I have been using Blender for video editing recently, and 5.0 is going to bring compositing nodes to the sequence editor. Now all I need is automatic video stabilization.
Motion tracking been existing for a long time in Blender, couldn't you use that and move object used to display the footage opposite of the tracked motion and basically get video stabilization?
Question for those conversant in blender: I'm pretty good with parametric CAD (solidworks and fusion) but have never touched Blender. I've been curious about Blender but I have no artistic or sculptural skills. I use 3D cad for both 3d printed objects and machining.
Is Blender worth learning for somebody who probably couldn't make a snake out of playdoh?
Blender doesn't use the nice boundary representations that you might be familiar with from Fusion 360 or Solidworks. Everything in Blender is "bag of triangles/quads," so it's lower level than what you may be used to. Getting good CAD-like results requires keeping this in mind. There are addons that are starting to address this. SolverSpace has a blender addon, for example.
What do you want to build? If you're not making CAD parts, the story is much different for artistic / game engine / character or environment design. I strongly recommend checking out Blender and noodling around.
If you're intimidated, the only cost is time, which is offset by the pleasure of learning something new. Here's a particularly good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzHvD9RFrT8
As someone who was in the same boat for a long time, I only clicked with Blender once I had a real need for it: In my case, creating an ad-style video for a product I’d created in Fusion.
I’m not sure there is any point trying to do what you can in parametric software in Blender. Despite both being capable of a range of 3D tasks, they have remarkably little in common.
It depends on what your best hopes for yourself are.
You don’t need a lot of creative skill to model something geometric such as furniture or mechanisms. Having modeled it you would need to texture, light and render it. That can required good visual judgement, but god knows there are lots of examples to learn from.
Making organic forms is another matter and would require some sculpting skills, which are not easy to acquire.
Finally, there is the procedural environment of geometry nodes. With a good mind for maths, you could make some super cool abstract animations.
I learned blender purely to edit borked meshes customers brought in when I worked at a 3d print service bureau that refused to spend money on software.
Now I can just about fix, edit, or make anything I want in blender pretty quickly and have even started making some 3d art. Definitely worth putting the time in
I was a similar path, learned and used Autocad from kid onwards. Being able to visualize things in a top/front/side view is a huge help in modelling. And you can get pretty far in making nice things with just a simple extrude/scale workflow in Blender.
As for being worth it. depends on your goals tbh. For 3d printing/cnc, I'd still stick with cad. Blender can do it, but it's not nearly as good as any cad software. If you're looking to expand into editing videos or making models for something 3d the spatial sense will make life easier in learning Blender for sure.
Personally, I'd say yes. I started out with Merlin 3D and Autocad way back in the day, and of course, Blender is a whole other beast. Took me some time to get used to it, but once I did, I found 3D made a lot more sense than it ever had in those other applications.
Of course, YMMV, but I'd say you should give it a shot. Even just poking around is a start.
Blenders CAD like features is so small. The thing is that 3d Art is just a totally different skill.
CAD is a drafting board: sharp pencils, precise rulers, curve templates.
Blender is in contrast: a giant set of acrylic paints. It just does different things entirely.
-----------
Here is something you can do today. Open up Blender, left click on the default cube. Menu->Object->Quick Effects->Quick Smoke.
Hey look, you turned something into a Physics simulation of (artistic) gas rising. Now play with settings till you are bored and/or your CPU got too hot and your room is too warm. These buttons use a ton of CPU time lol.
Hit spacebar to play the simulation.
---------
This is Blender. It's animation, it's art, it's imprecise. It's full of random widgets that deeply simulate colors or simple physics or do basic effects.
The only downside is that this doesn't produce a scene that always you render it. You just get to watch it in the composition window. Rendering it is just a static opaque box.
My fault for choosing a harder to work with simulation.
Gas simulations result in volumetric data which EEVEE, the default rasterization engine, is unable to display.
You need to turn the gas / volumetric data into something else first before EEVEE can work with it.
Alternatively, you switch to the Raytracer 'Cycles' and THAT can directly display volumes.
---------
Sorry. Maybe I should have picked an easier simulation to work with lol. But the overall effect is the same: Blendernis a massive collection of tools of tools, and knowing how to plug them into each other is exceptionally different than CAD.
The 3D modeling part isn't very much of Blender at all. I stand by my main point. You'll be spending huge amounts of time learning all this other stuff that a CAD engineer doesn't even know he doesn't know about.
I've never been an artist but I love 3d printing. So 5 years ago I went through the struggle of learning to use Blender. Best choice I ever made. I still struggle to understand even the most basic CAD app.
I probably spend more time for some projects in blender than I would in a proper cad environment, but it's a toolset I understand somewhat deeply now.
So far, Blender is one of the most successful open source projects I've ever worked with in the last 30 years. Even with major changes, every change has mostly been for the better. The introduction of geometry nodes completely changed my workflow a few years ago. So much room for activities after that.
Unlike any other modern software package, I have no regrets or doubt when I upgrade to the latest Blender release.
If you're on the fence about picking up Blender I highly recommend taking the deep dive.
As someone who has modeled in 3DSMax and Blender using the mesh modeling approach and in Fusion360 and FreeCAD using the CAD modeling approach, for 3D printing I really recommend learning CAD modeling in FreeCAD.
The ability to make models precise, constrained and and parameterised more easily allows going back to previous steps to make adjustments.
For 3D printing it is very helpful to be able to change a defined variable and have the whole model recalculated. I often use variables for clearance, screw hole diameters, etc.
Recently FreeCAD has become very good and I have switched to it. And there are a lot of great FreeCAD tutorials on Youtube.
Since blender has Geometry Nodes (and especially the more recent versions of those) I make all my parametrized models in blender.
True, it's a bit more hassle to setup and way less standardized. And it's not really the right tool for the job. And the models are less re-usable.
But.... I use blender a lot for other stuff and it's a joy to use. Freecad otoh feels like a confusing mess to me (probably because I don't use it often enough, but still...)
I'd love if Freecad would go through it's own 'blender 2.5 release' phase where someone would prune the UI.
They only recently (a year ago) released v1 of FreeCAD.
Blender 2.5 came out ~15 years ago, and as I was learning Blender in 2010/2011 it did not feel nearly as good as it does now. I believe that something similar could happen with FreeCAD, as I tried it some years ago and it was unusable in my opinion, but now I can work with it without any major issues. And the more attention they get, the better it will become.
I think GP is referring to the 2.9 release (or was it 2.8 or 3.0?) that had a major UI overhaul a few years back, I would say that the real explosion of Blender usage co-incided with that release.
Coming from 3ds, 3dsmax and Lightwave mainly (some Maya), I had previously tried Blender a couple of times and usually rage-quite within 15 minutes due to the flaky-feeling UI.
After actually using that big UI release I went back to the previous major release to see what I had missed.
The general context (mesh mode->mesh edit->vertices) that in newer releases is placed somewhat in a sane order, was placed so that your major context was selected in the _middle of the screen_, then secondary was at the top and tertiary somewhere else.
That's just a big no-no in terms of UI design but had probably made some sense when Blender evolved and people who got used to Blender had probably internalized it (and staunchly defended it).
No they probably do mean the jump between the interface in 2.49 which was somewhat unique and very, very different to the current UI, to that in 2.5 which the current interface mostly resembles. 2.8 was a smaller jump that introduced left click select as the default, along with various cosmetic enhancements and a rework of the depsgraph.No idea what you're talking about with contexts being selected in the middle of the screen etc. I suspect you're using "context" in a way unique to you
No it was definitely Blender 2.8, and honestly the buzz around 2.8 was substantial in gamedev circles that hadn't talked much about Blender before (rather complained about the Autodesk monopoly).
Just compare the 2 videos below,
2.8, here the layout/modelling/sculpting/UV-edit/animation,etc workload tabs are on top (main workload context), to the top-left inside the viewport you notice object mode (that can change to mesh,mode,etc), in mesh-mode iirc the vertex/line/face selection will then appear inside the viewport to the right of the mode selector (so reading workload/mode/option goes top->down, left->right and all contained in the upper part of the UI).
Now let's go back to 2.7, here you notice that object/mesh-mode selector (2nd level context) is at the bottom just above the timeline view.
Heck knows where the workload and vertex/line/face modes are (was it windows presents or smth like that?), but I distinctly remember being dumbfounded by their relative locations when I realized where they were when I went back to research why I hated blender previously.
Now if you consider that cosmetic, sure you were probably a fan from before and managed by key shortcuts, but from a general UI perspective that makes the difference from being stumped by random locations of things to being able to get things done from the get-go with previous 3d modelling knowledge without reading the entire manual.
For me the problem is less the UI but weird bugs / unimplemented cases in its modeling kernel. Some lofts and tubes just refuse to work for no apparent (to me, a non-expert in CAD) reason. Even worse, simple fillets sometimes don't work as expected on moderately complicated bodies. Maybe if you're an expert you can avoid these case, but it's extremely frustrating to spend several hours successfully modeling the general shape only to be unable to apply simple dress-up features.
I'd really like to use it and master it further, but CAD is not something I need often, and in F360 any geometry I've needed just works.
Yea the open cascade kernel underpinning freecad (and python libraries like build123d and cadquery) has a number of rough edges. Many can be avoided, but that unfortunately requires a bit of experience.
IMO, lofts are often not the best tool for many jobs, but planning around fillet issues can be a pain.
I do have FreeCAD Ribbon addon, but I think the rest is as is. Indeed, it is the development version and it is stable, but I'll probably switch to 1.1 stable once it is released, just so that I automatically get the package from my distro.
to be fair, I did do exactly as you described, and im glad I had both under my belt. But the amount of bs you can get when doing exactly that, "going back and changing a previous step" can be very annoying. Changing dimensions or previous sketches is usually fine, but anything more complicated often results in everything in your stack breaking with strange errors, leading it to just be easier to re-create the model. For many of my more complex mechanisms, ive made the entire thing three or more times
I use OpenSCAD for parametric stuff and it has served me very well, even if it has a learning curve and some serious limitations. The trick is to stop thinking interactively and to treat the shapes you want to make in a more generative manner. For instance, you could try to fillet or chamfer an edge, or you could create that edge using a sphere or a shape tracing a path and then tying it all together with a hull. But it can take a while before you become adept at seeing how shapes decompose into simpler shapes.
If you like to code, OpenSCAD is really the best for simple shapes and my go-to tool for these situations, stuff like making a project box for an electronic contraption.
OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
Even Blender, which was truly never designed for this type of operations can sometimes do better than OpenSCAD for fillets.
Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
>OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
build123d[1] is based on the same kernel as FreeCAD and has full support for complex filleting situations. Furthermore it also has first class support for 1D and 2D primitives which enable a more flexible design approach.
> The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
Agreed.
> Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
This is another area where build123d excels. You can create a line and query its length. You can create a face and query its area, position, size, bounding box, etc. You can select parts of a solid and perform operations on them (like a chamfer/fillet, or use them as a reference for positioning). You can query the geometric type of any topological entity; e.g. is this curve linear, a circular arc, elliptical, or a spline?
build123d is IMHO easily one of the most powerful CAD packages that are not well known by a wide audience (owing in part to its ~3 year history). OpenSCAD is a fantastic tool; it was my introduction to CodeCAD and I used it for years. Therefore, my objection isn't to OpenSCAD itself, but to the limitations inherent in any single tool -- and in this case, those limitations are quite significant.
I've long imagined something comparable in use to OpenSCAD, but where the primitives are tool-paths rather than shapes; you specify the cuts (or prints) the machine will make, and get a render of how the material will look afterwards.
This would, of course, be a great hassle to use, but I think I'd really enjoy being able to eg preview the texture different tool heads / cut patterns would leave. I imagine thinking in terms of "how the machine will cut this" would also improve my ability to reason about the machine.
Sounds like you just want to write GCode? There are some helpers to make it a little less tedious, like FullControllGcode. Gcode, especially for printers, is really 2 commands, G0 and G1, so writing your own helper is also pretty easy.
There is a lot more to it than that. For instance, for overhangs and bridges you need fairly fine control of the fan in relationship to the movement of the extruder head. You'll need to do circular interpolation in such a way that the toolhead does not slow down too much or you'll get really crappy corners and seams and other joints can be really hard to do properly if you are just using naive point-to-point moves rather than lots of little tweaks to get partial overlap between the two adjacent paths. And then there is control of the extruder retraction and pressure advance, which are pretty complex and difficult to get right for even a subset of the most common use cases, especially if you want to have a range of speed options. "pretty easy" does not match my experience so far, but then again, I am only using this when the regular slicer can't cope so there is a chance that the problem is me.
I want to _generate_ gcode (using a high-level language), then run it through a simulator which can show me what the results will look like (for a given tool head).
I never understood why this is such a deal breaker. I just export The stl from Openscad then do fillets in Fusion. It's another step but usually only a few mins of clicking.
Let me translate this to software engineering: "I never understood why people have such a problem with Windoze".
The answer to your question in the context of CAD modeling:
Fusion is closed-source.
Their model files are closed-source (specs aren't public)
AutoDesk is one of the worst company in the world when it comes to inter-operability, and this by design. It's just in the DNA of that company.
Their customers is their enemy, they know it full well, but they don't care because the walls of the prison are made of steel and one meter thick.
Your object construction pipeline is guaranteed to become obsolete at some point in the future.
Good luck grabbing an object you built 10 years ago and doing some light editing on it.
Good luck grabbing a parametric design and exporting it to something else, either another CAD package or something to do visualization and do further work on the model in there.
Fusion is a real nice tool. First taste is free. Then you're on the AutoDesk hook for ever.
You may not care about these things, especially in a commercial setup.
> OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
I've never had a problem with this, but I build up from the ground with the edges the way I want them to be. The reason many people struggle with this is that they start from 'hard' primitives such as cubes and triangles and then they want to process the edges once the rough shape is there. That's all but impossible. But you don't have to do it that way at all.
> The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
That's because they're used as 'after the fact' tools. It's a bit like trying to change the shape of a folded piece of metal after the fact. It's much easier to shape it right the first time than to 'fix' it later on.
When I start working on a shape like that I use a truncated cube rotated 45/45/0, place copies of that cube on the vertices of the shape I want and then cover the whole thing with a hull. Instant chamfer. If I want to use fillets I'll use a sphere. That's much easier than to first create an arrangement of cubes and other primitives and then to decide where I want the fillets to go. Picking those initial shapes for the corners is the tricky part, after that it is very quick to make (and change) objects. I've done some pretty complex shapes like this, fully parametric that would have cost me days with a traditional workflow.
> Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
Yes, agreed, this kind of second order primitive is not possible. I understand the reason for it (and the reason why you can't change variables on the fly) and it is a serious drawback. This makes it very hard to relate two non-trivial shapes to each other. Interactive CAD programs are better for things like that, but there - usually - the kind of change that takes a second in OpenSCAD means a whole pile of manual work. So my recipe is to stick to OpenSCAD for those things that I think I can make with it and to use an interactive tool for everything else.
One thing that OpenSCAD excels at is remixing stuff based on existing STLs, I've yet to find another tool that allows me to do that so easily and with such versatility. Before my 'serious' cad tools have imported a mesh the OpenSCAD workflow is already printing the remixed result. As with everything: the right tool for the job is the key.
> When I start working on a shape like that ... [goes on to explain CAD methodology]
Your way of building objects require a ton of very hard thinking.
Most folks I know doing CSG modeling don't think (or often: can't) this way.
The typical way folks model with CSG is the age-old "roughing-out then refine" technique, building a rough idea of the object with cubes spheres and cylinder in a CSG tree, and then adding details iteratively. A bit like folks who draw cartoons operate: start with drawing potatoes and then add the details.
In this approach fillets come in at the last step, when the object is "complete" and hard edges simply need to be softened.
Most people are incapable (I certainly know I am) of designing fillets in from the onset, especially if the object is going to be complex.
I don't dislike OpenSCAD, quite the contrary, it's just that all of the things I built with it always ended up with a fillet related headache.
Echoing a sibling comment. OpenSCAD is DEFINITION LANGUAGE and while it feels kindof like a programming language it's wildly not. Here's a comment in a (lengthy) issue that describes in more detail.
My main complaint was you can't say with OpenSCAD:
translate(makePen().cap) ; translate(makePen().body)
# ...to decompose/modify returned parts of complex objects
...and woefully, you cannot say:
pen := new Pen(q,r,s,t); box := new Box( pen.L, pen.W, pen.H )
# ...to be able to make boxes for arbitrary pens
...so it's MATHEMATICALLY parametric, not PROGRAMMABLY parametric, which led me down other CAD-language (eg: CadQuery), or you could use `*.scad` as a _rendering_ language rather than a _development_ language.
>Changing dimensions or previous sketches is usually fine, but anything more complicated often results in everything in your stack breaking with strange errors, leading it to just be easier to re-create the model.
This is usually the result of design workflows and how you avoid it is going to vary based on the CAD package. It definitely requires being pretty deliberate in design, which can make it harder to draft out an initial design. And the path of least resistance is often one that's more likely to break.
One example would be in Fusion, using projected faces in sketches is far more fragile than projecting a body -- but Fusion will happily project faces by default.
Which constraint types you use where are another common cause of breakage.
The thing that makes it frustrating is that none of this is really well documented anywhere and largely ends up being best practice wisdom passed from one person to another, since a lot of this stuff is really non-obvious. And it's confounded yet again by people cargo culting best practices from one CAD package to another that then gets repeated third and fourth hand.
All that said, as you work with it more and delve into more complex designs, you'll end up settling into workflows that result in more resilient models if you're deliberate about it. The "scrap it and start over" cycle is part of the learning experience, IME, as frustrating as it is at the time.
Going back in history works better in Fusion360 than FreeCAD currently, but...
In FreeCAD it works but you have to think a bit how you approach it. For example, if you reference an edge that you later on go back and delete, of course it will break things. Also if everything is not correctly constrained and you go back and edit it, it will likely break things. And then there are some bugs as well, but it's free and open source so I am not complaining. :)
Similarly as with mesh modeling, where correct modeling style is needed for smoothing not to break things, with CAD you also have to get used to certain approach to modeling, you can't be as chaotic.
But the more you do it, the better you will become and in my opinion learning proper CAD modeling approach is easier than proper mesh modeling in Blender.
I found FreeCAD more difficult to learn than other 3D CAD programs, but the 1.0 release that came out about a year ago has improved things a lot. It also looks like 1.1 (being stabilized for release right now) is going to add a lot of nice features.
It seems like the product is having a bit of a renaissance. I'm not sure how much of that is coasting on the work that Ondsel (now defunct) did over the past few years, and how much is sustainable momentum. Hopefully more the latter.
The boundary representation kernel that FreeCAD uses (OpenCASCADE) has some limitations, and it's unlikely that those will be resolved. They make for a bumpy ride sometimes.
I think FreeCAD is almost becoming usable enough that it's reasonable to try to learn it if you want to use free software, or want to create models that you can use commercially.
If you don't care about commercial use, or you are willing to pay, I think OnShape is more powerful and significantly easier to learn and use. It uses the Parasolid kernel, which is more robust than OpenCASCADE. It's free for non-commercial use with the caveat that your models have to be publicly visible. https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free
If you want to learn FreeCAD, here's what I recommend doing:
I think this depends what you're 3D printing. I'm almost always making utilitarian things with specific purposes so CAD modelling makes sense, I know what dimensions I need, and what constraints exist, if I were modelling figures for a tabletop RPG it would be an absolute nightmare though. As ever, right tool for the job.
Another to check out is Solvespace. It's a much smaller simpler CAD modeling program than FreeCAD; doesn't do nearly as much, but I find it much easier to use, more intuitive, and more stable than FreeCAD.
Blender is great, but it still can't replace a CAD program.
I tried using it for simple CAD tasks (before geometry nodes were released), but the experience was so poor that I quickly switched to FreeCAD. It was worth it, even though it took some time to learn how to use the new program.
FreeCAD is pretty buggy, confusing, and sometimes limited, but its workflow can't really be replicated with Blender. Once you have worked with a CAD program for a while, you realise that certain things that are almost impossible or annoyingly difficult in Blender can actually be pretty easy.
It would be great if the two programs could be merged. Blender could benefit from better CAD functions, and FreeCAD could benefit from everything else Blender provides.
The CAD Sketcher add-on goes a long way towards making it more usable. I’ve been hacking away at it myself (should go back to finish what I was adding…).
Nice. That wasn't on my radar. I was already happy when Blender made significant progress in parametric modelling with geometry nodes. Together with CAD Sketcher, it looks pretty usable for modelling. I hope the whole thing improves quickly, but I suspect they have a long way to go before Blender can be considered a proper CAD program.
Spiritually, Blender is to FreeCAD what Gimp is to Inkscape or what BMP is to SVG. With Blender you're massaging piles of anonymous polygons so they look right aestheticallY, while with CAD you're composing geometric primitives to make a precise blueprint for a 3D object that just happens to be rendered with polygons. The former is better for art while the latter is better for manufacturing.
A .step or .stp file encodes the model as mathematical shapes, rather than approximating it with polygons, but it doesn't save the entire parametric workflow or history, only the final result. As far as I know, there is no widely adopted file format that also saves this information.
Parent's comparison is pretty great, but it shouldn't be "overdone". It's not really the format that's different/a problem (it's not hard to make a blender object from a CAD design - the same way an SVG can be rendered to PNG, and similarly irreversible in both cases), it's the whole design flow.
CAD uses geometry primitives with parameters and exact sizing (e.g. you draw a rectangle of this size, and cut a whole into it this and this offset from one of the corners, and you expand this shape to 3D). As mentioned this can be approximated via geometry nodes, but they are very different in "ideology".
