upvote

points

by joachimhs4 days ago |
comments
upvoteby phkahler6 hours ago|
next
[-]
I have similar hopes for Solvespace - that every middle school student can pick it up and design things. We have a couple issues that keep me from recommending it too strongly though - bugs in the boolean code are IMHO the biggest blocker for kids.

Any chance you could have the kids make comparisons between the two? Solvespace is completely constraint-based, so it may be a bit harder to learn but also more flexible.

It's a single exe, but there is also an experimental web version: https://solvespace.com/webver.pl

reply
upvoteby dofm4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> that every middle school student can pick it up and design things.

The Solvespace UI is a long, long way from being the sort of UI a contemporary kid has any kind of comfort with, I'm afraid, and will be obtuse even to teachers (many of whom, with subjects that concern technology, do not have time to develop expertise in an obtuse UI and may indeed only be confident they understand the meaning of all the lessons they are teaching and not much more).

I don't think bugs in your booleans are your biggest problem at all.

I think Tinkercad has weaknesses as a classic CAD package, and there are things I would like to see done better, but as a package to teach younger people how core concepts in 3D modelling (rather than the ontologies of bRep) actually work, it is the standard you are working against.

reply
upvoteby WillAdams2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A UI which seems a bit more in-line w/ contemporary expectations is Dune 3D:

https://dune3d.org/

which I find a little less confusing than the traditional 3D CAD packages I've tried (and failed to learn) --- at least for Dune 3D I've made it through the tutorial successfully.

reply
upvoteby dofm2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Dune 3D is OK — and is after all dependent on Solvespace.
reply
upvoteby phkahler2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>> The Solvespace UI is a long, long way from being the sort of UI a contemporary kid has any kind of comfort with...

Respectfully, I disagree. Even adults have used the word "fun" to describe using solvespace. But I don't actually have feedback from kids, hence the question to OP.

reply
upvoteby dofm2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Don't get me wrong, I think Solvespace is really important and I am glad you are keeping it ticking over, but it is the least fun UI I have ever encountered, I'm afraid (kind of obtuse on a trackpad too)

Not saying any of this is easy — Shapr3D on an iPad, expensive and marketed on its extraordinary usability, is just utterly perplexing!

reply
upvoteby phkahler28 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
>> kind of obtuse on a trackpad too

Oh, I actually hate trying to use solvespace with anything other than a 3-button mouse. Unfortunate because the web version can actually run on my phone but is unusable in practice.

reply
upvoteby dofm10 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I guess this is, sort of, the filter through which I experience the frustrations; it may be magnifying them even.

I've not used a three button mouse in thirty years. Probably only used a mouse for a dozen hours in the last 15 years.

reply
upvoteby SecuredMarvin10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Group transform is out of order. It does not transform the group but the elements. This leads to the suspicion that position and rotation are not transformation chains on object trees but attributes. That would be the wrong architecture.

I am very sorry, but please explain. Why is this a nice looking Svelte / Three / CSG app, but the basics are wrong?

reply
upvoteby felixyz7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Someone built something useful and you complain that it's "nice looking"? Consider reframing your feedback.
reply
upvoteby master-lincoln5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No, they are complaining that a basic functionality is not working and hinting at not having the right architecture to deliver correct results in more complex scenarios.
reply
upvoteby bethekidyouwant5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
but this is clearly not meant to be onshape, its for kids who want to 3d print something. the 'hole' mode does not seem to subtract like I would expect.
reply
upvoteby SecuredMarvin5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, sure. I will try to be more blunt, as I was not trying to complain about anything.

I think you have invested with agreeable results, but you missed fundamentals. Adjust course to "architecture first" and I expect a great product.

reply
upvoteby Gracana5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think that's a lot better. "Please explain your wrongness" really had me scratching my head. Hopefully they can make improvements to the 3D architecture or find someone who can help.
reply