Free CAD program

[Frank Burroughs]

Have any recommendations for FreeCad? 

https://www.freecad.org/

[Frank Burroughs]

Going to give it a try

[Scottish Guy]

1 hour ago, Frank Burroughs said:

Going to give it a try

 

Good luck Frank, would be nice to get some updates how it works out. I tried AutoCAD but that´s not for me lol. I have Shapr3D on my iPad which is already a strange thing to use. I´m better with my hands than with the computer. 

 

Micha

[Scottish Guy]

Another option for you might be TinkerCAD, it´s a free solution but web based, means you can only use it online, there is no need for a download or install on your computer at all. Disadvantage in my opinion, it´s very basic though, but don´t nail me on this since my experience is basically not existing. This is just my humble opinion. I tried once AutoCAD which is way to complicated for me, but in general the CAD software is not mine, I really prefer the hand drawing not C(omputer) A(ided) D(rawing).

 

Here is the link to TinkerCAD, you also can find there a tool to do draw electrical wiring diagrams etc., you just have to register with an email.

 

Micha

 

 

[Frank Burroughs]

Fusion 360 free version could have been used.  It had limited features.  FreeCAD is open-sourced and full featured.  Anybody remember FreeBSD from the good old days?

Even though its only yards and masts, I'm starting small to learn the program.  Kindle Unlimited has a couple free books to learn from.  I can use a few free things for awhile.

[Scottish Guy]

32 minutes ago, Frank Burroughs said:

Kindle Unlimited has a couple free books to learn from.

 

Maybe I should give it another go lol

 

Micha

[Michel Bénard]

Hello,

The problem is that software has frequent updates. Books become outdated very quickly.

I recommend Blender, which has extensive, up-to-date documentation on its site.

Michel

[Frank Burroughs]

Okay, Blender looks like a contender.  You made a good point about updates and docs.

Going to download both and compare.

[JKC27]

I tried tinkering with TinkerCad - seems OK.  I'll have to look at Blender.

 

Back in my mold design days (my area is a leading automotive, auto parts, mold making city) we used CadKey I believe, then were sent for training on (at the time) a high end 3D modelling software called Unigraphics.  This is 25 years ago now, so my skills are non-existant (I left the industry in 2000), so I'd be starting from ground zero.

 

I'd love to get into the CAD programs again, as I know you can import .pdf and maybe other type of files and use these to create 3D printable files, and also design fittings to be 3D printed for my models.

 

I believe some of the .pdf blueprints I have may be able to be imported to certain programs, and then you can isolate a certain area and maybe create a 3D part/deck/etc..........I could be wrong on this.

[Frank Burroughs]

3D printing is a must feature.  I have used GIMP and LibreOffice opensource programs with excellent results.  Blender may be the that prints them all.

[Scottish Guy]

53 minutes ago, Frank Burroughs said:

3D printing is a must feature.

 

I have two 3D printers but I don´t do the development for the prints, was always lucky to find some ready patterns to print ^^ I really should get into 3D stuff to print my own ideas and not always search the entire internet for some ideas or pattern.

 

Micha

[Michel Bénard]

Just to get an idea.

https://www.youtube.com/@BlenderOfficial/featured

[mtaylor]

Personally, I'm a bit cautious over "free" software.  At some point the coders need to make money and then things get messy.   Features come and go and sometimes the software just disappears.  Blender has been around for a long time as has AutoCad but AutoCad's price makes me wince.  If I recall correctly, Blender is used by a lot 3D developers in gaming, etc. whereas AutoCad is more engineering. 

 

The key is to  test multiple packages and see which one works best for you.

[gsdpic]

Blender is much more for artistic stuff, character animation, etc, in my experience.  I did recently learn about a "CAD Sketcher" add on that is supposed to provide more CAD like capabilities to Blender but have no experience with it.  I imagine the learning curve for Blender dwarfs the learning curve for something like FreeCAD.  At one time I started on a few different online Blender courses from udemy and felt like I was just scratching the surface.  One of those courses did specifically address designing things in Blender for 3d printing, so it is possible.

 

[CDR_Ret]

Hello Frank.

 

After working with various 3D CAD programs for nearly two decades, I think that you should first decide what the ultimate purpose and scope of using this approach will be for your projects.

 

Are you primarily intending to reconstruct and fair existing plans?

 

Is your intent to 3D print the entire hull structure and superstructure?

 

Or are you mainly interested in printing the smaller parts and otherwise creating the ship's structure out of conventional materials?

 

For validating and fairing existing ship's plans, especially those from the 19th century and earlier, I recommend the DELFTship Free software. It is a for-the-purpose naval architectural program that defaults to three standard views, provides infinitely customizable stations, waterlines, buttocks, and diagonals, and has reasonably easy-to-use modeling tools such as Gaussian and developable visualization of hull surfaces. All these features are built-in and appropriate for ship design and modeling. This is the go-to program for developing smooth, fair hull surfaces. The poor documentation for the hobbyist and nautical research modeler is its main drawback, in my opinion. Search this forum using the term "DELFTship" to take a look at some of the results by several modelers/researchers (myself included) using this program. 

