mirror of
git://projects.qi-hardware.com/wernermisc.git
synced 2024-12-24 05:24:17 +02:00
8ad6df6b2d
- test1/README: added pointer to 2nd series of tests - test2/README: described findings and theories so far
354 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
354 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
Comparison of Free scripted 3D CAD systems, part 1
|
|
==================================================
|
|
|
|
Werner Almesberger <werner@almesberger.net>
|
|
|
|
This is a brief evaluation of the scripted 3D CAD systems OpenSCAD
|
|
and Cadmium, comparing the workflow, resource consumption, and the
|
|
quality of the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
This file and the sources of the models can be found in
|
|
http://projects.qi-hardware.com/index.php/p/wernermisc/source/tree/master/cad/test1/
|
|
|
|
Later experiments showed that small changes to the model can lead to
|
|
quite different results. The continuation is at
|
|
http://projects.qi-hardware.com/index.php/p/wernermisc/source/tree/master/cad/test2/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
This test aims to determine the general suitability of currently
|
|
available Free scripted 3D CAD system for the construction of
|
|
real-life objects.
|
|
|
|
Aspects considered were the ease or difficulty of model development,
|
|
the clarity of the modeling language, resource consumption during
|
|
rendering, and the quality of the resulting mesh.
|
|
|
|
A second objective was to evaluate the suitability of CSG as the only
|
|
means for constructing models suitable for large-scale industrial
|
|
production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object description
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
The object to model is a simple button/key cap shape. The shape
|
|
consists of a top part shaped as a 10 x 15 mm rectangle with rounded
|
|
corners and at height of 1.5 mm. The top part rests on a base that's
|
|
0.5 mm thin and has a border of 1 mm on each side.
|
|
|
|
The corners of the rectangle are rounded with a radius of 2 mm. All
|
|
other external edges are rounded (chamfered) with a radius of 0.2 mm.
|
|
The edge where top and base meet is filleted with a radius of 0.4 mm.
|
|
|
|
Note that a real button would typically have an internal cavity,
|
|
possibly some depression or other structure on its top, and on the
|
|
bottom side a pusher in the middle and possibly other support
|
|
elements.
|
|
|
|
Also, if the design was to be used for injection molding, sidewalls
|
|
would be slightly tilted.
|
|
|
|
The rounding of the bottom plate is not strictly necessary and was
|
|
added for visual appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidate 1: OpenSCAD
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
OpenSCAD [1] uses its own language, somewhat similar to POV-Ray's, to
|
|
describe 3D objects. It has an IDE with a quick preview capability
|
|
using OpenCSG [2].
|
|
|
|
High-quality rendering, e.g., to STL, is done with CGAL [3] and can
|
|
also be run non-interactively.
|
|
|
|
OpenSCAD and OpenCSG are licensed under the GNU GPL v2. Parts of CGAL
|
|
are licensed under the GNU LGPL v2.1 while others are licensed under
|
|
the incompatible QPL. See [4] for details.
|
|
|
|
The version tested was the openscad 2011.06-1+lucid1 Ubuntu package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpenSCAD front-ends
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
There also a number of Python-based scripted front-ends for OpenSCAD,
|
|
namely OpenSCADpy [5], PyOpenSCAD [6], and pySCAD [7].
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, there is Mecha [8, 9] for Haskell.
|
|
|
|
Cadmium (see below) appears to be on par or better in terms of syntax
|
|
clarity and tidiness than the OpenSCAD Python bindings. Therefore,
|
|
only pure OpenSCAD was considered for this comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidate 2: Cadmium
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Cadmium [10] is similar in concept to OpenSCAD, but uses Python
|
|
instead of a homegrown language. Open CASCADE [11] (via pythonOCC
|
|
[12]) provides the 3D operations here.
|
|
|
|
The respective licenses are GNU AGPL v3 for Cadmium, GNU LGPL v3 for
|
|
pythonOCC, and a homegrown "LGPL-like" license [13] for Open CASCADE.
|
|
|
|
The Cadmium version tested was Sun Jul 10 16:04:07 2011 +0530 commit
|
|
d4ff63b150ee060a8179a74e369b5df3d0a4a3fc, with pythonOCC 0.5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results and observations
|
|
========================
|
|
|
|
Model development was efficient with both systems, with most of the
|
|
difficulties coming from the task of making the model, not from
|
|
inadequacies of the tools.
|
|
|
|
Both systems also also produced correct-looking meshes.