CAD modeller are good at producing parametric 3d models. You can make use of spreadsheets and constraints to create a piece, that will later super easily be changed.
> CAD modeller are good at producing parametric 3d models
If that's the only thing they do better than Blender, then it sounds like their days are numbered. Has to be more benefits right? Blender exposes a pretty wide Python API, loading spreadsheets ends up pretty simple, and together with Geometry Nodes, you can even visualize it in a way that makes somewhat sense. Constraints been existing for a long time in Blender too.
They are better at it on a fundamental level. It’s a completely different approach for data representation, offering precision and repeatability which is not possible with Blender's data model.
Blender may as well replace CAD apps in the hobbyist 3D printing space, but it will never replace them in the industry and professional work. Solid modeling CAD software commonly features more than just creating mathematically precise digital 3D objects, but also planning for CNC machining, FEM analysis, assembly and so on.
> It’s a completely different approach for data representation, offering precision and repeatability which is not possible with Blender's data model.
How exactly? And why not?
You need useful measurements/units, reproducibility, parameters, constraints, and I guess something more? As Blender can give you those things, it's not impossible in Blender. Want to have 3D objects automatically created based on values from CSVs together with constraints? Blender can already do that today, just as one example.
I don't really mind if Blender has a chance of replacing CAD apps or not, more curious about why exactly people find it so fundamentally impossible for Blender to be a useful alternative, and I have yet to hear any convincing arguments.
An analogy is the difference between vector and bitmap graphics.
CAD programs aren't just a different set of operations on the same data, they use an entirely different representation (b-rep [1] vs Blender's points, vertices, and polygons).
These representations are much more powerful but also much more complex to work with. You typically need a geometric kernel [2] to perform useful operations and even get renderable solids out of them.
So sure, I suppose you could build all of that into Blender. But it's the equivalent of building an entire new complex program into an existing one. It also raises major interoperation issues. These two representations do not easily convert back and forth.
So at that point, you basically have two very different programs in a trenchcoat. So far the ecosystem has evolved towards instead building two different tools that are masters of their respective domains. Perhaps because of the very different complexities inherent in each, perhaps because it makes the handover / conversion from one domain to the other explicit.
> CAD programs aren't just a different set of operations on the same data, they use an entirely different representation (b-rep [1] vs Blender's points, vertices, and polygons).
So with that in mind, there should be something that is possible to build in CAD, but impossible then to build in Blender?
I know the differences between the two, I understand they're fundamentally different, yet I seem to be able to produce similar results to others using CAD, so I'm curious what results I wouldn't be able to reproduce in Blender.
Sure. Create a diamond polygon and revolve it around a point.
Blender has methods and tools to _approximate_ doing this. It has a revolve tool... where the key parameter is the number of steps.
This is not a revolution, it's an approximation of a revolution with a bunch of planar parts.
BREP as I understand it allows you to describe the surfaces of this operation precisely and operate further on them (e.g. add a fillet to the top edge).
Ditto for things like circular holes in objects. With blender, you're fundamentally operating on a bunch of triangles. Fundamental and important solid operations must be approximated within that model.
BREP has a much richer set of primatives. This dramatically increases complexity but allows it to precisely model a much larger universe of solids.
(You can kinda rebuild functionality that geometric kernels have with geometry nodes now in blender. This is a lot of work and is not a great user interface compared to CAD programs)
I don’t have explanatory knowledge on the matter, sorry.
If you are interested you may look up the difference between solid, surface and mesh modeling. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Ultimately you have to translate any model into a lossy representation/approximation due to discrete numerical control requirements and so on. However, the gist if it is, with mesh modeling this happens earlier in the design process. Even with procedural and parametric modeling in Blender, you will always encounter issues with approximation and floating point precision, which are inherent to the data representation.
For 3D printing that often doesn’t matter, because mesh approximation is precise enough. For hobbyists, CAD apps are kinda too niche and bothersome to be worth learning for simple models in 3D printing. The overall versatility of Blender and basic CAD-like capabilities are much more valuable and rewarding, in this space. In the end, you probably massively benefit from learning something like Blender anyway, because it’s much better suited for quickly conceptualizing an idea in 3D, than CAD. I think CAD works best, if the shape and specs of the object are already known. Organic shapes, clay-like deformations, which can’t be easily reduced to mathematical defined solid body functions, are something where Blender will always be better suited than CAD.
>Even with procedural and parametric modeling in Blender, you will always encounter issues with approximation and floating point precision, which are inherent to the data representation.
A common problem people run into with CAD models is importing a STEP file and modeling directly off of geometry in it. They later find out that some face they used as a reference was read by the CAD package as 89.99999994 degrees to another, and discover it's thrown the geometry of everything else in their model subtly off when things aren't lining up the way they should.
And that's with a file that has solid body representation! It's an entire new level of nightmare when you throw meshes into the mix.
The heart of any real CAD package is a geometry kernel[1]. There are really only a handful of them out there; Parasolid is used by a ton of 'big name' packages, for example. This is what takes a series of descriptions of geometry and turns it into clear, repeatable geometry. The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled. It's the very core of what these things do. Mesh modeling is fantastic for a lot of things, but it's a very different approach to creating geometry and just isn't a great fit for things like mechanical engineering.
> The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled.
Yes, but I meant making a case for workflow differences.
CAD is bad at aiding visual thinking and exploration, since you kinda have to be precise and constrain everything. You can pump out a rough idea of an object, edit it much, so much faster in Blender.
Sketching on paper, or visualizing in one’s mind, is pretty hard for most people when it comes to 3D. CAD is not at all inviting for creative impulses and flow. People who can do this in CAD are probably trained engineers who learned a very discipled, analytical way to approach problems, people who think in technical drawings.
So, CAD is good at getting a precise and workable digital representation of a "pre-designed" object for further (digital) processing, analysis, assembly and production. I think Blender is better at the early design process, figuring out shapes and relations.
In a vacuum for a standalone object, a 3D mesh app like Blender can be useful for brainstorming.
Most of my CAD usage is designing parts that have to fit together with other things. The fixed elements drive the rest of the design. A lot of the work is figuring out "how do I make these two things fit together and be able to move in the ways they need to."
There is still a lot of room for creativity. My workflow is basically "get the basic functionality down as big square blocks, then keep cutting away and refining until you have something that looks like a real product." My designs very rarely end up looking like what they started out as. But the process of getting them down in CAD is exactly what lets me figure out what's actually going to work.
It's a very different workflow, and it's definitely not freeform in the same way as a traditional mesh modeling app, but CAD is for when you have to have those constraints. You can always (and it's not an uncommon pattern) go back and use a mesh modeler to build the industrial design side of things on top once the mechanical modeling is done.
ETA:
I'd also add: I'm not sure "thinking in CAD" comes naturally to anyone; it's a skillset that has to be built.
If you try OpenScad-style adding and subtracting volumes, the syntax is pretty horrific. It is impossible to script objects that way. Quote Gemini:
However, implementing a full OpenSCAD-like syntax and robust CSG system from scratch in Blender Python is complex due to Blender's mesh-based nature versus OpenSCAD's mathematical description. Blender's boolean operations on complex meshes can sometimes lead to topological errors.
To be fair though, OpenSCAD works best too if you do this during the generative step and not after the fact. I've used it to remix existing STLs so it definitely does work but you really have to watch the areas where two shapes get close to each other, especially if there is a lot of fine detail.
> If you're on the fence about picking up Blender I highly recommend taking the deep dive.
Yes! I have spent my August learning Blender, and it's become one of my favourite pieces of software ever; in my journey of learning game dev, 3D modeling has become one of my favourite tasks.
If one is looking for recommendation on learning material, the Udemy courses by Grant Abbitt are EXCELLENT. I'm totally unaffiliated, but I don't think I would've stuck around without as good a course. The whole course was a discounted $20 for 14 hours of learning material, from the very basics, to UV, texture painting, rigging and animation.
I know enough Blender to be dangerous now, but I am open to recommendation for intermediate and advanced courses. You can do a lot with Blender basic tools, but as a modeling software it is a mile deep and I know I'm just scratching the surface.
> Yes! I have spent my August learning Blender, and it's become one of my favourite pieces of software ever
Same. Started in July with the Donut tutorial and then got completely carried away in geometry nodes and automation.
Once the UI clicks, Blender is super intuitive and downright addictive to use. I realized, while I don’t actually want to work in 3D modeling for other reasons, I could totally live in Blender all day! Can’t think of any piece of software that made me feel so in love.
And don’t get me started on its capabilities. It’s even useful as a video editor and for drawing. I think the only thing it can’t do much is audio editing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one day it’s becoming a DAW, too :D
I recommend to everyone: Learn the basics of Blender! Just dive in for a week or two. For universal creative output, it’s probably the single most powerful and useful tool you will ever encounter. Blender unlocks a whole new skill tree. I promise, you will look at the world, differently, how to express yourself, conceptualize and tackle a variety of problems. Even if you are, like me, not much interested in "graphic art", it’s so versatile for anything 3D, illustration or video. You can use it to visualize ideas for yourself or others, a 3D scratchpad, for 3D printing, illustrating math stuff, even simple physics simulations. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it’s pretty straight forward after the initial complexity shock. The UI is so thoughtful and consistent you get efficient with it very quickly. Totally worth it!
And Blender is free and open source, this skill enablement is permanent and unconditional! It’s an attestation to what’s possible.
Would you mind sharing a bit more about your workflow? Do you export to obj/stl? What slicer do you use?
Five years is a decent amount of Time, and I'm sure you have much hard-won knowledge (and gotchas) to share.
(Personally, I'm stuck on the mental block of "I know I should just get and learn Fusion360" but I cannot bring myself to knowingly tie myself to a subscription-based piece of rentware.)
Thanks in advance!
Edit to add: my motivation is 100% to use this for 3d printing.
> I cannot bring myself to knowingly tie myself to a subscription-based piece of rentware.
Fusion360 isn't your only option. Several of the larger commercial CAD programs have various maker/hobbyist licences which are either free or low cost, and are suitable for exporting 3D models for 3D printing.
I was in the same boat as you and sounds like others in this thread, >1000 hours in Blender over the past few years, but learned Fusion360 to be able to get parts lasercut and machined so had to go to proper parametric CAD format. The simple answer is use both - some things like making a simple bracket or fixture are just much easier in CAD. For organic shapes with lots of complexity, sub D modeling is far faster and easier IMO in Blender than the ways to achieve that in CAD (like T splines in Fusion).
