I work in an ML-adjacent field (CV) and I thought I’d add that AI and ML aren’t quite the same thing. You can have non-learning based methods that fall under the field of AI - for instance, tree search methods can be pretty effective algorithms to define an agent for relatively simple games like checkers, and they don’t require any learning whatsoever.

Normally, we say Deep Learning (the subfield of ML that relates to deep neural networks, including LLMs) is a subset of Machine Learning, which in turn is a subset of AI.

Like others have mentioned, AI is just a poorly defined term unfortunately, largely because intelligence isn’t a well defined term either. In my undergrad we defined an AI system as a programmed system that has the capacity to do tasks that are considered to require intelligence. Obviously, this definition gets flaky since not everyone agrees on what tasks would be considered to require intelligence. This also has the problem where when the field solves a problem, people (including those in the field) tend to think “well, if we could solve it, surely it couldn’t have really required intelligence” and then move the goal posts. We’ve seen that already with games like Chess and Go, as well as CV tasks like image recognition and object detection at super-human accuracy.

One of the big changes in my opinion is the addition of a “Smart Dimension” tool where the system interprets and previews the constraint that you want to apply instead of requiring you to pick the specific constraint ahead of time(almost identical to SOLIDWORKS), and the ability to add constraints such as length while drawing out shapes (like Autodesk Inventor, probably also Fusion but I haven’t used that). It makes the sketcher workflow more like other CAD programs and requires a little less manual work with constraints.

Hmm, that actually sounds like a bug. I haven’t seen that on my end (once I set the locations of options in my toolbars they stay there, even after restarts). You may want to report that on their issue tracker. Sorry that you’re having a rough experience!

Last I tried it, there was no fix. Their latest update on the website says:

The work on the toponaming problem is an ongoing project, and we are very grateful to the FreeCAD community for contributing a lot to that effort. But it’s not complete yet, there will be much more to say when it’s largely done. So let’s focus on the other three.

So I take it they haven’t implemented a fix. They previously said they were going to work with the FreeCAD team on mainlining a toponaming fix, using realthunder’s work as a proof of concept, but said fix has not landed in mainline FreeCAD yet. I believe that’s the major feature they’re looking to implement for FreeCAD 1.0.

Definitely excited for Ondsel though! Hopefully that fix can be integrated quickly.

IMO the bigger problem with FreeCAD is the topological naming problem. It’s very easy to get frustrated because your model broke due to a change you made in an earlier feature.

The UI isn’t amazing though, and that unfortunately happens quite a bit with open source software. Hopefully it’ll go the way of Blender and KiCAD with an eventual major release that overhauls the UI.

Ondel has a nicer user interface, but I personally use and recommend realthunder’s LinkStable branch of FreeCAD. Mainline FreeCAD (and by extension, Ondsel) suffer from the topological naming problem, which can be especially jarring to users coming from proprietary CAD software. realthunder put a lot of work into a solution that handles the problem pretty well, so I’m using his fork until toponaming gets mainlined.

I haven’t used all of the assembly workbenches but I’ve found Assembly3 to be pretty robust to design changes if you use realthunder’s Link Stable fork of FreeCAD. I wouldn’t be surprised if all of the assembly workbenches would benefit from toponaming fixes, though I don’t know how they all work.

The topological naming problem is handled quite well by realthunder’s FreeCAD Link Branch fork, and his Assembly3 workbench is an acceptable, albeit imperfect method of making assemblies when combined with his fork. Assembly3 can run on upstream FreeCAD but I found it to work way less consistently due to issues like the topological naming problem breaking links in the assemblies.

Nonetheless the added features by Ondsel look interesting. I’d consider switching once upstream FreeCAD implements a solution to the topological naming problem, but like you mentioned, toponaming is such a huge leap in usefulness that I’m hesitant to switch to another FreeCAD version that doesn’t handle it well.

Not sure what’s going on but if the printer was flashed with Klipper, it won’t show anything on the screen until it is connected to a computer running klipper’s host software.

That sounds about right. You can technically achieve full torque at 0 RPM, but the current required for that might be very high (and may not be practical for the small size, power limits, and cost of a 3D printer). I know this is a problem in Asian import mini-lathes - if you run the spindle too slow you won’t get much torque out because the driver can’t supply enough current.

I think it would be a better idea to use linear encoders if you were going to add encoders to the shaft, as that way you could directly readout the position of the tool along an axis without issues like backlash that would mess up your calculated position. This is what I’ve seen on (both manual and CNC) mills and lathes.

BLDC and AC servos maintain full torque at stop too, and have about 2-3× the torque of a stepper of similar size.

Huh, this is true about BLDCs as well? I remember seeing in a video that BLDCs tend to have very poor torque output when stopped and especially when at low speeds (due to very low efficiency requiring too high currents for drivers to supply), whereas AC motors have a pretty much flat torque curve until they get fairly fast. I’d be interested to know if this is true.

I’ve been using FreeTube since Piped was very inconsistent for me, but I guess that’s just the nature of these services. I’ll have to check out Invidious again, last time I tried it was several years ago and I stopped using it after the main instance shut down. Is it still under active development? I remember its development status being unclear, partially because the language it uses is not super mainstream, but it’s probably changed since then.

Fortunately, Invidious, Piped, Libretube and Newpipe all exist and work flawlessly so there’s no excuse to use proprietary trash like that.

Isn’t the very point of this post that Invidious and Piped don’t work flawlessly?

Can’t you still modify and distribute Grayjay, just not commercially? I understand that still prevents the app from being considered open source, but their reasoning is valid IMO (to prevent people from making ad-infested clones on the play store, which has happened with NewPipe before).

I’m not sure about chamfer (I haven’t used it in my sketches) but fillet is definitely included in the Sketcher workbench.

Entirely fair! I think FreeCAD is still fine for hobbyists like myself though. It does take quite a bit of getting used to (I came from Fusion360 and Inventor first) since it operates somewhat differently, but it’s good that we have at least one option.

Hopefully it’ll see more development and become substantially more viable in the future.

This is a result of the topological naming problem. FreeCAD currently doesn’t handle this well at all. There’s been a lot of work on this front though - you can use realthunder’s fork which should be a lot better in this regard. Alternatively, you can avoid creating features directly on top of other features, and instead make planes and reference them exclusively.

This isn’t true? Fillets and chamfers are available in the PartDesign workbench.