Open-sourced dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/daveferbear/3d-model-images-...
Blog writeup: https://www.finalrev.com/blog/embedding-one-million-3d-model...
- Some are clearly miscategorized - ABC-00131096 is a coffee table but has a very detailed description of its chair attributes.
- Many others are weird nonsense geometry, like ABC-00991744, ABC-00807798, ABC-00349255 or ABC-00822766.
- Some have a partially accurate description (if you pretend it's a chair), like ABC-00685912 has a blocky geometric structure with a horizontal piece off a vertical piece, but then it starts talking about an armrest on one side that doesn't exist at all.
- ABC-00388826 is a silhouette of a cat, which the description misses completely, and I don't see how you would sit on this "unique chair design characterized by its fluid and sculptural form."
Overall the descriptions are pretty useless and ascribe a lot of chairness to things that are not chairs.
Is a dataset with this much junk in it good for something?
For example if I search “supercolumns” I get regular household furniture.
Searching for “cup” produces another 40 results, all of which are flat rectangular panels. Searching for “flat rectangular panel” at least returns flat rectangular panels, though, so it's got that going for it.
However, the vast majority of time what i'm searching grabcad or friends it's for specific part numbers or parts.
I cannot remember the last time i wanted to try to find some object by generic description. Even as a tool to find possible parts that might fit my task, i don't see how it would make sense, because the stuff that matters is mostly not visual.
IE let's say i'm trying to find ballscrew nuts that might be a replacement for one i can't get anymore.
I'd want to search for ballscrew nuts that have a specific dimension, which maybe it can do (doesn't look like it so far), but the parts that matter are things like "is it preloaded", etc, which wouldn't be part of the description it generates (because it's often not even visualized in the cad model).
This is for mechanical stuff that might be interchangeable. Lots of cad models are of electronics and such that are very much not.
Even when i'm doing 3d printing, most of the time i'd search for the part i'm looking for, not a generic description of what might look like - ie i'm searching for dividers for sidiocrate crates. Giving me thousands of possible things that might be a divider would be pretty useless.
To the degree i search for generic descriptions, people already provide them, and it's not obvious this is a meaningful friction point for them (IE that being able to generate the labels automatically is really valuable)
So while i think this is overall cool, i struggle to think of a truly practical use.
My go-to for CAD files is usually https://grabcad.com/library
I searched this for "WAGO" and "XT90", so I guess not the same use case. Some hits for "Raspberry Pi", though.
From the blog post: Our search demo proves that it works quite well. As anticipated, text search works well, returning sensible results for even irregular or poorly formed queries. It’s worth mentioning that this is very different from 3D part libraries like Thingiverse or GrabCAD. Search in those repositories requires users to tag or annotate parts with a description, the text of which is used in search. Our system takes only an unnamed part as input, requiring no additional labelling.
M8x30 SHCS
Lathe chuck
19" rack mount blank plate
The long descriptions are full of irrelevant fluff and don't answer basic questions like what size it is. For example, on a screw:
> The model features a hexagonal socket head cap screw, characterized by its cylindrical shaft and a larger, flared hexagonal head. The head's interior is designed to accommodate a hex key, allowing for easy installation and removal. The shaft tapers slightly towards the tip, providing an elongated profile. The smooth surface indicates precision engineering, suitable for applications requiring a strong and secure fastening. The overall design emphasizes functionality while ensuring compatibility with various tools and mechanical setups.
A broad search "vise" returns a long list of identical, very eccentric, vises the likes of which I've never seen before.
I really only wanted one hole in my box though, so I adjusted the query to "box with a single hole in it". the results looked indentical. except for one that stood out. I would link to the particular model, but there was no way to do that. this model appears to be a rectangular bathroom basin, on its side. I'd describe it as perhaps a ~currently fashionable porcelain design, but it could be a concrete 'getting shit done' sink, or a model from The Sims (the first one). so box-like perhaps, but not many people would describe it as a box. I guess my search continues (elsewhere)...
(actually interesting bit about natural language: I know that a box with two (or more) holes in it has a single hole in it, but most English natural language parsers (humans) will notice that specifying 'single' would be redundant if I wanted any number more than zero, so it's extremely unlikely that I was looking for a multi-hole box.)
where did you steal the models from, by the way? just curious. the original context in which they were found would actually be helpful if someone was for some reason trying to actually use this as a tool. [ed: saw the OP's comment down the page -- you can include a comment with the submission IIRC]
also if you don't have the 3D model spinning incessantly, having the page open won't be obnoxious and it won't (have to) waste power
Reviewing drawings for incompleteness, contradictory informations, deviations from standards, etc and making recommendations would be very valuable.
