From my experience, it feels like the intended workflow for the Draft workbench is for producing prints for 3D objects created earlier in either the Part, PartDesign, or Architecture workbenches. A similar workflow to Creo Parametric / ProE. FreeCAD’s Sketcher workbench is excellent for creating well-constrained 2D geometry (better than Creo IMO), but lacks GD&T or other annotation features. It may be possible to design in Sketcher and go straight to Draft without going through Part / PartDesign, but I have never tried this workflow.
FreeCAD can also be scripted (in Python, rather than a LISP dialect), but I have never seen this used in the wild. While a lot of work in AutoCAD might be done via one-liners, Python scripting in FreeCAD is a lot less common, used mostly for plugin development rather than day-to-day modeling.
RE: your other comment, CAD software tends to depend highly on industry. I work in a contract manufacturing shop and we need to work with a number of CAD systems. Some of our customers use SolidWorks, some of our customers use Creo, we generally work with whatever system they provide their models in (though this does break down into personal / department preference as the original model is transformed into individual machining operations to produce operation sketches and do CAM work in ESPRIT, MasterCAM, or various 3D printer slicers to produce contoured CMM fixtures). The firms which do the original engineering / design work basically get to make the choice. I suppose AutoCAD is really popular in some industries, but not in mine. That said, DXF is still treated almost like a lingua franc format - sort of like a 2D STEP file.
IMO, AutoCAD is way overrated, and this isn’t just my FOSS zealotry speaking :) The actual truth is that ALL CAD software is garbage.
A rational firm (read: very few of them) would respect the engineer’s judgement and license whatever software they insist on using - assuming they could briefly describe what a CAD kernel or a geometric solver is as part of the hiring process.
All professional software sucks tbh. I only have to interact with AutoCAD every once and a while since we mostly use ArcGIS now (all 2D FTTH network design/permitting). It’s decent for that, and the LISP scripting is nice, but it also constantly crashes and they will fuck with you on licensing constantly.
ArcGIS Isn’t much better though. Only benefit is that the data can be pretty easily moved around between formats, but the layout engine is proprietary. They also have a scripting library written in Python (arcpy), but it literal trash. I’ve written like 20k lines of code just to make it moderately usable.
(Yes, there is regex indexing of lists in there, ESRI thought it would be cool to allow you to have many things with the same name and hide the real name in some underlying CIM data that will crash the process if you touch it because their backend C code is bugged)
From my experience, it feels like the intended workflow for the Draft workbench is for producing prints for 3D objects created earlier in either the Part, PartDesign, or Architecture workbenches. A similar workflow to Creo Parametric / ProE. FreeCAD’s Sketcher workbench is excellent for creating well-constrained 2D geometry (better than Creo IMO), but lacks GD&T or other annotation features. It may be possible to design in Sketcher and go straight to Draft without going through Part / PartDesign, but I have never tried this workflow.
FreeCAD can also be scripted (in Python, rather than a LISP dialect), but I have never seen this used in the wild. While a lot of work in AutoCAD might be done via one-liners, Python scripting in FreeCAD is a lot less common, used mostly for plugin development rather than day-to-day modeling.
RE: your other comment, CAD software tends to depend highly on industry. I work in a contract manufacturing shop and we need to work with a number of CAD systems. Some of our customers use SolidWorks, some of our customers use Creo, we generally work with whatever system they provide their models in (though this does break down into personal / department preference as the original model is transformed into individual machining operations to produce operation sketches and do CAM work in ESPRIT, MasterCAM, or various 3D printer slicers to produce contoured CMM fixtures). The firms which do the original engineering / design work basically get to make the choice. I suppose AutoCAD is really popular in some industries, but not in mine. That said, DXF is still treated almost like a lingua franc format - sort of like a 2D STEP file.
IMO, AutoCAD is way overrated, and this isn’t just my FOSS zealotry speaking :) The actual truth is that ALL CAD software is garbage.
A rational firm (read: very few of them) would respect the engineer’s judgement and license whatever software they insist on using - assuming they could briefly describe what a CAD kernel or a geometric solver is as part of the hiring process.
All professional software sucks tbh. I only have to interact with AutoCAD every once and a while since we mostly use ArcGIS now (all 2D FTTH network design/permitting). It’s decent for that, and the LISP scripting is nice, but it also constantly crashes and they will fuck with you on licensing constantly.
ArcGIS Isn’t much better though. Only benefit is that the data can be pretty easily moved around between formats, but the layout engine is proprietary. They also have a scripting library written in Python (arcpy), but it literal trash. I’ve written like 20k lines of code just to make it moderately usable.
(Yes, there is regex indexing of lists in there, ESRI thought it would be cool to allow you to have many things with the same name and hide the real name in some underlying CIM data that will crash the process if you touch it because their backend C code is bugged)