Just to clarify Mr. @XNurbs, I’m using your term of ‘minimal energy’ in a sarcastic way giving it the meaning of ‘minimal effort’.
The biggest disservice to the design industry has been done by companies claiming they can make easy-to-use software by crippling functionality, dumbing down topology, modeling tools and ignoring an entire generation of important foundational knowledge and best practices of surfacing. The success of tools like Solidworks in product design and Sketchup in architecture are perfect examples of this.
I have a design studio and it hurts me to see the diminishing level of modeling proficiency in designers over the years, lack of skill is what’s capping our growth righ now, we cannot meet client demand, not even close. This is evident not only with recent graduates but with professional with 10+ years to experience who think they can model and create form because they can extrude-cut-boolean-fillet childish blocks in Solidoworks/Fusion/Onshape. And they can even throw in an out-of-control loft sometimes if they are feeling brave.
The biggest niche opportunity in new better modeling tools (something that the big CAD companies give zero fucks about so you should stop worrying about them) is creating tools that give designers/modelers more control. If you can apply your ‘minimal energy’ creation to interpolate and optimize designer’s input geometry while maintaining their design intent you could have something very unique.
Also you should stop being paranoid about the power of your tool. If you understand the business of CAD tools you will soon realize that topology is too hard and expensive to develop and support. And that all the players big stables he’d ones and startups are happier developing bullshit data analysis and PLM features that take 0.1X of the development effort, are priced 10-50X in licensing and reach 1000X userbase. The fact that most companies are making 3D tools that are mostly incapable is a planner business decision. Nothing you develop (or not), share (or not) will change that.
Even at McNeel doesn’t make business sense to develop core geometry features. Just look at how bad not only the surfacing tools are, but also the simple direct editing features are. They’ll sell more licenses creating front for layout or some other BS Autodac parity feature. And that’s perfectly fine.
Modeling is a hard problem. No one is solving it at the CAd company level, at the teaching level, and any part of the market. We can’t complain too much because that’s what makes people who can design and model really in demand and busy, but it would be great to see goodness to be more accessible.
So go ahead make great stuff and tell the whole world about it. Stop the secrecy, it will only bury you into irrelevance, that’s your only business risk right now.
I hope this help,
Gustavo
