I'm very excited about what Matt is building, the world desperately needs a good open source parametric CAD package. One where the UI/UX is designed to be as "easy" to use a SolidWorks.
The biggest reason this hasn't happened so far is the lack of a truly capable parametric kernel, Truck, the kernel that Matt is using looks like an incredible project and exactly whats needed. The only other kennel till now that been close to being whats needed is OpenCascade, but its lacks important features, is buggy and at times quite unstable.
Once Truck (and CADmium) lands stable fillets (surprisingly one of the hardest features to make stable) it will prove itself as the perfect successor to OpenCascade and and the perfect platform to build the future of open source parametric CAD upon.
I will say that the FreeCAD weekly builds have made massive strides; I believe the toponaming fix is in the latest mainline weekly now and Ondsel have been contributing great work back from their branch as well.
I’ve been playing around with the weekly version and using the OpenDark theme. It looks pretty slick.
It seems like a really exciting time for open-source CAD (hopefully!).
FreeCAD suffers from the same issues that much open-source software suffers from: it has bugs. Bugs erode user confidence.
Apparently, there are now > 500 bugs open.
When commercial software has bugs, you don't even know they exist often. Sure, but there are also ways to make bug free software, but hardly any open-source software exists that uses those development techniques.
It’s not just that. It’s also ugly and awkward to use. I tried to use it after learning Fusion360, and it’s just lacking. I wasn’t even trying to do anything particularly complicated, and it just kinda sucked.
You see the same problems with a lot of “flagship” oss ware. Gimp seems to have the same awkward feature set for 25 years. Apparently the only thing that has changed is they no longer compile against Gtk 1.0, and they decided to have all images in a single window.
Still can’t do smart background erase.
Inkscape kinda works, but it always seems like attachment points for easily alignment, and a non sucky text editor are forever out of reach.
I’m sorry. I know software is hard, but it’s been literally decades of stagnation.
Off the top of my head:
- Full color management
- Non-destructive filters
- 32-bit per channel precision
- Late binding CMYK support
- Unified transform tool
- Vastly better selection and cropping tools
- Vastly better text tool
Should I go on? :)
You’ve proven my point. A bunch of data loading crap, but nothing substantial on the usability.
This is a simple tutorial task. Is it this easy in Gimp? No. It’s not. But hey, we have the same crappy ScriptFu plugins from a quarter century ago. Anyway, you have the source! Shut up and be grateful you insensitive clod!
https://youtu.be/K25F9RPrP9Q
No, not really. You did say 'feature set'.
Sure, if you like editing with color fidelity loss.
Except non-destructive editing is a major UX improvement.
Except unified transform tool is a major UX improvement.
Except... Well, you get the idea. And I barely got started.
It's almost like you just hate the project and won't accept any changes they do.
I too have my fair share of frustrations with the project — enough to quit it as a team member a couple of years ago. But somehow I don't go around pretending big changes aren't big bc I'm feeling petty all of a sudden.
You can keep assert these things, but do you really think this is acceptable progress of two and a half decades? Look around. It’s not.
I gave a concrete example of a task that is trivial in 2024, and it just does not work nearly as well or as easily. It’s the same functionality of 30 years ago.
Instead, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “it is progress!” Yeah, well maybe technically correct, but the gap has widened. As a project it should be shutdown. It’s zombieware.
Sounds like you are mad at the world and I got in the middle of it. Sorry, I'll see myself out.
Sit by and let nothing happen while you’re out!
The last 3 seem like usability upgrades. Substantial, I dunno.
Two and a half decades for a text tool, when the rest of the functionality is stuck in 1996?
Seems fair
Very recently (well: yesterday and today), I made the same non trivial shape for an electronics project, and I tried Fusion360, OnShape and FreeCad.
I basically want to extend the base of an Ikea lantern (Enrum); this require creating an (irregular) octagonal shape, and then creating a slot so that the lantern base can sit on it.
I had some distant memories of modeling stuff in Solidworks for a project back in university, so I'm not starting from zero.
I was able to finish my design in Fusion and redid it in one evening in Onshape. As for Freecad... I still don't know how to do it. Or rather: I could probably do it, but only with so much more googling on how to do basic stuff that it is discouraging to even thing about it.
I think the main issue is that Freecad generally expects you to know exactly what to do, and has very poor affordance.
