FFmpeg is a good FLOSS tool to create these animated GIFs. Disclaimer: Part of my day job is "User Centric Design" of UIs.Animated GIFs are after all these years still pretty popular. At the same time, I find it extremely challenging in areas that it would seem quite simple for the developers to fix. I use it because it is very, VERY, capable. It seems that "inside v outside" on contours couldn't be put in a setting (which all other CAM packages do.) instead, it is non-intuitively controlled by clicking on a little arrow on the drawing itself. Ah yes, that little "exception" that drives you crazy with the inconsistency. CAM), everything is nicely arranged in a tree browser where double clicking on an entry opens nice tabbed dialogs that organize the hundreds of settings involved in generating a toolpath. There are many ways to get an object "high-lighted", yet that object is really not selected and can't be moved/changed, etc.Suddenly the sketch will stop disappearing, and is perfectly selectable (although still not editable except through the context menu). Edit the sketch (via all that non-intuitive stuff) and extrude a different area.Fusion hides the prior extruded 3D object, re-orients the drawing space completely and presents you with the re-scaled, re-oriented sketch.
You must RIGHT click the sketch (in the browser, because the sketch itself disappeared) and select "edit sketch" from the context menu. "selection") that will actually select the sketch. DANG, it disappears again!Ĭounter-intuitively, there is NO left mouse click sequence (i.e. Wait, the rest of the sketch disappeared!! Well, no problem, select the sketch in the browser and it re-appears.Ĭlick on the next part you want to extrude. Lines and vertex points are draggable, you can specify line lengths as parameters, this is really intuitive and cool. Great, draw some lines, use snap or similar to get some good shapes, life is great. Tons of examples, here's one that comes to mind off the top of my head:ĭraw a "sketch" (that is, 2d objects) with the intent to turn it into 3D later, probably via extrusion. It is just too pervasive to be anything but intentional. It can't be an accident and it can't be ignorance. I'd swear that Fusion employs a huge team of people who's sole objective is to make the UI as non-intuitive as possible.
Youtube openscad software#
OK, no problem, that's just the nature of human-created software where authors think differently than each other. Each of them had quirks in their UI, and a learning curve associated with those quirks (once you got past basic CAD learning curve). Why the hate? I've used MANY MANY CAD packages for way too many years to admit. Also use it a lot because it is powerful and free. Hence the need to use metal mounts - no other reason than that. I'm still getting some deformation after very long prints - nothing like as bad but it's still an issue. I re-made the mounts using PET-G and also fitted fans and heat sinks to the motors which was 90% successful but not 100%. Then the tension of the belts acting on the motor shaft caused the mounts to deform. I've had problems in the past with very long prints (30 hrs+) and motors getting hot (as is normal) but the heat was causing the plastic mounts to soften slightly. The reason why I wanted metal motor mounts was purely to do with heat. All my carriages and idler pulley mounts are printed parts and I have to plans to change them, even though I could now do so. Of course, that was partly driven by the fact that I had no means to make anything out of metal so I had no choice. Up until now, I've always tried to adhere the the RepRap philosophy and use as many printed parts as possible. Stiffness isn't an issue, nor is it the reason why I wanted to make metal mounts. Oh plastic is fine as far as rigidity is concerned. OK, on your printer it is going to matter, but on smaller ones? I have a feeling that plastic could be good enough. Because of all of the reasons that you mentioned, that is the simplest way.Īnd I am curious about the stiffness gains. I was actually guessing that you kept the same thickness.
0 kommentar(er)
