I really like the idea of openscad, or this, or the many alternatives. But when I say a shape with these and these dimensions, the next shape should attach to it somewhere. And then I want to say: chamfer all outside edges. But in all these programs, it's me redoing the math in my code, computing where the shape goes. As for chamfers, I just give up ...
With the ability to change one number and regenerate everything
That's exactly how I use Solidworks (and similar parametric CAD software) all the time. It takes some discipline, but the key is for all your geometry and relations to be driven from sketches and equations. Then you just change a value (sketch dimension or global constant), hit rebuild, and everything regenerates fairly reliably.
Don't get me wrong, this is a great project and I love seeing efforts like this, OpenSCAD, etc. add more options in the landscape of parametric CAD.
But I do find the graphical interface very natural for doing creative design work. In fact, sometimes I wish I could literally step into my design in VR and grab and move vertices around in 3 dimensions (eg. when fine tuning non-planar splines).
If anyone is interested, you can try EngineeringSketchPad (https://acdl.mit.edu/ESP/) which is very similar but much more mature. It also supports simple geometric primitives and boolean operations via a scripting language, but also more general rational curves and surfaces (i.e. BREPs). It has other nice features like differentiation, application-specific views (think structural vs CFD), and an attention to water-tightness/correctness.
The certificate just expired, so mobile Safari is not willing to let me see it. :(
What's nice about this is that it allows for programmatic CAD, enabling things like web applications that can download an .stl file based on user input. I hope I can find a weekend or two to play with it.
BTW: I spent a few weekends playing with Microcad (https://microcad.xyz/). It was cool, and had a similar rust feel. I just, for the life of me, couldn't figure out how to do 3d ellipses.
Here's an ellipsoid in build123d using geometric transformation of a sphere:
from build123d import *
mat = Matrix([[2,0,0,0],[0,1.5,0,0],[0,0,0.5,0]])
ellipsoid = Sphere(100).transform_geometry(mat)
If you are using build123d, probably the easiest way is to sketch an ellipse and revolve it.
The definition of an ellipsoid is that it can have three independent radii. A revolved ellipse only has two independent radii. If only two independent radii are needed then yes I agree with you, but I wanted to provide a fully qualified answer.
The opening paragraph is very telling; the author doesn't seem to understand typical pro-level parametric CAD programs available on the market:
> I keep designing physical parts for our robots. Motor mounts, sensor brackets, wheel hubs. Every time, the workflow is the same: open a GUI CAD program, click around for an hour, export an STL, realize the bolt pattern is 2mm off, repeat.
This doesn't make sense. When you realize the bolt pattern is 2mm off, you just edit that dimension and let the CAD program recalculate. You don't need to click around for an hour again. That's the beauty of contstraint-based parametric modeling as opposed to, say, modeling in Blender.
The author's program is akin to writing vim to replace Publisher. They're solving entirely different problems. Not to mention, this code-as-model paradigm already exists: OpenSCAD
> That's the beauty of constraint-based parametric modeling as opposed to, say, modeling in Blender.
I was thinking the same thing. This looks more like an API that makes 3d modeling look closer to CAD, but without realizing that CAD is about constraints, parametrizing, and far more.
> but without realizing that CAD is about constraints, parametrizing, and far more
Constraints and parametrizing are the trivial parts of CAD, something you can now implement in a weekend with Claude Code, the MINPACK/SolveSpace test suite, and OpenCascade as an oracle. The hard part is a geometric kernel that can express boundary representations for complex shapes (sketches, chamfers, fillets, etc) and boolean operations while somewhat handling the topographical naming problem without driving the user insane (which existing kernels are still all shit at).
> Constraints and parametrizing are the trivial parts of CAD, something you can now implement in a weekend with Claude Code
You go ahead and try that.
;)
Keywords: Jacobian, Newton-Raphson, Levenberg-Marquardt, Powell dog leg, Schur complements, sparse QR/Cholesky, and so on. The LLM can figure the rest out. Try it yourself!