Let's take the very few steps for instance. In order to create my lantern "shoe", I first need to recreate its base. It's some sort of octagon, so the plan is to draw an octagon, extrude it and then probably repeat the operation with several other octagon to carve a slot for the lamp.
So the very first thing is to create a sketch on the xy place. In both OnShape In both Fusion and OnShape, the very first menu item in the toolbar is the "create new sketch" one [1][2]. So you can immediately click on it, then chose you plane, then start to draw.
[1] https://ibb.co/4YMtDnD
[2] https://ibb.co/ZMCf1Yy
In Freecad though, the first thing in the toolbar are.. the camera controls (which are somehow redundant with the interactive cube view of the main area). In fact, you cannot even create a sketch from the default toolbar; at best you can create a Part.
[3] https://ibb.co/ww791Bd
In order to create a new sketch, you need to go to the dropdown menu. This menu is ordered alphabetically. So the first item is "Arc", then "Draft", then "FEM", ... If you do not know the jargon and/or is just starting out, good luck finding where to next ("what's the difference between Draft and Sketch ?" they would say). And even select Sketcher from the combobox, the first controls you see are still the camera ones. Worse: the "create parts" button from earlier is still there ! [3] And so the "new sketch" button is hidden on the right side of while it's probably the very first thing you want to do.
[3] https://ibb.co/xXrTd6t
And for the very short time I spend trying Freecad, issues like were constant.
There's seems to be some open issues related to this in the Github issues viewer, but no tangible commitment as far as I know.
Much of that has been improved for the next release.
Isn't that what OSS project always say?
I think Kritta is the new flagship OSS image editing software. I don't use either, but that's my impression.
You think professional software is bug-free? I have some experience with NX and I can tell you it’s not exactly bug-free either. It’s very likely better than FreeCAD, but requiring zero bugs is just unrealistic.
This is true, but for customers of nx, solidworks, etc it's someone's job to fix the bugs for you
Which doesn't necessarily mean that job will ever get done.
In my experience it always has, every single time.
How do you get Solidworks bugs fixed, and on what timescale? We have ~20 solidworks premium seats, plus a handful of licenses for other dassault products. We've complained loudly about various issues, submitted and voted on feature requests, talked to our VAR at length and in many on-site meetings, and nothing seems to happen as a direct result. At best, a bug is incidentally fixed in a later release.
It's still better than FreeCAD, though.
You submit a ticket with your VAR, and then keep following up with it.
I've never once run into something that they didn't have a workaround for, and then eventually fix. Sometimes it takes a service pack or two.
They out out 4 or 5 service packs every year along with the major yearly releases, those service packs are basically entirely bug fixes.
You may want to look into switching VARs if your not happy with your support.
Our VAR was Trimech for many years, then we tried a few others that were worse, and finally we came back to Trimech.
We've always lagged a year behind the current SW release to try to avoid getting hit by the latest and greatest bugs.
I think we just hit more edge cases than other companies. We have half a TB of stuff in our vault (about 250k files), going back to 2012 for the first import. Lots of legacy files, fairly complex assemblies, heavy use of some tricky stuff like the sheetmetal design tools (where we tend to find the most bugs). And then there's Solidworks Electrical, which I don't think anybody is set up to support well, as it's still a fairly recent acquisition from Trace Software.
Sadly a lot of people think that way.
Particularly younger engineers have their mind blown over the concept of not immediately upgrading all your software just because there's a new version.
In the physical engineering spaces, it's more valuable to keep using the same software version you started a project with, rather than have hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because of a dickhead bug.
It has that in common with CAD software which has 5 figure annual subscriptions. Find me a CAD user who doesn't notice bugs in the software they're using and I'll show you someone who has <1 hour of experience.
This is true, but when I encounter a bug in Solidworks there is someone who's job it is to fix it,and they do.
That would be novel in my experience, they seem far more interested in cramming in features (with more associated bugs).
I, for one, love those new features. Often they save me hours a day.
About 10 years ago they released a new feature, slot sketch tool, so instead of drawing 2 circles, two lines, trimming, now it's one click.
If you use the new feature to save significant time, like me, it's wonderful.
I can only talk about professional visual effects (VFX) software like Maya and Nuke.
Let's just say I've seen their (internal) bug trackers.
TLDR; you couldn't be more wrong.
