Plasticity Is CAD for Artists
github.com
github.com
I'm curious how this will be implemented. According to the LICENSE file in the repo, the current source is available under LGPL.
What will cost $25? Will the repo be taken off-line after 1.0 release? Or will further updates after 1.0 be binary only?
What I am planning is to something like this: divide the app into two pieces, an npm wrapper around the kernel and the electron front end that uses the module.
You will need a license key to “activate” the node module. You would then use the electron app or the module directly if you’re a programmer. You will be able to build your own fork of the electron app, but not the npm module.
In effect you will be paying for a license key, not the binary
There is some possibility I will switch to MIT since philosophically I’m more in that camp
So you're ok with using copyleft to defend yourself, but not ok with others to use copyleft to defend themselves ? This is bewildering
Edit: Jesus do you really not recognize sarcasm? People are free to use whatever license they want and I’m free to explain why I choose lgpl over gpl
choosing a license is a political act whether you want it or not - you are free to choose whichever license you want, that does not mean you won't get called out (like for any other choice with political relevancy even tenuous - eating meat, driving a car, etc. to speak about things I am guilty of for instance)
Even the lgpl definition of “dynamic linking” is something that scares me in the context of npm modules, which is why I’m nervous I made the wrong choice with lgpl
Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.
> I should be able to create it.
Why do you feel entitled to that ? No one prevents you to go and write your own OBS-like or look for a proprietary alternative (and don't complain when they change or shut down their API with no possible recourse at all). But here you look you you want to benefit from the work of OBS contributors, without satisfying the simple obligation in return: the program that you redistribute must be open, just like it was when you found it.
I was a contributor to FOSS until I had to make a choice to step back from excessive keyboard use due to RSI. I love and embrace open source software and the ideals behind it, but I believe everyone should be given their own freedoms.
The plugin boundary should be exactly that, a boundary between the primary app and any created plugins. Why do you feel entitled to force a license decision on a third party's work? Yeah, my work might not function without your code, but your code is your code and my plugin is mine. If I choose to write a utility that enhances your code in ways I want, is that not the benefit and flexibility that FOSS clamors about? Hell, what if someone else adopts a similar API and I choose to take my plugin that direction? That's my choice to make, but forcing GPL on my code may now be hampering my freedoms.
I hear the argument of "if only software X was open source, then I could fix this bug here or add this feature there". I'm right there with you on code that is in the mainline and lives inside the source, but if I'm writing a plugin, that's my work and I own that, not you.
If I choose to make use of a proprietary library because it makes sense to me, like for example CAD solvers where the FOSS alternatives aren't there yet, that's my decision for my plugin. All your GPL license does is infect my work.
That's why I don't use GPL, and why I agree with others that the end result of many GPL licenses is to simply reduce the overall amount of GPL code in the world, as people avoid it out of concern of risk.
Absolute freedom does not exist (or even make sense).
> The plugin boundary should be exactly that, a boundary between the primary app and any created plugins. Why do you feel entitled to force a license decision on a third party's work?
That's the expectation I set when I develop the host software. If I was fine with third party proprietary plug-ins I could set my plug-in headers as MIT or something. Just like if I only wanted my software be used by people who have no revenue or live in $COUNTRY I would put that as a license instead of the GPL.
> Yeah, my work might not function without your code, but your code is your code and my plugin is mine.
this is super super entitled. You're fine with leveraging GPL work which is release for free for your own benefit, but do not want to reciprocate. As I posted elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule ; this is the most basic expectation one can have.
> but your code is your code and my plugin is mine.
but the GPL code is and will forever be freely available ; anything that goes against increasing the pool of freely available thing is a no-go. The end goal of all that would be to change laws so that ownership of ideas, patents, etc..., is itself ended ; ultimately, licenses and copyright shouldn't even need to exist.
> If I choose to make use of a proprietary library because it makes sense to me, like for example CAD solvers where the FOSS alternatives aren't there yet, that's my decision for my plugin. All your GPL license does is infect my work.
Again you seem to forget that your plug-in depends on an existing host software and seem to want to use the work done there without giving anything in return. If there was some kind of public standard for CAD solvers so that the GPL part of your plug-in could be also used with free solvers, that would be a non-issue - ship your plug-in, and end-users can install a free solver or a proprietary one separately if they are fine with proprietary code.
It simply means a percentage of those developers who would have been happy to create third party tools simply now don't.
See for example the thriving plug-in ecosystem SketchUp has.
A third party should be able to create plug-ins without risking their IP - closed source, and any license they like.
This model has been the cornerstone of CAD innovation for the past decades.
True freedom means that you let dowstream users do as they please, not that you lock them in in specific delivery module.
