[cad-linux] Re: alternatives to opencascade-varkon

Sagar,

I think that Varkon is an excellent choice.  It is mature, the code base 
has a small footprint, and it does appear to do a lot with the MBS 
scripting/programming language. It also works in 3D or 2D. There are 
functions for lofting surfaces, etc.   Some of the Varkon users have 
also programmed some import/export routines for various file formats. 
One thing that I think is really cool is that you can script all of 
Varkon to act upon a drawing without even opening a GUI.  So, if you are 
doing a lot of similar actions to a family of parts, it is possible to 
really automate things. I have been thrashing around with it for several 
months now and think that it would do the job for a CAM program.

It appears that a university in Sweden is continuing work on Varkon. 
Maybe you and the students at your university could work together on it.


Thanks,
Dan

Sagar Behere wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've just been to the varkon home page and I was quite
> delighted with what I saw.
> 
> It seems as if varkon is a kind of programming
> language/system to create CAD applications.
> 
> So,
> 
> 1) Is varkon suited to creating a full-blown 3D CAD
> program? I went through what I could of the site but
> some of the terms were unfamiliar to me :-(
> 
> 2) will varkon be a good alternative for opencascade?
> 
> We ultimately hope to create a full-blown 3D cad
> program and also add CAM facilities to it later on.
> The varkon site specifically mentions that varkon is
> not for CNC machining, since it does not have
> functions for generating numerical data.
> 
> However, what prevents me from writing an add-on (say,
> a new function to varkon's familiy of existing
> functions) which will work with the 3D model file
> which my varkon application has created and generate a
> tool-path from it?
> 
> If such a thing is possible, then we will have a
> proper 3D cad/cam system and along with the emc, it'll
> be a complete system for the free software machinist
> (whatever that means)
> 
> I am just too excited here to think properly. Surely,
> someone MUST have thought in this fashion before?
> Isthere anything wrong with my thinking? or is it
> possible and everyone knows it but just that everybody
> is too incredily lazy to attempt it? If so, we'll
> gladly make an attempt.
> 
> Cheers (junmps about the room one more time)
> Sagar
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> 
>

Other related posts: