See also: Clara.io [0], Onshape [1], Lagoa (bought a few years ago by Autodesk) [2]
I must confess I struggle to see the long-term market for these services - I was working on a startup in the field for a while, and eventually decided it wasn't worth continuing.
The only thing these services really offer above desktop equivalents (which Autodesk totally dominate) is the collaboration (like Google Docs for 3D). But do you really need to collaborate to create 3D? Maybe to review/annotate etc. but to actually collaborate during the process of creating an object/scene?
To put it another way, are you going to convince your entire art team to leave behind the toolchain they have used their entire career, just so they can 'collaborate'? And if so, do you think Autodesk are going to let that happen? (Obviously not, as they bought in to the field a while ago).
I’ve used Solidworks for 15 years, and I think Onshape is close to as good for modeling, and now much better for collaboration and version control. Collaboration is great, but version control and configuration management is the killer feature of online CAD tools. These also facilitate typical collaboration which is at a part level more often than part level. The existing tools rely on a lot of discipline and are very hard to set up and maintain, and generally requires people assigned full time to maintenance (or full time to manually handle it in the filesystem). On the other hand, Onshape does not allow engineers to invent their own workflows.
For a software analogy, the existing tools are like sharepoint at best and cadfile_v2_final(Mike).prt at worst. Onshape (and I assume other) online tools are like github.
For lightweight & quick conceptual work, even final deliveries most of the time, nothing beats a browser based available-everywhere tool. No files to sync, same tool to both view & edit the files.
I used Industry heavyweight Photoshop for 15+ years, Sketch for 4 and dropped everything for Figma[1] after playing with it for 2 days. Now my UX comps, UI sketches all available EVERYWHERE. All inspirations, rough concepts all stacked away in any browser I have access to. I move to different machines a lot (Macs/Windows). Used to carry around a USB stick (synced to Dropbox from my home computer).
Now it is nirvana - No syncing, No dropboxing or figuring out where my prototypes, v1, 'final-final-v1-1-edit-final' files, & source files are. Not only the files are available, but the viewer to view those files are right there.
[1] www.Figma.com - Browser based UX Mockup/Prototype tool.
I use Tinkercad[0] every single day, for rough mock-ups through to complete exported STLs that I then 3D print. I have Fusion 360 but find it faster/easier to whip something together in Tinkercard unless it has any complexity to it, and generally there has been nothing 3D printable that I can't do in Tinkercad, leaving Fusion 360 more for larger project design (stuff I'm going to make in mixed materials, like a complete robot).
I also love that if I get an idea in bed or when away from my PC I can use my laptop to log in and mock it up, or work on ongoing projects there.
As a maker/tinkerer/hacker I actually think Tinkercad (and all the related web based design tools) are one of the most exciting advancements in this hobby, along with 3D printers and DIY CNCs.
I'm 3D modeling on OnShape right now, and it's just because I can't be bothered booting into Windows to get Fusion. That's pretty much why I stopped using the latter, and only use OnShape. It's convenient.
I know 3DS Max very well (at least I used to... Hopefully the synapses are still firing) but it's a zillion dollars for a licence and I probably need to use it maybe once a month.
I work mainly in Unity and 3D modelling is not my main focus. I would use a 3D package for some light editing and as a glorified file converter.
Nobody makes software to do this at a reasonable price so I usually head to clara.io
> To put it another way, are you going to convince your entire art team to leave behind the toolchain they have used their entire career
Yes. Because they will start out using these tools. Having experts be able to oversee novices is very powerful, esp w/o having to transport files, load and diff, etc. An expert can hop into someones session, show a technique, do a quick critique and move on.
CAD tools generally have pretty good lock in. So that certainly helps with the long term the prospects.
I’m not going to convince my team to move over from the tools they use. But the engineering team that makes their jobs irrelevant because they bid by 50% lower through increased efficiency will.
Rendering is computationally heavy, so a browser is not ideal. However, offloading simulation, file storage, version handling, etc to the ‘cloud’ has boundless potential for productivity and efficieny increases.
Yes i agree. There are some exceptions. You have Fusion360 (also autodesk)
which is a slim version of Inventor. It is web based and used by lots of professional people. It also works quite similar to Inventor. So switching isnt that hard.
But to go from 3dmax or maya to an entirely different ecosystem. I don't see that happen anytime soon.
From a hobbyist perspective, I gladly welcome the onset of cloud-based tooling. Most of these options (OnShape, in particular) have generous free tiers. I used SolidWorks in a previous profession and generally was very happy with it, but in no way could I afford a single seat license for "play."
I am a Mechanical Engineer and we use SolidWorks for CAD. I was surprised to find there exists no 3D modeling software (Nurbs / Polygonal based) that I can model using accurate dimensions. 3DSMax, Maya, Modo, C4D, Blender, Houdini, you name it. I understand that they’re not doing parametric modeling such as SolidWorks, Inventor, etc. but there has to be a way to merge both modeling paradigms. I was honestly shocked at this fundamental lack of capability.
