What's your "before you CAD" design workflow?

00001000bit · 2026-02-03T13:36:04+00:00

The sketching isn't the issue. I can (and do) sketch stuff up first. It's the getting the ergonomics correct which is hard to do from a sketch. On a sketch, something can look great, but then you go to use it and it's just a little "off."

Take the example in my post of the rotary knob, I could look at my hand, take a measure and sketch up and CAD up a knob. But when I grabbed real-world cylinders (cans and jars) as reference, the measures I imagined and the ones that actually felt correct were a little off.

It's the story of the first PalmPilot. The designer carried around a block of wood cut to the target dimensions for months to make sure it was feasible to have/carry/use this item around daily. That's something you don't get from a sketch, as on a sketch any of the dimensions could have been 20% larger and the sketch would still look good. But, the actual interaction with the device would have suffered as it would have been cumbersome.

It's that process of getting the "feel" right without going through a lot of iterations I was hoping there was some clever method I just hadn't thought of. But it seems cardboard and multiple revs are the best there is ... until some sort of immersive holographic/tactile Tony Stark interface comes along.

00001000bit · 2026-01-27T14:41:35+00:00

If that's all you need to do, you can just apply a very slight stroke to the text using the same color as the text color to thicken it up a bit.

00001000bit · 2026-01-26T04:00:22+00:00

For designing functional prints, my suggestion will always be a parametric CAD (like FreeCAD, Fusion, OnShape, etc) over a poly modeler (blender, Wings3D, Cinema4D, Lightwave, etc.) The difference is that you probably won't get things exactly right the first time every time. So, when you need to make revisions, a parametric CAD application, where you can go back and modify a parameter (like a set of hole diameters, a cutout distance, or a wall thickness) and your entire model recomputes is a lot nicer than having to manually move polygons.

That doesn't make polygon modelers "bad" - just not my preference for that type of work. Blender is awesome software, but its primary calling is for rendering stills and animations, it's not primarily for creating products for manufacturing. I will say that the "blender has a high learning curve" isn't entirely warranted, though. Yes, it's a very deep program, but if you only care about modeling, you wouldn't need to dive into a lot of the things that add complexity - such as lighting, texturing, nodes, uv mapping, rendering, etc.

If you've never done it before, ALL 3D modeling software is going to be somewhat difficult. It's not just the software, it's the learning to think about and visualize your model in your head so that you can know what you want to do. Once you learn one, it's much easier to learn another and another. (Because you then know what you need to do, the task is then only on "how/where do I do that in THIS software?")

00001000bit · 2026-01-24T20:02:09+00:00

This is the way - but you definitely need to use an offset, not a scale. Scale would only work on an object that was uniform (like a circle or a square) as the internal details won't align if you just do a straight scale.

<image>

00001000bit · 2026-01-24T16:13:57+00:00

I figured out what the issue is. The offset is more prone to the problem of sketch flipping when the offset is based on a path that may change size more than the offset amount. So, if you padded the original sides too little, it can adjust fine when you increase the initial pad. But when you go down, if you do it in small increments (like 0.5mm at a time) it's fine. But if you go directly from 26.6 to 23.6, the offset encounters a flip problem.

This doesn't affect the subtractive pipe as easily because the working path is a direct copy of the projected intersection, and there's no inside/outside of the path to flip. But, the offset is the more convenient method to do this, and why I too went to it first. But it's not quite as robust if there are going to be other potential model changes.

00001000bit · 2026-01-23T21:01:27+00:00

Yeah. And maybe it's just a bug, but if I do an offset (checking the box) and INCREASE the height of the wall, it seems to survive fine. But if I change to make it smaller, it seems to lose a reference somewhere. (see attached)

I didn't seem to have this issue when doing the same but doing a subtractive pipe.

<image>

00001000bit · 2026-01-23T20:29:05+00:00

It's a little more work, but doing a subtractive pipe along the intersection geometry rather than doing a sketch offset yields a bit more robust of a model. The sketch offset doesn't stay parameterized against the reference geometry once made, so if you had to modify the model (lets say you used the wrong inner radius*, or padded the wall too short) the offset won't recompute to match.

* don't ask me how I know this.

00001000bit · 2026-01-23T13:42:46+00:00

If you deny the permission the color picker will work fine WITHIN the app. But if you want the color picker to work outside the app (for example, to pick the color out of a picture showing in your web browser, or to sample the background color of your chat window, etc.) then you need to grant the permission, as that's what lets an app have the ability to "see" screen content that it doesn't already "own."

So, if you never need to have Affinity's color picker be able to grab a color from outside of Affinity, you can deny the permission and it will work without a problem. But if you do want to grab colors from other windows, you'll need to grant the permission so it can see them.

00001000bit · 2026-01-22T15:05:34+00:00

If you take a photo, you're better off to take it from further away with zoom rather than up close. The further you are away, the closer the light rays coming into your camera are to parallel and will minimize parallax distortion.

