Dune3d comes off like a reskin of SolveSpace. SolveSpace is pretty awesome, so that's not a knock, per se. I'll leave it to somebody with more experience to fill in what value Dune3D adds beyond SolveSpace.
There was a recent video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VNpC0nwF4
If someone knows of a general introduction to 3D CAD which focuses on vendor-neutral descriptions of terminology and concepts, I'd be very interested --- I've done the tutorial for Dune 3D twice now (which is farther than I've gotten in any other 3D CAD tool), but keep getting hung up on subtleties/specifics which I have trouble describing for want of the correct terminology/understanding:
https://github.com/dune3d/dune3d/discussions/118
When I tried to write up the usage of a far simpler program, one of the things which I tried to do was define all terminology as it was brought up:
https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/2d-drawing
are there any tutorials for 3D CAD which attempt definitions along the way in this fashion?
I've successfully learned quite a few EDA and 3D CAD tools that way. It's also effectively the way it's taught in a classroom - the teacher shows you and you copy.
Another is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsOHTD1RYBY
I wish the person doing:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/res-16-002-how-to-cad-almost-any...
would revisit that course w/ Dune 3D.
I'm not sure there is such a thing. Maybe a drafting book would be a vendor neutral description of spec'ing a 3D manufacturable object on a 2D surface.
Otherwise the way the software accomplishes the task is kinda the point which will necessarily have methodology specific terms in it.
0: https://docs.dune3d.org/en/latest/why-another-3d-cad.html
Solvespace 3.2 is essentially done (try the latest edge build), we just need to get github to produce the correct artifacts (not sure what broke). After that we will be adding named parameters to be used in sketches, and I'll try to get back to the chamfer/fillet problem and NURBS issues.
That's actually how it works. Chamfers and fillets are handled by OpenCascade, so they can be applied to arbitrary edges. They only exist on the solid model though, so they are not integrated with the solver.
I'd be curious to see how native chamfers/fillets in solvespace would work, I imagine some amazing things could be done if they'd be part of the solver.
SolveSpace is a PITA in that regard. You also need to re-learn most terms that are common in other CAD software. It's a typical OSS thing.
Why care about professional users that have years of learning invested into an ecosystem of professional CAD software (including terminology)? Because these people will get you the most valuable feedback if you can get them to even play with your OSS CAD thingy.
AI has now balanced the scores here. Someone with decent CAD experience can now instruct a model to build something useful.
Based on lots of good libs out there that solve the basics. I.e. concentrate on UI/UX to build something better.
It's like Lego, hands-free. You have all the blocks and you have someone who knows how/helps you combine them.
If you have good taste, you can get nice results without understanding how the Legos where made or how to even combine them.
That's the equivalent of LMGTF, in 2026. ;)
I mean all this is documented publicly online (docs/help for CAD software), market leaders are known and the LLMs have ingested this data during training.
I don't think that every oss should try the copy what already exists. The best is when new approaches are tried. The same happened to me when I started using tilling window managers. "Professional" Operating systems don't have that, but I am sure that if more people would try them, many would realize that the workflow fits them better. So, my point is that there is no single best solution in terms of user interface or interaction with a program, and the fact that many people explore and share different approaches with their open source software is something I really appreciate.