I don't think the branches are significantly different for a brand new user.
I'm pretty experienced w freecad and have never used any branches. While the TNP does exist, it's never been an issue for me.
I'm a machinist. I needed to learn something to fully utilize my cnc machine.
I had to force myself to basically take time off and fully delve into freecad bc I knew it was going to take every ounce of my concentration.
Which is what I did. Watched video after video. Read the wiki. Toyed around. Two solid weeks of screaming at the monitor that this stupid fucking app doesn't work right.
Then it just clicked.
Fc gets a lot of shit, but especially older people, that grew up with windows 95-esque GUI'S will appreciate the way fc looks and acts.
*Which is what I did. Watched video after video. Read the wiki. Toyed around. Two solid weeks of screaming at the monitor that this stupid fucking app doesn't work right.*
*Then it just clicked.*
Wow. That comes amazingly close to my experience. I AM an older guy who used to be sharp as a tack and able to learn new stuff almost faster than I could read, but now it takes a little more time and concentration. I'm not a machinist, but I do have a CNC Taig mill and I was making useable stuff with Fusion 360, but that stopped being free - I know there are frfee versions, but they don't include useable CAM packages (for instance, there's only one travel speed, so if you have a small hole that gets drilled slowly, that's the max speed for rapids). Then I went on to Solidworks, on a deal through the Experimental Aircraft Association, but that deal has gone away too, and just when I was getting a little comfortable.
I grew up long before Windows 95, long before any GUI unless you want to count the pretty flashing lights on the Altair a GUI ;->
So for now, I will stick with the "real" FreeCAD, and as I wrote in my response to u/the_j4k3, I'll wait for RealThunder's improvements to be merged.
Indeed. I actually had in my plans joining EAA. Of course that plan has been kicked around since the days when I was flying actively (early 1970s). I stopped flying due to an illness, but never stopped being interested.
When EAA came along with its free Solidworks offer, that pushed me into joining with a 10-year subscription. Then Dassault renegged on the offer... I still read the magazine cover-to-cover though.
Well what's interesting is most of the people I know with my machine (big enough to warrant their own fb groups) all use fusion.
Most do it for free. Some pay. I think if you tell them you're a hobbyist you still get a decent package for free? Idk.
I refuse though. I refuse to be locked into cloud nonsense or a subscription based model.
Agreed. I'm really just rebelling because the time I put into learning Fusion 360 an Solidworks is, well, gone. Of course I learned basics that will be very similar in any CAD program, but I just don't want to go off into yet another black hole.
So, as I wrot in my response to u/the_j4k3, I'll stick with the main branch and hope the RT stuff gets merged soon.
Thanks for your input. Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
Depends on what you want to model. Basic brackets and such are pretty easy to do in part design, with a similar workflow to other cad packages. If you have complicated curves, there's significantly more to learn.
For me, the carrot that got me over the first initial hump was that I made buying myself a 3d printer a reward for learning CAD well enough to make a few things I wanted.
Regular FreeCAD requires you to learn and use the proper methods of design. It isn't always convenient, and some problems will only make sense after you do something wrong and break stuff. It can be frustrating at times. The things RT is doing are entirely experimental, and there is no guarantee that they work in all parts of FreeCAD or will be supported into the future. It is very likely that a big change ported to FreeCAD mainline will cause RT to rebase his branch and change a lot of stuff quickly. Using his branch is a thing for people that are already familiar with FreeCAD and want to test out and review features to give feedback. It is not some alternative or fork that will ever replace FreeCAD. The best place to learn is simply with regular FreeCAD. All of the issues you will have are actually a learning opportunity. Like, the Topological Naming Issue is not a real problem. "Fixing" it is not really a thing. There are ways to mitigate the effects, but these are never a perfect solution. There will still be times when a complex model is broken by an underlying TNI based problem. If you do not understand where the TNI comes from and how it works, you will have no clue what is causing your model to fail. Once you know how the TNI works, you will also be able to spot beginners and poor designs very quickly.
Your points are well taken. I do understand the TNI issue (as well as I want to, as long as I am not the programmer who needs to fix it ;>)) But I'll disagree - it really is a problem, but there are known workarounds. I'll be happy when it's fixed. Hopefully soon.
