CAD is difficult to understand on a good day, and FreeCAD is a beginner unfriendly implementation of it.
I personally love it and it’s an excellent tool if you already know what you are doing. If you don’t, it’s a mess of screens and spaces with no rhyme or reason.
My two cents. Learn CAD first, Google Sketchup or Fusion 360 are good and beginner friendly with lots of tutorials. Then move to FreeCAD to learn the differences.
That said if you want to just try FreeCAD, this release is the best I’ve used from them.
Does it still have that weird problem where you’re not allowed to modify surfaces because of the way you created them? Last time I tried using it, I couldn’t create a mirror copy of a shape and then edit the mirror. I could only edit the source, which then applied the changes to all the parts.
The whole point of the 1.0 release is about mitigating the topological naming issue, (TNP). All 3cad program have problems with it. It can’t ever be fixed, only mitigated. You can break Fusion or SolidWorks just like FreeCad, (I’ve done it). At best the software can only fail a gracefully as possible.
I’ll mention this fix is aimed at mitigating toponaming primarily for sketch attachment. Some features still struggle with toponaming, namely chamfers and fillets. But in any case, it’s a massive step forward and makes FreeCAD much easier to recommend! Until now I’ve been using Realthunder’s fork since toponaming was such a headache to resolve manually.
No. The people who struggle with FreeCAD struggle because they leaned something else first. Its the same reason Photoshop trained users complain about GIMP while people who learned GIMP first dont complain.
They struggle with FeeCAD for the same reason they struggle with ANY little change in software-- they simply don’t want to be bothered to learn something new. It’s called being lazy.
I went Inventor -> SOLIDWORKS -> Fusion -> SOLIDWORKS with maybe 3% of the issues I’ve had with FreeCAD.
You can’t easily create models based on other models, or place things around as easily, it’s always a mess of shape binders and fixed coordinates, it really limits the capabilities of the software.
I’m always checking forums, discords, YouTube for the simplest things… I’m trying and I keep trying, but it’s very obtuse to just dismiss the issues as “people don’t want to learn”, 'cause I’m putting more time into FreeCAD than any other CAD, and getting shit results.
You can say you have put in the effort to learn it and the effort doesn’t pay off for you. It happens and is nothing to be ashamed of. But the blunt truth is the majority do NOT want to learn anything new because change is scary and simply want to complain about the tiniest difference. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve tried to help someone with FreeCad and they start complaining how FreeCAD isn’t like Fusion360 and why isn’t it, I probably could afford that SW license. No shit, It ain’t Fusion.
There’s a huge difference between a CAD package that has had millions of dollars and multiple development teams spent on it to polish and tweak it into perfection and a small team of volunteers that are working in their basements and backyards for free so they can give it away for free. Why would you be surprised and upset that it can be chaotic and janky. Your choice is to either continue to climb that mountain to master FreeCAD or to move on to something that does make you happy. To quote that famous puppet, " Either do or do not. There is no try"
I will tell you that any CAD package is simply a tool-- a means to an end and not the end itself. And if the tool doesn’t work for YOU after giving it a good try, don’t use that tool. I will also say that despite enjoying the sackcloth and ashes of FreeCAD, I would never recommend it for professional use. It’s not ready for prime time. There are better tools out there for that field of battle. But that doesn’t mean FreeCAD is not a useful tool and can do a lot of impressive things if you wish to spent the effort.
I think that’s a little unfair. The bigger issue IMO is that FreeCAD doesn’t quite share the same workflow as other (proprierary) CAD packages, so someone coming from proprietary CAD also needs to unlearn habits that were previously fine but now potentially harmful. For example, adding chamfers and fillets in FreeCAD pretty much should only be done at the end to avoid toponaming issues, which is less of an issue in other packages.
No it’s not. Unlearning old habits and thought processes is always the first step in learning new things. But to be fair, it’s also the most difficult part.
