HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
realthunder
FreeCAD
C++2022–2024
realthunder / FreeCAD

FreeCAD

Link branch FreeCAD

Science & EngineeringCAD & Manufacturing
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
9Distinct people
13Mentions
2Explicit recommenders
851GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Link branch FreeCAD

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

Topological naming problem is fixed in RealThunder's Link Branch of FreeCAD: https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/releases I highly recommend Link Branch, it's full of all…

mitthrowaway2 used a recommendation phrase. 3 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month13 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2022-02-04 21:19:23 UTC to 2024-09-12 13:22:57 UTC.

012342022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsMay 20232023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsSep 2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20222022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20222022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20222022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20222022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20222022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20222022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20222022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20232023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20232023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20232023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20232023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20232023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20232023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20232023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20232023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20232023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20232023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20232023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20242024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20242024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Apr 20242024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20242024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC404
Jun 20242024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20242024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20242024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20242024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

13 sources
wakeupcall·Sep 12, 2024
I still recommend RealThunder's fork (https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/) at the moment, even though his fork is a bit lagging at the moment. Most of his contributions to the topology fixes got merged back into freecad now, but his enhancements to UI/behavior aren't (yet), and they make a night and day compared to ondsel too. I didn't find any significant limitation to RealThunder's assembly3. In any case, while far from most commercial offerings, FreeCAD is progressing and the future looks bright. I've stopped using f360/onshape in the last years for my hobby designs. Once you know the specific limitations of freecad+occt (something you learn in each cad program) and how to work them around effectively, it's already pretty powerful.
In The first release candidate of FreeCAD 1.0 is out
jdevy·Sep 12, 2024
I have 100s of hours of FreeCAD experience from my day job designing injection molded parts for toys. For some background, for about ~3-4 years (~5 years ago) I started using FreeCAD 1.18.1 in my job (and even more before that for hobby use). I am used to using open-source software with bad UI, so that's not my major complaint. As long as you stick mostly in the Part Design, Part, and TechDraw workbenches, you should get used to the UI. I used the main branch of FreeCAD up until 1.19.1 but then switched to RealThunder's LinkBranch [2]. I switched for the topological naming fixes (some introduced in this 1.0), assembly workbench (not the same as in this 1.0), and other many quality of life fixes (multiple solids per body and 3D offsets for most Part Design boolean operations). It was never great but it got the job done. As long as you neve
Read the rest
r need complex organic 3D surfaces, FreeCAD can work - or at least the LinkBranch did for me, I'll have to test 1.0. However, my biggest complaint is with the CAD engine FreeCAD uses: OpenCASCADE (OCCT) [1]. As with most CAD engines, this thing is OLD. It does not like to make NURBS surfaces with true tangency to other faces, and it really doesn't like when fillits cross edges into other faces. You will spend hours adjusting cosmetic geometry so that dress up features like fillits and chamfers will apply. Unless some group of PhDs with some hardcore C/C++ experience come along or the company that develops OCCT gets some major funding, I don't think FreeCAD will improve enough for day-to-day design of complex parts for a long time. Nowadays, I use Fusion 360. I prefer SolidWorks but Fusion is all my job offers me currently. For a CAD package, and coming from years of FreeCAD, Fusion 360 just works. I have tools for making arbitrary complex surfaces (could still be better), I can create fillets that cross into other faces (most of the time), and I can go back in history and edit features and my model will rebuild itself (to a limit, but even the FreeCAD LinkBranch had more issues than Fusion even though it was better than vanilla 1.19.1 and 1.20 FreeCAD). Fusion also has a proper assembly system, which is essential! You can cheat and create parts in FreeCAD by linking sketches to geometry in other parts, but it can only get you so far before you need to go back in time and everything breaks upon a rebuild. I hate to say it, but FreeCAD has a lot of work to do other than the UI. I want to use FreeCAD but it wastes too much of my time for professional work. I would still use it for simple hobby projects. I could talk for hours on this stuff. [1] https://github.com/Open-Cascade-SAS/OCCT [2] https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/releases
In The first release candidate of FreeCAD 1.0 is out
mitthrowaway2·May 21, 2024
