How accurate is it, actually
Most AI CAD tools show you the parts that worked. This page shows how the checking is done, so you can decide how much to trust the output of this cad ai generator rather than taking a number on faith.
The method
Every part in the library is generated from one line of text, then handed to a completely separate program that does not know what the model intended. That program:
- Re-parses the DXF with
ezdxf, an independent library. A file that will not parse fails immediately. - Walks every entity and computes the real bounding box from the geometry, not from anything the model reported.
- Extracts every circle diameter and compares it against the diameters the prompt stated, at a 2% tolerance.
- Flags the two classic scalar mistakes explicitly: a feature at exactly 2× the requested size is a radius read as a diameter, and one at 0.5× is the reverse.
A part is only published if it passes all of that. Current result: 24 of 24 (100%).
Every part and what was measured
| Part | Measured size | Distinct features | Layers |
|---|---|---|---|
| plate-4hole | 120 × 80 mm | 6 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| plate-6hole | 200 × 100 mm | 8 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| plate-bore | 150 × 100 mm | 8, 40 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| plate-rounded | 100 × 100 mm | 30 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| plate-m3 | 80 × 60 mm | 3.4 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| flange-6 | 100 × 100 mm | 11, 100 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| flange-8 | 160 × 160 mm | 14, 80, 160 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| flange-4 | 90 × 90 mm | 9, 50 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| flange-12 | 250 × 250 mm | 18, 150, 250 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| gasket-6 | 120 × 120 mm | 8, 80, 120 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| gasket-8 | 90 × 90 mm | 7, 60, 90 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| gasket-4 | 100 × 100 mm | 6, 60 | CENTRE, CUTS, PROFILE |
| panel-switch | 120 × 80 mm | 4, 22 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| panel-led | 150 × 60 mm | 12, 25 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| panel-dsub | 100 × 50 mm | 3.2, 30 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| panel-rounded | 100 × 60 mm | 12, 22 | CENTRE, CUTS, PROFILE |
| bracket-flat | 80 × 40 mm | 5 | BEND, CUTS, PROFILE |
| bracket-slot | 100 × 40 mm | — | CUTS, PROFILE |
| bracket-corner | 60 × 60 mm | 5 | BEND, CUTS, PROFILE |
| ring-shim | 50 × 50 mm | 30, 50 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| ring-spacer | 25 × 25 mm | 10.5, 25 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| ring-thrust | 80 × 80 mm | 6, 50, 80 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| disc-index | 120 × 120 mm | 5, 12, 120 | CUTS, PROFILE |
| disc-pulley | 90 × 90 mm | 8, 20, 90 | CUTS, PROFILE |
What this does not prove
Being straight about the limits is the only way the numbers above mean anything:
- These are 2D profiles. They are checked for outline size, feature diameters and layer separation. Nothing here validates 3D solids.
- Position is not fully checked. A hole of the right diameter in the wrong place can pass the diameter check. Bounding box catches gross placement errors, not subtle ones.
- The prompts are ours. They are clear and fully dimensioned. Real requests are vaguer, and vaguer requests do worse. That is why the tool shows you what it assumed before it draws.
- Hard geometry is not represented. Published benchmarks put text-to-CAD validity at 85–90% on simple parts and 12–32% on complex ones. Nothing on this page contradicts that; these are simple parts.
Check it yourself
Download any file above and measure it. Then give the ai cad generator a part with dimensions you know, and see whether what comes back matches.
Open the tool