|
|
|
|
Notable differences exist in the time the rendering takes, where
|
|
rough previews with OpenSCAD are instantaneous and proper rendering
|
|
takes minutes, while Cadmium has no preview and the rendering takes
|
|
hours.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, some small anomalies could be found in the mesh
|
|
generated by OpenSCAD while the Cadmium's mesh looks perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model development
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Both systems offer the same basic CSG primitives and operations,
|
|
which made the model development per se straightforward and the
|
|
porting from one system to the other effortless.
|
|
|
|
The very quick preview of OpenSCAD is immensely helpful during
|
|
development. The usefulness of the preview is diminished by
|
|
differences only being shown as unions of the solids involved, with
|
|
color indicating their role. It was thus often necessary to isolate
|
|
and simplify elements before the resulting shape could be guessed, or
|
|
to render with slower CGAL.
|
|
|
|
Given the slow rendering process, debugging non-trivial designs with
|
|
Cadmium is currently quite time-consuming.
|
|
|
|
Development of the basic model (without chamfers and fillets) was
|
|
first done with Cadmium. I then switched to OpenSCAD to develop the
|
|
more advanced features, and finally ported them back to the Cadmium
|
|
model.
|
|
|
|
Designing the model elements for filleting and chamfering was
|
|
somewhat awkward with only CSG and - without understanding the
|
|
entire construction process - it may not be easy to see what the
|
|
resulting code does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modeling language
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
The limited programming language of OpenSCAD proved to be more than
|
|
adequate for this simple design. To ease comparison and to reduce the
|
|
porting effort, the Cadmium model has the same code structure as the
|
|
OpenSCAD model.
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that some redundancy could be avoided in Cadmium
|
|
if all the "rbox_*" functions were placed in a common class whose
|
|
objects could then remember the box's geometry for reuse with the
|
|
fillet and chamfer functions/methods.
|
|
|
|
One nuisance with OpenSCAD is that mistyped variable names merely
|
|
generate a warning but let rendering proceed - often with confusing
|
|
results.
|
|
|
|
One difficulty encountered when making the Cadmium model was that
|
|
there appears to be no null value for the "union" operation, which
|
|
means functions that generate all their objects in a loop have to
|
|
special-case the first element, making them look a bit awkward (e.g.,
|
|
rbox_chamfer_top_corners). It should be easy to remedy this
|
|
shortcoming.
|
|
|
|
The Python language also introduces complications to Cadmium that
|
|
OpenSCAD can avoid, such as the Python parser's limited ability to
|
|
detect continuation lines, requiring continuations to be marked with
|
|
a backslash, and the need to pay attention to the mixing of
|
|
floating-point and integer numbers when using divisions.
|
|
|
|
Cadmium's ability to use short operators instead of blocks generally
|
|
yielded only marginally more compact code, since many operations
|
|
ended up being longer than one line anyway. In fact, the code
|
|
structure often looks a bit tidier in OpenSCAD.
|
|
|
|
The placement of transformations before creation of the object in
|
|
OpenSCAD e.g.,
|
|
translate(...) rotate(...) cylinder(...);
|
|
is slightly less intuitive than the reverse order Cadmium uses, e.g.,
|
|
Cylinder(...).rotate(...).translate(...)
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, if each step is placed on a separate line, Cadmium's
|
|
syntax puts the object in a more prominent position than the list of
|
|
translations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bugs
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
OpenSCAD got stuck allocating excessive amounts of memory when trying
|
|
to preview with OpenCSG from the IDE.
|
|
|
|
Cadmium fails at line 113 of button.py if the "noise" parameter
|
|
introduced to work around this bug is absent or set to zero.
|
|
|
|
The mesh generated by Open SCAD appears to have some small anomalies,
|
|
see section "Resulting mesh".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Execution
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
On a lightly loaded Intel Q6600, the "high quality" rendering time
|
|
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
real user sys
|
|
OpenSCAD 1m25.491s 1m24.990s 0m00.410s
|
|
Cadmium 81m44.408s 81m41.110s 0m01.540s
|
|
|
|
This is consistent with the time the rendering of earlier stages of
|
|
the design took: OpenSCAD with CGAL was always much faster than
|
|
Cadmium with Open CASCADE.
|
|
|
|
I didn't attempt to systematically search for costly operations, but
|
|
observed that the crossed cubes/boxes forming the core of the rounded
|
|
box took considerably longer than a run with one of them removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resulting mesh
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
The rendering results are available at
|
|
http://downloads.qi-hardware.com/people/werner/cad/test1/
|
|
|
|
The STL files are scad.stl.bz2 and cadmium.stl.bz2 for OpenSCAD and
|
|
Cadmium, respectively. scad.png and cadmium.png show screenshots of
|
|
the meshes rendered with MeshLab 1.2.2, with double side lighting and
|
|
"flat" rendering.