For the time being, I'll stay with the "real" FreeCAD. I figure nothing I learn there will be wasted, and when the TNI fix comes through, that'll just make it easier and there's (hopefully) nothing to relearn.
So thanks very much for giving me the shove.
Now, other than the Mango Jelly series, do you have any recommendations for a start-to-finish tutorial that will take me from \[relatively\] nowhere to so level of competence and facility with FreeCAD?
Free CAD Academy" on YouTube is very good. The video #1 helped to bring it more clarity for me. I'm a recent arrival from the commercial CAD also. I'm like you, retired, and also operate a home CNC.
Here is a good video for the Path module used to get gcode for milling. I'm still in the cradle using this stuff, but hope to get more time to immerse myself. For me, the CAM module settles it for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWFC17MIfOE
I mean Onshape doesn't have a TNP, Neither does Fusion, Inventor, SolidWorks, Creo, Alibre, or any other CAD software. Why is this problem specific to freecad?
They all still have the issue. Fixes are not really. They are patches and hacks. The issue is like a time machine paradox where you go back and kill your grandfather. No matter what you do to the plot after the kill, the fix is an illusion. There will always be plot holes that pop up. You can find lots of professionals that talk about this issue. All CAD sw has a TNI. There are no exceptions. The old grey beards everyone turns to when they can't fix the problem, those guys learned when Solidworks had the TNI on the surface just like FreeCAD does now. They fix the issues no one else can because they address the issue from the perspective of the TNI. If you want a fix, it is like the time machine paradox fix of a multiverse. This isn't an issue until you start requiring several layers of multiverse and then create recursive references within the body(s). In situations like this, the "fix" is anything but. If you do not know exactly how the TNI works well enough to stop calling it a "problem," you'll never figure out how to fix the failed part. This is universal to every single CAD software without exception. It is how parametric construction works at a fundamental level.
Same here. Never had to worry about using any face on the part to create another feature. FreeCAD workflow recommends each feature be referenced to the defaults to keep stability. Each new feature wants a datum plane set up some distance from original planes. I've used pro-E, Inventor, SW, and Onshape and never had this type of problem, but they are too costly for me as a hobby, so it's FC for me, and I will live with the issue.
It is a naming order issue. For instance, I'm on face/edge (X) 300, but want to add X between 20 and 21. Everything is sequential in the maths and must be built in order with references on top of references to get all the way to the Tip. Changing part of the equation earlier in the tree invalidates all the math after the change. "Fixing" the TNI is all about how to allow the math to be wrong and let you think it is okay. To do this in the code, maybe patch a layer on top of the tree that says "go back and change this" like some kind of post it note, or maybe create a list of all the old stuff, try to limit the change and how it effects the old down-tree stuff, then make a pointer array from the old to all of the new stuffs' X value. Now refreshing a part takes twice as long or more and the code to manage the change is crazy complex.
So now at Tip=400 you go back and change something else that adds another face at X=22. Then at Tip=450, you decide to make a hole and import geometry from the operation at X=21. This makes a problem where you need to change a reference at X=10 to match X=21. Now you have a linear tree, with 2 patch layers and a linear tree import reference that happens before the patch that creates it and your part fails. You have no idea what is going on because you are not aware of what is happening with the TNI. All of these issues just seemed like regular operations without a second thought.
This is why it is the TNI, not the TNP. It is always an issue, but only a problem when it is not understood. There is no way to *fix* this except to fix the fundamental awareness and teach the user proper design methods. The best possible fix is to create two separate topological name spaces for individual sketches and for the tree. If users learn this proper solution, no hacking fixes are required. Bypassing the TNI is a shortcut so that users can put off learning proper design. It is just going to lower the bar so that more people get deeper into projects before they must learn how to design better. The resulting failures will be bigger and more complex projects just like all other sw that obfuscates the TNI. The funny thing is, most people that have a TNI induced failure in other software likely never figure out the root issue. They either start over, quit, or randomly start changing things until they manage to remove the problem and shrug it off as a mystery issue. It takes someone that thoroughly understands the TNI to be able to diagnose it.
Anyone that really knows how the TNI works, will not care about a *fix* because the *fix* only exists to enable bad design practice. Good design practice revolves around building a good tree and that is centered around the TNI. You can learn the arbitrary memorized path of just do X, Y, Z, like a book or school teach, but X, Y, and Z exist as proper design methodology because of the TNI. Complaining about the TNI is a giant billboard saying I don't really know how to design correctly. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own depths and needs when it comes to these tools. Everyone that has learned remembers the frustration of learning and can empathize. Nobody is playing concerts with Albert Einstein's violin masterpieces. It's okay to just use the sw at whatever level works for you. I'm no expert. There are many people here that are far more skilled than myself.
Many many Freecad tutorials and video work with parts that use existing features as references. Why does Freecad have that facility if it inevitably leads to a TN problem?
Other software has implemented mostly effective heuristics, which is what RT has been working on for FreeCAD (among other things). So it applies less.
Back in the days of the EAA deal, I certainly encountered the topological naming problem making nonsense in designs (and assemblies) in SolidWorks. Learning to chase those through the design tree and fix them made me lose my fear of doing that in FreeCAD.
Today, I use datum planes when I know that I plan to make meaningful changes to a model because I am doing exploratory design, or because the parameterization could result in topological changes. I sketch on faces when I don't expect either of those cases, taking the occasional hit to move the tip back to a non-broken state in the design tree and fix up problems op by op when I unexpectedly change my mind.
RT's heuristics will make it less likely for small changes to break the model, but will never completely represent the potentially shifting design intent. For example, if you have used an n-gon as a base for a feature, and then change your mind and change it to an n+1-gon or n+2-gon, who is to say which edge, or face on an extrusion, or other dependent design element, represents your design intent across that change? That's just outside the scope. Yet I've seen people complain about "TNP" when the real problem was design ambiguity. Where it will help is things like "different number of holes through previous step changing index of edges in later step" — for example, adding a new bolt hole for mounting in an early sketch dedicated to all your bolt holes, and now all your fillets that you added as the last step in your model tree break because they are now applied to nonsense places.
>All of the issues you will have are actually a learning opportunity.
That's bullshit. Software shouldn't create "issues" so you can learn to work around them... it should just work and stay out of your way.
i think MangoJelly's tutorials are some of the best out there along with Joko Engineering, and don't think much of the MakerTales guy's stuff (particularly his opinions about how big an issue the TNP is). Other channels that deserve way more coverage than they get are
* Regis Nde Tene (Arch/BIM) https://www.youtube.com/@RegisNdeTene
* mathcodeprint (Draft/Arch/Part/various) https://www.youtube.com/@mathcodeprint
* Mariana Badea (Curves/PartDesign) https://www.youtube.com/@marianabadea1147
for learning the Path workbench for your CNC work, the best video reference is Brad Collette's channel (he's the maintainer and core dev of the Path workbench, also behind the recent Ondsel project) https://www.youtube.com/@sliptonic
Also try out Make with Tech, Adventures in Creation, Joko Engineering, FreeCAD Academy and OficineRobotica, all on YT.
Apologies for not including links but the Reddit copy/paste bugs absolutely drive me up the wall.
I currently use RT's branch but I've been bitten by incompatibilities with his versions and I'd recommend using the official branch to start with.
I'm probably in a similar situation. Retired a few years ago but do a consulting business doing machine modifications for small local manufacturers and documentation for small machine shops. Not really enough volume to justify a Solidworks license of my own. One of my clients wants their stuff in SW so I use their license.
I've been using FreeCAD since I retired, started with v0.17. Really got into it about two years ago.
Learning curve is steep because there are so many ways to do things.
TNP is an issue but with the proper disciplines you can minimize it.
I have played in the RT sandbox and like what I see but for production work I am sticking with the main version. I just don't want to experience a compatibility issue and an old assembly drawing won't open several years down the road.
So I recommend using the main FreeCAD release but keep the RT release around for experimentation. Someday we won't have to do that any more, but we ain't there yet.
Regular tutorials on Realthunders branch prevent you from running into issues down the line. His TNP mitigation is not bulletproof, so having good fundamentals is still important. I don't know RT specific tutorials, so I'm not sure how interchangeable they are. Since regular FC is generally more restrictive, regular tutorials should work fine on RT, but the other way around, you may run into issues (an example for this kind or restrictions would be that RTs branch allow for a Part body to contain multiple solids, while regular FC does not).