I recommend Rust because the methods are old and most of the algorithms are already implemented by crates, you just have to wire them together. Like I said the hard part is the b-rep: you’re not going to find anything equivalent to Parasolid or ACIS in the literature or open source.
Yeah but have you tried it? You can throw as many keywords as you want into Claude but it does get things wrong in sometimes subtle ways. I’ve tried it, I know.
You're correct, I'm completely uneducated! Pull requests welcome :)
The pull request is to delete the project and open SOLIDWORKS or FreeCAD.
But don't actually delete it. It looks like a nice alternative to OpenSCAD. But like OpenSCAD it's really a niche thing for designs that are highly parametric like fasteners, gears, 3D printed boxes, etc.
Like OpenSCAD using it for normal "irregular" CAD is going to be extremely frustrating. Like editing an SVG in notepad instead of Inkscape.
I still feel like there's a unexplored space where you combine the benefits of both somehow though. Like a code-based CAD but it also has a GUI editor that stays in sync and avoids the need to type in coordinates by hand. That would be extremely difficult though.
> "highly paramteric like fastners, gears, 3D printed boxes"
1. These parts should probably be on McMaster. If you are not using them straight from there, you better have a _great_ reason as to why not when it comes up in the design review.
2. Solidworks has Smart Fasteners, Inventor has Spur Gear Component Generator, Sketch->Extrude->Shell takes 30 seconds, so not sure why 3D printed boxes would be faster or better with this for most stuff. Also, this stuff is easily solved by things like the component library and configurations.
> you better have a _great_ reason as to why not
Because I don't live in America?
Are ISO standard parts not used where you live? McMaster is in the US but the much of the parts and CAD are standard
This is actually what onshape is, under the covers.
The GUI is really just using their scripting primitives, etc. You can access it the same as they can, actually.
Onshape is just a GUI over the Parasolid geometric modeling kernel, the same kernel used by Solidworks [1]. Whatever their scripting primitives are, they're at best a thin wrapper over Parasolid (which is true for the entire industry - it's all Siemens Parasolid and Dassault ACIS).
> Like editing an SVG in notepad instead of Inkscape.
Speaking of which, I would love to have parametric capabilities in Inkscape.
I recently stumbled across cuttle.xyz, and it’s a code-based parametric vector editor. I recently did a real world art project in it and LOVED it.
>I still feel like there's an unexplored space where you combine the benefits of both somehow though. Like a code-based CAD but it also has a GUI editor that stays in sync and avoids the need to type in coordinates by hand. That would be extremely difficult though.
I think you can do this if the data representation of operations and values is human readable. The simplest implementation would restrict the language/data format to operations representable in the gui.
Unlike trying to solve the "visual programming" problems, we don't need or desire Turing completeness.
Very interesting indeed!
Are you aware of Rhino 3D with grasshopper?
Rhino has no free tier. I’d love to play with it, and it’s where AutoDesk made the right call. It’s why Fusion 360 has such a strong ecosystem for hobbyists / prosumers.
Read a bit before critisizing:
> One thing I care about that most CAD tools don't: vcad is designed to be used by AI coding agents.
AI coding agents are notoriously bad at anything that involves spatial awareness.
For that there’s openscad
I've even already asked an LLM to generate designs in openscad, and there's plenty of examples out there. Obviously there's a complexity limit, but there's also a cheat sheet that makes it pretty easy to discover how to do almost anything that's possible within.
I'm about as into formal methods as you can get, with a deep background in Haskell and such. Rust is wonderful and all that, but sometimes I think the optimism is misplaced and doesn't come from a place of full knowledge. Statements like this make me scared:
> The geometry engine is manifold, which guarantees watertight meshes from boolean operations. The Rust bindings give us zero-cost abstractions over the C++ core — the operator overloads compile down to direct manifold calls. No garbage collection pauses. No floating point surprises from a scripting layer.
