Comparison of 3D CAD packages

[GAP]

3D viewer is no longer being supported by microsoft so I asked for an alternative and blender was recommended.
Big question how hard is it to use and what can I do with it.
Another question are there tutorials for it, it seems powerful so I might give it a go

[Paul_in_Ricky]

3D viewer is no longer being supported by microsoft

It may not be supported but it is still freely available on the net if you search for it.

so I asked for an alternative and blender was recommended.
Big question how hard is it to use and what can I do with it.
Another question are there tutorials for it, it seems powerful so I might give it a go

You can do almost anything 3D with Blender, but it will seem unfathomable the first time you try to use it.
Loads and loads of tutorials about it on YouTube though.
Start by searching for a tutorial on what you need to do, or trawl back here for links to appropriate videos.

[GAP]

3D viewer is no longer being supported by microsoft

It may not be supported but it is still freely available on the net if you search for it.

so I asked for an alternative and blender was recommended.
Big question how hard is it to use and what can I do with it.
Another question are there tutorials for it, it seems powerful so I might give it a go

You can do almost anything 3D with Blender, but it will seem unfathomable the first time you try to use it.
Loads and loads of tutorials about it on YouTube though.
Start by searching for a tutorial on what you need to do, or trawl back here for links to appropriate videos.

It is more powerful than tinkercad and Fusion 360 I understand; could I get some recommendations on my next step up the CAD ladder Blender or Fusion 360?

[philipy]

A lot of people recommend Fusion but personally I've never managed to concentrate long enough to get proficient at it. However Blender is the last program I'd recommend to start on, so if it's a choice between the two, I'd say go for Fusion 360. There is absolutely nothing intuitive about Blender, it isn't really aimed at our type of use, its main focus is on generating cartoon type videos, etc.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

It is more powerful than tinkercad and Fusion 360 I understand; could I get some recommendations on my next step up the CAD ladder Blender or Fusion 360?

I don't think "powerful" is a very helpful word in this context.
Blender has a huge range of features and can do all sorts of clever stuff with 3D files, but a lot of that may not be of any use to you.

Let's give an overview;
Blender:
Primarily design for working with organic shaped meshes. The models it creates can then be manipulated in 3D virtual space or transferred off to be used in other software like video games as assets or 3D printed.
The models can be animated and Blender can save the complex animations as video files.
Being Open Source software there are a huge number of add-ons that extend it's core capabilities. These include additions to make figures posable (where this thread started) and also some that allow a degree of geometric precision to building precise models.
It's interface is complex and has options you may never use, plus the interface options will change depending on what mode of editing you are in which can be confusing for beginners.
For modellers it's great for editing organic meshes like figures and making some basic edits to pre-built mesh files.

Fusion 360*:
This is a proper CAD program. It allows the design of precise geometric 3D components that can be easily edited with high levels of precision, multiple components can be made to combine into complex structures and, as it uses a parametric system, dimensions can be transferred to other components and their dimensions can follow as other components are edited.
Most modellers only use the free personal version which is has a reduced feature set, but the full version also includes options for sheet metal work, editing meshes, surface rendering and full CAM capabilities.
For modellers it's great for creating accurate models of geometric objects like locos, rolling stock, buildings or parts thereof.

Tinkercad:
Designed for schoolchildren to get a chance to work with 3D design, working with primitive shapes that be joined or subtracted from each other. Very few options compared to the above softwares and a very basic child friendly interface that's fast to learn.
With a degree of ingenuity complex shapes can be constructed, but it lacks the tools to do many tasks that are trivially easy in 'proper' CAD software like fillets and chamfers.
It's Achilles heel is the difficult of editing completed, or partially completed, models. Reversing back through multiple additions or subtractions is a complete nightmare. You also can't import complex meshes for editing.
For modellers it's great for making 'quick and dirty' simple parts.

So really it depends on what you're trying to achieve and how much effort you're prepared to put in to learn the software.
Each package has it's fans and will tell you it's all you need, I don't agree.
If you want to create geometric designs go for a proper CAD package and expect to spend some time working through tutorials. You'll need a general understanding of how the software works before you can create entirely new designs.
If you need to edit organic meshes like figures Blender is probably the only option, but there are good tutorials on that specific task that will allow you to get on with the task without needing to learn about the bits that don't concern that specific task.

*Fusion 360 is a popular choice, but that description of functionality applies to most other CAD packages like FreeCad, Design Works, Solidworks etc..... all of whom have their fans too.

[ge_rik]

I tried using SketchUp and was able to produce some reasonably complex shapes. However, when I tried slicing them, the slicer kept rejecting them with alerts such as "This shape isn't manifold" which meant it was full of holes. On the screen, to me, it looked perfect. Philipy tried coaching me in how to repair the shapes but I just couldn't get my head around the methods involved - not his fault, it was just beyond my understanding and skillset.