When OSS software has bugs, at least someone with an interest in the issue and the skills can do something about it.
For closed source software nobody can. Even the people working at the resp. company who are developers rarely or never decide about priorities.
And as an added hurdle, adding features always has higher priority as it drives sales.
Maybe I'm not enough of an evangelist, but I just want a good, non-subscription local-first CAD package.
I've recently moved over to Alibre Atom3D, which, while not open-source, costs $200. Once. Then (as long as your host OS doesn't change too much) you can access your designs forever. It runs on the ACIS kernel.
"Browser first" and (from the readme) "Beyond that, I will try to monetize by offering a hosted version of the software as a paid product." reads to me like this project is doomed to either fizzle or to grow and transform into an open-core, subscription-requiring product, accumulating more complicated dependencies to install and "security features" that make it harder and harder to run in truly local fashion.
The problem with Alibre is that it only works on Windows. I switched from FreeCAD to the free (as in beer) version of Onshape, which works in the browser and is a night and day difference over FreeCAD.
Your designs are wide open for anyone to see, but I can live with that for hobby stuff.
I wouldn't mind having my models public, but that it SaaS is such a nuisance and the reason I am sticking to FreeCAD. I want to be able to edit offline, like on an airplane and not lose the ability to edit my stuff if some company shuts their servers down.
I probably spent 100 hours trying to tame FreeCAD, and ended up thinking CAD was just not for me. I then tried Onshape and found out that the problem was elsewhere.
Did you do any tutorials? I've done like 10 hrs of the MangojellySolutions beginner tutorials on YouTube and after that I've been pretty much able to do what I want or only had to look up solutions to a very specific problem.
I one time had an issue where I messed up and had to post on the FreeCAD forum and got two of the best responses I've gotten anywhere on the internet ever. Two people opened up my model and took screenshots highlighting where my issue was and gave me several suggestions on how to improve my model in other ways. The initial time investment was substantial and there are still a few workflows that could be smoother for me (attaching a sketch to a different face after it's been created), but that's fairly minor.
On the flip side I spent probably 30 minutes each to get acquainted with Fusion and Onshape, and completed my first designs within a couple of hours.
I've invested several hours already in trying to learn FreeCAD and achieved nothing. Its a hot mess that desperately needs a new UI.
It might take more than several hours. But the Mango Jelly Solutions videos on Youtube will get you into FreeCAD.
Sure, but my primary objective is not "to learn CAD systems" - I just want to get models done for making things.
Right. But this is the choice, isn't it?
I don't know if you can really get away without learning general things about CAD systems if you want to make complex things, because those general things are so influential on the existence and design of real world objects.
It's like saying "but I don't really want to learn about different programming languages or software design, because I only want to write apps for iPhone."
If you want to make very simple objects and not learn deeper concepts, use TinkerCAD. It's fine. Weirdly competent in places; people pull off crazy stuff. It uses a simple physical world model.
Beyond that, you need more abstract tools. Ultimately you have to decide whether you want to exist within the (shifting) free plan limitations of a commercial cloud package, spend money on something like Alibre Atom3D, pay the cloud firms, or use something open source.
I'm not sure if it should be surprising that the open source systems are more of a commitment.
FreeCAD (main branch) has one fundamental limitation which is being mitigated -- the topological naming issues -- and some smaller issues to do with fillets/chamfers, but apart from that is a disorganised-but-competent, open source workbench-based system.
And the tradeoffs are not straightforward. This is less like Photoshop vs GIMP and more like ArcGIS vs QGIS. Is ArcGIS initially more coherent? Yes, allegedly. Is it universally more powerful? No.
FreeCAD is really a lot like QGIS, IMO.
You can learn QGIS, and when you learn it, you might decide that the freedoms and flexibility it offers are worth the pain. Or you might front up the cash for ArcGIS.
100 hours of watching videos and trying to make something and not getting anywhere vs a few hours.
The problem was not about getting away with it without learning general principles.
Of course, those 100 hours taught me about principles that were applicable to OnShape as well, so it’s not entirely apples to apples.
BTW, the issue was never TNP. It was everything else. The absurd separation between Parts and bodies and whatnot. The 5 different assembly benches, none of them good. The crashes. The way you need pixel precision to grab a vertex or an edge. And if some operation cuts a part in multiple disjoint pieces, only one survives.
