Autodesk MeshMixer vs. TurboCAD

Autodesk MeshMixer is best for repairing STL files and basic modifications toward 3D printing. It is excellent for hollowing out models and adding escape holes for SLA printing or lost-wax casting. Its CSG (Boolean) functions to combine different meshes are good too and seldom cause the program to crash. There is even an integrated algorithm to optimize the layout of multiple files on a print bed in case of small-batch production. Autodesk MeshMixer's sculpting tools are there yet limited and there are a few better alternatives. Best of all, it is completely free.

It is fully capable of all the design work you can give it. I have even designed houses with it. Turbo CAD Pro Platinum is all I have used for going on 3 years now. I don't know if other versions can do or can't do. If you are a graphic designer, you would need to port the files to a higher end program to manipulate the colors and renderings. For engineering and in-house work it is perfect.

Incentivized

• Auto-repair function works fast, and if it does not completely cover all problem areas, manual fixes will work 99.5% of the time.
• Remeshing algorithm is fairly slow but does a wonderful job in creating meshes with homogeneous or adaptive triangulation.
• It contains a comprehensive set of tools to optimize and prepare STL files for 3D printing, such as hollowing and support generation.

• Good scale tools
• Easy to pick up
• The exporter

Incentivized

• The remeshing tool needs to be faster, as in some cases it takes up to a day of waiting time.
• The sculpting tools need the addition of a proper brush for creating sharp creases and ridges.
• The standard shape library is rather limited. It would be nice to have this connected to online repositories such as Thingiverse, MyMiniFactory, or Cults3D.

• Shortcut keys more in line with AutoCAD.
• 3D rendering could be simpler.
• Updated interface.

Incentivized

TurboCAD does all of the things we need it to do and some. The wide variety of options to create specificity in each of our projects is a large plus. The reason it was given a 9 is because the learning curve can be a little steep and sometimes certain processes are not as intuitive as they could be

Incentivized

Using Blender for STL file preparation is like swatting a mosquito with a wrecking ball, plus its boolean functionalities can be glitchy. ZBrushCoreMini proved too limiting as a sculpting tool, but so did Autodesk MeshMixer, so I am sticking to Sculptris. Materialise Magics and Netfabb are somewhat better at STL file repair and offer more advanced functionalities. But Magics does not remesh as well and Autodesk MeshMixer is far more compact and faster than Netfabb, so remains my weapon of choice.

TurboCAD is a well-priced solution for a small business, it comes standard with 3D modeling compared to DraftSight which does not. The user interface could be updated along with industry-standard shortcut keys but for the number of drawings we do, this package fills the gap. The DXF / DWG feature could be worked on too, as above, trying to get in line with other packages like AutoCAD & DraftSight would make the whole package better. All in all, I believe that TurboCAD has a valid foothold in the CAD industry.

Incentivized

• It speeds up projects by streamlining the CAD-to-3D-printing workflow
• As an advanced user, I have written a few tutorials about it as well

• Our maps stand above other business in our same field
• The quality and clarity of the maps allow for more precise budgeting
• Once it the process and program was understood it would take a good hour off of our projects

Incentivized