The space between those 2 things is where you have to decide what you are really trying to accomplish. The program you use will have an impact on what your result looks like, you see this in the evolution of product design alongside the evolution of design software (boxy cars in the 80s, soap bars in the 90s, and the last few decades of cars with flowing designs with body line defining creases which modern A surface modelers seem to draw you towards). I find parts made in Blender with my workflow often look a lot more interesting and visually pleasing, using edge crease/bevel modifiers and sliding loops around vs. using fillets in CAD for instance, they both aim to soften an edge, but look far different in the end. If you are only ever going to 3D print parts and never CNC, you are already fast in Blender, and part strength vs mass doesn't matter much (especially to a degree where you don't care about FEA), Blender is plenty viable to make printed parts with.
You can footgun yourself easily with both programs, but I find Fusion to be worse for this, half because of the UI, but using tools like sketch projection for me has caused really diabolical issues in the timeline. The whole trick to CAD is being very careful with the design intention as you progress forwards, which is hard to learn coming from 3D modelers where that doesn't matter much and you can just shuffle around non destructive modifiers. This might just be due to my own experience difference in the programs though, I definitely remember going down some roads in Blender I never returned from on meshes when I was learning, normally by either applying subdivision modifiers, doing too many loop cuts, or using a tri/n-gon somewhere thinking it wouldn't be an issue or I would fix it later.
Over the years I updated my base project files when new Blender versions require rebuilding my geometry node graph when old stuff gets outdated. That being mentioned, the updates are worth it. It's a hobby so time is free and a learning opportunity.
It's something I accept as cost of learning, which so far has resulted in better end results.
I was totally in the same mental space with Fusion. Here's what I did.
I don't like hard to understand UI.
I don't like a product whose company constantly changes the rules.
I don't like not being in specific control of mission important software I use.
I also tried open source alternatives to CAD. There are non that are anything approachable from a user perspective. Until the FreeCAD project gets some help from Blender, I'll stand by that.
I don't maybe have any specific modeling scenarios to recommend. Not a professional, just a hobbyist.
I tune my printer. Use the 3d toolbox plugin for Blender. Make sure your model is manifold. Get to learn how to spend dozens of hours editing 3rd part "printable" models into something that's actually printable. Ain't manifold, ain't printable. If you "borrow" models from games to print, you'll spend a lot of time making them printable. They aren't yours even at that point. Don't try to sell them or give them away for free. Not yours. Respect the artists.
Geometry nodes have SOOOOO many options. I'm not kidding, it's awesome the team keeps adding nodes that address old and new issues. But figure out a basic workflow wherever you're at. Only update if there is some required or otherwise very specific advantage
Never piss off engineers. So many software cartels went so far in ripping off their customer base that it caused a blistering clap-back. Companies like Maya were just taking the piss with their prices effectively pricing out all but big companies. A group of talented and, let's face it, awesome people built Blender into something not only as good as Maya, but better in most ways.
also see game engines e.g Unity(complete toss pots) and the evolution of Godot.
As for why people use Microscum's products like Excel, when LibreOffice is superior is beyond me.
I spent a good couple of months learning Blender enough to make a 3D model of a real Zamboni of all things for no real practical reason. That was a couple of years ago and I've forgotten everything and I'm pissed about it. I wish I kept at it.
I think you are mixing up general 3D modeling (the act of doing whatever to get a good visual result) and CAD (designing something to be made physically).
Blender is not a CAD tool and wasn’t designed to be. Likewise, CAD tools will never be used to make a movie scene.
I'm not mixing up anything. I did not say or imply that Blender was a CAD tool. And yes, Blender is perfectly capable of creating precision models meant for physical printing. Is a good CAD app probably better at it? Sure. Has nothing to do with whether Blender can do it too in different ways.
Headline is misleading, TFA says it's the last maintenance release in the 4.x series so if anything, big changes are expected in the 5.0 beta whose planned release date was two days ago as mentioned at the end. So are there any news for 5.0 yet? I loved Sketchup and sure looked forward to Blender releases over the years but it's anything but a tool for casual 3D scene modelling or level design, requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
> requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
Have you actually given Blender a serious try? You don’t actually need a huge time investment to get efficient with its basics, maybe 1-3 days with a tutorial.
When it clicks and you memorized just a handful of shortcuts, the UI is mindblowingly intuitive and consistent, pure bliss. To the point where everything else feels wrong.
And let’s be clear, the payoff here is using a fully capable professional tool of nearly infinite complexity. It’s not a toy, niche, or compromise, but widely used across the industry, up there with commercial giants.
Replace language, language is Pleistocene technology.
Replace binary, binary is dated technology, trapping us in counting, not measurement.
Pretty silly, using these dead and dying tools, Blender, as ieal seamless animation/rendering/editing software, point the way to visual software.
>it's anything but a tool for casual 3D scene modelling or level design, requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
It’s a lot better than it used to be, however, your argument that’s it’s merely a casual tool is incorrect. Features films have been made with it. AAA games have used it. Your frustration is your own. Knowing 3D, I find blender extremely welcoming. Sure, it could use some more work on texture painting but it’s got grease pencil which is a god damn game changer.
I presume they meant "anything, but" as in it's not perceived as a casual tool. Basically, Blender appears to them as too complex and intimidating.
I think, we can agree that Blender does look intimidating, when you open it first time. I would also say, you absolutely need a tutorial to get started, if you know nothing about 3D stuff. You can actually, get into Blender very quickly, if someone explains basic concepts, but probably not at all just by yourself.
For starters, randomly clicking around will sooner or later freeze/crash your PC, because you did an expensive calculation on a billion accidentally duplicated vertices. In contrast to other creative apps, with 3D modeling/rendering exploration is a lot less forgiving and you can easily choke the best hardware available. (I wish Blender was a bit more patronizing when it comes to resource exhaustion. Subdivision modifier set to 10 iterations, probably should give a warning by default :D) Some easy mistakes, are really hard to unfuck. Extra frustrating, when it's been pushed out of the undo buffer, before you notice. Just a tiny bit of theory can go a long way there. Geometry nodes is downright hostile/arcane to beginners, probably worse, if you already know some programming and think you can apply that knowledge :D It's super fun and powerful, but oh boy is the evaluation logic confusing/frustrating at times...
> I presume they meant "anything, but" as in it's not perceived as a casual tool.
Yeah sorry that's exactly what I meant. Could've probably made myself more clear.
Blender is a tool for working day-in day-out with its workflow (aka the "vi of 3D modelling") but is absolutely unsuited for casual one-off use. Its predominance shouldn't discourage devs to create or port alternatives IMO, though it's of course a massive task.
I agree with you there. It’s a program that open for at least 8 hours a day if you’re using it.
I’ve been trying to work on a simplified UI for blender for level editing (blender is completely extendable) but you still have the blenderisms present. Rendering to anything is buried to the right. Along with most of the things you care about. Its lack of UX is still apparent. Almost all of those things should be menu items with windows in a normal workflow. Blender isn’t that though and everything happens “on canvas”. I’m happy it exists. I’m happy to work with it. It’s not Maya or 3ds Max, but it combines a lot of tools into one open source package. Which is fantastic.
The one thing I really regret is listening to the kind of opinionated people that will tell how a certain popular language is bad and you shouldn't use it.
Twenty years ago when I learned Python, people told me it was a waste of time. Sure it is a nice language but you will never get a job doing it.
When I got into PHP ten years ago people told me it is a horrible language and basically dead already. Still, PHP was key to my career and I am making good money programming with in in 2025.
I used to be a C++ hater because that was the cool thing to do. Then I tried Unreal Engine and had to use C++ and discovered it is... fine. Really. There is a good reason it is heavily used in the gaming industry. I don't totally love it. The compile times are kind of annoying but C++ is not the only language suffering from that. If you need the performance and the ecosystem, C++ still isn't the worst choice.
The most used Desktop projects were started before 2015, around which new languages were stable enough to consider app building. Those apps fill their niche well and people don't need to start new projects for these niches, and new developers add to those projects instead of replacing them, which is a good thing. The cloud, AI, mobile (or crypto ..) by example are another story.
Part of the answer is in term C/C++ itself. C is a very popular language because the history around Unix and FFI. C++ builds on that popularity by being sort of backwards compatible with it and being what Microsoft Visual C++ supports if you want more languages features beyond ISO C90. Which brings to mind another factor, that people used to pay for compilers and IDEs. The hobbyist had to consider price as well as functionality, portability, performance and popularity in what programming languages they choose. Given there were several C++ compilers to choose from and the popularity of Windows it makes sense that C++ won.
Why has nothing replaced it? That depends on what you mean by replaced. Python, and Typescript/JavaScript have replaced it in many places. It's just low level programming where C++ has yet to be superceded. For that kind of programming there had not been many that could even approach the space until LLVM-based languages started coming out recently.
Some things come down to the OS system. We're still using the C FFI and other system elements designed around C. So until something better replaces those we're still using C on some level.
Long term stability is pretty important and C/C++ has a pretty good record of that. A lot of the bad press is also for ideological reasons, not entirely practical ones.
Finally, I think it's because the C/C++ manages to stay hidden. You don't need to know that it's written in C/C++ to use it.
Blender 4.5 discussion from July:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44571917
I have been using Blender for video editing recently, and 5.0 is going to bring compositing nodes to the sequence editor. Now all I need is automatic video stabilization.
This more than doubles the usefulness of Blender for video editing, glad they finally got around implementing it.
> Now all I need is automatic video stabilization
Motion tracking been existing for a long time in Blender, couldn't you use that and move object used to display the footage opposite of the tracked motion and basically get video stabilization?
Yes, but to do that you need to do tracking per clip. It can be a lot of work.
Question for those conversant in blender: I'm pretty good with parametric CAD (solidworks and fusion) but have never touched Blender. I've been curious about Blender but I have no artistic or sculptural skills. I use 3D cad for both 3d printed objects and machining.
Is Blender worth learning for somebody who probably couldn't make a snake out of playdoh?
Blender doesn't use the nice boundary representations that you might be familiar with from Fusion 360 or Solidworks. Everything in Blender is "bag of triangles/quads," so it's lower level than what you may be used to. Getting good CAD-like results requires keeping this in mind. There are addons that are starting to address this. SolverSpace has a blender addon, for example.
What do you want to build? If you're not making CAD parts, the story is much different for artistic / game engine / character or environment design. I strongly recommend checking out Blender and noodling around.
If you're intimidated, the only cost is time, which is offset by the pleasure of learning something new. Here's a particularly good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzHvD9RFrT8
As someone who was in the same boat for a long time, I only clicked with Blender once I had a real need for it: In my case, creating an ad-style video for a product I’d created in Fusion.
I’m not sure there is any point trying to do what you can in parametric software in Blender. Despite both being capable of a range of 3D tasks, they have remarkably little in common.
It depends on what your best hopes for yourself are.
You don’t need a lot of creative skill to model something geometric such as furniture or mechanisms. Having modeled it you would need to texture, light and render it. That can required good visual judgement, but god knows there are lots of examples to learn from.
Making organic forms is another matter and would require some sculpting skills, which are not easy to acquire.
Finally, there is the procedural environment of geometry nodes. With a good mind for maths, you could make some super cool abstract animations.