I then moved over to Tinkercad. I have produced a range of what I consider to be acceptable models. As Paul suggests, it does have limitations, but conceptually, it matches my view of the world and my modelling incapabilities - I'm a bodgeller rather than a skilled modeller. I have devised a series of work-arounds to get it to do what I want. Maybe I view the world more as a child than an engineer.

Despite its limitations, Tinkercad has never created a part for me which was rejected by a slicer - and so far I have used it to create 980 items. So, I stick with it.

Horses for courses as they say.

Rik

[ge_rik]

Sorry, a bit of thread drift here. Maybe, I should take these last few posts and create a new thread about the relative merits of 3D CAD packages???

Rik

[Paul_in_Ricky]

I think Sketchup is now a curious fit into the 3D world, having passed through various versions pitched at different tasks, often more for visualisation rather than manufacture.
Whereas Tinkercad was designed to help people design and make simple actual objects. Similarly Fusion is a branch that originates back with Autocad which is pretty much the original gorilla of 3D design and manufacture.

I have devised a series of work-arounds to get it to do what I want

This fits it's educational role well, as to do anything complex requires developing ingenious solutions to the lack of tools.

I've used Tinkercad a fair bit, but going back to change anything drives me to distraction and why I invested the time in learning Fusion.
An example is this little model of a Ruston diesel. It was originally designed around a tin can motor with a Delrin chain drive.
A couple of years on Delrin chain became unobtainable, so I needed to alter the chassis to use gears. It would have been simple in Fusion, but was really difficult in Tinkercad.

Screenshot 2026-02-24 121733.png (563.68 KiB) Viewed 4706 times

Even worse was the gearbox. Originally designed to fit a IP kit. When I came to try to change it back to an accurate scale model it was effectively impossible to change small aspects of the design without starting back from square one.

Screenshot 2026-02-24 131221.png (522.84 KiB) Viewed 4706 times

[SimonWood]

Let's give an overview;

Paul this is an outstanding post, thank you. It really does highlight the strengths and weaknesses. You've put your finger on exactly why I hit the limits with Tinkercad - it is so time consuming making small changes to complex designs - although I still use Tinkercad because it's so quick to put something together, especially simple things. I also use Blender, occasionally (and with trepidation) because for posing/sculpting you need the right tool for the job. That's alongside my daily driver OpenSCAD, of course.

Sorry, a bit of thread drift here. Maybe, I should take these last few posts and create a new thread about the relative merits of 3D CAD packages???

Good idea. I will be happy to chip in with the virtues of OpenSCAD

[GAP]

I tried Fusion360 got as far as loading it but when I went to use it told me my CPU wasn't good enough so I uninstalled it.
When I searched for an alternative I was recommended Onshape I was looking for something a bit better to modify stl's Mesh Mixer was mentioned as well so I'll give them a look at.
I use Tinkercad a lot so I am familiar with it and will continue to use it.


Rik,
For models that are not manifold I open them in 3D Builder and it has a repair function that has worked for me in the past.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

If your computer can't run Fusion, yes, Onshape could be a step forward to a full CAD package.
You mighty also look at Freecad, if you can run that, as you won't be dependant on a fast internet connection and can keep files privately.

However from what I read editing STLs isn't really a practicality in Onshape. Meshmixer is widely recommended, but I find it rather unintuitive and difficult to use, YMMV.
Which program to use will be dependant on how complicated the edits you need are. You can do some basic edits in some printer slicer software.

[Johnnie1000]

Interesting. I've used MicroStation since about 1995 as part of my work. I've got a hooky copy of 95 on my old computer. When I started on this 3D printing malarkey a few years ago, I happened on TinkerCAD and sort of stuck with it. It's simple and does what I need it to. I've learnt to do some pretty bonkers shapes with it too.

[Durley]

One noticeable difference between different CAD packages is the degree of refinement in STL meshes, if being used to create models for 3D printing. A lower mesh refinement results in the STL exhibiting facets on curved surfaces that are then replicated in the physical print. This is noticeable on TinkerCAD-produced models for things like loco chimneys or any other curved surfaces. Fusion360 and other higher-end packages have the option to alter the mesh refinement to smooth out surfaces so curves print as curves, so far as the printer allows.

A useful feature of Fusion360 I use often is the manufacturing module that allows G-code to be created within the software for producing parts on a CNC milling machine or laser cutter.

There is a set of YouTube videos called Learn Fusion360 in 30 days. I followed the first 10 or so of these videos which taught me most of the basic functions sufficient to cover the common operations.

[GAP]

Sorry, a bit of thread drift here. Maybe, I should take these last few posts and create a new thread about the relative merits of 3D CAD packages???

Rik

Thanks Rik I was thinking the same that maybe I should start a new thread.

[Scrat]

Same to me.
Tinkercad is if I ONCE need something and need it quickly.
Editing things afterwards is a nightmare.