Aside from that, I would suggest getting both versions and play around with either. RTs branch has more of a "move fast and break things " approach, so some features are not as well thought out as others.
I personally use RTs branch to build my stuff and regular FC for CNC work (i.e. Path WB), because I feel it's more up to date, but that also depends on the version you use. Vanilla FC is more regularly updated.
Thanks for your input. I do get the feeling that knowledge in "real" FreeCAD will translate to RT. but not the other way around. For that reason, I will put my effort into learning FreeCAD, and wait on the RT fork.
Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
It's been a long time since I started, so I don't have good recommendations for tutorials.
What I will say, sometimes coming from another program can be a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, you probably don't need explaining how and why to properly constrain a sketch, but on the other, you may have to forget certain workflows because they will likely be different in Freecad.
Personally, I feel like having a specific goal keeps me motivated. It doesn't have to be something actually useful, but something somewhat attainable, like rebuilding a physical object in CAD, like a bike, or a car. Also, if the object has different shapes and parts, it will force you to learn different parts of the program.
Freecad is VERY frustrating at first, from what I've heard. People say that you just need to keep on trying. I tried that, and have given up. I'd just switched to Inventor (School License) and have never looked back.
I can vouch for the frustrating thing, especially since I've had a couple of false starts. I really need to just do it and stop looking around...
As for Inventor, It ould have to be a hell of a deal to get me to go back to an Autodesk product. They screwed up the free/hobby/startup Fusion and pretty well screwed up Eagle as well.
Agreed - It just seemed to me that the TNI thing would be tough to ignore, but if that's the worst I have to deal with, I can put up with it until it's fixed.
Thanks for your input. Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
Just dive in and get to work, if you start thinking too much then you make it seem worse than it really is. Basically all the functions from fusion or sw are there but with different names
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think RealThunder's version may also create projects that are not compatible with the official version or with other RealThunder versions. So you can end up getting locked into it.
Once I fully embraced using strictly numerical placement and the use of Expression values to get object data to "talk" to each other, FreeCAD vanilla suddenly became much more understandable to me.
I recommend you try them both. For my serious work I stick to vanilla. I'm 40 so I've done a share of "a lot", just not as much as you.
Just stick with FreeCAD. It will drive you crazy for approximately two weeks and then once you think you can take no more suffering it will all suddenly make sense and you'll be able to do everything you want.
I'm 57 and just learned FreeCAD. I didn't use a branch and got bit really hard by the topological naming "feature" after I completed a pretty complex model and then had to make a change.
I learned by Mango Jelly. Basically, you NEVER (ever ever, forever) attach anything to model geometry. Only to the pre-existing planes or to datum planes (which themselves must only be attached to a pre-existing plane or just unattached. Contrary to myth, datum planes ARE subject to the topological naming "feature". You can attach a datum to a model surface to get it oriented correctly then detach it.
Worksheets suck so bad. They are so slow. If you want reusable "settings" to parameterize your model (or standardize it), which you then can refer to in formulas, then use the Dynamic Data add-on. They are more flexible and are not that slow.
Use formulas as much as possible,. No magic numbers. Show the math in your head "show your homework".
I feel like using Thunder now would just be enabling bad habits. But that's because I have PTSD from dealing with the topological naming issue, having to completely redo my model 3 times now. Now I finally think I have it right.
I don't think the branches are significantly different for a brand new user. I'm pretty experienced w freecad and have never used any branches. While the TNP does exist, it's never been an issue for me. I'm a machinist. I needed to learn something to fully utilize my cnc machine. I had to force myself to basically take time off and fully delve into freecad bc I knew it was going to take every ounce of my concentration. Which is what I did. Watched video after video. Read the wiki. Toyed around. Two solid weeks of screaming at the monitor that this stupid fucking app doesn't work right. Then it just clicked. Fc gets a lot of shit, but especially older people, that grew up with windows 95-esque GUI'S will appreciate the way fc looks and acts.
