Hi Jayesh, You might of course be aware of the Shapesmith project ( http://www.shapesmith.net), which is at some point much more advanced than 3DTin (basic primitives, as well as boolean operations are already available). What are your plans for 3DTin?
Thomas 2011/6/14 Jayesh Salvi <jayeshsa...@gmail.com> > I wrote a detailed blog post on why and how I came to develop Cadmium: > http://blog.3dtin.com/cadmium-solid-modelling-library-python-openso > > Besides Cadmium, I am the developer of 3DTin - the browser based 3D > modeling tool. Cadmium is my effort to build a scripting environment > for solid modeling that can eventually be made available through > online CAD tool like 3DTin. > > Please let me know if you have any feedback on the above post. > Thanks. > -- > Jayesh > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jayesh Salvi <jayeshsa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jayesh, > >> > >> Welcome to this list and thanks for reporting your contribution. We > already > >> discussed here the opportunity to simplify the API (just google the > famous > >> "Anyone seen this?" thread). Julien Blanchard reported here a kind a > similar > >> project named pycado (http://julienbld.github.com/pycado/), > > > > Yeah, I looked into Pycado too. > > > >> but I do prefer > >> your approach: I already wrote that I do not recommand writing another > >> scripting or macro language in order to succeed in such a project. *the* > >> scripting language is already available: python. The use of native > python > >> features enables real 'high level' idioms, like for instance mapping > boolean > >> operations to '+', '*' or '-' as you did, which is IMO an excellent > idea. > > > > We share the same opinion. > > > >> > >> The model transformation from CGAL to pythonOCC may be hazardous: I > don't > >> see how the 'Polyhedron' class (CGAL) can be related to any superclass > of > >> cylindrical primitives like Spheres, Cylinders. Do you plan to extend > your > >> project beyond CSG features? > > > > The main reason I switched to PythonOCC is, I couldn't get past > > assertion failures and crashes with CGAL, even while performing CSG > > operations on some simple geometries. Probably my lack of > > understanding of CGAL, but I was blocked nonetheless. With PythonOCC > > features however I got things working in only couple of days. Never > > faced in crashes, or incurred errors that I couldn't understand. > > > > In near term I am interested only in CSG operations, but in future I > > would like to add more functionality. Could you please elaborate on > > why you said switch from CGAL to PythonOCC may be hazardous? The > > Polyhedron class in cadmium is roughly an equivalent of BRepPrimitive > > in PythonOCC (or Nef_Polyhedron when it was using CGAL). Do you think > > that may be an incorrect abstraction? > > > > I see that PythonOCC has support for a lot of features (NURBs, > > arbitrary BRep construction, etc), I believe we can come up with > > simple abstractions on top of these powerful features to provide some > > cool solid modeling functionality. What do you think? > > > >> > >> python based, visualization free, it's all I like to see in CAD in > general! > >> Good luck for your project, and feel free to announce here your recent > >> developments. > > > > I sure will. > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pythonocc-users mailing list > Pythonocc-users@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users >
_______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