Floating point is incredibly surprising. People seem to believe that a typed programming language eliminates floating point error. Scripting and interpretability has nothing to do with why floating point is hard. Floating point arithmetic is as deterministic in Python as C++ or Rust. The issue is whether people understand the rules. The type system has nothing to do with this, as floating point errors are almost always value errors, not type errors. The only way to avoid floating point errors using formal methods is an actual theorem prover. Rust is nowhere close to being a theorem prover.
Note that there's an existing CAD-in-Rust project, Fornjot, which has been quietly developing since 2020: https://www.fornjot.app/
Neither Fornjot nor Truck are ready for general use as a BREP CAD kernel.
Also Truck https://github.com/ricosjp/truck
This sounds a lot like Fidget (https://github.com/mkeeter/fidget) and libfive (https://github.com/libfive/libfive) by the amazing Matt Keeter!
I had a lot of fun playing around with antimony (also from Keeter) a few years ago, but unfortunately it has been mostly abandoned. I heard libfive is supposed to be the next generation, but I haven't experimented with it yet.
Do you know how it compares?
Hadn't ran into these, thanks!
SketchUp was my go to for a while but I'm done with parametric personally, trying to fix meshes for 3D printing... time I grow up and use something like Fusion360 seems like or onshape. Still it was good/simple enough for non-round shapes in SketchUp except they have some kind of memory leak/bug at least for the 2017 version. But I guess quit being cheap and buy a modern copy on my part.
Edit: oh I guess sketchup is a surface modeler weird thought it was parametric this whole time, lol someone else said it's a polygon modeler
Yeah I don't know what parametric modeling is apparently, I use a mouse/calipers to model stuff not parameters
There is a solid validator plugin you use before you export an STL to make sure the mesh is closed/a manifold
It's using a constructive solid geometry system. You can add and subtract volumes. Making a hole is subtracting a volume. This has classically been numeric roundoff hell, where points that should coincide and surfaces which should touch don't get handled properly due to numerical error. The geometry engine is Manifold, which guarantees watertight meshes from boolean operations.
Ah. That's what's doing the constructive solid geometry. Here's the 2009 PhD thesis behind the object merge and difference algorithms inside Manifold. Nice. At last, soundness. This is a long-standing problem. And now there's an open source implementation. Manifold itself is in C++, not Rust, though.
None of this is parametric. That's a different problem. That's where you put in constraints such as A is perpendicular to B, B is 100mm from C, etc., and the constraint solver tries to satisfy all the constraints. Change a dimension and everything adjusts to preserve the constraints. Parametric CAD is all about constraint solving and expressing conflicts to the user. Autodesk Inventor, Fusion, etc. have good constraint solvers.
[1] https://github.com/elalish/manifold/blob/master/docs/RobustB...
Manifold (which is doing the heavy lifting in this) uses triangles, which are an approximation.
This is never going to have the accuracy seen in higher-end CAD circles, which use b-Reps: highly accurate mathematic representation.
Manifold is good for visualization, but to use it as an engine for manufacturing .. its limits will be hit.
SketchUp uses direct modelling, not parametric modelling. I think they even got some patents on direct modelling.
Is anyone else put off by the AI-sounding text? Two things that give it away for me are the excessive use of punctuation-emphasized sentence fragments ex:
> No clicking. No undo. Just recompile.
> That's our mascot. Entirely CSG.
> No garbage collection pauses. No floating point surprises from a scripting layer.
And worst of all, the dreaded "and/but honestly":
> But honestly, the main reason is the toolchain.
Am I misreading things?
Yeah I hate it. Why should I read something you didn't bother to write?
Thanks for the feedback
Unfortunately, using a geometry kernel [1] that operates on triangle meshes means this is a no-go for serious CAD usage.
My whole CAD experience is with OpenSCAD, which apparently uses the same kernel; Honest question -- what is the alternative? I would assume the vast majority of 3D model processing relies on triangle meshes...
Meshes are an output, not a source, and not a good internal representation.
Meshes are only a lossy approximation of the actual geometry, and the errors accumulate as features reference off of earlier features.