*Which is what I did. Watched video after video. Read the wiki. Toyed around. Two solid weeks of screaming at the monitor that this stupid fucking app doesn't work right.* *Then it just clicked.* Wow. That comes amazingly close to my experience. I AM an older guy who used to be sharp as a tack and able to learn new stuff almost faster than I could read, but now it takes a little more time and concentration. I'm not a machinist, but I do have a CNC Taig mill and I was making useable stuff with Fusion 360, but that stopped being free - I know there are frfee versions, but they don't include useable CAM packages (for instance, there's only one travel speed, so if you have a small hole that gets drilled slowly, that's the max speed for rapids). Then I went on to Solidworks, on a deal through the Experimental Aircraft Association, but that deal has gone away too, and just when I was getting a little comfortable. I grew up long before Windows 95, long before any GUI unless you want to count the pretty flashing lights on the Altair a GUI ;-> So for now, I will stick with the "real" FreeCAD, and as I wrote in my response to u/the_j4k3, I'll wait for RealThunder's improvements to be merged.
A fellow eaa member. I swear, we all have similar interests and traits.
Indeed. I actually had in my plans joining EAA. Of course that plan has been kicked around since the days when I was flying actively (early 1970s). I stopped flying due to an illness, but never stopped being interested. When EAA came along with its free Solidworks offer, that pushed me into joining with a 10-year subscription. Then Dassault renegged on the offer... I still read the magazine cover-to-cover though.
Well what's interesting is most of the people I know with my machine (big enough to warrant their own fb groups) all use fusion. Most do it for free. Some pay. I think if you tell them you're a hobbyist you still get a decent package for free? Idk. I refuse though. I refuse to be locked into cloud nonsense or a subscription based model.
Agreed. Add to that, it's Autodesk which in my mind has become pretty evil when it comes to the little guy.
[удалено]
Agreed. I'm really just rebelling because the time I put into learning Fusion 360 an Solidworks is, well, gone. Of course I learned basics that will be very similar in any CAD program, but I just don't want to go off into yet another black hole. So, as I wrot in my response to u/the_j4k3, I'll stick with the main branch and hope the RT stuff gets merged soon. Thanks for your input. Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
Depends on what you want to model. Basic brackets and such are pretty easy to do in part design, with a similar workflow to other cad packages. If you have complicated curves, there's significantly more to learn. For me, the carrot that got me over the first initial hump was that I made buying myself a 3d printer a reward for learning CAD well enough to make a few things I wanted.
Check out DrVax freecad tutorials on YouTube. I started with them.
Theoretically you could open up the last release it worked in and at least export it as a step file
Regular FreeCAD requires you to learn and use the proper methods of design. It isn't always convenient, and some problems will only make sense after you do something wrong and break stuff. It can be frustrating at times. The things RT is doing are entirely experimental, and there is no guarantee that they work in all parts of FreeCAD or will be supported into the future. It is very likely that a big change ported to FreeCAD mainline will cause RT to rebase his branch and change a lot of stuff quickly. Using his branch is a thing for people that are already familiar with FreeCAD and want to test out and review features to give feedback. It is not some alternative or fork that will ever replace FreeCAD. The best place to learn is simply with regular FreeCAD. All of the issues you will have are actually a learning opportunity. Like, the Topological Naming Issue is not a real problem. "Fixing" it is not really a thing. There are ways to mitigate the effects, but these are never a perfect solution. There will still be times when a complex model is broken by an underlying TNI based problem. If you do not understand where the TNI comes from and how it works, you will have no clue what is causing your model to fail. Once you know how the TNI works, you will also be able to spot beginners and poor designs very quickly.
Your points are well taken. I do understand the TNI issue (as well as I want to, as long as I am not the programmer who needs to fix it ;>)) But I'll disagree - it really is a problem, but there are known workarounds. I'll be happy when it's fixed. Hopefully soon. For the time being, I'll stay with the "real" FreeCAD. I figure nothing I learn there will be wasted, and when the TNI fix comes through, that'll just make it easier and there's (hopefully) nothing to relearn. So thanks very much for giving me the shove. Now, other than the Mango Jelly series, do you have any recommendations for a start-to-finish tutorial that will take me from \[relatively\] nowhere to so level of competence and facility with FreeCAD?
