As an engineering tool, though, it still feels rudimentary (and sometimes buggy) compared to e.g. Solidworks. Keep going, guys!
I am a software dev for a living so what I mean by low brain space is I don't really want to be messing about with config files, setup and complicated UIs. I already have far too much brain space dedicated to Blender, but I just can't seem to get it to work well for precise measurements and CAD style work.
Fusion360 used to be free but that appears to be ending, also cloud-based lock-in(files are on server).
freecad used to be quite buggy, but latest versions are quite workable.
I mself started with one or 2 tutorials in fusion 360 (they appear to be more clear to me compared to the freecad tutorials, and concepts are the same). Then switched to freecad, and this seems to work fine.
The parametric sketching (although a simple concept) took for me the most time to really grasp and understand the significance.
Bear in mind, though that everything else (Microstation, DraftSight, etc.) Aren't much better. For a problem domain like roadway design, the difference in productivity between something like freeCAD or LibreCAD and AutoCAD Civil3D is like the difference between having a printing press and a lump of charcoal. I really admire the effort, but there is a moat between industrial and FOSS software for the AEC industry that takes more expert developers and more man-years than hobbyists can provide.
I haven't used it but it's been popping up in other threads since the licensing changes for Fusion360.
* FreeCAD - Very powerful, very buggy/unstable.
* SolveSpace - Very powerful, takes time to understand the interface.
* OpenSCAD - Great for simpler objects.
* Blender - Not very good for CAD modeling, but with non-destructive modifiers and the new Extrude Manifold it can be used.
Personally I use Blender all the time for 3D printing. There are some tricks that can help a lot with precise modeling. For example you can draw a plane, but instead of extruding it you can use the solidify modifier to give it thickness. Then the thickness is non destructive. You can also view all edge lengths which help you to check if everything is ok. Since v2.9 you can now use Extrude Manifold which is not precise but works a little like Sketchup making some modeling much easier.
And a lot of time my workflow is: Create something in FreeCAD/OpenSCAD -> export to Blender (STL) -> add finishing touches -> 3D print.
It doesn't help that each version gets a lot of superficial UI changes so tutorial videos will often get you part way then some menu option no longer exists and you're stuck.
I plan to try SolveSpace next as it seems to be a lot more stable - though in principle also a lot more limited.
I had to 3d print something recently and was very happy with OpenSCAD. Not only it is scriptable, but it is script first (and only), with a very simple syntax. For people who write code already, it's a much more natural approach in my opinion. You can create functions, loops, parametrise, comment out part of the code, etc.
So you need to import to some other program and export from there. That's how I got into FreeCAD. But once you're in FreeCAD you realize you can do everything there.
There's a whole fillet / chamfer library using masks and such, but I've found that you can go a looong way with just basic shapes that start out chamfered/filleted, and unioning and differencing them.
It uses lua to be scriptable much like openscad, but it's got GPU support, so you can also describe surfaces as signed distance fields - in shader code...
It doesn't seem to be open source (yet?), but there are contributors listed [0] (it came out of inria, the french university, sylvain lefebvre being the lead dev[1])
Check out %appdata%\IceSL\icesl-models or thingiverse[2] for examples.
edit: formatting
[0] https://icesl.loria.fr/about/
[1] https://www.antexel.com/research
[2] https://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=iceslIt seems to be mainly a slicer, so maybe the non-open part is just the slicer? Some parts are open and available on their github account: https://github.com/shapeforge
I believe the popular route is Fusion. (Decidedly NOT open source)
Here's an example: say you want to punch some holes to mount components on a chassis. Say, furthermore, that you want to mount those components at an angle.
Here's what you do in Fusion:
1. Draw a sketch.
2. Rotate the component on the sketch about its center.
3. Subtractively extrude holes through the chassis.
In Fusion this is trivial and natural. Believe it or not, FreeCAD does not support #2. Want to mount several components at different angles? Fuck you, you need to draw each one of them pre-slanted already.
In your case one can for example use use the NormalToEdge map mode, specify the degrees of Roll, and then use a Pocket operation on the sketch to make the holes at that angle.
Select the object, set orientation in Placement / Axis / x,y,z
- Create a square via the CreateSquare[0] icon
- Put the lines as construction line
- Constrain the holes to the corners of the square.
- Add an angle constraint on one side of the square as you need.
It's easier than constraining your holes on a rectangle on which you have to replace the horizontal and vertical constrains afterwards. And you get to keep all those parametric variables that make changing something afterwards so easy.
(If you haven't seen that, and you have projects in F360 formats you're assuming you'll be able to export - you might want to go export them all into some other format now, while you still can...)
