3D Modelling Software Recommendations

Hi Spanner,

I don't use any 3D modelling software currently, so I'm curious too to find out what gets used with 3D-printers.

(I don't own one yet).

I'm a heavy user of graphics programs (Paint shop, Inkscape etc), so all my 3D renderings are not to scale : )

and so I cannot do camera movements around the object etc, since they are all flat 2D with no modelling data.

At school we learned manual drafting from someone who did this once for a living, so I like isometric views and

orthographic projections!

I use PowerPoint to get most of it composed, create shadow and shadings, etc - not the best tool since it isn't designed

for it, but I'm a power-user of it now! I also like Jan Cumps pencil renderings!

To get a rough idea of proportionality, I make use of the 'size' settings for objects in powerpoint, and

a calculator. Sometimes even placing a ruler on the screen : ) It's not so bad, it works.

Here's an example, drawn up in PowerPoint, so these are just graphical lines, no 3D objects at all.

Final result:

Really nice but I think we are still missing a few dimensions to work with on the 3D printer here 

• The top diagonal face - both end points
• The lower diagonal face - the end point in the centre
• The thickness of the base is unclear as well - looks like it could be 2mm but ambiguous

beacon_dave is right about all 3 points. They are ambiguous.

Hi!

I don't doubt there could be missing measurements, (by the way this is a duct part, we expect duct area to be approximately consistent through the part).

Actually I believe we could fix it with a single value (e.g. x degrees) and either text, or a center line. I'm not 100% sure this is valid on an isometric, but for an orthographic it would be.

For example:

The center line or text would indicate that duct property we desire, i.e. parallel lines inside.

We already know the duct inside is 31-1.5 = 29.5mm.  And we know where the lower-rightmost leg of the duct is placed, because it is marked as 2mm. So this would result in all measurements being defined.

The thickness of the part is not implied, it is given, you can see the 12mm measurement marked at the right side of the diagram, and 10mm marked on the left side of the diagram.

I agree with Enrico, I don't believe any more is needed on the radii. Ordinarily that would 'naturally' occur if your tooling was of the same radius. I'm guessing when you do that in a CAD package, it would internally compute it the same way.

Hi Enrico,

I can follow your language 95% of the time

Point 1 - I think this is still ambiguous as to my eye it looks less than 6.

I've sketched in the 8 and the 6 boxes which shows the right vertical edge of the diagonal plane doesn't line up with a projection of the 6.

Point 2 - you don't need the centre of the arc but you would need to know the placement of the two lines it joins. Currently I don't appear to have that information without knowing the angle of intersection of the two duct channels as Shabaz later points out.

Point 3 - I still only see a measurement on one axis there. As with point 1 it looks a bit ambiguous.

Out of curiosity I was in the process of creating a 3D model of the same part to generate an isometric view from 3D to see how it line up with  Shabaz' 2D drawing...

I got this far in about 5mins:

Hi Shabaz,

Yes the angle 'x degrees' would work for me

The base thickness is a little ambiguous in my opinion as there is nothing to say that the upper and lower walls of the duct are actually the same height.

The fillet radii are fine as long as we know the angle of the intersection of the duct. CAD as you say will do it automatically. In Vectorworks for example you can just select the two lines and specify the radius and the fillet is inserted in-between them.

Hello Dave!

you are smart if you understand 95% of my language... I have some difficulties to the technical english especially in drawing terms as I am not English mother tongue. As far as I see you have done a great job from the information of the Shabaz' design. I think that as a hand-drawn design there are some incorrectness but almost inside a good tolerance. Remain the fact that using a CAD it is impossible to made mistakes like missing quotes.

Well done in my opinion. What software did you used?

Enrico

Enrico,

I use Nemetschek Vectorworks Designer + Renderworks

Gallery | Vectorworks

I mainly use it for venue modelling purposes as it supports 3D rendering of video projection, lighting etc. However it also appears to work fine for generating STL output for 3D printing.

I started out with early versions of AutoCAD for mechanical, OrCAD for schematic, and Wintek smArtworks for PCB  around 28 years ago and have used various packages since depending upon employer and job roles since.

Nice job!

I too am curious what 3D software you used [edit: I see you've mentioned it].. It is an irritatingly complex shape to hand-sketch, ordinarily stuff is far easier - it is a duct for the Pi 3, it sits on the Pi (but is thin enough not to obstruct things plugged on top of the Pi) to allow airflow from a tiny side-facing fan to cool it. It would still need some funnel-shaped end attachment to clip onto the selected fan.

You might like the 'subdivision surfaces' tool then for nice smooth duct flows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE0oD5fIYPM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42yoyC1EURs

I'm still trying to get used to non-uniform rational b-splines in 3D...

Hehe. I'd also need a subdivision surface shaped file, because I still use manual tools.

I don't have photos of it any more but the curviest technique I've tried was with plastic sheet, curved to create a shape, and then pour in epoxy resin (and hope there are no leaks!).

have you considered a panel beater's hammer and shaping dollies ? 

Sykes-Pickavant

have you considered a panel beater's hammer and shaping dollies ? 

Sykes-Pickavant