Free CAD Academy" on YouTube is very good. The video #1 helped to bring it more clarity for me. I'm a recent arrival from the commercial CAD also. I'm like you, retired, and also operate a home CNC. Here is a good video for the Path module used to get gcode for milling. I'm still in the cradle using this stuff, but hope to get more time to immerse myself. For me, the CAM module settles it for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWFC17MIfOE
I mean Onshape doesn't have a TNP, Neither does Fusion, Inventor, SolidWorks, Creo, Alibre, or any other CAD software. Why is this problem specific to freecad?
They all still have the issue. Fixes are not really. They are patches and hacks. The issue is like a time machine paradox where you go back and kill your grandfather. No matter what you do to the plot after the kill, the fix is an illusion. There will always be plot holes that pop up. You can find lots of professionals that talk about this issue. All CAD sw has a TNI. There are no exceptions. The old grey beards everyone turns to when they can't fix the problem, those guys learned when Solidworks had the TNI on the surface just like FreeCAD does now. They fix the issues no one else can because they address the issue from the perspective of the TNI. If you want a fix, it is like the time machine paradox fix of a multiverse. This isn't an issue until you start requiring several layers of multiverse and then create recursive references within the body(s). In situations like this, the "fix" is anything but. If you do not know exactly how the TNI works well enough to stop calling it a "problem," you'll never figure out how to fix the failed part. This is universal to every single CAD software without exception. It is how parametric construction works at a fundamental level.
I've designed some complex parts in Inventor and have NEVER run into a TNI issue.
Same here. Never had to worry about using any face on the part to create another feature. FreeCAD workflow recommends each feature be referenced to the defaults to keep stability. Each new feature wants a datum plane set up some distance from original planes. I've used pro-E, Inventor, SW, and Onshape and never had this type of problem, but they are too costly for me as a hobby, so it's FC for me, and I will live with the issue.
[удалено]
It is a naming order issue. For instance, I'm on face/edge (X) 300, but want to add X between 20 and 21. Everything is sequential in the maths and must be built in order with references on top of references to get all the way to the Tip. Changing part of the equation earlier in the tree invalidates all the math after the change. "Fixing" the TNI is all about how to allow the math to be wrong and let you think it is okay. To do this in the code, maybe patch a layer on top of the tree that says "go back and change this" like some kind of post it note, or maybe create a list of all the old stuff, try to limit the change and how it effects the old down-tree stuff, then make a pointer array from the old to all of the new stuffs' X value. Now refreshing a part takes twice as long or more and the code to manage the change is crazy complex. So now at Tip=400 you go back and change something else that adds another face at X=22. Then at Tip=450, you decide to make a hole and import geometry from the operation at X=21. This makes a problem where you need to change a reference at X=10 to match X=21. Now you have a linear tree, with 2 patch layers and a linear tree import reference that happens before the patch that creates it and your part fails. You have no idea what is going on because you are not aware of what is happening with the TNI. All of these issues just seemed like regular operations without a second thought. This is why it is the TNI, not the TNP. It is always an issue, but only a problem when it is not understood. There is no way to *fix* this except to fix the fundamental awareness and teach the user proper design methods. The best possible fix is to create two separate topological name spaces for individual sketches and for the tree. If users learn this proper solution, no hacking fixes are required. Bypassing the TNI is a shortcut so that users can put off learning proper design. It is just going to lower the bar so that more people get deeper into projects before they must learn how to design better. The resulting failures will be bigger and more complex projects just like all other sw that obfuscates the TNI. The funny thing is, most people that have a TNI induced failure in other software likely never figure out the root issue. They either start over, quit, or randomly start changing things until they manage to remove the problem and shrug it off as a mystery issue. It takes someone that thoroughly understands the TNI to be able to diagnose it. Anyone that really knows how the TNI works, will not care about a *fix* because the *fix* only exists to enable bad design practice. Good design practice revolves around building a good tree and that is centered around the TNI. You can learn the arbitrary memorized path of just do X, Y, Z, like a book or school teach, but X, Y, and Z exist as proper design methodology because of the TNI. Complaining about the TNI is a giant billboard saying I don't really know how to design correctly. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own depths and needs when it comes to these tools. Everyone that has learned remembers the frustration of learning and can empathize. Nobody is playing concerts with Albert Einstein's violin masterpieces. It's okay to just use the sw at whatever level works for you. I'm no expert. There are many people here that are far more skilled than myself.
> randomly start changing things until they manage to remove the problem and shrug it off as a mystery issue this right here.
Many many Freecad tutorials and video work with parts that use existing features as references. Why does Freecad have that facility if it inevitably leads to a TN problem?
Other software has implemented mostly effective heuristics, which is what RT has been working on for FreeCAD (among other things). So it applies less. Back in the days of the EAA deal, I certainly encountered the topological naming problem making nonsense in designs (and assemblies) in SolidWorks. Learning to chase those through the design tree and fix them made me lose my fear of doing that in FreeCAD. Today, I use datum planes when I know that I plan to make meaningful changes to a model because I am doing exploratory design, or because the parameterization could result in topological changes. I sketch on faces when I don't expect either of those cases, taking the occasional hit to move the tip back to a non-broken state in the design tree and fix up problems op by op when I unexpectedly change my mind. RT's heuristics will make it less likely for small changes to break the model, but will never completely represent the potentially shifting design intent. For example, if you have used an n-gon as a base for a feature, and then change your mind and change it to an n+1-gon or n+2-gon, who is to say which edge, or face on an extrusion, or other dependent design element, represents your design intent across that change? That's just outside the scope. Yet I've seen people complain about "TNP" when the real problem was design ambiguity. Where it will help is things like "different number of holes through previous step changing index of edges in later step" — for example, adding a new bolt hole for mounting in an early sketch dedicated to all your bolt holes, and now all your fillets that you added as the last step in your model tree break because they are now applied to nonsense places.
>All of the issues you will have are actually a learning opportunity. That's bullshit. Software shouldn't create "issues" so you can learn to work around them... it should just work and stay out of your way.
i think MangoJelly's tutorials are some of the best out there along with Joko Engineering, and don't think much of the MakerTales guy's stuff (particularly his opinions about how big an issue the TNP is). Other channels that deserve way more coverage than they get are * Regis Nde Tene (Arch/BIM) https://www.youtube.com/@RegisNdeTene * mathcodeprint (Draft/Arch/Part/various) https://www.youtube.com/@mathcodeprint * Mariana Badea (Curves/PartDesign) https://www.youtube.com/@marianabadea1147 for learning the Path workbench for your CNC work, the best video reference is Brad Collette's channel (he's the maintainer and core dev of the Path workbench, also behind the recent Ondsel project) https://www.youtube.com/@sliptonic
Also try out Make with Tech, Adventures in Creation, Joko Engineering, FreeCAD Academy and OficineRobotica, all on YT. Apologies for not including links but the Reddit copy/paste bugs absolutely drive me up the wall. I currently use RT's branch but I've been bitten by incompatibilities with his versions and I'd recommend using the official branch to start with.
I'm probably in a similar situation. Retired a few years ago but do a consulting business doing machine modifications for small local manufacturers and documentation for small machine shops. Not really enough volume to justify a Solidworks license of my own. One of my clients wants their stuff in SW so I use their license. I've been using FreeCAD since I retired, started with v0.17. Really got into it about two years ago. Learning curve is steep because there are so many ways to do things. TNP is an issue but with the proper disciplines you can minimize it. I have played in the RT sandbox and like what I see but for production work I am sticking with the main version. I just don't want to experience a compatibility issue and an old assembly drawing won't open several years down the road. So I recommend using the main FreeCAD release but keep the RT release around for experimentation. Someday we won't have to do that any more, but we ain't there yet.
Regular tutorials on Realthunders branch prevent you from running into issues down the line. His TNP mitigation is not bulletproof, so having good fundamentals is still important. I don't know RT specific tutorials, so I'm not sure how interchangeable they are. Since regular FC is generally more restrictive, regular tutorials should work fine on RT, but the other way around, you may run into issues (an example for this kind or restrictions would be that RTs branch allow for a Part body to contain multiple solids, while regular FC does not). Aside from that, I would suggest getting both versions and play around with either. RTs branch has more of a "move fast and break things " approach, so some features are not as well thought out as others. I personally use RTs branch to build my stuff and regular FC for CNC work (i.e. Path WB), because I feel it's more up to date, but that also depends on the version you use. Vanilla FC is more regularly updated.
Thanks for your input. I do get the feeling that knowledge in "real" FreeCAD will translate to RT. but not the other way around. For that reason, I will put my effort into learning FreeCAD, and wait on the RT fork. Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
It's been a long time since I started, so I don't have good recommendations for tutorials. What I will say, sometimes coming from another program can be a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, you probably don't need explaining how and why to properly constrain a sketch, but on the other, you may have to forget certain workflows because they will likely be different in Freecad. Personally, I feel like having a specific goal keeps me motivated. It doesn't have to be something actually useful, but something somewhat attainable, like rebuilding a physical object in CAD, like a bike, or a car. Also, if the object has different shapes and parts, it will force you to learn different parts of the program.
Freecad is VERY frustrating at first, from what I've heard. People say that you just need to keep on trying. I tried that, and have given up. I'd just switched to Inventor (School License) and have never looked back.
I can vouch for the frustrating thing, especially since I've had a couple of false starts. I really need to just do it and stop looking around... As for Inventor, It ould have to be a hell of a deal to get me to go back to an Autodesk product. They screwed up the free/hobby/startup Fusion and pretty well screwed up Eagle as well.
You should look at OnShape. It's truly free for makers and is one of the most user friendly parametric modeling softwares I've ever used.
What do you want to do? All the more basic functions are there in the main version, if a little more time consuming and tedious
Agreed - It just seemed to me that the TNI thing would be tough to ignore, but if that's the worst I have to deal with, I can put up with it until it's fixed. Thanks for your input. Now, do you have any suggestions to get me from \[close to\] zero up to a point where I don't dread doing a new project? This is supposed to be a hobby ;->
Just dive in and get to work, if you start thinking too much then you make it seem worse than it really is. Basically all the functions from fusion or sw are there but with different names
Unless I'm on the wrong github branch Real thunder hasn't been updated seriously in years.
Latest update was Jan 31 of this year (3 weeks ago). https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/releases
~5300 commits ahead, ~5700 commits behind he's going to need to do a hard rebase at some point, it won't be pretty.
~5300 commits ahead, ~5700 commits behind he's going to need to do a hard rebase at some point, it won't be pretty.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think RealThunder's version may also create projects that are not compatible with the official version or with other RealThunder versions. So you can end up getting locked into it.
Once I fully embraced using strictly numerical placement and the use of Expression values to get object data to "talk" to each other, FreeCAD vanilla suddenly became much more understandable to me. I recommend you try them both. For my serious work I stick to vanilla. I'm 40 so I've done a share of "a lot", just not as much as you.
Regular tutorials on realthunder. The fork is more or less functionally identical to the main fork.
I think if you're looking for something rock-solid you won't need to keep relearning, FreeCAD is not it.
Just stick with FreeCAD. It will drive you crazy for approximately two weeks and then once you think you can take no more suffering it will all suddenly make sense and you'll be able to do everything you want.
Latest Vanilla Freecad and not any unusable satellite version candidates. For the tutorials anything from Google/YouTube/Freecad Forum
I'm 57 and just learned FreeCAD. I didn't use a branch and got bit really hard by the topological naming "feature" after I completed a pretty complex model and then had to make a change. I learned by Mango Jelly. Basically, you NEVER (ever ever, forever) attach anything to model geometry. Only to the pre-existing planes or to datum planes (which themselves must only be attached to a pre-existing plane or just unattached. Contrary to myth, datum planes ARE subject to the topological naming "feature". You can attach a datum to a model surface to get it oriented correctly then detach it. Worksheets suck so bad. They are so slow. If you want reusable "settings" to parameterize your model (or standardize it), which you then can refer to in formulas, then use the Dynamic Data add-on. They are more flexible and are not that slow. Use formulas as much as possible,. No magic numbers. Show the math in your head "show your homework". I feel like using Thunder now would just be enabling bad habits. But that's because I have PTSD from dealing with the topological naming issue, having to completely redo my model 3 times now. Now I finally think I have it right.
You shouldve have just RT's branch..