I learned blender purely to edit borked meshes customers brought in when I worked at a 3d print service bureau that refused to spend money on software.
Now I can just about fix, edit, or make anything I want in blender pretty quickly and have even started making some 3d art. Definitely worth putting the time in
I was a similar path, learned and used Autocad from kid onwards. Being able to visualize things in a top/front/side view is a huge help in modelling. And you can get pretty far in making nice things with just a simple extrude/scale workflow in Blender.
As for being worth it. depends on your goals tbh. For 3d printing/cnc, I'd still stick with cad. Blender can do it, but it's not nearly as good as any cad software. If you're looking to expand into editing videos or making models for something 3d the spatial sense will make life easier in learning Blender for sure.
Personally, I'd say yes. I started out with Merlin 3D and Autocad way back in the day, and of course, Blender is a whole other beast. Took me some time to get used to it, but once I did, I found 3D made a lot more sense than it ever had in those other applications.
Of course, YMMV, but I'd say you should give it a shot. Even just poking around is a start.
Blenders CAD like features is so small. The thing is that 3d Art is just a totally different skill.
CAD is a drafting board: sharp pencils, precise rulers, curve templates.
Blender is in contrast: a giant set of acrylic paints. It just does different things entirely.
-----------
Here is something you can do today. Open up Blender, left click on the default cube. Menu->Object->Quick Effects->Quick Smoke.
Hey look, you turned something into a Physics simulation of (artistic) gas rising. Now play with settings till you are bored and/or your CPU got too hot and your room is too warm. These buttons use a ton of CPU time lol.
Hit spacebar to play the simulation.
---------
This is Blender. It's animation, it's art, it's imprecise. It's full of random widgets that deeply simulate colors or simple physics or do basic effects.
The only downside is that this doesn't produce a scene that always you render it. You just get to watch it in the composition window. Rendering it is just a static opaque box.
My fault for choosing a harder to work with simulation.
Gas simulations result in volumetric data which EEVEE, the default rasterization engine, is unable to display.
You need to turn the gas / volumetric data into something else first before EEVEE can work with it.
Alternatively, you switch to the Raytracer 'Cycles' and THAT can directly display volumes.
---------
Sorry. Maybe I should have picked an easier simulation to work with lol. But the overall effect is the same: Blendernis a massive collection of tools of tools, and knowing how to plug them into each other is exceptionally different than CAD.
The 3D modeling part isn't very much of Blender at all. I stand by my main point. You'll be spending huge amounts of time learning all this other stuff that a CAD engineer doesn't even know he doesn't know about.
A lot of people seem to think you need some inherent talent to get into art. But art is a skill that you can practice and get better at.
So go for it!
I've never been an artist but I love 3d printing. So 5 years ago I went through the struggle of learning to use Blender. Best choice I ever made. I still struggle to understand even the most basic CAD app.
I probably spend more time for some projects in blender than I would in a proper cad environment, but it's a toolset I understand somewhat deeply now.
So far, Blender is one of the most successful open source projects I've ever worked with in the last 30 years. Even with major changes, every change has mostly been for the better. The introduction of geometry nodes completely changed my workflow a few years ago. So much room for activities after that.
Unlike any other modern software package, I have no regrets or doubt when I upgrade to the latest Blender release.
If you're on the fence about picking up Blender I highly recommend taking the deep dive.
As someone who has modeled in 3DSMax and Blender using the mesh modeling approach and in Fusion360 and FreeCAD using the CAD modeling approach, for 3D printing I really recommend learning CAD modeling in FreeCAD.
The ability to make models precise, constrained and and parameterised more easily allows going back to previous steps to make adjustments.
For 3D printing it is very helpful to be able to change a defined variable and have the whole model recalculated. I often use variables for clearance, screw hole diameters, etc.
Recently FreeCAD has become very good and I have switched to it. And there are a lot of great FreeCAD tutorials on Youtube.
Since blender has Geometry Nodes (and especially the more recent versions of those) I make all my parametrized models in blender.
True, it's a bit more hassle to setup and way less standardized. And it's not really the right tool for the job. And the models are less re-usable.
But.... I use blender a lot for other stuff and it's a joy to use. Freecad otoh feels like a confusing mess to me (probably because I don't use it often enough, but still...)
I'd love if Freecad would go through it's own 'blender 2.5 release' phase where someone would prune the UI.
They only recently (a year ago) released v1 of FreeCAD.
Blender 2.5 came out ~15 years ago, and as I was learning Blender in 2010/2011 it did not feel nearly as good as it does now. I believe that something similar could happen with FreeCAD, as I tried it some years ago and it was unusable in my opinion, but now I can work with it without any major issues. And the more attention they get, the better it will become.
I think GP is referring to the 2.9 release (or was it 2.8 or 3.0?) that had a major UI overhaul a few years back, I would say that the real explosion of Blender usage co-incided with that release.
Coming from 3ds, 3dsmax and Lightwave mainly (some Maya), I had previously tried Blender a couple of times and usually rage-quite within 15 minutes due to the flaky-feeling UI.
After actually using that big UI release I went back to the previous major release to see what I had missed.
The general context (mesh mode->mesh edit->vertices) that in newer releases is placed somewhat in a sane order, was placed so that your major context was selected in the _middle of the screen_, then secondary was at the top and tertiary somewhere else.
That's just a big no-no in terms of UI design but had probably made some sense when Blender evolved and people who got used to Blender had probably internalized it (and staunchly defended it).
No they probably do mean the jump between the interface in 2.49 which was somewhat unique and very, very different to the current UI, to that in 2.5 which the current interface mostly resembles. 2.8 was a smaller jump that introduced left click select as the default, along with various cosmetic enhancements and a rework of the depsgraph.No idea what you're talking about with contexts being selected in the middle of the screen etc. I suspect you're using "context" in a way unique to you
No it was definitely Blender 2.8, and honestly the buzz around 2.8 was substantial in gamedev circles that hadn't talked much about Blender before (rather complained about the Autodesk monopoly).
Just compare the 2 videos below,
2.8, here the layout/modelling/sculpting/UV-edit/animation,etc workload tabs are on top (main workload context), to the top-left inside the viewport you notice object mode (that can change to mesh,mode,etc), in mesh-mode iirc the vertex/line/face selection will then appear inside the viewport to the right of the mode selector (so reading workload/mode/option goes top->down, left->right and all contained in the upper part of the UI).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqOWe3zAbk&list=PLa1F2ddGya...
Now let's go back to 2.7, here you notice that object/mesh-mode selector (2nd level context) is at the bottom just above the timeline view.
Heck knows where the workload and vertex/line/face modes are (was it windows presents or smth like that?), but I distinctly remember being dumbfounded by their relative locations when I realized where they were when I went back to research why I hated blender previously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY6KPrc4uMw
Now if you consider that cosmetic, sure you were probably a fan from before and managed by key shortcuts, but from a general UI perspective that makes the difference from being stumped by random locations of things to being able to get things done from the get-go with previous 3d modelling knowledge without reading the entire manual.
Au contraire... FreeCAD has a confounding UI, except for the sketcher.
For me the problem is less the UI but weird bugs / unimplemented cases in its modeling kernel. Some lofts and tubes just refuse to work for no apparent (to me, a non-expert in CAD) reason. Even worse, simple fillets sometimes don't work as expected on moderately complicated bodies. Maybe if you're an expert you can avoid these case, but it's extremely frustrating to spend several hours successfully modeling the general shape only to be unable to apply simple dress-up features.
I'd really like to use it and master it further, but CAD is not something I need often, and in F360 any geometry I've needed just works.
Yea the open cascade kernel underpinning freecad (and python libraries like build123d and cadquery) has a number of rough edges. Many can be avoided, but that unfortunately requires a bit of experience.
IMO, lofts are often not the best tool for many jobs, but planning around fillet issues can be a pain.
It is far from perfect, but it is quite usable now. https://i.imgur.com/4CezlnJ.png
This is not a release version, though, is it? Or has some additional extensions on top of it?
I've had bad experiences on the latter, as in a lot of breakage occurred :/.
Looks like a dev build of the 1.1 release
I do have FreeCAD Ribbon addon, but I think the rest is as is. Indeed, it is the development version and it is stable, but I'll probably switch to 1.1 stable once it is released, just so that I automatically get the package from my distro.
...which is Arch, by the way :D
to be fair, I did do exactly as you described, and im glad I had both under my belt. But the amount of bs you can get when doing exactly that, "going back and changing a previous step" can be very annoying. Changing dimensions or previous sketches is usually fine, but anything more complicated often results in everything in your stack breaking with strange errors, leading it to just be easier to re-create the model. For many of my more complex mechanisms, ive made the entire thing three or more times
I use OpenSCAD for parametric stuff and it has served me very well, even if it has a learning curve and some serious limitations. The trick is to stop thinking interactively and to treat the shapes you want to make in a more generative manner. For instance, you could try to fillet or chamfer an edge, or you could create that edge using a sphere or a shape tracing a path and then tying it all together with a hull. But it can take a while before you become adept at seeing how shapes decompose into simpler shapes.
If you like to code, OpenSCAD is really the best for simple shapes and my go-to tool for these situations, stuff like making a project box for an electronic contraption.
OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
Even Blender, which was truly never designed for this type of operations can sometimes do better than OpenSCAD for fillets.
Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
>OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
build123d[1] is based on the same kernel as FreeCAD and has full support for complex filleting situations. Furthermore it also has first class support for 1D and 2D primitives which enable a more flexible design approach.
> The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
Agreed.
> Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
This is another area where build123d excels. You can create a line and query its length. You can create a face and query its area, position, size, bounding box, etc. You can select parts of a solid and perform operations on them (like a chamfer/fillet, or use them as a reference for positioning). You can query the geometric type of any topological entity; e.g. is this curve linear, a circular arc, elliptical, or a spline?
build123d is IMHO easily one of the most powerful CAD packages that are not well known by a wide audience (owing in part to its ~3 year history). OpenSCAD is a fantastic tool; it was my introduction to CodeCAD and I used it for years. Therefore, my objection isn't to OpenSCAD itself, but to the limitations inherent in any single tool -- and in this case, those limitations are quite significant.
[1]: https://github.com/gumyr/build123d and docs https://build123d.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
I've long imagined something comparable in use to OpenSCAD, but where the primitives are tool-paths rather than shapes; you specify the cuts (or prints) the machine will make, and get a render of how the material will look afterwards.
This would, of course, be a great hassle to use, but I think I'd really enjoy being able to eg preview the texture different tool heads / cut patterns would leave. I imagine thinking in terms of "how the machine will cut this" would also improve my ability to reason about the machine.
Sounds like you just want to write GCode? There are some helpers to make it a little less tedious, like FullControllGcode. Gcode, especially for printers, is really 2 commands, G0 and G1, so writing your own helper is also pretty easy.
There is a lot more to it than that. For instance, for overhangs and bridges you need fairly fine control of the fan in relationship to the movement of the extruder head. You'll need to do circular interpolation in such a way that the toolhead does not slow down too much or you'll get really crappy corners and seams and other joints can be really hard to do properly if you are just using naive point-to-point moves rather than lots of little tweaks to get partial overlap between the two adjacent paths. And then there is control of the extruder retraction and pressure advance, which are pretty complex and difficult to get right for even a subset of the most common use cases, especially if you want to have a range of speed options. "pretty easy" does not match my experience so far, but then again, I am only using this when the regular slicer can't cope so there is a chance that the problem is me.
I want to _generate_ gcode (using a high-level language), then run it through a simulator which can show me what the results will look like (for a given tool head).
I never understood why this is such a deal breaker. I just export The stl from Openscad then do fillets in Fusion. It's another step but usually only a few mins of clicking.
Let me translate this to software engineering: "I never understood why people have such a problem with Windoze".
The answer to your question in the context of CAD modeling:
Fusion is closed-source.
Their model files are closed-source (specs aren't public)
AutoDesk is one of the worst company in the world when it comes to inter-operability, and this by design. It's just in the DNA of that company.
Their customers is their enemy, they know it full well, but they don't care because the walls of the prison are made of steel and one meter thick.
Your object construction pipeline is guaranteed to become obsolete at some point in the future.
Good luck grabbing an object you built 10 years ago and doing some light editing on it.
Good luck grabbing a parametric design and exporting it to something else, either another CAD package or something to do visualization and do further work on the model in there.
Fusion is a real nice tool. First taste is free. Then you're on the AutoDesk hook for ever.
You may not care about these things, especially in a commercial setup.
But lots of people do.
> OpenSCAD however fails spectacularly for any kind of complex filetting situation when compared to tools like Fusion or even FreeCAD (FreeCAD's UI is an abomination though).
I've never had a problem with this, but I build up from the ground with the edges the way I want them to be. The reason many people struggle with this is that they start from 'hard' primitives such as cubes and triangles and then they want to process the edges once the rough shape is there. That's all but impossible. But you don't have to do it that way at all.
> The morphological ops in OpenSCAD (minkowski type stuff) are a very poor substitute to real fillets, and are extremely slow (underlying algos are all polynomials in number of triangles) when your objects get complex, and they are global operations, it is extremely hard to limit their action to a localized part of your object.
That's because they're used as 'after the fact' tools. It's a bit like trying to change the shape of a folded piece of metal after the fact. It's much easier to shape it right the first time than to 'fix' it later on.
When I start working on a shape like that I use a truncated cube rotated 45/45/0, place copies of that cube on the vertices of the shape I want and then cover the whole thing with a hull. Instant chamfer. If I want to use fillets I'll use a sphere. That's much easier than to first create an arrangement of cubes and other primitives and then to decide where I want the fillets to go. Picking those initial shapes for the corners is the tricky part, after that it is very quick to make (and change) objects. I've done some pretty complex shapes like this, fully parametric that would have cost me days with a traditional workflow.
> Another thing that's a real pain in OpenSCAD: you cannot "probe" (measure) your existing object at a certain stage, grab the result of that measurement and re-use it in the rest of the code. MAJOR limitation.
Yes, agreed, this kind of second order primitive is not possible. I understand the reason for it (and the reason why you can't change variables on the fly) and it is a serious drawback. This makes it very hard to relate two non-trivial shapes to each other. Interactive CAD programs are better for things like that, but there - usually - the kind of change that takes a second in OpenSCAD means a whole pile of manual work. So my recipe is to stick to OpenSCAD for those things that I think I can make with it and to use an interactive tool for everything else.
One thing that OpenSCAD excels at is remixing stuff based on existing STLs, I've yet to find another tool that allows me to do that so easily and with such versatility. Before my 'serious' cad tools have imported a mesh the OpenSCAD workflow is already printing the remixed result. As with everything: the right tool for the job is the key.
Did I solve all problems that OpenSCAD might have? Compared to FreeCAD. Me myself think I did: https://youtu.be/eG5lhLYvihQ?si=yA00IYVU4_Zemdxi
> When I start working on a shape like that ... [goes on to explain CAD methodology]
Your way of building objects require a ton of very hard thinking.
Most folks I know doing CSG modeling don't think (or often: can't) this way.
The typical way folks model with CSG is the age-old "roughing-out then refine" technique, building a rough idea of the object with cubes spheres and cylinder in a CSG tree, and then adding details iteratively. A bit like folks who draw cartoons operate: start with drawing potatoes and then add the details.
In this approach fillets come in at the last step, when the object is "complete" and hard edges simply need to be softened.
Most people are incapable (I certainly know I am) of designing fillets in from the onset, especially if the object is going to be complex.
I don't dislike OpenSCAD, quite the contrary, it's just that all of the things I built with it always ended up with a fillet related headache.
Echoing a sibling comment. OpenSCAD is DEFINITION LANGUAGE and while it feels kindof like a programming language it's wildly not. Here's a comment in a (lengthy) issue that describes in more detail.
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/pull/4478#issuecomment-...
My main complaint was you can't say with OpenSCAD:
...and woefully, you cannot say: ...so it's MATHEMATICALLY parametric, not PROGRAMMABLY parametric, which led me down other CAD-language (eg: CadQuery), or you could use `*.scad` as a _rendering_ language rather than a _development_ language.Yes, and it is something that many people that try to use OpenSCAD for some reason do not seem to clue in to.
>Changing dimensions or previous sketches is usually fine, but anything more complicated often results in everything in your stack breaking with strange errors, leading it to just be easier to re-create the model.
This is usually the result of design workflows and how you avoid it is going to vary based on the CAD package. It definitely requires being pretty deliberate in design, which can make it harder to draft out an initial design. And the path of least resistance is often one that's more likely to break.
One example would be in Fusion, using projected faces in sketches is far more fragile than projecting a body -- but Fusion will happily project faces by default.
Which constraint types you use where are another common cause of breakage.
The thing that makes it frustrating is that none of this is really well documented anywhere and largely ends up being best practice wisdom passed from one person to another, since a lot of this stuff is really non-obvious. And it's confounded yet again by people cargo culting best practices from one CAD package to another that then gets repeated third and fourth hand.
All that said, as you work with it more and delve into more complex designs, you'll end up settling into workflows that result in more resilient models if you're deliberate about it. The "scrap it and start over" cycle is part of the learning experience, IME, as frustrating as it is at the time.
Going back in history works better in Fusion360 than FreeCAD currently, but...
In FreeCAD it works but you have to think a bit how you approach it. For example, if you reference an edge that you later on go back and delete, of course it will break things. Also if everything is not correctly constrained and you go back and edit it, it will likely break things. And then there are some bugs as well, but it's free and open source so I am not complaining. :)
Similarly as with mesh modeling, where correct modeling style is needed for smoothing not to break things, with CAD you also have to get used to certain approach to modeling, you can't be as chaotic.
But the more you do it, the better you will become and in my opinion learning proper CAD modeling approach is easier than proper mesh modeling in Blender.
I found FreeCAD more difficult to learn than other 3D CAD programs, but the 1.0 release that came out about a year ago has improved things a lot. It also looks like 1.1 (being stabilized for release right now) is going to add a lot of nice features.
It seems like the product is having a bit of a renaissance. I'm not sure how much of that is coasting on the work that Ondsel (now defunct) did over the past few years, and how much is sustainable momentum. Hopefully more the latter.
The boundary representation kernel that FreeCAD uses (OpenCASCADE) has some limitations, and it's unlikely that those will be resolved. They make for a bumpy ride sometimes.
I think FreeCAD is almost becoming usable enough that it's reasonable to try to learn it if you want to use free software, or want to create models that you can use commercially.
If you don't care about commercial use, or you are willing to pay, I think OnShape is more powerful and significantly easier to learn and use. It uses the Parasolid kernel, which is more robust than OpenCASCADE. It's free for non-commercial use with the caveat that your models have to be publicly visible. https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free
If you want to learn FreeCAD, here's what I recommend doing:
- Install OpenTheme and OpenPreferences. https://old.reddit.com/r/FreeCAD/comments/1j82svt/i_really_w.... These fix a lot of the sub-optimal defaults that FreeCAD ships with.
- Increase the marker, font, and line sizes in sketcher and display preferences.
- Watch Mango Jelly and Joko Engineering videos on YouTube to learn how to do things. Focus on videos about FreeCAD 1.0.
Good luck!
I think this depends what you're 3D printing. I'm almost always making utilitarian things with specific purposes so CAD modelling makes sense, I know what dimensions I need, and what constraints exist, if I were modelling figures for a tabletop RPG it would be an absolute nightmare though. As ever, right tool for the job.
Another to check out is Solvespace. It's a much smaller simpler CAD modeling program than FreeCAD; doesn't do nearly as much, but I find it much easier to use, more intuitive, and more stable than FreeCAD.
What particular advantages do you feel FreeCAD has over Fusion, aside from the obvious? (price and ethos)
It runs on Linux. I wanted to get rid of dual boot and Windows partition. And also the UI interface performance is much better in FreeCAD.
Blender is great, but it still can't replace a CAD program. I tried using it for simple CAD tasks (before geometry nodes were released), but the experience was so poor that I quickly switched to FreeCAD. It was worth it, even though it took some time to learn how to use the new program.
FreeCAD is pretty buggy, confusing, and sometimes limited, but its workflow can't really be replicated with Blender. Once you have worked with a CAD program for a while, you realise that certain things that are almost impossible or annoyingly difficult in Blender can actually be pretty easy.
It would be great if the two programs could be merged. Blender could benefit from better CAD functions, and FreeCAD could benefit from everything else Blender provides.
The CAD Sketcher add-on goes a long way towards making it more usable. I’ve been hacking away at it myself (should go back to finish what I was adding…).
Nice. That wasn't on my radar. I was already happy when Blender made significant progress in parametric modelling with geometry nodes. Together with CAD Sketcher, it looks pretty usable for modelling. I hope the whole thing improves quickly, but I suspect they have a long way to go before Blender can be considered a proper CAD program.
Can you explain more? Which things are impossible in blender
Spiritually, Blender is to FreeCAD what Gimp is to Inkscape or what BMP is to SVG. With Blender you're massaging piles of anonymous polygons so they look right aestheticallY, while with CAD you're composing geometric primitives to make a precise blueprint for a 3D object that just happens to be rendered with polygons. The former is better for art while the latter is better for manufacturing.
Any there any open CAD file formats that lay a foundation for describing this kind of 3D data without classic triangles?
A .step or .stp file encodes the model as mathematical shapes, rather than approximating it with polygons, but it doesn't save the entire parametric workflow or history, only the final result. As far as I know, there is no widely adopted file format that also saves this information.