A simple example is a line tangent to an arc. The line will only be the correct distance from the center of the arc at one point (one angle) per segment.
In openscad you don't notice the problem because since it's code and you have variables and programming ways of expressing relationships, you would usually not try to derive one thing from another by geometry, instead both things would reference a common ancestor variable. But that's a technical implimentation detail that works around the problem by just not doing a thing that doesn't work. The problem is still there that a valid geometry constraint would produce invalid results.
Breps. Nearly all commercial cad packages operate on boundary representations of objects.
Mesh is also a boundary representation. I think you meam NURBS.
I would start with CSG if you are new to these ideas:
OpenCASCADE?
pythonocc is a joy
Notably wrapped by build123d into cad as a code package
libfive
I've built something very similar (also based on triangle meshes, but in TS), and while it wouldn't work for say 3D printing, my target is game object modeling. I guess people have specific use cases in mind when referring to "CAD".
In my mind, cad that you’re not going to manufacture is “modeling”. Not sure if that’s a common verbal distinction.
An example of common terms that disagrees with that somewhat, is "CAD/CAM" where the design component is clearly distinct from the manufacturing component.
I do agree that historically, software aimed at building 3d models for games/animations and other digital use was usually called modeling and not cad. I'm thinking of software like 3D Studio Max back in the 90s here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAD/CAM
I notice though that the Wikipedia article for CAD says: "This software is used to increase the productivity of the designer, improve the quality of design, improve communications through documentation, and to create a database for manufacturing."
my personal distinction I use is about measurements. while you may model to a specific scale for use in 3d gfx (game by engine/animation/vfx) you cross over from "modeling" to "cad" as soon as you are creating geometry with specific real world measurements. (probably for manufacturing or engineering reasons bc thats when it matters most)
like I can model a table that is the right size and looks like it will not tip over for my game, but I am going to cad that table to run a stress sim and make the plans for building it for real.
though id still call the action of doing the building in the cad software "modeling"... so idk.. language is weird.
so software that lets you work accurately with measurements and real units == cad. (fusion360) software that just makes geometry == modeling. (blender)
but if you wanna go get real confused look at "plasticity" an app targeted at "modeling" but uses a cad engine and sells itself as "cad for artists" it has real scale measurements and everything too.
Not sure either but sharing the sentiment.
I've been doing a similar thing using GhostSCAD[1], which is a relatively thin wrapper around OpenSCAD in Go. Not as typesafe, but my language of choice.
Great work! Please consider adding a RSS/Atom Feed to your site. I would like to include it in my Tech Content Platform: https://insidestack.it
Done, thanks for the kind words!
Great, I already added you!
Curious to how well LLM's work in this context! (mentioned as one of the reasons to embed CAD in Rust)
I only know of another text -> STL AI model, I'm quite a bit more excited about this idea.
Does someone have experience with this?
I've found LLMs perform surprisingly well here if you target CSG or OpenSCAD. It seems to frame the 3D modeling challenge as a logic and syntax problem rather than a spatial one, which plays to the model's strengths. You avoid the spatial hallucinations common in image generation because it's effectively just writing code.
Amazing work! This is what I was looking for, I thought of this few months ago and didn't have the time to create it myself. Thanks will explore it and give my feedback!
Based on a geometry engine written in C++ ...
Why not use OpenSCAD?
Because it is not written in Rust, I suppose.
Anyway, I think using only code for designing 3D objects is a poor design choice. You really need something that is between pure code and pure GUI.
I would really like to see someone work that up.
I suspect that Moment of Inspiration and Rhinoceros 3D are something along those lines, but I'm not aware of an opensource tool which hoes that row.
One thing in particular which it would be nice to see would be a facility where one could draw a piece of geometry, then all the coordinates/values which describe it could be displayed in a pane where they could then be named or re-arranged, or the values changed, or even the values changed into formulae.
I get the sense that this author is looking for a DSL (domain specific language) and landed quite close.
