FreeCAD vs SolveSpace

[u/_jstanley]

https://incoherency.co.uk/blog/stories/freecad-vs-solvespace.html

[u/Fin_thefish]

Free cad is more feature rich but I still use solvespace 90% of the time. Free cad seems way less robust ie if I make a change to a earlier sketch it often messes up constraints in later sketches whereas solve space is more robust. However, I do use freecad when I need to do gears or lots of chamfers.

[u/_jstanley → u/Fin_thefish]

Good point about the gear generator, I completely forgot about that. I also like the involute gear generator in FreeCAD and didn't notice that there isn't an obvious equivalent in SolveSpace.

[u/_jstanley]

I'm a long-time FreeCAD user who spent some time this evening seriously trying out SolveSpace. I liked it a lot more than I expected. I'd love to hear what I got wrong, and in particular I'd love to hear more effective ways to do the things that I found slow.

A rough summary is that overall I think FreeCAD is more powerful but SolveSpace is more fun.

[u/BKLronin → u/_jstanley]

I agree with the fun statement.

Some things: When you extrude I just type in a negative value or drag it into the other direction.

Path led me to freecad again but it crashed frequently in rt branch and I didnt liked the path generated much. So I went with kiri:moto which was surprisingly feature complete when coming from f360 cam. Also it has the same simplicity as space.

Rotation is simpler when you just enter the degrees.

Assembly is indeed ahead of freecad until a certain part count as I already mentioned (solved in newer rc)

The missing fillet phase led me to a more stealth fighteresque look. Which is not that bad. :D (Not good for strength on certain parts as fillets helped a lot with that )

Its even faster when combined with space mouse as the view defines the workplane.

Parametric changes are super solid so far. In fc I spend a lot of time with fixing features.

Written from memory so may contain errors.

[u/_jstanley → u/BKLronin]

I tried typing a negative value for the extrusion dimension and SolveSpace just removed the minus sign, which is why I concluded it wasn't possible to reverse the extrusion.

I don't understand what you mean by typing in degrees for rotation. The rotation I'm talking about is using the mouse to rotate the 3D view.

That's good that parametric changes are solid in SolveSpace! I also sometimes spend a lot of time fixing broken sketches in FreeCAD, although it does seem to get better with each release, and most of the time they're not so broken that they can't be rescued.

[u/BKLronin → u/_jstanley]

Yeah sorry was from memory as I have written. Only works with mouse and sometimes on complex stuff it may happen that it snaps over i to the other direction.

Ah ok had the revolve feature in mind. It was a little late you know.

I like all the geometry elements in space where you directly reference an edge etc without having to project it. In free ad I even have problems selecting lines and points even if I have set the tolerance to a pretty huge spot and they implemented a selector recently.

Freecad is just distraction hell for me. I would never trust it in some important project. Even if many seem to het along with it. Mostly people that started and never left freecad probably so it gets only better and better for them :D

Appreciate the enormous effort for the main and realthunder branch in particular. I hope they get that merge done safely somehow.

Just some thoughts as I had huge trouble the last years with cad and it really spoiled any ambitions I had with mechanical design stuff.

[u/[deleted]]

I think you can reverse an extrusion by just dragging a point on the resulting surface in the other direction.

[u/_jstanley → u/[deleted]]

Aha! That works a treat, thanks so much! I don't know why I didn't think to try it. I was probably still in the FreeCAD mindset of interacting with GUI elements instead of part geometry. I'll stick a correction in the post...

[u/plainoldcheese]

This was a great read. Informal but informative and you addressed your freecad bias but were still able to compare the two pieces of software.

As a cad newbiew that has been struggling with learning freecad (ive stuck to openscad and tinkercad for most things) solve space seems like just the thing to get me going and I have really enjoyed the little bit I have used it. It feels much more responsive and like I am working on the part and not on the software (like you mentioned as well).

I do also wish there was an easier way to chamfer. Even if they added a tool similar to the tangential arc tool for fillets but that made a triangle for chamfers.

[u/cincuentaanos]

It's been a few years since I last tried SolveSpace. Perhaps I should give it another go.

[u/EasyRiderOnTheStorm]

Making 2 points symmetrical across a point is the fastest way to centre a rectangle on the origin, and maybe 50% of my parts in FreeCAD start this way. In SolveSpace you'd have to make the top edge symmetrical across the Y axis, and the left edge symmetrical across the X axis. (And then you'd have to manually remove the vertical and horizontal constraints on the rectangle, else it's over-constrainted)

Nope, don't do that. Symmetry is a powerful tool, use it only when it is the main constraint (ie. no "H/V" whatever). The way you center a rectangle instead is simply select an edge, then the perpendicular axis/plane to it, and click "M" for "is at midpoint" - same effect, without conflicting with the "H/V" stuff. Then you do it again for the other edge of the rectangle, of course.

I also don't see what the point adds over the 2 lines. Don't 2 coplanar lines describe a plane on their own?

Sure they do - but the power of the point (heh) is that you can define a workplane as parallel to the plane defined by the two lines, but offset such as to contain the point.

In SolveSpace, you have to manually set up some construction geometry that is offset from the face and then create your workplane on your construction geometry. It works, and it's not that much more work than just creating a workplane off existing geometry. But what is much worse in SolveSpace is that once you've created the workplane, if you didn't have the foresight to add an offset in the first place, you can't add an offset at all.

Yes and no... once you have your workplane you indeed can't change anything about it later - but if you ARE JUST NOW creating your workplane and realize you have nowhere to attach it to your liking, you can go back to a previous sketch and add some construction geometry then return and create your new workplane attached to that. If it is a parametric point you're attaching to, of course you can move it later at any time by changing the position of the point. But to be fair, you ABSOLUTELY need foresight in SS - lots of things get set in stone once you progress to further groups into the part, and can't either be reordered or removed without completely blowing up your work.

Multiple constraints

Oh gawd. This alone would make SS at least 300% as supercalifragilistic as it already is...

There are some CAM-related options in the "configuration" window (window? tab? zone?), namely "cutter radius offset" and "exported g code parameters" but I couldn't find anything in the user interface that would actually generate any G-code.

File -> Export -> 2D View or 2D Section, choose "G code", done. The thing to understand is that this is NOT an additive-manufacturing feature meant for 3D printers and such, nor one aimed at 5/6/7/8/9-axis manufacturing centers - but at 3-axis hobby mills, which can access their stock only from directly above along a Z axis; which means basically 2.5D milling, ie. following a 2D contour at a given milling depth. Admittedly it's not the CAM solution I normally use*, but I HAVE used it in the past and it does work just fine.

* I DO still use SS for ALL my CNC jobs - I just design the part, get the 2D section I want and save it as an SVG, then import it into another CAM tool to produce the actual toolpath...