(If you're impatient, you can head over to shapesmith.net and try out the new version, then come back here and read the post).
This application will become "Shapesmith", and the previous beast will be deprecated.
I explained the reasons behind moving to a pure JS architecture in a previous post. For more insight you can read that post. In summary these were:
- OpenCASCADE didn't scale (is uses too much CPU for a cloud-based modelling application).
- OpenCASCADE is too complicated and badly documented.
Does it work?
Yes, it works! In some ways the new application is better, but in other ways it has less functionality (for now).
At this moment, the geometry kernel is experimental and mesh-based, and not as capable as OpenCASCADE in terms of geometric capabilities. The geometry primitives available are limited to cube, spheres, cylinders etc., and boolean operations using these.
For example, things that were impossible before, like STL importing and text engraving, will be possible.
- Being able to offload the geometry computation to the client makes the service orders of magnitude more scalable. My aim is to create a platform that is very cheap to use, and creating an application where users would be able to create lots of free models would be impossible before.
- A single language architecture allows you to use the same tools everywhere. For example, I can run unit tests using node, but also in the browser. That way unit tests are automated, but I can also use the great profiling tools in Chrome to profile the geometry computation.
- Being able to share code between the front and back-end is great. The same code that creates an STL file in the browser can also be used to export an STL from an API. Another example - the same validation code can be used in both areas (although the parameter validation in Shapesmith.next is not up to scratch yet).
Yup, white. Walter White.
Variables allow you to truly parametrise a model. For example, you can use a radius variable for certain screw holes in your model, 3D print it, discover the holes are too small, change the variable, print it again:
Once a proper API is created, you could create multiple versions of a model with different parameters, 3D print them all in parallel, and choose the best one. That'll be exciting. Evolutionary geometry computation using 3D printing.
A new tree
Each model is actually a graph of objects, but for ease of use is it depicted as tree. It does have a pretty cool feature that allows you to easily descend the geometry hierarchy, edit something, and ascend up to the top again. In this way you can quickly edit your models.
New design viewer
There a new home screen where you can see all you models, and also the screen-shots of what those models looked like when you saved them.
Because the geometry kernel is new and still a bit experimental, you could end up with degenerate models like this.
There are some tips to work around these problems that I will create some help for, but in the long run this has to be addressed properly. This is a subtle pull request hint.
Go and try it
You can follow this project on twitter.