 

For 3D printing large components such as the hull, deck cabins, boats, etc., you may want to check out some of the software mentioned above. I have no experience with that application.

 

For small details and relative ease of modeling, I would go with the free, open-source, full-feature Blender program. However this program has a notoriously steep learning curve. Take a look at the Blender tutorial series by BornCG on YouTube if you want to consider this route. The instructor is an excellent teacher who doesn't assume you know what the buttons do and how the multitude of program features work.

 

Sadly, most of the competent 3D programs do have that steep learning curve, so plan on spending some time figuring out ship design within the program you choose. Some of the standard 3D CAD programs are pretty clunky when attempting to create a continuously varying surface in 3-space that must conform to an existing set of plans. I can assist with DELFTship. @3DShipWright and @Martes may provide assistance with Blender. Take a look at their models, which are both accurate and very aesthetic. They are going more for illustrative results than 3D printing.

 

Terry

[Frank Burroughs]

I have no problem with opensource programs that have a large community developing.  There is the 2D program GIMP.  I have used it slightly when designing journals I made.  Just what is the difference between a 2D drawing program and a CAD program?  This week no time to compare.  Come Monday back in the harness.

[Frank Burroughs]

 

9 minutes ago, CDR_Ret said:

DELFTship

Wow, that's the ticket for scratch building.  Watched a couple reviews and think good of it.  It is something to consider.  You are right about the documentation is slim.

Right now just plans for masts and yards are needed.  Simple enough once I figure out a few things out.  I could use a plain program for that.  However, the long view is to build a tramp steamer and age of sail ships from scratch.  Can not imagine a better way to spend my time.  Best to learn one program for drafting.

44 minutes ago, CDR_Ret said:

attempting to create a continuously varying surface in 3-space that must conform to an existing set of plans

Might as well get the right tool for the right job

 

Of the three questions I have to say yes to all.  Not enough is known yet to really know what direction(s) will be taken.  I can see a 3D printer in my future.  Refurnishing plastic kits and a few small wooden kits are my daily toil now.  Does not mean the plans for the tramp steamer can not start now.   It is the amount of reading that slows progress.  That said, DELFTship is my first try in the morning

 

[Scottish Guy]

10 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Personally, I'm a bit cautious over "free" software.  At some point the coders need to make money and then things get messy.   Features come and go and sometimes the software just disappears.

 

I´m completely with you here Allan, but sometimes people just can´t afford the "proper" stuff. Surely AutoCAD is on the market for ages but the prices they call are hideous. Also I think that software like AutoCAD is way over the top for what we would need it, it is a professional drawing software for engineers and architects.

 

Blender on the other side is most likely for game designers and video producers but as far as I know as well for free (at least nowadays) and you only pay for some really intensive addons some "bucks". I once tried Blender and have to admit, it is not me, I´m too old or not intelligent enough for it. I can draw 3D pretty well with my hands and a ruler or geometric devices but on a computer I´m a noob like hell. I don´t know why, I would have expected to be great on the computer as well but it just doesn´t work.

 

Same thing is with photography, I own the entire Adobe Suite but barely can use Photoshop or Illustrator, I struggle even with Animate or Premiere Pro but I know exactly what kind of filter I use on my SLR / DSLR to get the same if not a better (more authentic and realistic) effect on the picture than Photoshop ever could archive (unfortunately you can see differences between a real photo taken with a camera and filters or a Photoshop edited version). Does it make me a bad photographer because I can´t use Photoshop? I often get told that pictures are only amazing when post edited with Photoshop, my pictures are often get told to be unreal (when taken with filters and using some settings for aperture and shutter speed).

Sometimes I think the problem is that most people don´t know anymore how a real photo looks like since Photoshop and AI took over in Smartphones and most DSLR or Mirrorless cameras. Even when comparing a raw with a jpeg version of the same picture (which my camera produces both at the same time) is a shocking difference. When you can compare it with a pure picture taken with a 1886 Kodak 6x6 camera, then you know how a real picture looks like.

 

So is it always helpful to use computer aided software or is it just the "lazy" way to go because it often does half the job for us? I don´t know the answer, maybe it is because I just don´t know how to use those softwares. But I´m willing to learn and willing to try, but then spending hundreds of USD or GBP for something I´m still trying to figure out? Don´t think so...

 

Micha

[Martes]

@Frank Burroughs, it all very much depends what do you need the tool for.