My wife told me to stop doing what I was doing because I ended the weekend with way more frustration than the work week.
I've not watched 100 hours of videos at all and I've made and printed fully parametric designs with four variants driven by two configuration tables. I don't think it's that hard to learn.
Again, Parts/Bodies, it's confusing (and Part Design should be called "Single Body Design" IMO) but there are videos that explain the difference.
(I gather it comes from CATIA, and CATIA users are comfortable. Either way you don't have to use both; it's possible to never touch Part Design and do absolutely everything.)
I don't think I got it initially but now the difference is useful. There could be more work to allow non-Part-Design Parts to be wrapped in Part Design bodies. There's a macro (pdwrapper) for this, and Realthunder's branch built it in.
There could be better explanations on how Part Design works, how you build a Part Design Body from existing Parts and how you later combine them.
I feel this pain and I mostly avoided it by just using static placement. There's a new built-in Assembly workbench with a sophisticated solver that is being added in 1.0 which will land in the next two to three months (and is already in 0.22-dev and Ondsel 2024.2). I am going to dive in with that.
Not a problem I have on the Mac at all now; 0.21 is really stable. Though startup crashes are common on Linux due to W****nd and the complexities of compiling support for it. The Flatpak appears to solve those. Ish.
There is a preference setting (a newish one) that makes edge selection rougher/easier.
Only in Part Design, which (in mainstream FreeCAD) is concerned with only one contiguous object. In fact, that operation actually fails. (A Body can be started with a compound of multiple pieces, but the first feature has to join them).
RealThunder's branch can support Bodies made of separate solids, and maybe that will come to mainstream once the TNP fix, which is a prerequisite, is in.
Outside of Part Design, objects split as you'd expect.
I don't think FreeCAD is perfect. That would be silly. But none of the "free" plans of the commercial cloud packages are right for me.
This. And I think it now has the best tutorials on youtube. And the Facebook group is weirdly fantastic. It’s such a nice community.
But there’s no denying that FreeCAD is still a bit of a lifestyle choice :-) I love it, but I don’t try to sell everyone on it yet.
Agreed. The UI is painful, but the project priorities are correct: fixing TNP and fillet/chamfer needs to come before the polish. First make it minimum viable for the non-zealous, then we can talk about drawing attention with a sexy dark-mode-by-default UI overhaul. It's getting close, but that makes this the most important time to exercise restraint.
Alas, fully fixing the issues with fillets and chamfers may be impossible, because those specific problems are quite foundational issues in OpenCascade. I don’t know if it’s even possible for FreeCAD to know that a fillet would fail by testing it, because of limitations with the responses that come back from the kernel.
It might be possible to predict which edges would have problems, but I think that would involve repeating geometry calculations outside the geometry kernel?
Specifically the main problem with fillets/chamfers in OCC is that the new face cannot completely consume/replace an existing edge.
That is to say -- I think!? -- that one of the edges of the new fillet/chamfer is always an existing edge just displaced, and no edges are destroyed. If an edge would be destroyed, then it fails?
But this is just my colloquial/folklore understanding.
There have been newer versions of OCC that FreeCAD has not yet switched to, I think. (And there is a new (Chinese) fork, called OpenGeometry.)
So maybe there are some fixes already in the pipeline or in the future. But they are somewhat out of the FreeCAD project's control, is my understanding.
I definitely agree on it not being intuitive. Something where I likely will spend hundreds of hours of work and learning is something I want to be unambiguously available to suddenly being taken away from me or be behind a paywall of thousands of dollars. You are 100% correct though that this tradeoff isn't for most people.
A big part of those 100 hours were spent watching these kind of videos.
And I asked countless questions on the forum as well. People were always very helpful.
But there’s a point where you just give up.
Having never used OnShape before, it literally took me half a day to get something done and submitted for external production. I tried that design first in FreeCAD, after those 100 hours, and got nowhere.
I think there's probably a vast range of use cases where having the models freely available isn't hindrance
Even $2k per year in 3D CAD is entry level pricing. Good CAD for $200 once is probably a prank tier idea to suitspeople, even though it's a necessity for 3D printing community.
Suits gonna get Blendered, but that's a good thing :-)
It is worth noting that what is doable/practical with entry level CAD has increased a lot over the last 20 years. Hobbyists will not feel restricted, and one can do quite a lot of commercial relevant work also.
