Welcome (again) Csaba! On Mar 29, 2013, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> I really would like to have an open discussion about what is expected > from a good CAD software, where BRL-CAD stands and where it wants to go > - the documentation on the web is too scattered, partially outdated, and > generally not very conclusive (sometimes even confusing) about these > points. This sort of discussion is highly and always welcome. I've actually been working on a features roadmap that I hope to share in a few days, but you're completely right about the stuff on the web. It's a mess. A couple guys were working on a redesign that should help reorganize the site better, but the past two weeks have been busy. > For the record (as the IRC archives have no public logs I guess), this > is what I like about brl-cad: Logs are at http://ibot.rikers.org/%23brlcad/ Many years of discussion archived up there. > Things which need improvement in my opinion: > > * cleanup: both the utilities and the web is sometimes confusing due to > legacy parts - I learned in the discussions that this is worked on; Feedback on http://brlcad.org/wiki/TOC (from anyone) would be appreciated. That's the work-in-progress plan for organizing all of our online information. > * more analysis tools directly built in to the primitives, and ways to > get them via GUI and scripting (e.g. key points and curves usable in > constraints applied to the primitives); Related to that idea, our GCI students this past winter implemented a ton of new primitive analysis functions for surface area, volume, and centroid calculations. They are still awaiting review, validation, and integration. They're along the same line though, supporting analysis information. > * some of the external tools (like the "shapes", e.g. the coil tool) > would be nice to have also available inside mged for scripting purposes; Agreed. I'd like to see us eventually implement a fully parametric object. That is, a primitive that is fully defined at *run-time* by some textual description (set of equations and parameters). With that, a user could conceivably implement their own shape and share it with others as procedural geometry. I see this as the mechanism for eventually implementing feature-based editing (e.g., a chamfered hole is just a parameterized union of cylinders subtracted from an object with implicit constraints). > In the future I would like to have more constraint based > query/positioning of objects, like getting corner points of a cube or > the center axis of a cylinder, and setting the same for the purpose of > positioning the objects. That's been a goal for a long time. Code-wise, it's mostly a matter of refactoring all of the switch statements that access idb_type, pushing them up into librt, and updating accordingly. > The ultimate test for a good CAD for me would be a system which allows > easy building of LEGO systems - that means usually a very good > constraint based positioning combined with library based building block > selection. While LEGO sounds like a toy, from engineering POV it is the > real thing ;-) That sounds like a fun project regardless of being a real thing or not. Would make for some great pictures too. :) Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Own the Future-Intel(R) Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013 Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest. Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes. Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/12124-176961-30367-2 _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