 

Blender and similar tools (Maya, 3DMax, etc) are suited creating computer game models and 3D printing, and, while everything they produces may look very pretty, it would never be exact, because down under it is still a polygonal extrapolation consisting of vertices connected with triangular faces.

 

Various CAD software, on the other hand, can produce geometrically exact shapes. However, if you want to 3D print it afterwards, the model will still have to be converted to polygonal extrapolation, but the programs do that more or less automatically.

 

The techniques of working with them are entirely different and require separate learning curves.

[Frank Burroughs]

19 minutes ago, Martes said:

because down under it is still a polygonal extrapolation consisting of vertices connected with triangular faces.

That makes sense.  Blender is out.

 

20 minutes ago, Martes said:

what do you need the tool

Today I need to draw plans for three mast and their yards.  Since I know GIMP, that will do.

For the next year or two kits with aftermarket parts will fill my workbenches.  During that time working on the plans for my tramp steamer will go on.  FreeCad is worth learning.  DELFTship intrigues me.  That is a must in time.  I think it has the greatest learning curve.

 

Believe that will cover my needs.

 

By the way,  when I am called a gimp, it means "Gifted Intelligent Motivated Person". 

[NavyShooter]

I've used TinkerCAD for simple projects - I started with firefighting lockers, then deck landing lights, flight deck tractors, then a crane truck.

When I wanted to move up to designing a new island for the Bonnie, I moved to a program called Design Spark Mechanical (DSM) which has a free version as well.  

 

I've had some success with it, and for 'straight line' items like a hangar deck, a radar mast, that kind of thing, it seems to work well. 

Trying to loft a ships hull in it has been challenging, and not very successful for me (so far.)  

I'm interested in the DELFT Ship Free program, and will look into that.

 

I'll note, all the aircraft are downloaded files, everything else here (hull and deck excluded) are my own designs in TinkerCAD and DSM.

 

If you're just starting out, I'll suggest going with something simply like TinkerCAD, and start with a simple project like making bollards or lockers.  

 

Once you get the basics of the design, you have to consider how it will be printed.  Understanding printing mechanics (how many wall layers will there be, is a single 0.4mm line better than a pair of 0.2mm lines...etc) and how you slice and support things is important as well. 

 

I am 6 years deep into 3D printing, and it's fun, and challenging.  

 

Getting good quality results off your printer requires a good design, a good model that's designed to be printed, a good printer, and good post-printing finishing. 

[Frank Burroughs]

13 minutes ago, NavyShooter said:

I am 6 years deep into 3D printing, and it's fun, and challenging.

Amazing how over the years prices have come down.  It's not the $300 for the 3D printer that stalls me from buying.  I've run out of room.  I think...

 

17 minutes ago, NavyShooter said:

TinkerCAD

Enough recommendations it goes on the list to try.  Does it use STL format?  DELFTShip does.

 

Spend today trying FreeCAD vs TinkerCAD.  Then pull out the calipers

[Roger Pellett]

Micha, et all:

 

Some thoughts from a modeler who doesn’t use CAD.  CAD is not necessary for building ship models.  There are 1000’s of lovely accurate ship models built before CAD.  
 

The basic scratch ship modeling drafting task is to convert archival information into patterns that define the shape of the hull.  This information comes from a drawing, a half model, or a table of offsets.  For Nineteenth Century vessels and ships built to about 1970 hulls were not designed using simple geometric shapes.  Curves are the result of two different drafting techniques; ships curves, and splines.  Splines work by the rules for deflection of beams; a cubic equation.  Ships curves are standardized drafting tools created using different mathematical functions.  How well a particular CAD program mimics these manual drafting tools well determine the accuracy of the model.  As a Naval Architecture student a long time ago, I watched a visiting Professor from a Major Japanese university test several hull forms modeled from simple trigonometric shapes, sines, cosines, parabolas, etc. in our large towing tank.  They looked nothing like real ships.

 

All ship hull lines drawings are “faired” at one time or another.  In other words, plotted points often do not line up to allow a fair curve to be passed through.  Manual drafting requires the draftsman to use his judgement to correct this.  CAD requires either manual intervention or a mathematical algorithm.  There is therefore, no definitive example of an old ship’s hull, only different interpretations.

 

To me CAD is just another ship modeling tool.  If you enjoy working with computers and are willing to spend the $$$ and especially time to learn the program that’s fine.  On the other hand, beautiful models can be built using manual drafting techniques, or purchased plans.

 

Roger

Edited May 6 by Roger Pellett

[NavyShooter]

One of the key things that 3D printing and CAD bring to the table is the ability to generate what is effectively a 'kit' from a set of plans for a ship that no company will ever produce a model of for you to build.

 

Usually we call that scratch-building.  

 

The thing about doing it with 3D CAD though is that you can generate a model...and another model, and another...just by clicking print again.

 

So, you can build yourself a fleet - or you can offer the model for others to build so they can have a model of your favorite ship as well.

