Interestingly, ttouch created browser-based CAD tool CADmium a few years ago based on Truck. Then, a few months ago, they created another one (CADara) based on OpenCASCADE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48070083.
Truck seems cool, but creating a b-rep kernel is a phenomenal amount of work. Given that, I'm curious how quickly SolidCraft will mature.
> Creating a b-rep kernel is a phenomenal amount of work
Well, I did it, took 6 months, and I think I'm ahead of Truck on that front since as far as I can tell Truck can still only do single edge fillets with Newton's method as their new fillet algorithm, whereas my kernel can do planar fillet chains fairly reliably.
I wish someone would wrap a frontend around it too considering I'm bad at designing UIs, and the architecture is too weird to put a conventional 3D CAD UI on it that I'm honestly hoping someone would throw their LLM at that task.
Also, sorry about the excessive self-promotion, but I think most people would be shouting from the mountaintop if they built a BREP geometry kernel from scratch solo too.
“ Dangerous operations which may generate degenerate/sliver/zero-dimension geometries are instead blocked from materializing to 3D at a compiler level.”
How is that achieved, or rather what does that mean? What defines a sliver?
A sliver is basically a tiny degenerate geometry in the micro/nanometer scale that's basically the result of ambiguous surface intersections. Basically, if you put two say, cylindrical surfaces against each other in NURBS form, floating point noise would generate these microscopic geometric noises, and a lot of what commercial kernel does is they use what they call "healing" operations to clean up those bad microscopic geometries from the models they generate.
Aetheris took a very obvious approach that not many have seemed to tried before: It throws an error when an operation that may create ambiguous intersections and refuses to materialize bad geometry in the first place, which is not really possible to do with traditional NURBS based kernels, whereas Aetheris can because it is analytical first.
You see slivers in 2D spatial operations as well. Imagine that you have two parcels represented as polygons that don’t perfectly spatially intersect. If you perform a boolean operation to, say, compute the union of these two polygons into a single one, any microscopic difference between the two boundaries below a certain tolerance (like 0.001 square meters) will manifest itself as tiny gaps and slivers. Most GIS engines will merge the two polygons appropriately beyond that tolerance (this is a way simpler problem in 2D space!) but if the data is bad enough you’ll definitely see it.
FWIW I don't think it makes sense to copy anyone's CAD program, and I am negatively disposed to the ArtCraft thing as a general position. I think it's fully the wrong approach.
But I am here for LLMs, if they really can be used to solve maths, to solve CAD maths, which is, as you say, the really difficult stuff.
I am still not going to use an early-stage CAD package, but this actually would be a meaningful contribution to society. The rest is a bit AI NIH.
If the experiment does work out and the library NVIDIA open-sourced proves to be mathematically robust enough for standalone CAD use, it would leapfrog OpenCASCADE kernel for open-source CAD (solved math that was previously propriety, graceful failures without crashes, multiple CPU threads, running smoothly on web browsers).
Thanks for making this! I tried some hobby level modelling and it seems very capable. I've been a heavy user of fusion360 in the past but I've been longing for an open alternative.
People don’t get the super high value proposition in having these all *Craft packages controlled (automated) by AI. Most of the companies who are the kingmakers in the given area, do not allow it easily or are hard to integrate (costly) with, or did allow back in time and don’t now.
Given much can be automated in 2026, these (promoted goodies) may come as the missing link in innumerable automation chains, and particularly where commercial agents aim for when they sell costly licensing.
It also indirectly fights piracy and the risks which come with pirated copies (sidelined with funny stuff).
this stuff is a game changer for implementing workflows with some user-facing interaction. I was working on a desktop publishing webapp with a specific slant, the previous iteration of the graphical editor UI was not very good, in order to build anything you have to specifically instruct the agent how every little interaction works, and my recollection and description was often different from how the "standard" desktop publishing flow works (i.e.: this is the sequence of actions to expand a selected entity preserving the aspect ratio, here's how to preserve the center-point, here's how to multi-select, etc). I told the agent "take the frontend from vectorcraft, adopt this specific subset of tools, build it for wasm, and plug in my agent tools and storage backend" - and within a day of deciding to adopt it, I had a much higher quality editor interface that anyone with desktop publishing experience will immediately know how to use, plugged into my storage format.
I've had a lot of success with FreeCAD, no need for MCP when the LLM can just write Python code to generate the file.
Interestingly enough I was trying to make a simple(ish) workbench project using that and LLM made both the "generate the project" program and "run thru the checks" program, where it encoded stuff I asked it to fix (like making sure the bench feet are sitting under the posts, or that there is no holes in the floor).
