Using CAD-type programs to design terrain?

[StreetBushido]

I enjoy building terrain from scratch. The first step is almost always to sit down and sketch something out, and then to transform that sketch to a drawing, and finally convert that drawing to a real object.

Lately, though, I've been thinking about taking my terrain planning methods to the next level by using some form of free CAD-like program to design the terrain (buildings, at least) as 3D-models. I'm thinking that that can cut down on the iteration time, while also being a fun way to learn how to use CAD.

Does anybody have any experience of doing this kind of stuff? Are there any wargame-related guides on this topic available? What program would you recommend?

[Hammers]

Does anybody have any experience of doing this kind of stuff? Are there any wargame-related guides on this topic available? What program would you recommend?

Interesting. I am hoping this thread will generate some useful advice.

[shandy]

I've been playing around with SketchUp a bit, it's not too hard to use. However, my aim was not to plan stuff but to design things for lasercutting or 3-D printing.

This book provided a useful introduction to the program: https://www.amazon.de/Laser-Cutting-Printing-Railway-Modellers-ebook/dp/B01MRE2JDX/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496836456&sr=8-1&keywords=laser+cutting+railway

[OSHIROmodels]

Probably not much use to you as the programs I use are 'professional' (expensive). Rhino5 for the 3d work and Autocad 2007 for 2d work. I generally have an idea of what I want in my head before hand so the cad work is to get the final pieces ready for cutting, although there is sometimes some tweaking work needed.

Planning out in cad can be very useful as there is 'no scale' on the screen so you can have entire tables arranged and even have your chosen base/movement tray size drawn at scale.

I'm a traditionalist at heart and still prefer to do things the old fashioned way but my work means I have to use the newer programs and tech and it does have its uses.

cheers

James

[inkydave]

A few years old now but I only just recently watched it.  Here is how one pro terrain builder does it

[Gary Peach]

It all starts with a paper and pen even if you then go into CAD.  Sketchup is really the best free software your get.  If you start wanting stuff cut etc, it will become clunky and give the cutters and printers more CAD work to get to a making stage.

As said, it does get you the chance to lay things out fully from the detail to the overall.   Using full on 3d CAD software all the time, as I say, it all starts on paper and in your head and only gets on a computer when you have a clear aim.

I will say no CAD package is fun to learn, they all have their pros and cons and the 1 you pick may not suit your work or how you work, and so your either going to drop it or have to get another to start again.

Been using AutoCAD since green screens and having to type all commands X,Y and full 3D since surfaces and the z axis was introduced.

[DELTADOG]

Autodesk Fusion360 and DesignSpark Mechanical. There is nearby nothing you can`t do with this two programs for your Hobby and they are both freeware

[Elk101]

I used AutoCAD to plan my mdf terrain tiles. It meant I could play around with different tile types before I built them to maximise modularity and keep costs down.

I also use AutoCAD to plan buildings and make paper templates for foamboard elevations. I designed some sci-fi corridors on CAD that I used last year at BLAM too. It's a great tool. I like the fact that I can play around with dimensions so easily to ensure that the terrain is gameable (ie so that bases can fit on balconies, down allies, etc.)

[psullie]

while I find sketch-up easy to use and great for concept design is produces poor geometry and for printing clean geometry is essential.
For the free stuff my vote is for Blender, comes with a 3d print tool box to check for non-manifold, overhang, volume etc.
Bit of a learning curve but there are ample free guides out there

[Connectamabob]

I'm a Blender guy myself.

Part of it depends on what your goal/interest is:

Sketchup is the most intuitive if you want to just get in and go, IMO. Very noob friendly, and very easy on the eyes, and has lots of third party plugin and community support to expand it's base capabilities. If you just want to pre-vis for hand building, this is the best IMO.

123D Make is simple, but lacks flexibility, and is a little less intuitive than Sketchup IMO. It's very "clean" looking compared to the others, and is more efficient than Sketchup, but IMO Sketchup is more flexible, and everything 123D Make can do, Blender can do better and faster (if you know the basics already). Plugin support is nill, but community support is small but decent.

Designspark Mechanical is sort of like Sketchup only with a more hard-core CAD focus. It's more powerful than Sketchup or 123D Make, and has excellent native tools for converting solids and nurb-based models into STL meshes. However it's UI is a minefield if you're already familiar with other programs, as it is just similar enough to Sketchup's to fool you into thinking you already know how to use it, only to frustrate you when you can't find the tools you're accustomed to. It has no plugin support and little community support. I'd recommend it over Sketchup or 123D Make for laser cutting and 3D printing, but only if you aren't already accustomed to either.

Blender can do everything the others can and much, much more, and often with the greatest efficiency. The UI is complex, however and getting your claws into it properly for the first time can feel like a real grind. Once you get the basics down though, you can really fly with it. And since it's open source, the 3rd party plugin and community support is unmatched. If you want to 3D print complex pre-detailed items, this is the best IMO.

Or, to recap:

If you just want something easy to use to polish your sketches into something more precise: Sketchup.

If you want to 3D print, but mostly mechanical parts or base/box geometry: DesignSpark if you wanna go hardcore, 123d Make if you wanna go casual.

If you want to 3D print complex, detailed terrain or models, like, say, a fully detailed stone and wood cottage, or a car or space ship with lots of complex organic curves, go Blender.

Another free options are OnShape (browser/cloud based 3D CAD, supposedly quite good, but I haven't used it myself)), FreeCAD (open source 3D CAD: usable, but still in beta development), LibreCAD (open source 2D CAD: supposedly pretty good, but I haven't used it myself), and SCAD (command-line based 3D CAD: very efficient IF you know the coding language, but I suspect it gets logarithmicly less so the more complex your design is).

[Connectamabob]

I'm not familiar with it yet, but will give it a look.


*EDIT* So after looking at some videos, it looks very similar to how things are modeled in Blender. The UI looks completely different, and the terms used are different, but the actual process looks very similar to how you'd do this stuff in Blender.

It looks like shapes are handled as nurbs instead of meshes. That makes perfect sense for a CAD oriented engineering program, where the goal is not the model itself, but a precise abstract blueprint that can be sent to a manufacturer/engineer so they can figure out the best way to tackle each part. Watching videos, it does seem like it can be more efficient than mesh modeling in Blender due to how they've redesigned the way the nurbs handles work. I saw the ME-262 videos, but this one was what impressed me:


That's a lot like how I'd build a complex organic shape in Blender using a sub-D modifier, but I think he's able to use a lot fewer edge loops because the nurbs handles let him adjust curves more freely.

For 3D printing, I still lean towards mesh modelling, because a CAD/nurbs model is just going to get turned into a mesh model anyway as part of the STL conversion/exporting. Letting an auto conversion method handle that can result in a lot of "dumb" remeshing and mesh density optimization that turns smooth curves into ugly facets (something I see WAY TOO OFTEN with 3D prints). Building as a mesh cuts out the middleman, and lets you make the model exactly what it needs to be from the very beginning.

Anyway, it looks like it should be in the same class as Blender for making cars and spaceships with complex organic curves. Maybe even a little better, if it has good STL conversion options that let you manually control mesh density for different areas of the model (DesignSpark Mechanical has this, so it is possible). Doesn't look like it does sculpting though, so if I wanted to print, say, a stone masonry wall or a large creature, it's not what I'd use (you technically could to this, but it'd be hella tedious, like the way such stuff was done back in the early 90's).

So... just from the videos, I'm thinking probably as good as Blender for complex organic shapes, but way easier to get into because of the UI. Definitely an upgrade from Sketchup or 123D Make.

On the negative side, it's not free. Could probably get a lot of work done in the one moth demo window, but at $300 a year or $40 a month it's kinda steep for hobby use.

[Connectamabob]

Heh, looks like we cross posted. See above. I suppose I should've done that as a new post and not an edit.

[Pendrake]

I have used AutoCAD off and on since release 11, up through (2008?). The company I worked for then didn't keep currrent with the latest AutoCAD, too many new features to learn+pay for yet were unneeded.

I like to scratch build as well and it is sometimes useful. Making templates. Figuring out sectional views. Or scales and thicknesses of materials.

Did someone say Sketchup still existed? I thought Google had canned it? I have always wanted to try that.

[Connectamabob]

It still exists. I think it' got sold to a different company ("Trimble", IIRC). But it's still going strong. Not as popular as it used to be, I think, since there are more options now, but it's still alive and well.

[DELTADOG]

I'm not familiar with it yet, but will give it a look.


*EDIT* So after looking at some videos, it looks very similar to how things are modeled in Blender. The UI looks completely different, and the terms used are different, but the actual process looks very similar to how you'd do this stuff in Blender.

It looks like shapes are handled as nurbs instead of meshes. That makes perfect sense for a CAD oriented engineering program, where the goal is not the model itself, but a precise abstract blueprint that can be sent to a manufacturer/engineer so they can figure out the best way to tackle each part. Watching videos, it does seem like it can be more efficient than mesh modeling in Blender due to how they've redesigned the way the nurbs handles work. I saw the ME-262 videos, but this one was what impressed me:


That's a lot like how I'd build a complex organic shape in Blender using a sub-D modifier, but I think he's able to use a lot fewer edge loops because the nurbs handles let him adjust curves more freely.

For 3D printing, I still lean towards mesh modelling, because a CAD/nurbs model is just going to get turned into a mesh model anyway as part of the STL conversion/exporting. Letting an auto conversion method handle that can result in a lot of "dumb" remeshing and mesh density optimization that turns smooth curves into ugly facets (something I see WAY TOO OFTEN with 3D prints). Building as a mesh cuts out the middleman, and lets you make the model exactly what it needs to be from the very beginning.

Anyway, it looks like it should be in the same class as Blender for making cars and spaceships with complex organic curves. Maybe even a little better, if it has good STL conversion options that let you manually control mesh density for different areas of the model (DesignSpark Mechanical has this, so it is possible). Doesn't look like it does sculpting though, so if I wanted to print, say, a stone masonry wall or a large creature, it's not what I'd use (you technically could to this, but it'd be hella tedious, like the way such stuff was done back in the early 90's).

So... just from the videos, I'm thinking probably as good as Blender for complex organic shapes, but way easier to get into because of the UI. Definitely an upgrade from Sketchup or 123D Make.

On the negative side, it's not free. Could probably get a lot of work done in the one moth demo window, but at $300 a year or $40 a month it's kinda steep for hobby use.

Fusion360 IS free for Hobbyist and educations!
You start with the Trail Version but you can register it with the option as hobbyist. Then its a full registred Version for free!