I had Google Gemini 3 write me a part using human language about 3 weeks ago for a 3D printing project.
I specifcally had it spit out a FreeCAD macro, which is basically Python that looks like what you've made.
Interesting, because I am trying to learn OpenSCAD for some simple modeling.
definitely learn solidworks or something in that vein first
that, and as a prior skill, learn to draw by hand on paper orthogonal and isometric views of 3d objects.
cad is another theory building excercise, but instead of being about processes, its about objects. you want to start from a strong manual/first principles base
I liked CATIA, but can't afford it at the moment.
If you're more interested int the result than the process, Onshape or Fusion are great, free (with use restrictions) parametric CAD. And both support scripting, to some extent.
Both have really great documentation/examples.
Note: This is probably a dead-end; it is not on the same level as SolidWorks, Fusion etc.
I wouldn't call a FOSS project that you compare to some 2,620 USD/year software a dead-end. It's good enough for simple modeling, especially when it comes to scripting, and has been for 10 years already.
You're probably right, OpenSCAD seems to be limited both in speed and in exactness of the surfaces.
However purely programmatic interface allows doing surprising things which might be hard to achieve with a mouse.
How could I make it better?
Sorry about the confusion - I'm referring to OpenSCAD; not your project.
I am constantly designing parts myself. I just wish that instead of having many unfinished, unpolished products we had something with the level of Solidworks / Onshape / whatever.
FreeCad is getting somewhere but it is still way behind. The last thing I care about is what language was it implemented with.
> Types prevent you from passing a radius where a diameter was expected. CAD files should be code. Code has tests, reviews, diffs, and CI. An STL file has... bytes.
Fucking A Right!
Absolutely atrocious and piss-poor contrast. Can barely read a thing.
Are you feeling alright?
GP perhaps did not say it in a polite manner, but their criticism is valid.
Please have a check on a different monitor and browser than you are currently using, as most of the article is unreadable. Code blocks are nigh unreadable, and the screenshots are washed out as if they were HDR with improper tone mapping (I tested both with Firefox on Linux and Safari on iOS).
It's a shame, because it made me gloss over the article.
Oh, and the screenshots have the same issue both on the blog post and on the main vcad.io website. Funnily enough, code snippets on vcad.io have proper readable colors as opposed to your blog (they're still too dim to be comfortable though, but they're readable).
Yes, I am alright, the website attempts to support dark-mode but does such a poor job of it that renders it completely useless.
I agree the UI on the screenshot is not very accessible. I'm also think that language and tone choice matter a lot when delivering (even constructive) criticism.
Thank for the feedback. Have a nice day.
Not to crap on this project too much, but this, and most of the other small CAD projects that get posted here, always have a condescending, "Look how easy I've made this" vibe to them, and then they're always light years behind modern CAD software.
If you're doing serious CAD work, like designing a whole machine, or working with multiple vendors to get parts manufactured, then it really is worth paying for a commercial CAD system and learning how to use it. All of the commercial CAD systems today support parametric modelling where later operations are updated automatically when the earlier operations are changed by the user.
If you insist on writing code, then even entry level systems like SolidWorks have APIs to do everything from creating the part geometry, defining geometric tolerances and PMI, running simulations, doing different types of analysis, creating machine/tooling instructions (G-code, etc.), exporting to various formats, and a million other things.
And they have workbenches for manufacturing techniques other than 3D printing, like sheet metal, CNC machining, cable routing, injection molding, welding, etc. And most of them have libaries of standard and off the shelf parts, like screws, bolts, nuts, washers, cables and housings, etc. in various standardized sizes so you don't have to model those at all.
For testing, on the higher end, the CAD systems integrate with metrology hardware and they're able to actually measure the manufactured parts and compare against the model to validate that they have the correct shape and meet all of the tolerances. Not as a virtual unit test running in CI, but by actually measuring the physical part.
Yet another rewrite-it-in-rust-just-because project. I'll stick with OpenSCAD