I wanted to accurately model a product for visualization and there is no way to specify dimensions. Everything is done by “eye” in the visualization industry. When accuracy is required, especially proportions, manual element dimensions are typed in during creation of primitives.
I am used to the extreme discipline and constrain based modeling in engineering. Does anyone know why visualization folks don’t care about dimensional accuracy?
In blender at least you can specify the size of any primitive, measure the length of any edge, measure between any two points, move a vertice, object, or face by a specified amount etc. so this is just not true for blender at least. You can also annotate any dimension easily with a dynamically updating annotation. What you can't do easily (unless you're prepared to do some serious python scripting) is parametric / constraints based modelling because it's not a parametric modelling program. I'm not sure what else you'd want.
As to why visualisation folk don't care about dimensional accuracy, we do when necessary, but unless we're designing for 3d printing there's no point in worrying about things like clearances and tolerances since we're not making a physical object. Also, especially if we're doing arcvis, the demand is to knock out large quantities of models very quickly, not produce a perfect replica. I'm not going to worry about the exact dimensions of a piece of complex equipment or furniture I'm modelling if I need to produce a fully textured model in under an hour.
Maybe I missed something in your question, but in every modeling package, even online ones, you have always been able to numerically specify the size, position and orientation of every object in your scene, with a precision of several decimal points. No need to rely on your ‘eye’ at all.
Rhinoceros 3D is a Nurbs modelling software that uses dimensions and is used heavily in the architecture/arch-viz industry. But I agree, its shocking that every mainstream 3D modelling software has no concern for dimensional accuracy.
Does per monthly pricing turn off a lot of people?
My usage patterns are pretty uneven and - although I know I can unsubscribe/resubscribe - I end up feeling like I'm probably wasting my money when I'm not using it (despite the low price)
It's irrational but there you go.
Does anybody consider a per-usage pricing model? Is there some reason why that is a terrible idea?
Yes, i do not mind paying for quality software, but i want to have control over it. This means payment once (...i am ok with buying new major versions as long as the developers aren't releasing a major version every year or whatever to force people repay) and i get an installer .exe (or whatever) that i can keep on my external HDD for as long as i want and there isn't any need for online authentication/DRM (i am ok with key files as used by Total Commander and WinRAR).
Sadly, as time goes on this is becoming increasingly less common.
I wish it was a "If you use it this month, we'll charge you $15". I personally hate having to balance the tools I subscribe to. I mean even if I use something like EAGLE for once in a month, that one time is worth the $15 or whatever it is now. If I don't use it in February though, I don't wanna get charged for it.
For as much as reporting home for license checks these programs do, you think they would be a little understanding.
Yes, it's a turn off and disappointing that monthly subscription is the only option for something as simple as saving the 3d model you just created to your computer.
Too many of these small time software and web app publishers just default to thinking people are going to subscribe and forget about it. For a 3d modelling program with many free competitors, it's wishful thinking.
The problem wouldn't be a problem if there was an option to buy outright. But they sold their investors the promise of monthly revenue.
WebGL, which is now supported by all modern browsers, with WebGL2 (more flexible, fewer restrictions) around the corner. Most of the professional level tools as exhibited by the OP will be using a custom engine built on top of it.
For smaller projects, the excellent Three.js [0] is an easy way into creating 3D in the browser.
This looks pretty cool. Tinkercad is another tool like this that works in a browser. I find Tinkercad is a little more intuitive but from what I can see this seems to be a little more powerful.
To get extended functionality, you need to sign-up for a Premium account. This tool need's to be more open in first place as 'fully functional' before it can attract people to sign up for premium account.
The 'collaboration' aspect isn't what will sell this product. It could have potential when they allow creator's and designers to fully explore it first.
> We've come a long way since VRML [0] running in java applets!
I'd argue "yes" and "no" on this at the same time...
With VRML, it was designed so that - like HTML - anyone could easily create 3D objects and "worlds" using a simple markup syntax that was very similar to HTML (IIRC, both are subsets of SGML?).
It was easy to create something really quickly that could be interacted with.
These tools, while they simplify the creation part (somewhat), are more akin to today's "web site builder" systems vs raw HTML in an editor.
What you get out of them, though, isn't anything like HTML - if you are lucky, you'll get a standard file format or maybe JSON - but then what do you do with that? Furthermore, it isn't likely very human readable or editable.
WebGL - and libraries like three.js built on top - are all well and good, and allow for much easier access for 3D graphics work - but neither are anything like VRML.
There are some VRML-like tools out there - one that comes to mind is Google's A-Frame:
So some stuff like the old-school VRML is out there, and VRML had it's issues, which is part of why it didn't survive (the other part being that it was too early for the available PC hardware - unless you happened to own an SGI workstation at the time).