 

I have a plan in mind to help the local museum - I am working to do a 3D design of a ship they have in their collection, and I'm hoping to get the design workable for print in a couple of variations.

 

First as a highly detailed model that is a great replica of the ship that I can produce in a suitable scale for floating in a pond myself as RC.

 

Second, as a lower detail model, smaller in size, that can be fairly easily assembled by students doing a summer camp or March break program at the museum.  My hope is to have that 'March break camp' something that the model club can contribute to, and do a presentation with the campers about 3D design, and then have each of them design an 'accessory' for their ship - something like a bollard, an anchor, a funnel, or whatever, using TinkerCAD, and we then print that item for them by the end of the week for them to assemble it onto their individual model boat.

 

That's my concept. 

 

I'll see how that works out. 

[xanthar]

So back to FreeCAD, it is a very powerful set of tools.  It's a little different but once you get used to the concept of workbenches, you won't go back.  The curves workbench is fantastic for turning 2D Body Plan lines into graceful 3D shapes.  There are excellent tutorials out there.  MangoJelly's, in particular, were extremely helpful to get me to the point where I can loft nice looking hulls with complicated curves.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@MangoJellySolutions

 

 

[Frank Burroughs]

46 minutes ago, xanthar said:

very powerful set of tools

Yep, I am muddling my way through the tec workbench right now

[NavyShooter]

Currently installing FreeCAD...

[Jaager]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:31 AM, Martes said:

Blender and similar tools (Maya, 3DMax, etc) are suited creating computer game models and 3D printing, and, while everything they produces may look very pretty, it would never be exact, because down under it is still a polygonal extrapolation consisting of vertices connected with triangular faces.

A NURBS modeler is better for precise and predefined curves.  For animation in a vertex based program - a NURBS model that is then converted to polys can be way too "heavy" to allow render times within a human's lifespan.   Is there a free NURBS based program?

[xanthar]

14 hours ago, Jaager said:

A NURBS modeler is better for precise and predefined curves.  For animation in a vertex based program - a NURBS model that is then converted to polys can be way too "heavy" to allow render times within a human's lifespan.   Is there a free NURBS based program?

um... FreeCad : P   The curves work bench does the math for you and converting the resulting surfaces into an STL file, which is a polygon format, is fast at reasonable resolutions.   The hull above has been printed in sections to make a 4 foot long physical model.  Well 2 of them so far and a 3rd one in progress.

[IronShips]

 

Hello there!

 

I assume you are aiming at 3D. 

 

For 2D, there are a number of very handy zero or low-cost applications on the market. For example, for etchings, a 2D software might be sufficient, or even better suited than a product intended for 3D design.

 

To create hull shapes in 3D, Jaager is right, a NURBS modeler is needed. Expensive naval architect software is not required for ship model makers, as it comes with a lot of features not needed. For ship model detailing, the modeler should be parametric. As mentioned above, modelers creating polygon surfaces a less suited for our purposes.

 

Rhino is the design standard for most naval architects and ship designers. It costs approximately USD 1,000.— for a full-term license, plus upgrades. Regrettably, the user interface is, in my opinion, not what you would expect from software in 2024.

 

There is a new parametric cloud-based software called Onshape that is free of charge for non-commercial users. It is so intuitive; I simply love it!! I can only suggest giving it a try.

 

However, Onshape is not the ideal tool to model complex hull shapes. For this, I personally have a license of MultiSurf, not free of charge, but there are others as well. DELFTship has been already mentioned.

 

I usually have the hull forms done in MultiSurf and export the surfaces to Onshape in order to edit them further and to create parts. The output is not just limited to 3D printed parts. The data generated from the 3D model can also be used for CNC or laser-cut parts (e.g., sets of frames), etched parts, formers, moulds, templates and assembly aids. CAD is indeed not needed for ship modeling purposes, but it opens up exciting new opportunities.

 

For those interested in re-engineering hulls: Unfortunately, various methods shown on ship model making forums are not best practice. The key principle is not to redraw many stations and then loft a surface, which will inevitably become more or less “wobbly.” Instead, the hull should be re-engineered using as few splines as possible to loft a fair surface. Multiple stations can be extracted afterwards. The European distributor of MultiSurf offers excellent tutorials on hull creation on his website (www.rsyds.de).

A little bit of a warning: Sadly, accurately re-engineering classic hull shapes in 3D is a true challenge that can cause frustration even for experienced naval architects, depending on the complexity of the shape.

 

Best,

 

Daniel

 

 

Below a screenshot of a Gig properly re-engineered in 3D solely in Onshape, not fully detailed yet. I created the relatively simple hull shape by using three design frames only (aft, main and fore). Minimizing the number of design frames to the absolute minimum required is only the first step, but it is key to achieving a fair hull surface.