While other CAD packages do have a better failure path to follow, they still can fail at the same points as FreeCAD. And you still really should be following best practices for ANY CAD package to avoid failures. But people are nothing if not lazy. And fillets and chamfers just suck in any CAD package. It’s always been my practice to never add them until I was done with the modeling. And if major changes where needed, I would remove them if I suspected they could even remotely cause an issue during a change to a model.
I do think the point about all CAD packages having failure paths is a little overblown. Yes, you can definitely get proprietary CAD to break but in my experience (at least with Solidworks and Fusion), it usually requires much more complex parts than FreeCAD parts. Post 1.0 the situation is definitely better though.
You’re right that users should try following best practices from day one, but realistically most users are not going to learn everything correctly automatically. They might use an out of date tutorial, or might have just learned by tinkering themselves.
The point I was trying to make was that because FreeCAD operates differently than other CAD programs do to one another and because it’s generally a bit more brittle and demanding of the user, I can’t say I blame anyone for not wanting to switch to it if they already have a CAD program they’re proficient with. You could call it being lazy, but from a practical standpoint there isn’t necessarily a ton to gain for a relatively large amount of time investment required to be capable of using it.
I really hope FreeCAD improves enough one day in the new user experience department. I love the software and have been using it as my tool of choice for years now, but evidently not everyone thinks it’s worth the time investment.
I never have an issue with people preferring a different CAD package over another. For example: I detest Fusion 360 for various reasons even after spending a year with it. We all have preferences, work requirements, and even “vibe” better with one package over the rest. You need to choose the tool that works best for you.
What I do have an issue with is new users that try and have problems and immediately start whinging that “FreeCAD isn’t like what I know. And it needs to be like my favorite” Those are the lazy people that can’t be bothered to learn something new. And they should either expend the effort to learn or go back to whatever they were using or volunteer to code, (it’s open source after all). FreeCAD ain’t for you.
But if you have given FreeCAD, (or ANYTHING new in life), an honest try and you can’t get the hang of it or simply don’t like it. Well, that’s a valid and very fair reason to not use it.
What I do have an issue with is new users that try and have problems and immediately start whinging that “FreeCAD isn’t like what I know. And it needs to be like my favorite” Those are the lazy people that can’t be bothered to learn something new. And they should either expend the effort to learn or go back to whatever they were using
I think that’s fair, but most criticisms of FreeCAD from people coming from other CAD packages rather fall into your latter category that you mention here:
But if you have given FreeCAD, (or ANYTHING new in life), an honest try and you can’t get the hang of it or simply don’t like it.
I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing in principle, just on what we perceive as the common criticisms of FreeCAD. Normally, I’ve seen people from other CAD programs get frustrated at limitations within FreeCAD or needing to work around bugs in ways that slow them down. For example, FreeCAD previously was unable to cope with multiple geometries being contained in a single sketch (I believe 1.0 now supports multiple extrudes from different sketch regions, but previously FreeCAD would throw an error), which made modeling less efficient for those coming from programs like Solidworks where this feature exists. Throw other issues like toponaming into the mix and it’s no surprise people from other CAD programs tried learning it, got frustrated (since their baseline was better than what FreeCAD could offer) and moved on.
I agree that criticizing FreeCAD for having different workflows than other CAD programs is a bit silly, though. I don’t really care what the exact workflow is as long as it 1) works and 2) is fast, and for me FreeCAD 1.0 (and previously Realthunder’s branch) ticks all the boxes there.
CAD is a bit like programming, there’s a lot of ways to do any given task. That can make it tricky if you are doing some tutorials that use one workflow, and then start doing tutorials that use a different workflow.
If you want to learn it, do yourself a favor and take time to find a tutorial that goes from start to finish doing the type of project you want to do so you don’t get frustrated when you get midway through.
Like others said, if you are used to doing something in a different CAD software, you might find that the same workflow is clunky in FreeCAD, but if you start out with a workflow that works well in FreeCAD, you are fine.
I kinda want to try it out just as a hobby, is it decent or should I look elsewhere?
Is it decent ? Yes
Should I look elsewhere? Also yes.