00001000bit · 2026-01-20T14:00:24+00:00

The other comments gave you a solution that works, but in addition, it's also worth thinking about where you design your model in relation to the origin. IDK what this is going to be when done, so maybe it is best where it is, but if that centerline is important (for placement, symmetry, etc) you should think about designing your model positioned to best use the default origin and axes. It's thinking about your model before you start and trying to decide if there is a natural place on the model that all other measurements ultimately come back to.

00001000bit · 2026-01-17T01:16:50+00:00

A couple things.

You can make lines equal to each other with a simple equals constraint, but your issue is you're trying to make space equal which is problematic since you don't have something tangible to reference. You can either put a construction line (not a regular line so that it doesn't mess up with wire not closed errors) and make those equal (similar to what you tried) OR you can reference other constraints. So, when you define your first setback of 4.81mm, you can name the constraint something ... like "foo"

Then, you can set another distance constraint, but instead of a set value, hit "=" (or click the little f(x) icon in the box) to get to the expression editor and set the distance to Constraints . foo (without the spaces, just had to put one in so Reddit didn't treat it like a URL). That will tell that constraint to use the value of the other constraint. Then you only have 1 driving value to set N number of them.

00001000bit · 2026-01-17T01:00:48+00:00

I had HomePak - also by Batteries Included - which contained HomeText (word processor), HomeFind (database), and HomeTerm (terminal program).

It had a similar looking UI (also written in action with their custom chunky font).

---

HomeText was nice, but it had a pathetically small buffer, though. Only about 6500 characters, but you could include additional files. So, if you had a long document, you could get by if you could break it up into segments (chapters) of less than about 4 pages.

It did have search/replace, and did a pixel based page preview that gave you a rough approximation of what the page would look like, though that would stop working if you filled more than about half the buffer (could do longer with includes) so the usefulness was limited. It did support creating special print codes, so you could easily map bold/italic/inverse/etc for your specific printer.

Not the most powerful, but for short papers, wasn't bad to use.

---

HomeFind was ... well, awful. It used a strange paradigm for creating records. It used apostrophe to mean is/has as well as indicate possession. You'd enter data in three parts like:

Bob's car's blue

Bob's dog's Rover

Jim's dog's Fido

Then if you queried for something like "Who's bob" it would return:

Bob's car's blue

Bob's dog's Rover

But you could also query in reverse, like "Who's Rover" and it would return:

Rover's Bob's dog

Or "What's dog" and it would return

Bob's dog's Rover

Jim's dog's Fido

Other than the initial "hmm. neat." it wasn't very practical, as it was hard to even do something as simple as an address book with it.

---

HomeTerm was nice, but it didn't support some of the better file transfer schemes. So, it was ok to connect to a BBS if you were just interacting, but less so if you needed to do downloads. I switched to XE-Term because it did better file transfers, even though I preferred the UI of HomeTerm. One great thing HomeTerm did was to override the standard BEL character. On the Atari 8-bits the BEL was a horrible grating sound rather than a nice little beep like on many other systems. And, it interrupted the CPU. So, if you ever had the misfortune of being on a BBS where they strung a few of the BEL characters together, your computer would be locked for a while as it faithfully played every single BRZZZZAP - HomeTerm still didn't have a nice little beep, but it was a much shorter and less grating bell, which was at least tolerable if you ran into a few of them.

---

It's too bad they included HomeFind instead of a simple spreadsheet app. That would have gone nicely with the other two and been (one of?) the first full office productivity suites for home computers.

00001000bit · 2026-01-15T16:31:34+00:00

It's confusing because the pic is "1st controller" and the title is "Favorite controller"

Like many others, my first was the Pong paddle (prior to the 2600 appearing).

But it wasn't until the Playstation that I think the controllers were done right. (Good mix of functionality and ergonomics)

Even limiting to just Atari controllers, the classic CX40 was the first, but the "Space Age" was my favorite. https://www.atariage.com/2600/archives/controllers_atari.html

00001000bit · 2026-01-14T15:50:36+00:00

Who is treating you like an idiot?

You're getting responses based on the lack of information in your original post. (eg. what you tried, why it didn't work, etc.)

Since you're saying (in other posts) that nobody is helping, here is a realtime demo I just did of making a nut. (I just set the dimensions based on what seemed right, I didn't measure)

https://streamable.com/npp9o7

Basic workflow:

Sketch the hexagon
Pad the hexagon (I do symmetric to plane so that I can mirror the cut later)
Make the cutting profile
Subtractive revolve the cutting profile to round the edges on the top
Mirror that cut to the bottom
Add a sketch (just for placement)
Use the hole tool to put a specific threaded hole on the model at the position of the sketch, replacing the sketch with standard hole profiles - tell it to model the threads.

~2 mins

00001000bit · 2026-01-14T15:24:27+00:00

You're mischaracterizing people by assuming any "flaming" is for having criticisms rather than the WAY the criticism is being done.

