Show HN: AI in SolidWorks (trylad.com)
We come from software engineering backgrounds where tools like Claude Code and Cursor have come to dominate, but when poking around CAD systems a few months back we realized there's no way to go from a text prompt input to a modeling output in any of the major CAD systems. In our testing, the LLMs aren't as good at making 3D objects as they are are writing code, but we think they'll get a lot better in the upcoming months and years.
To bridge this gap, we've created LAD, an add-in in SolidWorks to turn conversational input and uploaded documents/images into parts, assemblies, and macros. It includes:
- Dozens of tools the LLM can call to create sketches, features, and other objects in parts.
- Assembly tools the LLM can call to turn parts into assemblies.
- File system tools the LLM can use to create, save, search, and read SolidWorks files and documentation.
- Macro writing/running tools plus a SolidWorks API documentation search so the LLM can use macros.
- Automatic screenshots and feature tree parsing to provide the LLM context on the current state.
- Checkpointing to roll back unwanted edits and permissioning to determine which commands wait for user permission.
You can try LAD at https://www.trylad.com/ and let us know what features would make it more useful for your work. To be honest, the LLMs aren't great at CAD right now, but we're mostly curious to hear if people would want and use this if it worked well.
33 comments
[ 6.8 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] threadFor the most part they still suck at anything resembling real spatial reasoning but they're capable of doing incredibly monotonous things that most people wouldn't put themselves through like meticulously labeling every pin or putting strict design rule checks on each net or setting up DSN files for autorouter. It even makes the hard routing quite easy because it can set up the DRC using the Saturn calculator so I don't have to deal with that.
If you give them a natural language interface [1] (a CLI in a claude skill, thats it) that you can translate to concrete actions, coordinates, etc. it shines. Opus can prioritize nets for manual vs autorouting, place the major components using language like "middle of board" which I then use another LLM to translate to concrete steps, and just in general do a lot of the annoying things I used to have to do. You can even combine the visual understanding of Gemini with the actions generated by Opus to take it a step further, by having the latter generate instructions and the former generates JSON DSL to that gets executed.
I'm really curious what the defensibility of all these businesses is going to be going forward. I have no plans on entering that business but my limit at this point is I'm not willing to pay more than $200/mo for several Max plans to have dozens of agents running all the time. When it only takes an hour to create a harness that allows Claude to go hog wild with desktop apps there is a LOT of unexplored space but just about anyone who can torrent Solidworks or Altium can figure it out. On the other hand, if it's just a bunch of people bootstrapping, they won't have the same pressure to grow.
Good luck!
[1] Stuff like "place U1 to the left of U4, 50mm away" and the CLI translates that to structured data with absolute coordinates on the PCB. Having the LLM spit out natural language and then using another LLM with structured outputs to translate that to a JSON DSL works very well, including when you need Opus to do stuff like click on screen.
I am still hoping that openSCAD or something similar can grab hold of the community. openSCAD needs some kind of npm as well as imports for mcmaster-carr etc but I think it could work.
https://adamkarvonen.github.io/machine_learning/2025/04/13/l...
Do any people with familiarity on what's under the hood know if the latent space produced by most transformer paradigms is only capable of natively simulating 1-d reasoning and has to kludge together any process for figuring geometry with more degrees of freedom?
For people looking at a different angle on the "text to 3D model" problem, I've been playing with https://www.timbr.pro lately. Not trying to replace SolidWorks precision, but great for the early fuzzy "make me something that looks roughly like X" phase before you bring it into real CAD.
https://github.com/MichaelAyles/heph/blob/main/blogs/0029blo...
I need to redo this blog, because I did it on a run where the enclosure defaulted to the exploded view, and kicanvas bugged out, either way, the bones of it is working. Next up is to add more subcircuits, do cloud compilation of firmware, kicad_pcb to gerbers.
Then order the first prototype!
I've tried ChatGpt and Claude on datasheets of electronic components, and I'm sorry to say that they are awful at it.