I used to use SolidWorks. Now I use FreeCAD as a complete replacement. Two tips: (1) use RealThunder's Link Branch (https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/releases). This fixes one of FreeCAD's fundamental problems. (2) use the "Part Design" workbench. That's the one that is built around the SolidWorks workflow: sketches with constraints -> parts, etc. There are other workbenches for other workflows; you might need to hop over to them sometimes but you'll want Part Design for the most part. FreeCAD still hasn't settled on "one correct way" to do assemblies of parts. There are various plugins that each offer their own take on how to do it. You'll have to pick the one that you like most. You don't need to use Python. You can use spreadsheets, equation-driven dimensions, and so on, just like SolidWorks. You can make dimensioned drawings usin
Read the rest
g the TechDraw workbench, which gets better all the time. (Also useful for making DXFs to export to a waterjet or laser cutter). The documentation is sparse, so youtube demonstrations are the clearest way to learn. I like JokoEngineering's channel.
In Ask HN: How does modern FreeCAD compare with Solidworks?
Fwirt·May 21, 2024Recommendation phrase
I've been using it to do some basic 3D printed designs, and it has all of the features you mention. I haven't had to write any Python so far. The main issues with FreeCAD are those common to most open-source software applications like GIMP. You can accomplish almost anything that you can with professional software, but the UI is obtuse, at times buggy, and the process is going to involve way more steps, plugins, and hidden menus. I use it because it's one of the few CAD packages that runs on MacOS and has a viable free tier. Most other CAD free tiers are crippled or have bizarre licensing agreements. If you decide to give it a shot, I highly recommend using realthunder's branch, which massively improves the topological naming problem issue that the main branch struggles with. It also includes the plugin that adds the "assembly with constr
Read the rest
aints" feature. https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD This YouTube channel has some great FreeCAD tutorialss. FreeCAD operates very much under a TIMTWOTDI philsophy. https://www.youtube.com/@MangoJellySolutions
In Ask HN: How does modern FreeCAD compare with Solidworks?
slabity·May 21, 2024
FreeCAD has improved immensely over the past 2-3 years in terms of stability and features. A decade ago it was not uncommon for me to experience crashes from it randomly losing its GLX context or the constraint solver segfaulting for some reason. Now it's rare for it to crash at all for me, though I still run into a lot of constraint solver errors that are a pain to deal with. However, despite the recent improvements, I still cannot recommend it for new users compared to commercial solutions for the sole reason of the Topological Naming Issues: https://wiki.freecad.org/Topological_naming_problem This issue has been probably the #1 problem I've had with FreeCAD since I started using it. And though I've learned how to design parts to get around the problem in most situations, it's a huge hurdle for newcomers to understand and get around. Lu
Read the rest
ckily there's a fork that fixes a significant number of the issues: https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_assembly3 and https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD I've also heard of Ondsel, which is supposedly a much more user friendly version of FreeCAD that also includes some fixes to the issue: https://ondsel.com/ EDIT: Here's actually a better read of the topological naming issue, what's being done about it, and why it's difficult to fix: https://ondsel.com/blog/freecad-topological-naming/
In Ask HN: How does modern FreeCAD compare with Solidworks?
eternityforest·Dec 2, 2023
Lithium Titanate batteries. Nothing else is lightweight, safe, currently available, and lasts 20000 cycles. ESPHome. It's a framework for declaratively building firmware for microcontrollers, based on rules like "This pin is an input with debouncing, when it changes, toggle this". Contributing to them has probably been the most fun I've had programming in years. We just need power management, and a C++ implementation of the Native API client. It's so close to being able to replace most of what I'd normally code by hand in Arduino. https://esphome.io/ RealThunder's fork of FreeCAD: https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD They fix so many issues. Linear patterns can duplicate other linear patterns! Vorta: It's the best backup technology I've seen. Just an easy guided GUI for Borg, which gives you deduplication. I just wish they let you
Read the rest
deduplicate across multiple repositories somehow.
In Ask HN: What are some unpopular technologies you wish people knew more about?
mitthrowaway2·Jan 11, 2023Recommendation phrase
For FreeCAD, I recommend trying RealThunder's dev branch, which fixes its main topology issues. (They're working on merging but it's a big review). https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/releases But setting that aside, rather than a philanthropic billionaire, I've long thought big companies like Ford / Boeing / Mitsubishi ought to pool together into some kind of consortium and buy out Dassault to open-source the code. It would probably pay back multiple times over for them -- not through saving on licensing fees, but through all the little efficiency improvements throughout their supply chains. Small machine shops would be able to offer more competitive quotes to customers; more shops would pop up; lead times would improve; file formats would standardize and version mismatches would disappear; new and custom features could get added fast
Read the rest
er Blender-like; independent developers could write plugins to automate or accelerate mechanical design; new ME hires could gain experience with the tools at home. It would be a huge boon to the industry as a whole. Shame that it hasn't happened yet.
In Guerrilla guide to CNC machining, mold making, and resin casting (2015)
floatboth·Feb 4, 2022
A fundamental problem is that OpenCASCADE, despite being the most advanced open source CAD kernel, does kinda suck. It's single-threaded (FreeCAD has it on the main thread so any long operation blocks the entire UI) and it's… rather buggy. Recent fun example I've encountered: doing a fillet in two places at the same time can result in either an unhelpful "resulting shape is invalid" or a crash inside OpenCASCADE, depending on the selection order (!) — https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD/issues/202
In FreeCAD: Open-source 3D parametric modeler

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.