CAD is difficult to understand on a good day, and FreeCAD is a beginner unfriendly implementation of it.
I personally love it and it’s an excellent tool if you already know what you are doing. If you don’t, it’s a mess of screens and spaces with no rhyme or reason.
My two cents. Learn CAD first, Google Sketchup or Fusion 360 are good and beginner friendly with lots of tutorials. Then move to FreeCAD to learn the differences.
That said if you want to just try FreeCAD, this release is the best I’ve used from them.
Does it still have that weird problem where you’re not allowed to modify surfaces because of the way you created them? Last time I tried using it, I couldn’t create a mirror copy of a shape and then edit the mirror. I could only edit the source, which then applied the changes to all the parts.
The whole point of the 1.0 release is about mitigating the topological naming issue, (TNP). All 3cad program have problems with it. It can’t ever be fixed, only mitigated. You can break Fusion or SolidWorks just like FreeCad, (I’ve done it). At best the software can only fail a gracefully as possible.
I didn’t know that! From the other comment, sounds like it’s basically fixed.
They still have somethings to cleanup and tweak to make the guessing better and more reliable. But it’s on it’s way for sure.
I’ll mention this fix is aimed at mitigating toponaming primarily for sketch attachment. Some features still struggle with toponaming, namely chamfers and fillets. But in any case, it’s a massive step forward and makes FreeCAD much easier to recommend! Until now I’ve been using Realthunder’s fork since toponaming was such a headache to resolve manually.
It does but from my testing only on impossible shapes. Like two triangles mirrored at the tip with a width of 0.
It has other issues still, but the app is stable.
Nice, good to hear.
I’m familiar with sketchup, I’ll give it a shot this weekend!
No. The people who struggle with FreeCAD struggle because they leaned something else first. Its the same reason Photoshop trained users complain about GIMP while people who learned GIMP first dont complain.
Learn FreeCAD first, and you won’t be handicapped
On the contrary, I learned nothing first and I struggled pretty bad.
After a while though you start to get a grasp on things.
They struggle with FeeCAD for the same reason they struggle with ANY little change in software-- they simply don’t want to be bothered to learn something new. It’s called being lazy.
I went Inventor -> SOLIDWORKS -> Fusion -> SOLIDWORKS with maybe 3% of the issues I’ve had with FreeCAD.
You can’t easily create models based on other models, or place things around as easily, it’s always a mess of shape binders and fixed coordinates, it really limits the capabilities of the software.
I’m always checking forums, discords, YouTube for the simplest things… I’m trying and I keep trying, but it’s very obtuse to just dismiss the issues as “people don’t want to learn”, 'cause I’m putting more time into FreeCAD than any other CAD, and getting shit results.
You can say you have put in the effort to learn it and the effort doesn’t pay off for you. It happens and is nothing to be ashamed of. But the blunt truth is the majority do NOT want to learn anything new because change is scary and simply want to complain about the tiniest difference. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve tried to help someone with FreeCad and they start complaining how FreeCAD isn’t like Fusion360 and why isn’t it, I probably could afford that SW license. No shit, It ain’t Fusion.
There’s a huge difference between a CAD package that has had millions of dollars and multiple development teams spent on it to polish and tweak it into perfection and a small team of volunteers that are working in their basements and backyards for free so they can give it away for free. Why would you be surprised and upset that it can be chaotic and janky. Your choice is to either continue to climb that mountain to master FreeCAD or to move on to something that does make you happy. To quote that famous puppet, " Either do or do not. There is no try"
I will tell you that any CAD package is simply a tool-- a means to an end and not the end itself. And if the tool doesn’t work for YOU after giving it a good try, don’t use that tool. I will also say that despite enjoying the sackcloth and ashes of FreeCAD, I would never recommend it for professional use. It’s not ready for prime time. There are better tools out there for that field of battle. But that doesn’t mean FreeCAD is not a useful tool and can do a lot of impressive things if you wish to spent the effort.