Before that is fixed, I don't have high hopes for an AI that can generate CAD/EDA models that correctly follow some specification.
This is exactly what SGS-1 is, and it's better than this approach because it's actually a model trained to generate Breps, not just asking an LLM to write code to do it.
My wife was designing a spring-loaded model that fits in our baby walls so that we can make it more modularly attached to our walls and she used Blender. Part of it is that it's harder to make a slightly more complex model with an LLM.
Solidworks is out of our budget for the kind of things we're building but I'm hoping if this stuff is successful, people work on things down the market. Good luck!
The UI is the inverse of whatever intuitive is. It's built on convention after convention after convention. If you understand the shibboleths (and I'm guessing most people take a certified course by a trainer for it?), then it's great, but if you don't, it really sucks to be you (i.e. me).
I would LOVE to try out what you've built, but I am afraid that if the model misinterprets me or makes a mistake, it'll take me longer to debug / correct it than it would to just build it from scratch.
The kinds of things I want to make in solidworks are apparently hard to make in solidworks (arbitrarily / continuously + asymmetrically curved surfaces). I'm assuming that there won't be too many projects like this in the training dataset? How does the LLM handle something that's so out of pocket?
FWIW, back in the day I tried solidworks, inventor, pro e, catia, solid edge, anything I could get my hands on. I struggled to find something that would click with me, thinking it was the software that's the problem. It really wasn't -- the mechanical design problem space is vast and the requirements are demanding, which makes for solutions with a certain level of complexity. I had entered with a lot of hidden assumptions and found it frustrating when the software required me to address them, and on top of that, there's just a lot of stuff to figure out. It helps to have someone around to help when you get stuck.. that was what got me over the hump. At this point I've been using solidworks almost every day for about 15 years, and it only fills me with blind rage every few days, which I think is pretty good for professional software.
My big tip if you can't find a button there is always the search bar. Just search the command you are looking for, it will even show you where the button is located for next time. That said, they don't move things around that much from year to year, I'm surprised if you can't find a command in a tutorial made in the last 10 years.
The features you are talking about sound like you want to be doing surfacing, which is definitely a more advanced modeling technique that I only recommend trying to learn once you understand the basics and can predict how the software wants you to model something.
Yeah, you need to invest time to learn it. I do understand the frustration when learning something new. I get it. However, your sentiment on this isn't leading to the correct conclusion. A piano or or a guitar are frustrating instruments until you get past a certain level of mastery.
Engineering tools do carry with them a degree of complexity. There are reasons for this. Some are, of course, better than others. I started in the dark ages with AutoCAD, then, over time, learned used ACAD 3D, Inventor, Pro-E, Solidworks, Fusion 360, Onshape, Siemens NX and CAM tools like Camworks and Mastercam; all in professional commercial, industrial or aerospace (NX) settings. I would rank Solidworks way up there in usability and functionality.
Of course, this isn't to say that there are lots of things that could be improved in Solidworks (and all of the CAD/CAM programs I mentioned).
Sometimes online resources like YouTube can feel (and actually be) really disjointed. Get yourself a good book on Solidworks and go through it front to back. At some point it will click. From that point forward it will feel like an extension of your brain. This is no different from learning to play the piano. When I use Solidworks I don't think about the UI, I just work on my designs.
This is good advice:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/1gjfbwz/comment...
Good PDF course to start with:
https://my.solidworks.com/solidworks/guide/SOLIDWORKS_Introd...
And, of course, you can buy a full course for less than $10:
https://www.udemy.com/courses/search/?src=ukw&q=solidworks
Here's an example I finished just a few minutes ago:
https://github.com/jehna/plant-light-holder/blob/main/src/pl...
Do you consider adding support for AutoCAD or AutoCAD vertically integrated software like Civil 3D?
[1] https://github.com/pedropaulovc/offline-solidworks-api-docs
[2] https://github.com/pedropaulovc/harmonic-analyzer/blob/main/...