Re: gEDA-user: quick question

["Samuel A. Falvo II" <sam.falvo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/11/06, Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The utility of the 3D feature is dubious, IMO.  To use it you first
> have to create mechanical models of all your parts (a real PITA), and
> then it is useful only if you have already created a detailed
> mechanical model of the rest of your system.

This is the type of thing that an aerospace engineer would need to do
though, as often times you have to pack a lot of electronics into a
very dense space.  Even something as simple as POVray is more than
adequate to see if components will overlap.  It can also help with air
flow analysis when in such cramped spaces.  In fact, the issues of
mass and component density are such a high priority that even *solder
joints* are tested to make sure they don't have too much solder.

> Yes, this can come in handy if you are building cards to be inserted
> into a card cage, to take only one example.  In that case, you model

Bahh, you can model a card as a rectangular brick.  Card cages really
aren't so specialized that it requires detailed physical models.

> all the boards, as well  as the card cage.   But face it:  The folks
> using gEDA/PCB or Kicad aren't doing designs at that level of
> complexity.

I am -- my Kestrel 2 design is intended to be a backplane-based home
computer, along the lines of most early S-100 bus systems.  But,
again, I'm treating each card as if it were a single slab of mythium
-- as if each card is a solid brick of mythical substance.  If the
bricks don't line up and sit nicely next to each other, it's out of
spec.  It's that simple, and it's easy enough to do in one's head.  :)

> Anyway, I agree that the 3D modeling stuff looks cool.  I just think
> it is not that useful for folks currently using the open-source tool
> flow.  Perhaps someday that will be different.   The first step in
> that direction is a good open-source 3D mechanical CAD tool.

When it's actually needed, it will arrive.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II