It's one of those pieces of "pioneering" technology that came too early for the tech - but gave us a glimpse of what might be possible in the future (much like the first "wave" of virtual reality hardware technology).
Oh man I hate receiving spam from these people. They don't provide an unsubscribe link, and when I ask them to stop sending me these e-mails, they say they won't and that I should manually log in to their website and delete my account. I don't have time to deal with this but I hope someone takes them to task for that.
If you mark it as SPAM, it should cause their mail reputation to take a hit, and your mail server should prevent their emails from getting to your inbox.
I think their marketing emails do have unsubscribe link, only the service emails don’t cause they are obliged to inform you about important changes you are subscribed to, like changes in terms of use... however unsubscribe should be provided, cause people don’t really see a difference.
Thanks for the warning. I don't need more of that crap filling my spam folder.
Microsoft did it for a long time if you signed up for their Azure service, but just recently finally provided and unsubscribe after so many people complained.
> I should manually log in to their website and delete my account. I don't have time to deal with this...
In the time it took to write that comment you could have deleted your account. At least they do have a "delete account" button, a lot of services do not.
BTW, you can sign up with a fake non-existent email to check it out, you don't need to confirm your account to start using the app.
[+] [-] AlunAlun|7 years ago|reply
I must confess I struggle to see the long-term market for these services - I was working on a startup in the field for a while, and eventually decided it wasn't worth continuing.
The only thing these services really offer above desktop equivalents (which Autodesk totally dominate) is the collaboration (like Google Docs for 3D). But do you really need to collaborate to create 3D? Maybe to review/annotate etc. but to actually collaborate during the process of creating an object/scene?
To put it another way, are you going to convince your entire art team to leave behind the toolchain they have used their entire career, just so they can 'collaborate'? And if so, do you think Autodesk are going to let that happen? (Obviously not, as they bought in to the field a while ago).
[0] https://clara.io/
[1] https://www.onshape.com/
[2] https://architosh.com/2014/11/autodesk-reportedly-acquires-c...
[+] [-] johnwalkr|7 years ago|reply
For a software analogy, the existing tools are like sharepoint at best and cadfile_v2_final(Mike).prt at worst. Onshape (and I assume other) online tools are like github.
[+] [-] redindian75|7 years ago|reply
I used Industry heavyweight Photoshop for 15+ years, Sketch for 4 and dropped everything for Figma[1] after playing with it for 2 days. Now my UX comps, UI sketches all available EVERYWHERE. All inspirations, rough concepts all stacked away in any browser I have access to. I move to different machines a lot (Macs/Windows). Used to carry around a USB stick (synced to Dropbox from my home computer).
Now it is nirvana - No syncing, No dropboxing or figuring out where my prototypes, v1, 'final-final-v1-1-edit-final' files, & source files are. Not only the files are available, but the viewer to view those files are right there.
[1] www.Figma.com - Browser based UX Mockup/Prototype tool.
[+] [-] Sendotsh|7 years ago|reply
I also love that if I get an idea in bed or when away from my PC I can use my laptop to log in and mock it up, or work on ongoing projects there.
As a maker/tinkerer/hacker I actually think Tinkercad (and all the related web based design tools) are one of the most exciting advancements in this hobby, along with 3D printers and DIY CNCs.
[0] http://tinkercad.com/
[+] [-] StavrosK|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|7 years ago|reply
I know 3DS Max very well (at least I used to... Hopefully the synapses are still firing) but it's a zillion dollars for a licence and I probably need to use it maybe once a month.
I work mainly in Unity and 3D modelling is not my main focus. I would use a 3D package for some light editing and as a glorified file converter.
Nobody makes software to do this at a reasonable price so I usually head to clara.io
[+] [-] sitkack|7 years ago|reply
Yes. Because they will start out using these tools. Having experts be able to oversee novices is very powerful, esp w/o having to transport files, load and diff, etc. An expert can hop into someones session, show a technique, do a quick critique and move on.
[+] [-] d-sc|7 years ago|reply
I’m not going to convince my team to move over from the tools they use. But the engineering team that makes their jobs irrelevant because they bid by 50% lower through increased efficiency will.
Rendering is computationally heavy, so a browser is not ideal. However, offloading simulation, file storage, version handling, etc to the ‘cloud’ has boundless potential for productivity and efficieny increases.
[+] [-] holoduke|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loganwedwards|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eerikkivistik|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spectramax|7 years ago|reply
I wanted to accurately model a product for visualization and there is no way to specify dimensions. Everything is done by “eye” in the visualization industry. When accuracy is required, especially proportions, manual element dimensions are typed in during creation of primitives.
I am used to the extreme discipline and constrain based modeling in engineering. Does anyone know why visualization folks don’t care about dimensional accuracy?