Parent's comparison is pretty great, but it shouldn't be "overdone". It's not really the format that's different/a problem (it's not hard to make a blender object from a CAD design - the same way an SVG can be rendered to PNG, and similarly irreversible in both cases), it's the whole design flow.
CAD uses geometry primitives with parameters and exact sizing (e.g. you draw a rectangle of this size, and cut a whole into it this and this offset from one of the corners, and you expand this shape to 3D). As mentioned this can be approximated via geometry nodes, but they are very different in "ideology".
For architecture, there is Industry Foundation Classes (IFC). IFC is a standard for describing building. FreeCAD supports this natively. There's a tutorial here: https://yorik.uncreated.net/?blog%2F2025%2F002-nativeifc-tut...
Blender has and extension for IFC called Bonsai. https://extensions.blender.org/add-ons/bonsai/
CAD modeller are good at producing parametric 3d models. You can make use of spreadsheets and constraints to create a piece, that will later super easily be changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_(computer-aided_des...
> CAD modeller are good at producing parametric 3d models
If that's the only thing they do better than Blender, then it sounds like their days are numbered. Has to be more benefits right? Blender exposes a pretty wide Python API, loading spreadsheets ends up pretty simple, and together with Geometry Nodes, you can even visualize it in a way that makes somewhat sense. Constraints been existing for a long time in Blender too.
They are better at it on a fundamental level. It’s a completely different approach for data representation, offering precision and repeatability which is not possible with Blender's data model.
Blender may as well replace CAD apps in the hobbyist 3D printing space, but it will never replace them in the industry and professional work. Solid modeling CAD software commonly features more than just creating mathematically precise digital 3D objects, but also planning for CNC machining, FEM analysis, assembly and so on.
> It’s a completely different approach for data representation, offering precision and repeatability which is not possible with Blender's data model.
How exactly? And why not?
You need useful measurements/units, reproducibility, parameters, constraints, and I guess something more? As Blender can give you those things, it's not impossible in Blender. Want to have 3D objects automatically created based on values from CSVs together with constraints? Blender can already do that today, just as one example.
I don't really mind if Blender has a chance of replacing CAD apps or not, more curious about why exactly people find it so fundamentally impossible for Blender to be a useful alternative, and I have yet to hear any convincing arguments.
An analogy is the difference between vector and bitmap graphics.
CAD programs aren't just a different set of operations on the same data, they use an entirely different representation (b-rep [1] vs Blender's points, vertices, and polygons).
These representations are much more powerful but also much more complex to work with. You typically need a geometric kernel [2] to perform useful operations and even get renderable solids out of them.
So sure, I suppose you could build all of that into Blender. But it's the equivalent of building an entire new complex program into an existing one. It also raises major interoperation issues. These two representations do not easily convert back and forth.
So at that point, you basically have two very different programs in a trenchcoat. So far the ecosystem has evolved towards instead building two different tools that are masters of their respective domains. Perhaps because of the very different complexities inherent in each, perhaps because it makes the handover / conversion from one domain to the other explicit.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_representation
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel
> CAD programs aren't just a different set of operations on the same data, they use an entirely different representation (b-rep [1] vs Blender's points, vertices, and polygons).
So with that in mind, there should be something that is possible to build in CAD, but impossible then to build in Blender?
I know the differences between the two, I understand they're fundamentally different, yet I seem to be able to produce similar results to others using CAD, so I'm curious what results I wouldn't be able to reproduce in Blender.
Any concrete examples I could try out?
Sure. Create a diamond polygon and revolve it around a point.
Blender has methods and tools to _approximate_ doing this. It has a revolve tool... where the key parameter is the number of steps.
This is not a revolution, it's an approximation of a revolution with a bunch of planar parts.
BREP as I understand it allows you to describe the surfaces of this operation precisely and operate further on them (e.g. add a fillet to the top edge).
Ditto for things like circular holes in objects. With blender, you're fundamentally operating on a bunch of triangles. Fundamental and important solid operations must be approximated within that model.
BREP has a much richer set of primatives. This dramatically increases complexity but allows it to precisely model a much larger universe of solids.
(You can kinda rebuild functionality that geometric kernels have with geometry nodes now in blender. This is a lot of work and is not a great user interface compared to CAD programs)
I don’t have explanatory knowledge on the matter, sorry.
If you are interested you may look up the difference between solid, surface and mesh modeling. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Ultimately you have to translate any model into a lossy representation/approximation due to discrete numerical control requirements and so on. However, the gist if it is, with mesh modeling this happens earlier in the design process. Even with procedural and parametric modeling in Blender, you will always encounter issues with approximation and floating point precision, which are inherent to the data representation.
For 3D printing that often doesn’t matter, because mesh approximation is precise enough. For hobbyists, CAD apps are kinda too niche and bothersome to be worth learning for simple models in 3D printing. The overall versatility of Blender and basic CAD-like capabilities are much more valuable and rewarding, in this space. In the end, you probably massively benefit from learning something like Blender anyway, because it’s much better suited for quickly conceptualizing an idea in 3D, than CAD. I think CAD works best, if the shape and specs of the object are already known. Organic shapes, clay-like deformations, which can’t be easily reduced to mathematical defined solid body functions, are something where Blender will always be better suited than CAD.
>Even with procedural and parametric modeling in Blender, you will always encounter issues with approximation and floating point precision, which are inherent to the data representation.
A common problem people run into with CAD models is importing a STEP file and modeling directly off of geometry in it. They later find out that some face they used as a reference was read by the CAD package as 89.99999994 degrees to another, and discover it's thrown the geometry of everything else in their model subtly off when things aren't lining up the way they should.
And that's with a file that has solid body representation! It's an entire new level of nightmare when you throw meshes into the mix.
The heart of any real CAD package is a geometry kernel[1]. There are really only a handful of them out there; Parasolid is used by a ton of 'big name' packages, for example. This is what takes a series of descriptions of geometry and turns it into clear, repeatable geometry. The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled. It's the very core of what these things do. Mesh modeling is fantastic for a lot of things, but it's a very different approach to creating geometry and just isn't a great fit for things like mechanical engineering.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel
> The power of this isn't just where geometry and dimensions are known. It's when the geometry and dimensions are critical to the function of whatever's being modeled.
Yes, but I meant making a case for workflow differences.
CAD is bad at aiding visual thinking and exploration, since you kinda have to be precise and constrain everything. You can pump out a rough idea of an object, edit it much, so much faster in Blender.
Sketching on paper, or visualizing in one’s mind, is pretty hard for most people when it comes to 3D. CAD is not at all inviting for creative impulses and flow. People who can do this in CAD are probably trained engineers who learned a very discipled, analytical way to approach problems, people who think in technical drawings.
So, CAD is good at getting a precise and workable digital representation of a "pre-designed" object for further (digital) processing, analysis, assembly and production. I think Blender is better at the early design process, figuring out shapes and relations.
I don't entirely agree there.
In a vacuum for a standalone object, a 3D mesh app like Blender can be useful for brainstorming.
Most of my CAD usage is designing parts that have to fit together with other things. The fixed elements drive the rest of the design. A lot of the work is figuring out "how do I make these two things fit together and be able to move in the ways they need to."
There is still a lot of room for creativity. My workflow is basically "get the basic functionality down as big square blocks, then keep cutting away and refining until you have something that looks like a real product." My designs very rarely end up looking like what they started out as. But the process of getting them down in CAD is exactly what lets me figure out what's actually going to work.
It's a very different workflow, and it's definitely not freeform in the same way as a traditional mesh modeling app, but CAD is for when you have to have those constraints. You can always (and it's not an uncommon pattern) go back and use a mesh modeler to build the industrial design side of things on top once the mechanical modeling is done.
ETA:
I'd also add: I'm not sure "thinking in CAD" comes naturally to anyone; it's a skillset that has to be built.
If you try OpenScad-style adding and subtracting volumes, the syntax is pretty horrific. It is impossible to script objects that way. Quote Gemini:
To be fair though, OpenSCAD works best too if you do this during the generative step and not after the fact. I've used it to remix existing STLs so it definitely does work but you really have to watch the areas where two shapes get close to each other, especially if there is a lot of fine detail.
Did I solve all problems that OpenSCAD might have? Compared to FreeCAD. Me myself think I did: https://youtu.be/eG5lhLYvihQ?si=yA00IYVU4_Zemdxi
> If you're on the fence about picking up Blender I highly recommend taking the deep dive.
Yes! I have spent my August learning Blender, and it's become one of my favourite pieces of software ever; in my journey of learning game dev, 3D modeling has become one of my favourite tasks.
If one is looking for recommendation on learning material, the Udemy courses by Grant Abbitt are EXCELLENT. I'm totally unaffiliated, but I don't think I would've stuck around without as good a course. The whole course was a discounted $20 for 14 hours of learning material, from the very basics, to UV, texture painting, rigging and animation.
I know enough Blender to be dangerous now, but I am open to recommendation for intermediate and advanced courses. You can do a lot with Blender basic tools, but as a modeling software it is a mile deep and I know I'm just scratching the surface.
> Yes! I have spent my August learning Blender, and it's become one of my favourite pieces of software ever
Same. Started in July with the Donut tutorial and then got completely carried away in geometry nodes and automation.
Once the UI clicks, Blender is super intuitive and downright addictive to use. I realized, while I don’t actually want to work in 3D modeling for other reasons, I could totally live in Blender all day! Can’t think of any piece of software that made me feel so in love.
And don’t get me started on its capabilities. It’s even useful as a video editor and for drawing. I think the only thing it can’t do much is audio editing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one day it’s becoming a DAW, too :D
I recommend to everyone: Learn the basics of Blender! Just dive in for a week or two. For universal creative output, it’s probably the single most powerful and useful tool you will ever encounter. Blender unlocks a whole new skill tree. I promise, you will look at the world, differently, how to express yourself, conceptualize and tackle a variety of problems. Even if you are, like me, not much interested in "graphic art", it’s so versatile for anything 3D, illustration or video. You can use it to visualize ideas for yourself or others, a 3D scratchpad, for 3D printing, illustrating math stuff, even simple physics simulations. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it’s pretty straight forward after the initial complexity shock. The UI is so thoughtful and consistent you get efficient with it very quickly. Totally worth it!
And Blender is free and open source, this skill enablement is permanent and unconditional! It’s an attestation to what’s possible.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
Would you mind sharing a bit more about your workflow? Do you export to obj/stl? What slicer do you use?
Five years is a decent amount of Time, and I'm sure you have much hard-won knowledge (and gotchas) to share.
(Personally, I'm stuck on the mental block of "I know I should just get and learn Fusion360" but I cannot bring myself to knowingly tie myself to a subscription-based piece of rentware.)
Thanks in advance!
Edit to add: my motivation is 100% to use this for 3d printing.
> I cannot bring myself to knowingly tie myself to a subscription-based piece of rentware.
