I agree, text-to-mesh makes much more sense for 3D artist than for CAD. If I'd wanted to have all my parts in text, I'd just use OpenSCAD, writing this down in prose sounds horrible.

▲

SOLAR_FIELDS 3 days ago | parent [-]

And lo, OpenSCAD is great, but is basically unused in the professional world... mainly because textual representation of models amounting to anything more complex than basic 3d shapes slapped together is difficult to achieve. You just can't do so many things in OpenSCAD that you need once you start doing professional designn

▲

pbronez 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I really appreciate OpenSCAD. It’s my go-to whenever I need to quickly define a basic shape to 3D print. Unfortunately I predictably hit a wall every time the complexity increases beyond the basics.

The kernel is not robust to the stupid things I naively ask it to do. Often my code makes sense to me, but OpenSCAD refuses to create an object.

Performance falls off a cliff. You can work around it by pausing previews and adjusting resolution, but that’s a big UX compromise.

Still, I’ve tried a few other options and keep cycling back to OpenSCAD. The barrier to entry is very low, coding AI does a pretty good job, and there’s a decent ecosystem of community modules.

	▲	SOLAR_FIELDS 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I also religiously use OpenSCAD for hobbyist stuff. For making some simple component/replacement stand or enclosure in my house, it's fantastic, don't need the full on parametric modeller for that, plus it's way more modular and extensible with code

▲

wlesieutre 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Great until you want to fillet or chamfer a complex edge, which professionals do all day long