I think RS Electronics still maintains and gives away a version of DesignSpark for Windows, which is likely a smart move if it integrates with their catalogue.
Alibre Atom3D is the entry level package, but the whole thing seems very much like the Affinity suite model. It looks very good.
BricsCAD for instance is less than that, 1600 one-time fee. And it's good.
Feel the same way. Honestly I think there's more money to be had going open source than competing in a sea full of sharks. But hey, that's probably wishful thinking from my part.
But that open-core subscription model is the way open source makes money! Not enough people pay for software out of the goodness of their hearts to make a living off of it.
All subscription software is just a protection racket.
Nice files you got there. It would be a shame if they suddenly become unreadable, eh?
Even the so called "open" core is a joke. Just try to add anything useful. It will get rejected in favor of a paid option.
The whole thing is just an offensive anathema to open source.
"The biggest reason this hasn't happened so far is the lack of a truly capable parametric kernel"
Does parasolid not fit this requirement? The capabilities I've seen in Plasticity are very impressive. Or do you specifically mean FOSS?
The more I use CAD platforms, the more I develop the sense that general-purpose CAD is much less useful than single-purpose applications that provide tailored solutions to narrow problem domains. SVG/DXF/DWG output is a plus, but I think a drawing software that works for high-volume machine parts, one-of-a-kind architecture, highways, 50-mile pipelines, circuits, urban transit plans, and art is the wrong direction. I use industry standard roadway design software and a "road" does not exist in the object model. Horizontal, vertical, and sectional components are all independently defined despite these things being inseparable and having some very obvious and well-specified rules about their interaction. I really think designers should spend more time thinking about outcomes and less time telling the computer how to display them.
I think this is a great point. When looking at ‘best practices’ for constructing robust parametric models I keep thinking “this is so much like software engineering where the programming language is the CAD system” (as an aside, I’ve tried OpenSCAD but found the rendering UI waaay too slow even with simple stuff to be usable for me).
So as a model builder you end up trying to build these higher-level abstractions into your model, where the parameters are your top-level interface.
I think CAD is so much like programming in those ways, although I could just be biased since I’m a software engineer.
You are right! CAD users encode a design intent into the software, just like you encode a design intent into an editor. I model a construction outcome with geometry like you might model business rules with functions and objects.
Some of the wisdom from programming would do well to pass onto design software. Like how strong type systems can provide safety by pushing rules to compile time and make some errors unrepresentable. Meanwhile, I can fire up Microstation, draw roads crossing at the same elevation with no intersection (think stops and signals, not geometry) between them. Or a drain culvert could terminate in a big Hello Kitty picture. These things should be impossible. If the task is designing a road, I don't need the ability to draw anything I can possibly imagine. I really need the software to know what a road can and can't do, produce a model that obeys those constraints, and to give me files and documents I can give to an owner and a contractor which convey an accurate understanding of what that model is.
In the ECAD world design rules and design rule check exists to prevent or at least detect that.
Then it is just up to you or your organization to come up with a design rule set that ensures your boards can be manufactured by the board house.
For OpenSCAD, try the nightly build and enable MANIFOLD --- that's an order of magnitude (or two) of increase in the performance.
100% agree. The future of CAD consists in more specialized CAD platforms, not tweaks to general mechanical CAD. Cabinet Vision is one good example.
Parasolid is owned by Siemens, it's not open source really
Interesting. Any chance you could explain why fillets are hard(er)?
For fillets to work well they have to connect three important features of a parametric CAD package:
1. Surface tangency matching - perfectly matching the tangent of the connecting surface on either side of the corner.
2. Edge tangency following - you select an edge, and the fillet should be able to follow along all connected tangent edges.
3. Edge reference tracking - when you modify the model further up the feature tree the kernel needs to keep track of that edge, even if the surfaces that make it drastically change or are split.
All three are hard problems on their own, once you connect them all it becomes a great indicator of the capabilities and stability of a parametric kernel.
For Solvespace I was looking at using curve offsetting to determine where the fillet touches the surface. This would not produce a "rolling ball" fillet in more complex cases, but should be fine for simpler extrusions. It turns out generating an offset curve is another somewhat hard problem in itself.
Yep, it would be difficult to maintain a consistent radius with that method.