What I've seen some Blender plugins do to get around this is to have an open-source plugin communicate via IPC to a closed source library. It's totally legal. It's a performance and implementation tax that just seems silly to me.
If the IPC is here only for the sake of circumventing the GPL (e.g. there aren't any meaningful use of the "GPL plug-in" part through this IPC channel outside of communication with the non-GPL program), it's totally not. What are such plug-ins ?
Very hard to argue that IPC would ever be just for avoiding license. It always increases total robustness.
Files are interprocess communication too. If files are fine and other forms are not, then it starts to get into an argument of speed making something illegal.
Not only that, but network communication is IPC and that would imply that it's fine to have a GPL program go to another computer holding a non GPL program, but not if they are on the same computer. There are a lot of holes in this argument.
Not only that, but any program that can't communicate with other programs (do drivers count?) through file formats, networks operations or anything else is probably limited anyway.
Quoting the GPL:
> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
The relevant part is "intimate data communication": querying for instance some other program's publicly-advertised D-Bus API, such as a notification service expected to be used by the whole operating system wouldn't be "intimate data communication". However splitting a single executable into two parts which don't individually make sense are obviously "intimate data communication" - it may be two binaries, but it's still one single software from the point of view of the end-user.
If the GPL part of your plug-in cannot do meaningful things (basically still be useable for its original goal by the end user) without the other, proprietary, side of the IPC up and running, then they have "intimate data communication" and distributing it is breaching the GPL.
I have a hard time imagining how one would justify that a CAD plug-in split under two parts for IPC wouldn't constitute a single work for instance, with the following GPL paragraph in mind:
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
You mentioned drivers: they are specifically denoted in the paragraph above ("it does not include the work's System Libraries").
First is a plugin that would be shared library loaded into the same virtual memory space as a running program.
The second is GPLed header files that define function signatures and data structures.
The third scenario would be passing already defined data formats like JSON or something serialized through the file system, shared memory, or the local network. In this situation, there would be separate processes, separate memory spaces and no interface definitions would need to be included into the non GPLed program. This situation can't violated the GPL because it would imply that almost any communication with a GPLed program would violate the GPL.
any intimate communication would indeed. Any communication that goes through a standard (e.g. ISO-defined or industry standard, so not something specific to your company) would not.
Quoting the FSF:
> Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
You can obviously extend "communicating complex data structures" to RPC through JSON & websockets for instance as it's this "exchange of complex data structures" which is the defining matter in what constitutes a single program from the point of view of the GPL.
I gave specific examples and you keep using an abstract label.
> Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
These are two separate things unless they are talking about shared memory meaning sharing the same memory space as another process, which is what dynamic linking does.
Communicating through complex data structures can describe files too. If you save a file from one GPLed program and open it in a non GPLed program, that is interprocess communication. If both programs are using mmap on the files instead of writes, does that change things? If files are being sent over local loop back does that change things?
Are there any examples of any of these ideas being tested? I've never heard of anyone except for you asserting that two processes communicating without including GPLed source code was somehow a GPL violation.
I am quoting the license text.
> Communicating through complex data structures can describe files too. If you save a file from one GPLed program and open it in a non GPLed program, that is interprocess communication. If both programs are using mmap on the files instead of writes, does that change things? If files are being sent over local loop back does that change things?
I don't thinkg it would at all - it would still breach the license if e.g. you are dumping raw struct contents in your files that are only meaningful for the proprietary side of things.
See https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8505/gpl-appl...
The part you are quoting is still an abstract label. You can't take specific common scenarios and say 'intimate communication is banned' when 'intimate communication' is not defined well.
you are dumping raw struct contents in your files that are only meaningful for the proprietary side of things.
What does that even mean? You could work with the bmp file format internally as a frame buffer in a program because it is uncompressed. Does that mean if you write a bmp file out of gimp and open it in photoshop you are violating the GPL? If so, why has that never been brought up or asserted by any person or company ever?
The things you are saying don't seem to line up with what anyone else thinks. When has anyone else tried to claim that you can't send files from one GPL program to another non GPL program?
I think you should consider whether you are trying to claiming something is true because you want it to be true, not because it makes sense.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-li...
I thought I am the copyright owner and I can offer my code under as many licenses as I want. Many people dual license gpl code is my understanding. Converting my own code to mit should be allowed right?
Every Google result I’ve found says I’m the copyright owner and I can offer as many licenses as I want. Are you just trolling?
That's incorrect. The author still retains the copyright and is free to relicense their work any way they want.
Is the c3d dev license cheap enough for determined contributors to join? As in, cheaper than a f360 maker license?
I do not mean this in any pejorative sense. As a dev/maker I kept an eye on c3d for a long time, since that seems the only advanced-enough and commercially affordable brep kernel around to get off the ground quickly.
