zlacker

>>danboa+(OP)
The world doesn't need Text-to-CAD. The world needs a fully capable open source parametric 3D geometric CAD kernel.

Solidworks, Creo, AutoCAD, Fusion, etc., can all take their bug ridden unoptimized single threaded rent-seeking monstrosities and stick em where the sun don't shine.

Seriously - if anyone wants to create an absolutely world-changing piece of software, start working on a new CAD kernel that takes the last 50 years of computer science advances into account, because none of the entrenched industry standards have done so. Don't worry about having to provide customer service, because none of the entrenched industry standards worry about that either.

And no - while openCascade and solvespace are impressive, they aren't fully capable, nor do they start from a modern foundation.

>>digdug+eN
So what's so difficult about such a kernel? What does a modern foundation look like?

>>auggie+3O
The math is quite difficult to do right, and there's a billion corner cases to make a kernel useful for real world designs. Take a fillet: It needs to handle inside corners, outside corners, compound angles coming in from arbitrary numbers of directions, it probably needs the ability to vary along its distance, create more geometry when adjacent faces don't leave enough room, etc etc.

That's just the start of a single feature type. Now you need a bunch more feature types, and they all need to interact well with each other. The kernel also needs some way of solving the topological naming problem to be useful (FreeCAD might get a basic version of this after a decade(?) of work).

It's probably tantamount to writing a modern-day browser in terms of complexity.