I decided to finally pick up OpenSCAD for a diagram I needed to do of "here's the areas that could be confused if you only had ears and no pinna" and it's actually pretty nice.

I accidentally crashed it when I set polygon sides to 5000 instead of 500 but thats my fault.

the little orange blocks are your ears, so if they're real far apart you get better resolution on where a sound could be coming from, but no matter what if you can only do time of flight with phase/amplitude you can only discern location down to a band, not to a point or even a collection of points.


(No I don't know how to use blender shut up)

I learnt how to do my 3D modelling on a borrowed student copy of SolidEdge, then moved on to Autodesk and SolidWorks, and I'm now trying to pick up FreeCAD, which means that I really struggle with the idea of primitives based modelling. I much prefer the idea of drawing sketches and revolving/extruding/sweeping, mostly because using dimensioning to fully-define objects is hella cool. Blender tutorials start with "just drag a cube out into the void" and that confuses me.

Openscad seems nice because unlike a lot of visual primitive modellers you still start with dimensions, so there's a degree of irreversible precision baked in.

I should still learn blender.

@kalium Blender's not really good for set operations (union/difference) at least if you care about the output mesh being tidy. And its revolution tool is for some reason hiding under 'screw with 0 distance traveled per screw'.

On the other hand the modifier stack is so good for a certain type of procedural stuff that I use it to make 2d things (by building them on a plane and baking into a texture)

I learnt on ProDesktop 2000i², so I'm even more outdated...

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A mastodon instance made for the #xkcd community on slashnet