However, there's no discussion the closed nature pretty much bars any sort of in-depth contributor.
At least, contributing to a project like this would be extremely off-putting for me, to the point that besides having the ability to look a bit deeper than usual, I question whether keeping the source open does much.
My intention is that if you buy a license for plasticity, you can then build locally and test locally. You can contribute back or not depending on your interest.
Think of it like this. There will be a typescript/javascript wrapper around a limited version of the c3d kernel. this is the plasticity api. You will call plasticity.Enable(license_key) at the top of your program and you will be good to go. You buy a license key from me.
Although I do hope people will contribute the plasticity's development, my main goal with it being open source is that people will write plugins that they can then give away or sell themselves.
I have used commercial software that I pay for -- like Fusion 360 and MoI3d -- where I ran into bugs that I could have fixed for myself if only I had the code. I'm still happy to pay for them. Instead I literally waited 2 years for Fusion to fix a bug I cared about.
Looks pretty slick, I've been using TinkerCAD for my simple needs, but this looks compelling.
Plasticity - Fresh NURBS Modeler for Everyone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l16YkZnT5zM
(Since I’m not aware of the details…) Is this similar to using NURBS as the representation in Blender?
As in what makes this more CAD-ey?
You can make Blender work as a CAD-ish tool with practice and self-discipline and lots of keyboard shortcuts. But e.g. Fusion360 or even SketchUp is what a CAD-oriented workflow feels like. There is a big difference.
Haven't tried this yet, but I expect it to retain enough of the CAD-oriented approach that the workflow still feels quite different from Blender.
Not 100% correct. There are a number of add-ons that do this. I even think someone managed to hook-up the solvespace engine in a blender add-on
There are also a whole slew of add-ons that can make Blender more CAD-friendly.
However, you are correct, this is not the primary intent of Blender.
Nurbs are good for some shapes and bad for others. In addition to manufacturing, nurbs are great for hard surface / scifi assets for video games and movies.
Plasticity is for artists. It is more in the tradition of MoI3d than say solidworks. It has a very powerful geometry kernel and the user interface is meant to be familiar to blender users and modern looking.
It’s still very beta and changing every day
But ... what's a "nupkg" ?
[EDIT]: looks like you'll have to pull in all of mono just to install and try this :-( [1]
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38118548/how-to-install-...
[EDIT 2]: my bad, there is a .deb in release 0.5.27
https://github.com/nkallen/plasticity/releases/tag/v0.5.27
[EDIT 3]: now that I've been able to install try it on Linux: this is really nice, very pleasant UI, and for those familiar with blender, the interaction style will be familiar. I will definitely be keeping an eye on this.
I can't think of any other open source software, other than Linux, that represents such a threat and valid alternative to commercial products. Autodesk be damned, even merging with Adobe wouldn't solve the Blender problem.
https://blenderartists.org/t/nurbs-surface-creation-2-49/489... (2010)
(it may be even older than that, but I don't know about the pre-2.49 era)
A 3D editor mainly intended for visual pipeline such as Blender, and a modeling application intended for producing physical shapes have entirely different constraints and intents. They both operate on 3D data, but it's best to leave it at that.
If we use text files as an analogue, then the "3D" feature in these applications is roughly a similar unifying feature as "text based input" in programming languages - or in all programs for that matter.
For text files, you want it to have specific encoding - e.g. UTF-8. For 3D shapes, you want the data to similarly follow a mathematical schema with specific topological constraints.
If you break the convention of the encoding, or the schema, you produce gibberish.
With a specific standard in place some parts of input data may or may not be transferrable between domains (e.g. CSV data is kind of lingua franca) and lots of interesting things can be built on top of that.
But generally you could ask "how is this different from" X where X can be for example Excel or Photoshop - the answer is very complex.
Basically there are 3 methods for creating 3D content:
* Voxels (points in space)
* Polygon (vertices, edges and faces)
* Mathematically calculated (NURBS, CAD)
The real pro of NURBS mondeling is that you are working with surfaces that can easily be shaped. That's why this method is used a lot in product development. Since all surfaces are calculated they also are infinite smooth. When you want a smooth surface with polygon modeling you need a lot of triangles.
For each category there are different tools, Blender is just one of them.
Some examples of software products per category:
product design: Rhino
car design: Alias
house design: Revit
technical components: Fusion 360
game assets: Blender
sculpting: Z-Brush
movie GFX: HoudinyNURBS support in Blender is very minimal and nowhere near what real NURBS modeling packages can do.
For example, Blender can't even import STEP or IGES natively while even FreeCAD can.