Fusion360 isn't your only option. Several of the larger commercial CAD programs have various maker/hobbyist licences which are either free or low cost, and are suitable for exporting 3D models for 3D printing.
https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/solutions/users/hobbyists-a... → Free
https://www.solidworks.com/solution/solidworks-makers → US$48/yr presently
I was in the same boat as you and sounds like others in this thread, >1000 hours in Blender over the past few years, but learned Fusion360 to be able to get parts lasercut and machined so had to go to proper parametric CAD format. The simple answer is use both - some things like making a simple bracket or fixture are just much easier in CAD. For organic shapes with lots of complexity, sub D modeling is far faster and easier IMO in Blender than the ways to achieve that in CAD (like T splines in Fusion).
The space between those 2 things is where you have to decide what you are really trying to accomplish. The program you use will have an impact on what your result looks like, you see this in the evolution of product design alongside the evolution of design software (boxy cars in the 80s, soap bars in the 90s, and the last few decades of cars with flowing designs with body line defining creases which modern A surface modelers seem to draw you towards). I find parts made in Blender with my workflow often look a lot more interesting and visually pleasing, using edge crease/bevel modifiers and sliding loops around vs. using fillets in CAD for instance, they both aim to soften an edge, but look far different in the end. If you are only ever going to 3D print parts and never CNC, you are already fast in Blender, and part strength vs mass doesn't matter much (especially to a degree where you don't care about FEA), Blender is plenty viable to make printed parts with.
You can footgun yourself easily with both programs, but I find Fusion to be worse for this, half because of the UI, but using tools like sketch projection for me has caused really diabolical issues in the timeline. The whole trick to CAD is being very careful with the design intention as you progress forwards, which is hard to learn coming from 3D modelers where that doesn't matter much and you can just shuffle around non destructive modifiers. This might just be due to my own experience difference in the programs though, I definitely remember going down some roads in Blender I never returned from on meshes when I was learning, normally by either applying subdivision modifiers, doing too many loop cuts, or using a tri/n-gon somewhere thinking it wouldn't be an issue or I would fix it later.
Yah.
My workflow is hard to describe.
Over the years I updated my base project files when new Blender versions require rebuilding my geometry node graph when old stuff gets outdated. That being mentioned, the updates are worth it. It's a hobby so time is free and a learning opportunity.
It's something I accept as cost of learning, which so far has resulted in better end results.
I was totally in the same mental space with Fusion. Here's what I did.
I don't like hard to understand UI.
I don't like a product whose company constantly changes the rules.
I don't like not being in specific control of mission important software I use.
I also tried open source alternatives to CAD. There are non that are anything approachable from a user perspective. Until the FreeCAD project gets some help from Blender, I'll stand by that.
I don't maybe have any specific modeling scenarios to recommend. Not a professional, just a hobbyist.
I tune my printer. Use the 3d toolbox plugin for Blender. Make sure your model is manifold. Get to learn how to spend dozens of hours editing 3rd part "printable" models into something that's actually printable. Ain't manifold, ain't printable. If you "borrow" models from games to print, you'll spend a lot of time making them printable. They aren't yours even at that point. Don't try to sell them or give them away for free. Not yours. Respect the artists.
Geometry nodes have SOOOOO many options. I'm not kidding, it's awesome the team keeps adding nodes that address old and new issues. But figure out a basic workflow wherever you're at. Only update if there is some required or otherwise very specific advantage
Thank you for replying!
Never piss off engineers. So many software cartels went so far in ripping off their customer base that it caused a blistering clap-back. Companies like Maya were just taking the piss with their prices effectively pricing out all but big companies. A group of talented and, let's face it, awesome people built Blender into something not only as good as Maya, but better in most ways.
also see game engines e.g Unity(complete toss pots) and the evolution of Godot.
As for why people use Microscum's products like Excel, when LibreOffice is superior is beyond me.
I spent a good couple of months learning Blender enough to make a 3D model of a real Zamboni of all things for no real practical reason. That was a couple of years ago and I've forgotten everything and I'm pissed about it. I wish I kept at it.
I think you are mixing up general 3D modeling (the act of doing whatever to get a good visual result) and CAD (designing something to be made physically).
Blender is not a CAD tool and wasn’t designed to be. Likewise, CAD tools will never be used to make a movie scene.
There's a bit of overlap in practice though - and people are interested. Some are interested enough to make things like https://www.cadsketcher.com/ https://blender-archipack.org/ and others.
Those really blur the lines.
I'm not mixing up anything. I did not say or imply that Blender was a CAD tool. And yes, Blender is perfectly capable of creating precision models meant for physical printing. Is a good CAD app probably better at it? Sure. Has nothing to do with whether Blender can do it too in different ways.
Headline is misleading, TFA says it's the last maintenance release in the 4.x series so if anything, big changes are expected in the 5.0 beta whose planned release date was two days ago as mentioned at the end. So are there any news for 5.0 yet? I loved Sketchup and sure looked forward to Blender releases over the years but it's anything but a tool for casual 3D scene modelling or level design, requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
> requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
Have you actually given Blender a serious try? You don’t actually need a huge time investment to get efficient with its basics, maybe 1-3 days with a tutorial.
When it clicks and you memorized just a handful of shortcuts, the UI is mindblowingly intuitive and consistent, pure bliss. To the point where everything else feels wrong.
And let’s be clear, the payoff here is using a fully capable professional tool of nearly infinite complexity. It’s not a toy, niche, or compromise, but widely used across the industry, up there with commercial giants.
Go one step further, Blender is the first stage to replacing language and binary on a widespread creative gameplan.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Replace language, language is Pleistocene technology. Replace binary, binary is dated technology, trapping us in counting, not measurement. Pretty silly, using these dead and dying tools, Blender, as ieal seamless animation/rendering/editing software, point the way to visual software.
JEEESUS WEPT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4FGzE4endQ
Blender is a tool for managing 2-D topologies. 3-D was always a gimmick.
We shouldn't have left the ocean.
Anyone trapped in 3-D shouldn't have https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gJPiK_BRs9vjZB7wZxl8pnmeeOP... How tech/math only sees surfaces of things in software is puzzling, limiting. The tutorials are only the prelude.
>it's anything but a tool for casual 3D scene modelling or level design, requiring a huge time investment for learning and keep memorizing its awkward UI.
It’s a lot better than it used to be, however, your argument that’s it’s merely a casual tool is incorrect. Features films have been made with it. AAA games have used it. Your frustration is your own. Knowing 3D, I find blender extremely welcoming. Sure, it could use some more work on texture painting but it’s got grease pencil which is a god damn game changer.
I presume they meant "anything, but" as in it's not perceived as a casual tool. Basically, Blender appears to them as too complex and intimidating.
I think, we can agree that Blender does look intimidating, when you open it first time. I would also say, you absolutely need a tutorial to get started, if you know nothing about 3D stuff. You can actually, get into Blender very quickly, if someone explains basic concepts, but probably not at all just by yourself.
For starters, randomly clicking around will sooner or later freeze/crash your PC, because you did an expensive calculation on a billion accidentally duplicated vertices. In contrast to other creative apps, with 3D modeling/rendering exploration is a lot less forgiving and you can easily choke the best hardware available. (I wish Blender was a bit more patronizing when it comes to resource exhaustion. Subdivision modifier set to 10 iterations, probably should give a warning by default :D) Some easy mistakes, are really hard to unfuck. Extra frustrating, when it's been pushed out of the undo buffer, before you notice. Just a tiny bit of theory can go a long way there. Geometry nodes is downright hostile/arcane to beginners, probably worse, if you already know some programming and think you can apply that knowledge :D It's super fun and powerful, but oh boy is the evaluation logic confusing/frustrating at times...
> I presume they meant "anything, but" as in it's not perceived as a casual tool.
Yeah sorry that's exactly what I meant. Could've probably made myself more clear.
Blender is a tool for working day-in day-out with its workflow (aka the "vi of 3D modelling") but is absolutely unsuited for casual one-off use. Its predominance shouldn't discourage devs to create or port alternatives IMO, though it's of course a massive task.
I agree with you there. It’s a program that open for at least 8 hours a day if you’re using it.
I’ve been trying to work on a simplified UI for blender for level editing (blender is completely extendable) but you still have the blenderisms present. Rendering to anything is buried to the right. Along with most of the things you care about. Its lack of UX is still apparent. Almost all of those things should be menu items with windows in a normal workflow. Blender isn’t that though and everything happens “on canvas”. I’m happy it exists. I’m happy to work with it. It’s not Maya or 3ds Max, but it combines a lot of tools into one open source package. Which is fantastic.
I have noticed that many of the most used and loved projects use C/C++.
With all of the unpopular press that they get, why has history often proven C/C++ to be the right choice time and time again?
The one thing I really regret is listening to the kind of opinionated people that will tell how a certain popular language is bad and you shouldn't use it.
Twenty years ago when I learned Python, people told me it was a waste of time. Sure it is a nice language but you will never get a job doing it.
When I got into PHP ten years ago people told me it is a horrible language and basically dead already. Still, PHP was key to my career and I am making good money programming with in in 2025.
I used to be a C++ hater because that was the cool thing to do. Then I tried Unreal Engine and had to use C++ and discovered it is... fine. Really. There is a good reason it is heavily used in the gaming industry. I don't totally love it. The compile times are kind of annoying but C++ is not the only language suffering from that. If you need the performance and the ecosystem, C++ still isn't the worst choice.
There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup, The C++ Programming Language
The most used Desktop projects were started before 2015, around which new languages were stable enough to consider app building. Those apps fill their niche well and people don't need to start new projects for these niches, and new developers add to those projects instead of replacing them, which is a good thing. The cloud, AI, mobile (or crypto ..) by example are another story.
Part of the answer is in term C/C++ itself. C is a very popular language because the history around Unix and FFI. C++ builds on that popularity by being sort of backwards compatible with it and being what Microsoft Visual C++ supports if you want more languages features beyond ISO C90. Which brings to mind another factor, that people used to pay for compilers and IDEs. The hobbyist had to consider price as well as functionality, portability, performance and popularity in what programming languages they choose. Given there were several C++ compilers to choose from and the popularity of Windows it makes sense that C++ won.
Why has nothing replaced it? That depends on what you mean by replaced. Python, and Typescript/JavaScript have replaced it in many places. It's just low level programming where C++ has yet to be superceded. For that kind of programming there had not been many that could even approach the space until LLVM-based languages started coming out recently.
Some things come down to the OS system. We're still using the C FFI and other system elements designed around C. So until something better replaces those we're still using C on some level.
Long term stability is pretty important and C/C++ has a pretty good record of that. A lot of the bad press is also for ideological reasons, not entirely practical ones.
Finally, I think it's because the C/C++ manages to stay hidden. You don't need to know that it's written in C/C++ to use it.
Survivorship bias
Don’t trust hype.
”Unpopular press” generally means ”non-expert clickbait opinions”.
C++ as a language is abominable but the ecosystem (compiler support, tooling, libraries, established knowledge) is very hard to beat.
[dead]