Luckily my not trusting web apps means I am already backed up in non autodesk formats. But exactly why when sketchypoved to wrbapp I said I wouldn't trust it
The Part workbench makes you create your object using CSG primitives which you size and position using the properties editor, which is just super painful.
In Part Design, you create sketches of 2d profiles and then pad them up, pocket them in, revolve them around an axis, sweep them through a path, etc.
Part Design just seems much more convenient and powerful.
The only thing you can't do in Part Design is create 3d paths like helixes, but fortunately you can create these using the Part workbench and still use them as paths in Part Design.
Also (opinion) it kind of sucks. At least the gratis version doesn't support any sort of parametric modeling. I've been using it because it's gratis, but I've been looking to switch for a while. Now that F360 is off the table, I suppose the decision space has gotten smaller.
Updates come with annual maintenance, roughly 20 percent of license.
People can and do get a license and just run it for a long time.
This is unlike, say, Excel 2007, which can export .xls files that Excel 2000 can read.
The other thing people should realize is all the CAD tool vendors are generally funding complex PLM / PDM system development necessary for larger scale users to operate on large products and across many teams. This is a significant portion of annual license fees.
As a small team or individual, one can use STEP. Now, admittedly the ability of Solidworks to work with STEP files is limited. (I would not want that job)
Personally, if I were going to get a license and just run it, I would get a system much more capable in that area. NX, as an example, is excellent, and I know many who have older licenses who do a lot of work just fine that way. Most everything can be done, and the skillset is not unlike what we use in some of the open CAD systems.
A native file is not always required when the modeler offers direct modeling as well as parametric. Just FYI.
Finally, anyone needing to interact with CAD needs to build license costs into their rates. It's too expensive to do otherwise.
Let the work pay for the tool.
If you are the source of designs, use whatever you want to use. Downstream users will either need STEP / DXF / PDF / STL, or they will have your version or newer, or their system can import, or use a Parasolid, ACIS, whatever type of file.
If you are a downstream user then you need to know where your work is coming from and whether you can price software in. On this note, buying into an annual license of Fusion or OnShape is a great translation service as both of those will write out respectable STEP and Parasolid files. Translation licenses are super expensive.
Or, you need to invest your skills into systems that are adept at non-native data. These skills are extremely high value BTW. Getting them is great for a resume.
Then price and purchase accordingly.
For learning / personal use, get the academic licenses.
In that case, there really is only a couple paths: (and flat out, Solidworks isn't the best for this kind of thing)
If the volume of work is serious, invest in systems. This is rare, but sometimes necessary.
In many cases, invest in one that is very adept at non-native data. There are a couple pretty good ones out there. KeyCreator is actually quite good for manufacturing related tasks. For more involved tasks, NX is great on the higher end, but not cheap. That one offers all possible model paradigms too.
Parametric, history based.
Parametric, non history based (synchronous)
Direct Modeling, with history
Direct modeling, no history.
It can do the job period. But, isn't cheap.
Collaborations often default to who has the most restrictive environment, or priority in requirements and the other members deal, or there is some time spent integrating design work across systems.
Intent is difficult to preserve in this scenario. Often, there will end up being an owner of that.
BTW: Subscription licenses can get someone through a collaboration at a very significantly reduced cost.
That's the option I would use myself, given I didn't have access to a sufficiently capable system. Do it, export non native, drawings, reference geometry, etc... Express detail intent in Excel + 2D drawings. Basically make a reconstruction kit for the future and call it good.
Also export native files on the off chance a resubscription makes sense. It can, depending.
Over the years, I've accumulated a lot of understanding of basic geometry and means and ways to work on STEP, Parasolid, Surfaces, Solids, drawings, etc... Paid off many times.
Edit: The other skill to seek is being able to use basic tools where needed. Advanced modelers have a good and bad aspect to them. Every time someone clicks one of the advanced function buttons, a lot of money will eventually be spent. So don't click those buttons! The resulting designs are likely cheaper and manufacturable in more ways, all of which is an advantage.
I can tell you some names you would recognize did great product design on basic licenses. Doing this in very robust software is different than doing it in something lower tier. People have a lot of options when the basic capability is robust, offering all the modeling paradigms. People may want it and have reasons, but do they really need it? No is the right answer more than we may realize.
In short, role flexibility is expensive, or requires having made an investment in a highly technical, niche skill set.
Limiting that can actually save money, depending on what software is in play.
There won't be great answers very soon either. There are some efforts in progress right now. Half a decade to a decade from now, this chat may be different!