I think that’s a little unfair. The bigger issue IMO is that FreeCAD doesn’t quite share the same workflow as other (proprierary) CAD packages, so someone coming from proprietary CAD also needs to unlearn habits that were previously fine but now potentially harmful. For example, adding chamfers and fillets in FreeCAD pretty much should only be done at the end to avoid toponaming issues, which is less of an issue in other packages.
No it’s not. Unlearning old habits and thought processes is always the first step in learning new things. But to be fair, it’s also the most difficult part.
While other CAD packages do have a better failure path to follow, they still can fail at the same points as FreeCAD. And you still really should be following best practices for ANY CAD package to avoid failures. But people are nothing if not lazy. And fillets and chamfers just suck in any CAD package. It’s always been my practice to never add them until I was done with the modeling. And if major changes where needed, I would remove them if I suspected they could even remotely cause an issue during a change to a model.
I do think the point about all CAD packages having failure paths is a little overblown. Yes, you can definitely get proprietary CAD to break but in my experience (at least with Solidworks and Fusion), it usually requires much more complex parts than FreeCAD parts. Post 1.0 the situation is definitely better though.
You’re right that users should try following best practices from day one, but realistically most users are not going to learn everything correctly automatically. They might use an out of date tutorial, or might have just learned by tinkering themselves.
The point I was trying to make was that because FreeCAD operates differently than other CAD programs do to one another and because it’s generally a bit more brittle and demanding of the user, I can’t say I blame anyone for not wanting to switch to it if they already have a CAD program they’re proficient with. You could call it being lazy, but from a practical standpoint there isn’t necessarily a ton to gain for a relatively large amount of time investment required to be capable of using it.
I really hope FreeCAD improves enough one day in the new user experience department. I love the software and have been using it as my tool of choice for years now, but evidently not everyone thinks it’s worth the time investment.
I never have an issue with people preferring a different CAD package over another. For example: I detest Fusion 360 for various reasons even after spending a year with it. We all have preferences, work requirements, and even “vibe” better with one package over the rest. You need to choose the tool that works best for you.
What I do have an issue with is new users that try and have problems and immediately start whinging that “FreeCAD isn’t like what I know. And it needs to be like my favorite” Those are the lazy people that can’t be bothered to learn something new. And they should either expend the effort to learn or go back to whatever they were using or volunteer to code, (it’s open source after all). FreeCAD ain’t for you.
But if you have given FreeCAD, (or ANYTHING new in life), an honest try and you can’t get the hang of it or simply don’t like it. Well, that’s a valid and very fair reason to not use it.
I think that’s fair, but most criticisms of FreeCAD from people coming from other CAD packages rather fall into your latter category that you mention here:
I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing in principle, just on what we perceive as the common criticisms of FreeCAD. Normally, I’ve seen people from other CAD programs get frustrated at limitations within FreeCAD or needing to work around bugs in ways that slow them down. For example, FreeCAD previously was unable to cope with multiple geometries being contained in a single sketch (I believe 1.0 now supports multiple extrudes from different sketch regions, but previously FreeCAD would throw an error), which made modeling less efficient for those coming from programs like Solidworks where this feature exists. Throw other issues like toponaming into the mix and it’s no surprise people from other CAD programs tried learning it, got frustrated (since their baseline was better than what FreeCAD could offer) and moved on.
I agree that criticizing FreeCAD for having different workflows than other CAD programs is a bit silly, though. I don’t really care what the exact workflow is as long as it 1) works and 2) is fast, and for me FreeCAD 1.0 (and previously Realthunder’s branch) ticks all the boxes there.
I appreciate the respectful discussion!
CAD is a bit like programming, there’s a lot of ways to do any given task. That can make it tricky if you are doing some tutorials that use one workflow, and then start doing tutorials that use a different workflow.
If you want to learn it, do yourself a favor and take time to find a tutorial that goes from start to finish doing the type of project you want to do so you don’t get frustrated when you get midway through.
Like others said, if you are used to doing something in a different CAD software, you might find that the same workflow is clunky in FreeCAD, but if you start out with a workflow that works well in FreeCAD, you are fine.