|
|
|
|
The two meshes are of similar size, as reported by MeshLab:
|
|
|
|
Vertices Faces
|
|
OpenSCAD 3351 7798
|
|
Cadmium 3183 8362
|
|
|
|
Note that the OpenSCAD model uses a slightly larger number of circle
|
|
segments (explicitly set with $fn) than the Cadmium model (which just
|
|
uses whatever is the default behaviour).
|
|
|
|
At earlier stages of the design, the Cadmium mesh was found to be
|
|
significantly larger then the OpenSCAD mesh.
|
|
|
|
Both meshes look clean and at a first glance show now major
|
|
distortions (*).
|
|
|
|
(*) Note that the model already takes care of avoiding situations
|
|
where the subtraction of volumes could leave behind solids with
|
|
the thickness of a rounding error.
|
|
|
|
When viewed with MeshLab 1.2.2, with smooth rendering and
|
|
"Fancy Lighting", some faces appear to be inverted. These faces are
|
|
shown in red in
|
|
http://downloads.qi-hardware.com/people/werner/cad/test1/scad-reversed.png
|
|
|
|
A peek at the inside of the OpenSCAD-generated mesh reveals internal
|
|
structures left over from the construction process, as shown on
|
|
http://downloads.qi-hardware.com/people/werner/cad/test1/scad-inside.png
|
|
|
|
No anomalies could be found in the mesh generated by Cadmium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
In the conclusions, I first consider the relative performance of the
|
|
two CAD system and then reflect on the whether the CSG-only workflow
|
|
as such proved to be satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpenSCAD vs. Cadmium
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Both systems succeeded in handling the task. OpenSCAD impressed with
|
|
fast response allowing highly interactive development, while Cadmium
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
soon gets very slow. It is not clear whether this slowness is a
|
|
general shortcoming of Cadmium or whether it is a consequence of poor
|
|
choices made when making the model.
|
|
|
|
The mesh generated by OpenSCAD shows some anomalies, but it's not
|
|
clear whether they would affect further processing steps, e.g.,
|
|
conversion to toolpaths.
|
|
|
|
In terms of resource consumption and stability, even this relatively
|
|
simple model exhausted both systems, with OpenSCAD exhibiting
|
|
stability issues and Cadmium requiring excessive processing time.
|
|
|
|
Both modeling languages can be used in very similar ways and were
|
|
pleasant to use. Python-based Cadmium may be more suitable for tasks
|
|
requiring structured building blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CSG-only workflow
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
With both systems, translating the mental models of the various
|
|
components into correct instructions was difficult where more
|
|
abstract operations were involved, requiring some amount of trial and
|
|
error.
|
|
|
|
Also, the resulting code does not easily reveal its purpose and
|
|
textual comments are an unsatisfactory means of illustrating
|
|
geometrical properties. (As an example, consider the above section
|
|
"Object description".)
|
|
|
|
A workflow that includes distinct steps with a visual representation
|
|
of intermediate results, e.g., instead of CSG, using extrusion with
|
|
shapes and paths generated by some 2D CAD system, may be less
|
|
demanding.
|
|
|
|
Also, while generating the basic shape was very easy, most of the
|
|
work went into the addition of fillets and chamfers. Neither of the
|
|
two systems provides operations to automate such tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story continues
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
Later experiments showed that small changes to the model can lead to
|
|
quite different and generally better results. The continuation of
|
|
this evaluation is at
|
|
http://projects.qi-hardware.com/index.php/p/wernermisc/source/tree/master/cad/test2/
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
[1] http://www.openscad.org/
|
|
[2] http://www.opencsg.org/
|
|
[3] http://www.cgal.org/
|
|
[4] http://www.cgal.org/license.html
|
|
[5] https://github.com/hmeyer/openscadpy
|
|
[6] https://github.com/etjones/MCAD/tree/master/PyOpenScad
|
|
[7] https://github.com/kevinmehall/pyscad
|
|
[8] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mecha/
|
|
[9] https://github.com/tomahawkins/mecha/blob/master/Language/Mecha/Examples/CSG.hs
|
|
[10] http://jayesh3.github.com/cadmium/
|
|
[11] http://www.opencascade.org/
|
|
[12] http://www.pythonocc.org/
|
|
[13] http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|