pick an example) have this sort of thing at the bottom:

When you share a model you can choose which licence to share it under. I always find it a bit odd when someone shares a model, picks a "Remix Culture allowed" option and then doesn't share a STEP file or even refuses to offer a STEP file when politely asked.

If they don't want people to modify their model, why are they sharing it with "Remix Culture allowed" set? There are plenty of licences available that allow downloading without modifications. Of course it doesn't stop someone modifying it but it discourages them.

For me, this is just a hobby and I have no aspirations (let alone expectations) to make money from it. All models I share have STEP files shared. For the ones I don't share it's generally because I think them too niche for anyone to be interested. Even my Cordless Power Tool Vacuum Cleaner starter thing (which several people have told me I could have patented and sold) is freely available for people to make and/or modify etc. As an design engineer I've been through the patenting process at work and the last thing I want to do is go through that in my own time (and spend all that money) for the slight chance I might make some profit out of it.

 

[Dozzer]

It depends, for things like the Makita charger & battery holders there are so many good ones, its pointless to reinvent the wheel.
But for all the things like beehive entrances, tube adaptors and just about everything else i design.
Im lucky in that im a CAD designer so its my bread & butter nowadays. prefer to use Catia, V5 but current company uses Solidworks

 

[Wedg1e]

I gave someone some dimensions for TVR chassis parts many years ago, they were supposed to be included in a book.
Yet they weren't; supposedly TVR 'leaned on' the author to not publish them - and they were never returned.
Within months a company on Ebay was selling a kit of exactly the bits I'd donated the drawings for. That company was the one that did the race prep. for the book author's car.
So while anyone else (including them) COULD have produced drawings for the parts in the same way I did, it seemed a highly suspicious coincidence.

On my own website I showed a photo of a seat mechanism cover that I'd designed and had 3D-printed; someone contacted me and outright asked if I'd give him the CAD model, no suggestion that he had a car with that cover missing and he'd scoured the earth for one (as I had). I'd have at least printed and sent him one.
You could forgive me resenting that someone else might try and make money from my efforts - it's a bit like working for a boss and being paid a wage... without being paid a wage. I declined to share it.

This thread shows that with a bit of application 'anyone' can learn to design in the various forms of CAD... so get on with it

 

[Wedg1e]

It depends, for things like the Makita charger & battery holders there are so many good ones, its pointless to reinvent the wheel.
But for all the things like beehive entrances, tube adaptors and just about everything else i design.
Im lucky in that im a CAD designer so its my bread & butter nowadays. prefer to use Catia, V5 but current company uses Solidworks

I blagged a hooky copy of Solidworks a few years ago but could never get away with it - even though it seemed as though it ought to be faster and more logical than AutoCAD.

 

[m_c]

I gave someone some dimensions for TVR chassis parts many years ago, they were supposed to be included in a book.
Yet they weren't; supposedly TVR 'leaned on' the author to not publish them - and they were never returned.
Within months a company on Ebay was selling a kit of exactly the bits I'd donated the drawings for. That company was the one that did the race prep. for the book author's car.
So while anyone else (including them) COULD have produced drawings for the parts in the same way I did, it seemed a highly suspicious coincidence.

On my own website I showed a photo of a seat mechanism cover that I'd designed and had 3D-printed; someone contacted me and outright asked if I'd give him the CAD model, no suggestion that he had a car with that cover missing and he'd scoured the earth for one (as I had). I'd have at least printed and sent him one.
You could forgive me resenting that someone else might try and make money from my efforts - it's a bit like working for a boss and being paid a wage... without being paid a wage. I declined to share it.

This thread shows that with a bit of application 'anyone' can learn to design in the various forms of CAD... so get on with it

Some people have no shame, or just think the original designer won't find out.

I blagged a hooky copy of Solidworks a few years ago but could never get away with it - even though it seemed as though it ought to be faster and more logical than AutoCAD.

AutoCAD vs Solidworks require different processes.
I've always got on better with parametric modelling (aka Solidworks/Fusion), than more conventional CAD.

Only thing I've used any old school CAD for since leaving school, was a HNC design module, and I nearly gave up with it.

 

[m_c]

And an interesting rumour about Solidworks, was that they released the hooky copies themselves.

Big companies wouldn't swap from the legacy software due to associated costs, but by getting the software into the hands of hobbyists, users would realise how good it was compared to the legacy options, then convince management that's what they should be using.

 

[Wedg1e]

And an interesting rumour about Solidworks, was that they released the hooky copies themselves.

Big companies wouldn't swap from the legacy software due to associated costs, but by getting the software into the hands of hobbyists, users would realise how good it was compared to the legacy options, then convince management that's what they should be using.

Yeah, bit ironic that I'm blathering about intellectual copyright theft and admitting to using dodgy software

 

[Wedg1e]

AutoCAD vs Solidworks require different processes.
I've always got on better with parametric modelling (aka Solidworks/Fusion), than more conventional CAD.

As I recall, you could just highlight a face and start working on it, where in AutoCAD you have to swap the co-ordinate system axes around otherwise it won't draw on the plane you need. Can be really annoying.