My assumption (I've not looked) is that you could offset the surfaces from the two sides (say A and B), and then calculate the intersection of an offset of A with the original B. Then do the opposite for the other side. I think that will give you two edges that will produce a consistent radius.
Offsetting surfaced and calculating intersections aren't exactly easy problems to solve on their own. Fillets are hard!
(Solvespace is awesome BTW! If I had the time (or the expertise) it also makes a brilliant foundation for all this)
Yeah, offsetting surfaces is harder than curves ;-) This was my early stab at doing chamfers on extrusions: https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/453#issuecom...
I know how to do it better now, but ugh... not enough time.
What a concise, informative answer this is. You write well.
FreeCAD’s (well, OpenCascade’s) issues with fillets and chamfers appear to be most acute with a subset of your third point: sometimes adding one involves the new feature fully consuming another edge. This is unsolved in OCC and it’s why sometimes even infinitesimally changing the depth of the fillet or chamfer is enough to stop an edge being destroyed.
I was subscribed to Shapr3D and had been using their parametric beta before switching to Linux and even in that fillets would mess up what I could do with my models afterwards.
The impression I’ve gotten while learning FreeCAD is that making a CAD ‘just work’ is incredibly difficult and the commercial packages probably have a lot of very messy workarounds and heuristics in place to work like they do.
I don't know a lot about these tools, but I've used QCAD[1] for home improvement projects, drawing schematics and layout diagrams, and been very happy with it. It seems quite powerful. It's also open source, although not browser based.
I'm just wondering why QCAD doesn't seem to get much if any mention on HN when CAD tools and open source comes up.
1 - https://www.qcad.org/
Qcad is commercial software. The author is doing his best to ride the line between commercial and OSS, but most free software developers don't want to play. LibreCad was forked from an earlier version of Qcad and fell behind. Now they're doing a whole new LibreCAD but it's been years in the making.
LibreCAD v3 is very nearly abandoned. I could be wrong, but the vast majority of the new code there came from GSoC students who didn't quite stick around for long except just one who did multiple GSoCs but also eventually left.
I'm impressed what people are doing with 2D CAD, because for the life of me I can't figure out how they do it. I love the constrained based sketching in 3D CAD tools and didn't have the impression that qcad had anything like it?
2D vs. 3D, I think.
3D is where the excitement is, but also where the difficulty is from the kernel perspective.
QCAD is not a parametric 3D CAD program. You have to know what your part will look like before you draw it, because all it really does is neatly draw lines and curves.
Contrast with Solvespace (or FreeCAD, or any of the popular commercial parametric 3D CAD programs), which lets you specify relationships (constraints) between elements in 2D and 3D. The shape of your part is the finished result, not the starting point.
I used solid works on my robotics team.
Tried using some other program but I loved the way solidworks let's you create parts, and then some other features where its hard to exactly discribe the exact thing but for me solidworks seemed so much more intuitive.
I dropped my summer internship money on the version which was a few hundred bucks. ...pretty sure it was cuz I got the student or the hobbist deal.
Solidworks finally has an affordable personal license
https://www.solidworks.com/solution/3dexperience-solidworks-...
I love this idea. However, the value of solid works (and other expensive solutions) are the domain-specific assets that are available.
SketchUp has a lot of community assets but these still leave you hanging almost immediately.
You need to be able to scrounge up drawings of certain parts by part number that can be inserted quickly.
This is surmountable but I think it would take at least a decade to reach parity...in a best case scenario where CADmium is readily adopted.
I would put in the time to learn CADmium. Having worked in FreeCAD some and SketchUp moreso.
I hate that I can't automate things easier or build my drawings from scriptable components--like a XAML file.
I don't think think this is a problem at all, the industry has standardised on STEP for assets, as long as CADmium and Truck have STEP support (which they will) then they have access to all assets. True, there are dynamically configurable assets for SolidWorks, but any community around a cad package will quickly recreate those.
Indeed. This is a great application for Rust. It's something that's complicated, difficult, and has to work right.
For Rust itself, maybe, but not for its community.
I think this makes sense for a certain market segment. In the commercial arena, cost of AutoCAD (and similar) is negligible compared to the revenue it generates.
Even better if it were as easy and intuitive to use as IronCAD. It's by-far the best UI/UX CAD software and I'll never understand why it doesn't get more recognition.