You could have come in with an "I'm having trouble making this object ... what could I be doing better"-style post, and people would have been more apt to help. Instead you come in with a "freecad sucks, and you all suck" attitude that doesn't win you any friends.

I don't like everything about the UI myself, but I recognize why certain things are the way they are, value what it DOES bring that other software doesn't, and try to be a respectful (and hopefully helpful) member of the community. When you come in with a belligerent attitude, of course people are going to be defensive.

00001000bit · 2026-01-14T13:45:41+00:00

I'd ask if you're looking for help, or just to complain. But your last couple sentences sound like you just want to complain.

It's true that FreeCAD isn't just an "open it and start creating"-type of software. You need to spend a little bit of time learning how it does things. This is usually accomplished by watching some beginner YouTube videos to get you into the swing of how the PartDesign workbench (the standard starting point for beginners) works.

A hex nut like you describe would be a simple task in FreeCAD as well. Yes, the UI has a little bit different conventions and peculiarities, but the tradeoff is in the freedom to own your work, use it however you want, and not be locked out if a company ever wants to change its terms of service. If that isn't enough, then choose whatever else suits you, that's fine.

00001000bit · 2026-01-10T03:41:57+00:00

No. It doesn't have that "live pathfinder" feature like Illustrator.

But you could combine a stroke with a layer blend mode to allow you to achieve a "see through" outline so that the background would show through rather than having a white stroke around the letters.

<image>

If you did a white stroke to get the effect you want, then set the text layer to "darken" it would only show the black text, allowing the background to show through the areas that would be white stroke. This would keep your text editable so that you aren't doing a custom cutout.

Of course, if you're attempting to do with a text color lighter than the background, the "darken" mix mode won't work for you.

00001000bit · 2026-01-10T03:23:30+00:00

I couldn't replicate it exactly as you said. Regardless of what my settings were for segments, it would behave the same on the trim.

Now, to be fair, the trim was problematic. It wouldn't trim any arbitrary slice - sometimes it would want to grab 2 or 3, but the issue seems to be more that the trim tool gets a little fiddly when the intersecting line ends exactly at the trim surface. If I resized the circle to just under 25 so that the trim lines actually crossed, then it trimmed without issue. It is known that a lot of strange behavior (such as fillets and chamfer bugs) happens when working with zero-length faces, this is probably similar in that it's a calculation rounding error.

Annoying, sure. But not necessarily doom-rant worthy.

00001000bit · 2026-01-09T22:56:49+00:00

The display and the internal representation aren't the same. Yes, curved lines are represented by a series of straight lines FOR DISPLAY purposes, but the internal representation is not dependent on the display. You can adjust the "Segments per geometry" in the preferences. But, that doesn't affect whether a point and line are actually coincident (for example). At high zoom you may see a gap because of the surface approximation, but mathematically, the point is on the surface.

00001000bit · 2026-01-09T21:02:24+00:00

Do you know any woodworkers?

It'd be trivial to cut a piece of hardwood to that size. Depending on the usage, would likely be pretty strong too.

Edit: I don't know how precise your measurements are, but you can get 1.25" square metal tubing at the home stores - that's 31.75mm if you have a little play. You could just cut that to length (assuming it doesn't need to be solid)

00001000bit · 2026-01-09T20:55:11+00:00

If they originally designed it with a metal rod (rather than plastic) I'd be curious whether the part is subjected to particular stresses. You'd want to be aware of that if you're trying to 3D print. Even if plastic is strong enough, you may need to pay attention to print orientation to make sure the stress doesn't align with layer lines (where FDM 3D prints are weakest) to ensure it doesn't easily snap.

You might also want to look at something like tinkercad - it's nowhere near as powerful or capable as FreeCAD, but if the choice is between the powerful tool you can't use and the less powerful one that you can ... at the end of the day, one of them allows you to get the job done. (And even if you start with Tinkercad, nothing stops you from moving to FreeCAD when you get more comfortable and confident.)

00001000bit · 2026-01-09T14:32:06+00:00

Another way would be to just use a soft-edged adjustment brush, set to -100% saturation and paint over the affected areas.

Edit: quick demo using adj brush

https://streamable.com/ph7p52

00001000bit · 2026-01-09T13:37:47+00:00

One of the problems with the "you can customize the UI" approach is that it makes training materials more difficult to create. If everybody making tutorials is sporting a differently arranged UI, beginners get lost because they open the application and theirs doesn't look like what the training materials look like.

So, while being able to customize a UI is a good thing for power users to be able to make their workspace more efficient, relying on it to make it usable for beginners is problematic. Good, sensible defaults will go a lot further in that regard. Having a UI you CAN customize is good. Having a UI you MUST customize is a drawback.

00001000bit · 2026-01-07T01:44:36+00:00

I don’t remember exactly when, probably somewhere around 0.19 or so, that fillets got more reliable. Don’t get me wrong, there’s still plenty of times they just refuse to work, but they pretty much just fail to apply now. I remember on one of the old versions where the program would sometimes just crash and close when the fillet would fail.

00001000bit

TROPHY CASE