I have played before with Moi3D[^1], which is "3D modeling for designers and artists", and I also use Blender and ZBrush quite a bit. My impression so far is that CAD-like specialized software is not worth using for artistic 3D modelling, at least the type which is only intended to be shown on a screen. That's because Blender's NURBS, curves and surfaces are good enough for simple shapes. For relatively complex shapes, the solvers in CAD engines can be very slow and glitchy[^2].
With a little bit of patience, one can do amazing non-destructive hard surfaces using curves and Blender's Geometry nodes (specially now that there is support for curves). With an entirely different workflow, ZBrush is a mighty hard-surface modeller as well[^3].
That's not to say that there aren't scenarios where one may have use for a solver, but they are so specialized that most artists would be better off doing the math outside their 3D modeller (or renting Fusion360 for a month, but for a casual user that software has to be more intimidating than using Python and Kiwisolver).
[^1]: http://moi3d.com
[^2]: http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=10620.1
[^3]: http://docs.pixologic.com/user-guide/3d-modeling/hard-surfac...
I’ve been using and managing CAD professionally for product engineering for 30+ years and I’ve had GitHub accounts to review code for work things. My eyes still glaze over and I close the tab if someone dumps me in their GitHub and expects me to find the right pieces to download. It’s user-hostile.
I've been involved with beta programs for other CAD tools and constantly give feedback to the Onshape team for their design and development of their app. I've worked at major design firms (IDEO, Pentagram, Lunar, etc) and have an ID background. I'm very enthusiastic about CAD and its creative uses. I'm part of what I understand your core audience to be.
I'm trying to give you constructive feedback that a GitHub link which dumps me into a directory is a huge turn off.
Go look at Shapr3D [1], Gravity Sketch [2], or even FreeCAD [3]. Look at how they have calls to action, download links and key benefits shown visually in 2 seconds.
The workflow and ease of creating so many features with so few keyboard/mouse commands is intriguing. I understand that you're trying to focus on game asset creation, but since it does do STEP import/export, there's really no reason this can't be used for ID or engineering work, at least at the initial concept level. Don't ignore those markets.
I've also been using CAD professionally for nearly two decades (RhinoCAD), and was intrigued by the title. When I saw it was just a GitHub code page, without even much for documentation, etc. My response was basically "nevermind", although I did come to check the comments - the video definitely highlights capabilities in a way I would never have guessed form the GH link.
In short, some basics that I learned while building software companies (before doing materials & CAD):
1) Most users have very little imagination - we MUST really spell everything out and draw the connections for them, at least until they get to the "AHA" moment.
2) Most potential customers have no interest or knowledge of software and how it works (software for artists this goes double++). They want to know what it can do FOR THEM, not how cool it is for us
3) A decent approximation for how well users will understand something is what we as software experts would understand with a new application or feature set when we are very tired and in a huge rush - think what you can figure out in less than a minute at 3AM when you've been crunching for days under a deadline, and someone brings in a new thing - it isn't much; you don't really GAF about the new thing, if it isn't really obvious, you'll skip it for now. That level of insight is what is available for a non-expert after a half hour of presentation. So, whatever it is, you need to design it and the presentation of it so that it meets that criteria - you could present it to your peer at 3AM in crunch time and they'd be able to pick it up and use it (or at least get the "AHA" moment and see the utility).
Still, the knowledge was hard-won, and I hope it helps someone else on the forum. I've had people randomly provide me with a few of their hard-won gems over the years, which when I applied it made substantial positive differences in my career.
It seemed relevant to the topic, even if not in the strict sense of advising directly the developer in this specific conversation. (Also, it'd not unlikely that the Dev would have the convo brought to his/her attention, so it may end up there anyway).
Yeah, like this, the GP if your very own comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30698861
Nevertheless, looks really cool!
Plasticity seems to use c3d toolkit for it's solid operations.
That may - or may not be - soon problematic as the company that produces is based in Russia (https://c3dlabs.com/en/company/about/).
Are other c3d users finding this problematic? There aren't that many solid kernels in the market.
I’m considering parasolid but, no, I can’t keep this price point with it
Some software companies with operations in Russia are Russian, other have their IP licensed by a legal entity outside of Russia. Not sure into which category c3d falls into. Which partially motivated my question.
One really can't stop using code a native Russian has ever touched - it's like deciding never to read Tolstoy again, only much harder since Russians are very prolific in software technology. Also, for code for whose IP has been already purchased, it would not be very effective as a sanctioning tool. The point is not to "cancel" Russian culture or technological output as such - only to stop trade to put economic pressure on the population and hence their government. The domain of the licensing entity in that sense is relevant here, but not to simply "stop using anything from Russia".
:( Sad for a prospective app I would use in my workflow.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210412124037/https://c3dlabs.co...