It doesn’t need to be perfect to be useful.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41hGjsBlrKL._AC_SL1000_....
I tried Google/Claude etc. But none worked. As per Claude, the technical name for that is Pillow Block Bearing/Shaft Coupling Block/Flange Mount Bracket. Funny thing is, your app didn't return any good result when I search with any of those terms.
After reading your blog post, I searched for "block with 2 holes". And lo and behold, it returned ABC-00162357!
Couple of suggestions: 1) Have a permanent link for each model 2) Show related models when a model is clicked 3) and lastly, show models based on an image
edit: Search for "mounting block" returned ABC-00180735 which is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you so much for making this!
The generality of the part descriptions made me chuckle.
> A bevel gear with a circular base and a series of angular, tapered teeth extending radially outward. The teeth are uniformly distributed around the circumference, allowing for meshing at an angle with another gear. The gear's face includes a set of holes, varying in size and symmetrically arranged around the central bore, likely for weight reduction or mounting purposes. The central opening likely acts as an axle or shaft attachment point. The design facilitates the transmission of rotational motion between intersecting shafts, typically at a 90-degree angle.
edit: looks like the data is trained from machinery parts. impressive regardless, but i’d add that to the lander
Ok too niche, except that's exactly the use-case as I see it so if that's too niche then what good is it? Whatever call it pre-alpha poc and move on...
Tried "grommet", got all finger rings. Closer but not close enough to be useful. It wasn't a mix of ringular-shaped objects including grommets, and grommets aren't only round either. None of the rings were even slightly grommet shaped, purely tori and belts, some with add-ons and cut-outs.
Perhaps it needs a couple orders of magnitude more input samples before it becomes useful. And by "useful" I do mean even just as a proof of concept, because I don't see any concept proven here.
There are a few though! Try "dog" or "cookie cutter" for example.
Even purely artistic uses need parametric models of organic things though. Games, other non-game modelling, 3d printing.
Both games and general modelling needs parametric versions of basically everything in the model. If you're trying to design and evaluate some cattle processing facility, you'll want a lot of randomly varied cow models.
But I bet the biggest use is games and movies. You don't model every dog from scratch, you take the parametric dog model and move the sliders to get all the different dogs in your commercial or show or game.
I.e. it would not be in dataset because the use cases for 3D apples are outside of typical use cases where people resort to CAD software.
As a mechanical engineer, I feel the part of my job is safe from AI for the time being. I don't think quality training data for good mechanical design exists.
3D CAD is only part of good design. To a tinker-er that is 3D printing simple parts, an STL is fine. But most parts that matter require far more design consideration and detail than simply the geometry data that an STL (or other 3D file) provides.
The majority of parts are accompanied with a drawing, and that is where the real design actually is found: Tolerances, GD&T, materials, processing notes...
Even then, most of the calculations and considerations to build the model and drawing are not explicit in the design documents: Nothing about a drawing of a stainless steel part tells you WHY it must be a stainless steel part. I don't think there is a large set of well documented designs out there to act as training data for an AI system to design an assembly beyond basic 3D parts.
The authors identify this gap, but it's a fundamental problem with the wholesale move to AI in mechanical design.
That said, I am excited for AI assisted CAD tools. Things like creating and applying global variables to an existing part, complex assembly analysis for part reduction or just making a starting base part can be incredibly tedious and are low hanging fruit for improving CAD workflows with AI imo.
one of the challenges to making a good data set might be around bad designs and why they failed. if we get to a mechanical agent, its going to need to understand that brass was a mistake and redesign a part as steel and change the design for the new contraints
unlike code, that kind of train of experiment i think will be a lot more expensive to make, since you might actually want to create those parts along the way and not just pretend
Just judging from this experience, the effort would rise exponentially with the complexity of the part, not to mention assemblies. The designers earn their keep. I get really bad eyestrain with any task that requires staring at the screen while doing fine mouse work, so I just can't use CAD. On the other hand, I can code all day because I'm not closely focused on the screen when I'm typing.