[+] [-] throwaway936482|7 years ago|reply
As to why visualisation folk don't care about dimensional accuracy, we do when necessary, but unless we're designing for 3d printing there's no point in worrying about things like clearances and tolerances since we're not making a physical object. Also, especially if we're doing arcvis, the demand is to knock out large quantities of models very quickly, not produce a perfect replica. I'm not going to worry about the exact dimensions of a piece of complex equipment or furniture I'm modelling if I need to produce a fully textured model in under an hour.
[+] [-] snarfy|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling_kernel
[+] [-] exodust|7 years ago|reply
Maybe because the intended output is more about proportion than absolute dimensions?
Besides, you can specify dimensions in the programs you mention, Blender, Modo etc. See here for Vectary: https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-...
[+] [-] AlunAlun|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cannedslime|7 years ago|reply
Im not sure if we tried the same version of blender... Its pretty easy and even intuitive to enter numerical values for dimension, rotation etc.
[+] [-] chansiky|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hantusk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmjaa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|7 years ago|reply
My usage patterns are pretty uneven and - although I know I can unsubscribe/resubscribe - I end up feeling like I'm probably wasting my money when I'm not using it (despite the low price)
It's irrational but there you go.
Does anybody consider a per-usage pricing model? Is there some reason why that is a terrible idea?
[+] [-] badsectoracula|7 years ago|reply
Sadly, as time goes on this is becoming increasingly less common.
[+] [-] pathartl|7 years ago|reply
For as much as reporting home for license checks these programs do, you think they would be a little understanding.
[+] [-] exodust|7 years ago|reply
Too many of these small time software and web app publishers just default to thinking people are going to subscribe and forget about it. For a 3d modelling program with many free competitors, it's wishful thinking.
The problem wouldn't be a problem if there was an option to buy outright. But they sold their investors the promise of monthly revenue.
[+] [-] guelo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] redindian75|7 years ago|reply
Wow! (not affiliated with them)
[+] [-] exodust|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlunAlun|7 years ago|reply
For smaller projects, the excellent Three.js [0] is an easy way into creating 3D in the browser.
[0] https://threejs.org/
[+] [-] tehsauce|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] svachalek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiho|7 years ago|reply
The 'collaboration' aspect isn't what will sell this product. It could have potential when they allow creator's and designers to fully explore it first.
[+] [-] cannedslime|7 years ago|reply
What about modifiers and tools, what can I actually make with this aside from drag&drop of prefabbed iphones?
Why would I choose to pay for some cloud BS over just downloading blender?
[+] [-] jpm_sd|7 years ago|reply
Re-live the experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eghlSdGvuC0
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
[+] [-] cr0sh|7 years ago|reply
I'd argue "yes" and "no" on this at the same time...
With VRML, it was designed so that - like HTML - anyone could easily create 3D objects and "worlds" using a simple markup syntax that was very similar to HTML (IIRC, both are subsets of SGML?).
It was easy to create something really quickly that could be interacted with.
These tools, while they simplify the creation part (somewhat), are more akin to today's "web site builder" systems vs raw HTML in an editor.
What you get out of them, though, isn't anything like HTML - if you are lucky, you'll get a standard file format or maybe JSON - but then what do you do with that? Furthermore, it isn't likely very human readable or editable.
WebGL - and libraries like three.js built on top - are all well and good, and allow for much easier access for 3D graphics work - but neither are anything like VRML.
There are some VRML-like tools out there - one that comes to mind is Google's A-Frame:
https://aframe.io/docs/0.9.0/introduction/
So some stuff like the old-school VRML is out there, and VRML had it's issues, which is part of why it didn't survive (the other part being that it was too early for the available PC hardware - unless you happened to own an SGI workstation at the time).
It's one of those pieces of "pioneering" technology that came too early for the tech - but gave us a glimpse of what might be possible in the future (much like the first "wave" of virtual reality hardware technology).
[+] [-] ivarv|7 years ago|reply
[0] https://nunustudio.org/
[+] [-] dbcurtis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rushsteve1|7 years ago|reply
So ultimately yes, it's for pretty pictures.
[+] [-] deckar01|7 years ago|reply
https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-learn/dimensions-how-to-...
[+] [-] rubatuga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jolmg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miabiel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
Microsoft did it for a long time if you signed up for their Azure service, but just recently finally provided and unsubscribe after so many people complained.
[+] [-] LifeLiverTransp|7 years ago|reply
Yes, the Streisand effect is still news to some control freaks, who think they can make humanity march according to theire terms.
[+] [-] dcplogic|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] exodust|7 years ago|reply
In the time it took to write that comment you could have deleted your account. At least they do have a "delete account" button, a lot of services do not.
BTW, you can sign up with a fake non-existent email to check it out, you don't need to confirm your account to start using the app.
[+] [-] readit3|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]