[Admin Team]

One noticeable difference between different CAD packages is the degree of refinement in STL meshes, if being used to create models for 3D printing. A lower mesh refinement results in the STL exhibiting facets on curved surfaces that are then replicated in the physical print. This is noticeable on TinkerCAD-produced models for things like loco chimneys or any other curved surfaces. Fusion360 and other higher-end packages have the option to alter the mesh refinement to smooth out surfaces so curves print as curves, so far as the printer allows.

I've not noticed any issues with smaller curved surfaces such as chimneys or loco cylinders. It is noticeable on shallower curves such as curved roofs. There is a high definition cylinder with 360 sides v 128 max sides on the standard cylinder. I haven't yet used it for roofs so not sure yet how it compares.

Rik

[ge_rik]

One noticeable difference between different CAD packages is the degree of refinement in STL meshes, if being used to create models for 3D printing. A lower mesh refinement results in the STL exhibiting facets on curved surfaces that are then replicated in the physical print. This is noticeable on TinkerCAD-produced models for things like loco chimneys or any other curved surfaces. Fusion360 and other higher-end packages have the option to alter the mesh refinement to smooth out surfaces so curves print as curves, so far as the printer allows.

I've not noticed any issues with smaller curved surfaces such as chimneys or loco cylinders. It is noticeable on shallower curves such as curved roofs. There is a high definition cylinder with 360 sides v 128 max sides on the standard cylinder. I haven't yet used it for roofs so not sure yet how it compares.

Rik

Oops. Just noticed I accidentally logged in via the Admin Team account.

Rik

[Durley]

One noticeable difference between different CAD packages is the degree of refinement in STL meshes, if being used to create models for 3D printing. A lower mesh refinement results in the STL exhibiting facets on curved surfaces that are then replicated in the physical print. This is noticeable on TinkerCAD-produced models for things like loco chimneys or any other curved surfaces. Fusion360 and other higher-end packages have the option to alter the mesh refinement to smooth out surfaces so curves print as curves, so far as the printer allows.

I've not noticed any issues with smaller curved surfaces such as chimneys or loco cylinders. It is noticeable on shallower curves such as curved roofs. There is a high definition cylinder with 360 sides v 128 max sides on the standard cylinder. I haven't yet used it for roofs so not sure yet how it compares.

Rik

It probably depends on how the part is being produced (filament or resin printed) and how much post processing is done to smooth out any imperfections. To illustrate what I mean, here’s two chimneys. The green one is yours Rik, from your GVT Glyn loco and presumably produced in TinkerCAD? The blue one is mine from my GVT loco produced in Fusion360 with mesh refinement set to medium. Printed in resin on an 8k resolution printer, the green chimney print retains the facets which can of course sanded smooth as a post processing step. It’s not a criticism of your model Rik, just a feature of the package used to create the STL files.

IMG_5794.jpeg (80.49 KiB) Viewed 4532 times

IMG_5793.jpeg (97.47 KiB) Viewed 4532 times

[ge_rik]

One noticeable difference between different CAD packages is the degree of refinement in STL meshes, if being used to create models for 3D printing. A lower mesh refinement results in the STL exhibiting facets on curved surfaces that are then replicated in the physical print. This is noticeable on TinkerCAD-produced models for things like loco chimneys or any other curved surfaces. Fusion360 and other higher-end packages have the option to alter the mesh refinement to smooth out surfaces so curves print as curves, so far as the printer allows.

I've not noticed any issues with smaller curved surfaces such as chimneys or loco cylinders. It is noticeable on shallower curves such as curved roofs. There is a high definition cylinder with 360 sides v 128 max sides on the standard cylinder. I haven't yet used it for roofs so not sure yet how it compares.

Rik

It probably depends on how the part is being produced (filament or resin printed) and how much post processing is done to smooth out any imperfections. To illustrate what I mean, here’s two chimneys. The green one is yours Rik, from your GVT Glyn loco and presumably produced in TinkerCAD? The blue one is mine from my GVT loco produced in Fusion360 with mesh refinement set to medium. Printed in resin on an 8k resolution printer, the green chimney print retains the facets which can of course sanded smooth as a post processing step. It’s not a criticism of your model Rik, just a feature of the package used to create the STL files.

IMG_5794.jpegIMG_5793.jpeg

Point taken. The filleted sections had to be produced using other tools and there's no way to increase their definition.
One day. I'll bite the bullet and take a look at Fusion, particularly as it's possible to transfer files from Tinkercad to Fusion.

Rik

[Durley]

Transferring models from TinkerCAD to Fusion360 looks pretty straightforward https://www.tinkercad.com/projects/Send ... Fusion-360

At least it gives the option to do most of the modelling in a familiar package and then just learn specific processes in Fusion360 such as filleting (and potentially exporting STLs).