Ended up building it and on one side I was impressed that it mostly was fine, on other there were clear issues that wouldn't happen if someone actually experienced with it designed it, it just wasn't designed to be put together easily
I played around with Freecad mcp, and then also with having an agent generate some openscad before.
For the Freecad mcp I didn't like it at all. The agent didn't work in a way that would let me easily modify things. I hadn't given it instructions, but it didn't really create sketches and then extrude them (after checking they're all fully parameterized.)
For openscad the problem was just that while the model could do it, the lack of "visual reasoning" (for want of a better word) really held it back. There was a nice workflow there though by giving it a little "generate_image" of part tool and it could make a nice iterative loop.
Overall for both approaches it was slower than if I'd done it myself (and I'm not particularly good at 3d modelling). Now, that's not that surprising given that I was trying something new, but without being able to edit things generated by the AI myself I wouldn't want to try it again.
Now, maybe this solution can work in the way I'd want to. I may give this a go next time I have something I want to make.
There are two, maybe three levels of support for 3D printing:
- exporting an STL so that a Slicer may be used to prepare the file for 3D printing --- https://github.com/bherbruck/solidcraft notes "Export to STEP...3MF...STL and OBJ
so that basic support is there, but the further levels of:
- slicing a 3D model
- sending a model/managing a 3D printer/farm
do not seem to be --- given that there are quite robust solutions for those, I feel that the Unix philosophy of chaining small tools makes sense here.
Very interesting. Looking at the images I'm not sure if this is based on Autodesk Inventor (plausible since they already imitated AutoCAD), or in Solid Edge (given the name).
Looks like this uses the Truck modeling kernel: https://github.com/ricosjp/truck
Interestingly, ttouch created browser-based CAD tool CADmium a few years ago based on Truck. Then, a few months ago, they created another one (CADara) based on OpenCASCADE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48070083.
Truck seems cool, but creating a b-rep kernel is a phenomenal amount of work. Given that, I'm curious how quickly SolidCraft will mature.
> Creating a b-rep kernel is a phenomenal amount of work
Well, I did it, took 6 months, and I think I'm ahead of Truck on that front since as far as I can tell Truck can still only do single edge fillets with Newton's method as their new fillet algorithm, whereas my kernel can do planar fillet chains fairly reliably.
I wish someone would wrap a frontend around it too considering I'm bad at designing UIs, and the architecture is too weird to put a conventional 3D CAD UI on it that I'm honestly hoping someone would throw their LLM at that task.
https://github.com/yuechen-li-dev/Aetheris/
Also, sorry about the excessive self-promotion, but I think most people would be shouting from the mountaintop if they built a BREP geometry kernel from scratch solo too.
Fascinating repo, thank you for making it!
I’m curious, what does this part mean?
“ Dangerous operations which may generate degenerate/sliver/zero-dimension geometries are instead blocked from materializing to 3D at a compiler level.”
How is that achieved, or rather what does that mean? What defines a sliver?
A sliver is basically a tiny degenerate geometry in the micro/nanometer scale that's basically the result of ambiguous surface intersections. Basically, if you put two say, cylindrical surfaces against each other in NURBS form, floating point noise would generate these microscopic geometric noises, and a lot of what commercial kernel does is they use what they call "healing" operations to clean up those bad microscopic geometries from the models they generate.
Aetheris took a very obvious approach that not many have seemed to tried before: It throws an error when an operation that may create ambiguous intersections and refuses to materialize bad geometry in the first place, which is not really possible to do with traditional NURBS based kernels, whereas Aetheris can because it is analytical first.
You see slivers in 2D spatial operations as well. Imagine that you have two parcels represented as polygons that don’t perfectly spatially intersect. If you perform a boolean operation to, say, compute the union of these two polygons into a single one, any microscopic difference between the two boundaries below a certain tolerance (like 0.001 square meters) will manifest itself as tiny gaps and slivers. Most GIS engines will merge the two polygons appropriately beyond that tolerance (this is a way simpler problem in 2D space!) but if the data is bad enough you’ll definitely see it.
FWIW I don't think it makes sense to copy anyone's CAD program, and I am negatively disposed to the ArtCraft thing as a general position. I think it's fully the wrong approach.
But I am here for LLMs, if they really can be used to solve maths, to solve CAD maths, which is, as you say, the really difficult stuff.
I am still not going to use an early-stage CAD package, but this actually would be a meaningful contribution to society. The rest is a bit AI NIH.
