Not really a game, but playing Minecraft has made me wish for real-world modeling software with a similar first person interface. Select from standard off-the-shelf components, use real-world tools, and craft stuff. Then test it out. I’ve got ideas in my head for all kinds of stuff, but going from there to an actual model is tedious with standard CAD and modeling software. Why can’t I (virtually) take an 8’ Douglas Fir 2x4, cut it with a saw, drill some holes in it - you get the idea. I could make something like a shed, then stress test it in a windstorm, pile 4 feet of snow on it, or drench it with rain. Or build a go-kart and see how it would perform. Tweak the design until it does what you want. Make the app user moldable and let the community go wild adding capabilities and virtual materials. Maybe it could eventually generate real parts lists, fabrication data for 3D printers and CNC machines, and assembly drawings.
You’ve kinda answered your own question there. That’s what CAD is for. To create what you’re after, you’d be using the same backend capabilities which are already computationally expensive, mapped out within a game engine. The result would likely be an expensive bit of training/simulation software that’s redundant to both engineers and machinists, and out of the price range of any home builder.
Accessibility is what you’re after, and I can sympathise. I think ANSYS Discovery was made with that in mind, and it’s available in the academic version.
I generate models with code and use a pythonic API to automatically simulate them in testbed conditions. It wouldn’t be far off to create extra scenarios, but each time you make one it would take a bit of knowledge to put together.
It’s one of their modules that’s meant for preliminary CFD with a simplified approach. I’ve only tried it a little tbh as it doesn’t have the control we required, but I can see how it’d feel accessible. Workbench is intimidating AF.
The pythonic API was for controlling Fluent which is maybe what you used in school, also involved some Spaceclaim. Getting started on coding that was a puzzle and a half. Feels good now it’s solved though :’D
There was a rudimentary gui of sorts, and we were taught using that and maybe very minimal command line stuff (I did learn some “programming” for Matlab in a different class, but all of that knowledge is long gone), but I remember it being very unresponsive and buggy.
Or maybe I just sucked at it, though I’m generally very good with computers and intuitively figuring out how software is supposed to work. ANSYS was not intuitive lol. I just remember trying to make meshes and wanting to smash the PC.
I think the reason that doesn’t exist is that among other things you’d be combining a fair amount of CAD and similation tools into it, and each of those is extremely pricey.
Not really a game, but playing Minecraft has made me wish for real-world modeling software with a similar first person interface. Select from standard off-the-shelf components, use real-world tools, and craft stuff. Then test it out. I’ve got ideas in my head for all kinds of stuff, but going from there to an actual model is tedious with standard CAD and modeling software. Why can’t I (virtually) take an 8’ Douglas Fir 2x4, cut it with a saw, drill some holes in it - you get the idea. I could make something like a shed, then stress test it in a windstorm, pile 4 feet of snow on it, or drench it with rain. Or build a go-kart and see how it would perform. Tweak the design until it does what you want. Make the app user moldable and let the community go wild adding capabilities and virtual materials. Maybe it could eventually generate real parts lists, fabrication data for 3D printers and CNC machines, and assembly drawings.
You’ve kinda answered your own question there. That’s what CAD is for. To create what you’re after, you’d be using the same backend capabilities which are already computationally expensive, mapped out within a game engine. The result would likely be an expensive bit of training/simulation software that’s redundant to both engineers and machinists, and out of the price range of any home builder.
Accessibility is what you’re after, and I can sympathise. I think ANSYS Discovery was made with that in mind, and it’s available in the academic version.
I generate models with code and use a pythonic API to automatically simulate them in testbed conditions. It wouldn’t be far off to create extra scenarios, but each time you make one it would take a bit of knowledge to put together.
I don’t know if ANSYS Discovery is different than the ANSYS software I used while I was in school, but if it isn’t… Good luck with that lol
It’s one of their modules that’s meant for preliminary CFD with a simplified approach. I’ve only tried it a little tbh as it doesn’t have the control we required, but I can see how it’d feel accessible. Workbench is intimidating AF.
The pythonic API was for controlling Fluent which is maybe what you used in school, also involved some Spaceclaim. Getting started on coding that was a puzzle and a half. Feels good now it’s solved though :’D
There was a rudimentary gui of sorts, and we were taught using that and maybe very minimal command line stuff (I did learn some “programming” for Matlab in a different class, but all of that knowledge is long gone), but I remember it being very unresponsive and buggy.
Or maybe I just sucked at it, though I’m generally very good with computers and intuitively figuring out how software is supposed to work. ANSYS was not intuitive lol. I just remember trying to make meshes and wanting to smash the PC.
I think the reason that doesn’t exist is that among other things you’d be combining a fair amount of CAD and similation tools into it, and each of those is extremely pricey.