They are working on a Rust port for the SMLib geometric kernel subset that NVIDIA open-sourced yesterday as part of their new USD BRep library:
https://github.com/bherbruck/solidcore
If the experiment does work out and the library NVIDIA open-sourced proves to be mathematically robust enough for standalone CAD use, it would leapfrog OpenCASCADE kernel for open-source CAD (solved math that was previously propriety, graceful failures without crashes, multiple CPU threads, running smoothly on web browsers).
Thanks for making this! I tried some hobby level modelling and it seems very capable. I've been a heavy user of fusion360 in the past but I've been longing for an open alternative.
People don’t get the super high value proposition in having these all *Craft packages controlled (automated) by AI. Most of the companies who are the kingmakers in the given area, do not allow it easily or are hard to integrate (costly) with, or did allow back in time and don’t now.
Given much can be automated in 2026, these (promoted goodies) may come as the missing link in innumerable automation chains, and particularly where commercial agents aim for when they sell costly licensing.
It also indirectly fights piracy and the risks which come with pirated copies (sidelined with funny stuff).
this stuff is a game changer for implementing workflows with some user-facing interaction. I was working on a desktop publishing webapp with a specific slant, the previous iteration of the graphical editor UI was not very good, in order to build anything you have to specifically instruct the agent how every little interaction works, and my recollection and description was often different from how the "standard" desktop publishing flow works (i.e.: this is the sequence of actions to expand a selected entity preserving the aspect ratio, here's how to preserve the center-point, here's how to multi-select, etc). I told the agent "take the frontend from vectorcraft, adopt this specific subset of tools, build it for wasm, and plug in my agent tools and storage backend" - and within a day of deciding to adopt it, I had a much higher quality editor interface that anyone with desktop publishing experience will immediately know how to use, plugged into my storage format.
Oh my God you are right.
Looks awesome, for some reason I liked that much more then FreeCAD. Fingers crossed that will actually be supported and survive DMCA
Interesting, I thought this was part of the *Craft family but that one is called CadCraft. I do prefer the take on using Fusion as the UI base.
FreeCad had problems for years with certain functions when changing parameters. Does this avoid those problems from the start?
IIRC, FreeCad has at least partially addressed the remaining problems with that recently.
I've had a lot of success with FreeCAD, no need for MCP when the LLM can just write Python code to generate the file.
Interestingly enough I was trying to make a simple(ish) workbench project using that and LLM made both the "generate the project" program and "run thru the checks" program, where it encoded stuff I asked it to fix (like making sure the bench feet are sitting under the posts, or that there is no holes in the floor).
Ended up building it and on one side I was impressed that it mostly was fine, on other there were clear issues that wouldn't happen if someone actually experienced with it designed it, it just wasn't designed to be put together easily
Interested to try this out.
I played around with Freecad mcp, and then also with having an agent generate some openscad before.
For the Freecad mcp I didn't like it at all. The agent didn't work in a way that would let me easily modify things. I hadn't given it instructions, but it didn't really create sketches and then extrude them (after checking they're all fully parameterized.)
For openscad the problem was just that while the model could do it, the lack of "visual reasoning" (for want of a better word) really held it back. There was a nice workflow there though by giving it a little "generate_image" of part tool and it could make a nice iterative loop.
Overall for both approaches it was slower than if I'd done it myself (and I'm not particularly good at 3d modelling). Now, that's not that surprising given that I was trying something new, but without being able to edit things generated by the AI myself I wouldn't want to try it again.
Now, maybe this solution can work in the way I'd want to. I may give this a go next time I have something I want to make.
Interesting product and will try this.
Could you please confirm if 3D printing functionality is supported? This feature would be very useful for professionals. Thank you.
There are two, maybe three levels of support for 3D printing:
- exporting an STL so that a Slicer may be used to prepare the file for 3D printing --- https://github.com/bherbruck/solidcraft notes "Export to STEP...3MF...STL and OBJ
so that basic support is there, but the further levels of:
- slicing a 3D model
- sending a model/managing a 3D printer/farm
do not seem to be --- given that there are quite robust solutions for those, I feel that the Unix philosophy of chaining small tools makes sense here.
Very interesting. Looking at the images I'm not sure if this is based on Autodesk Inventor (plausible since they already imitated AutoCAD), or in Solid Edge (given the name).
It looks a lot like Fusion, where Autodesk took all the passable UI and UX from Inventor and replaced it with absolute garbage.
Ok CAD is great but I want CAM
I think having these abundance of alternatives is positive, overall. We need a way to find good ones.