Anuncios

The Autodesk Community Forums has a new look. Read more about what's changed on the Community Announcements board.

FeatureCAM 2021

claire.louise.davies
Autodesk

FeatureCAM 2021

claire.louise.davies
Autodesk
Autodesk

FeatureCAM 2021 was released today. Over the next few weeks, you will see FeatureCAM 2021 availability in your account. Please check your Autodesk Account to see when your entitlement is available for download. 

 

In the meantime, you can review the Help to see what is being delivered in FeatureCAM 2021.

 

Thank you!

 


Claire-Louise Davies
Manager, SQA

Responder
7.857 Vistas
43 Respuestas
Respuestas (43)

wmtcoinc
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

      So it sounds like Autodesk  did buy Delcam to plunder its technology and kill it as competition.  And as you stated or didn't state, I have nothing to look forward to in the future with FeatureCam.   The ransomware marketing model of Fusion 360 is something I have no interest in.

     People like myself who are left hanging out to dry by Autodesk are not going to go back to Autodesk when making a change.  As a previous poster pointed out in their with 200K  drop in Autodesk business. 

 

      I appreciate you letting us see the hand writing on the wall, but I'm not vary happy about it. 

 

Russ F.

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

"Autodesk did buy Delcam to plunder its technology."   - That would be am absolute failure on our part and a personal disappointment to me.   We have and will continue to improve FeatureCAM.

 

My transparency above was simply to state you will continue to see the rate of change in Fusion 360 to outpace FeatureCAM.  

 

Should you be willing, I would love to have a phone conversation with you to ensure we are doing the best we can to not leave you "out to dry" that is certainly not our intention.

 

I sincerely appreciate your direct style of conversation.

 

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.
0 Me gusta

Anonymous
No aplicable

"As you all know, we have no shortage of CAM products at Autodesk.  FeatureCAM, PowerMill, PartMaker, HSMWork, Inventor CAM, TRUX and Fusion 360."

 

What you are going to have is a shortage of customers! Take a look at Practicalmachinist for instance, 155,000 users with 2.6 million views a month and 3.3 Million post! Not a single one has anything nice to say about Autodesk now. The only reason you have so many Fusion users is you released it so cheap. Those people are starting to see what's coming and good for them. Basic common sense tells the users you spent a lot of money on Delcam, How long before you need to recoup that money. 

 

You claim AD is adding all best of these products features into Fusion and it will be the greatest thing out! That's a pipe dream. Fusion will never be on the scale as Catia, NX, Pro-E, Esprit. By the time AD even gets close the other guys will be years ahead,,, again. 

 

And how exactly are you gonna keep pushing Fusion cloud based software for manufacturing when it's not even I.T.A.R. compliant? And in AD's own words they said they have no plans on becoming compliant. By this account it wouldn't even stand up in an N.D.A. lawsuit.

SEE HERE!!!

 

Not a chance I will ever consider one of my vendors if they are using Fusion. I know I really shouldn't be so wound up about this but 20+ years of being a loyal customer just to get shafted with 3 years of nothing more than minor bug fixes just pisses me off a bit. 

 

 

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

I can certainly understand your frustration and you make some great points about some solid players in the world CAD/CAM.    You may well be right, by the time we get there, the other could be well ahead of us.   That is a great thing for you the customer.  competition drives innovation. 

 

In regards to ITAR, it is true, we are aware that Fusion is not currently a solution that can support data requirement of ITAR work.  It's only in a vain of transparency that we are speaking to the current limitations of the product. As a public company, we also cannot and won't make any claims or commitments as to our future development.   

 

@Anonymous  if would you be willing to have a brief phone call, my cell is 415-755-3087 I would love to chat with you about your current use of FeatureCAM.    

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.
0 Me gusta

cjones
Advocate
Advocate

Thanks for your efforts @al.whatmough ….

 

but, I'm feeling the same with Inventor CAM (I'm a one-man shop, will not use Fusion, need perpetual in case I go quiet and paid another full year of maintenance October 2020 to get basically no new features!  I don't have a lathe BTW).  So like many others, my only choice now is to drop maintenance and sail my ship elsewhere (and also like many others I have been loyal to Autodesk for decades.....well 2). 

 

Shame, as I love HSM but feel cheated that all the new stuff is going to Fusion.

 

Chris. 

0 Me gusta

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

@cjones  I am sorry you feel cheated.  My cell is open for you too :cara_con_una_leve_sonrisa:

 

I don't want to ignore your comment. That said, in the vain of keeping this thread a little more, FeatureCAM focused, I'll go find a thread in the Inventor CAM to discuss.

 

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.
0 Me gusta

acad-caveman
Collaborator
Collaborator

Al

 

   Speaking as not only a user, but one who actually decides and then pays for the tools I use.....

 

I have purchased my FeatureCAM license after a careful evaluation between 3 other choices.

Then, based on my experience with FC, I have made the decision to keep my license current by way

of the annual maintenance.

 

I did not switch to Mastercam, Gibbs, NX or any other because I liked FC for my purposes.

I also did not ( even look at ) Fusion for the same reason, but also because I want to and need to

keep my CAD files ( 2D or 3D ) separate from my CAM files.

 

In all honesty, I almost wish the ADSK just simply did away with FeatureCAM right after the Delcam purchase as that would have saved me nearly $10K over the last five years, specially when all I got to show for my investment is a constantly evolving tool which I never had, and likely never will have the intention to use.

Yes, that tool is Fusion.

I have decided to use FeatureCAM some 13 years ago.

I have invested not only money on the initial purchase and the annual maintenance cost, but also in time in learning and perfecting my skills with the software.

 

It is quite unfortunate that the very same company that owns the software of my preference is also the one

forcing me to switch to a different one.

Switch, I am willing to do if no other choice is present.

Switch to Fusion however is not something I can do.

 

 

 

 

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

Thank you for the continued engagement here.  I/We certainly don't want you to feel forced to switch.

 

You mentioned something about not being able to use a connected CAD/CAM system do to a need for separation between CAD & CAM.  Speaking transparently,  I believe deeply in the need to bring the power model creation to CAM workflows.  At the same time, I do believe the data does need to be separated.    

 

May I ask, what is your current CAD system?   

 

Also, I recorded a video a few weeks ago addressing this balance of having access to powerful modeling tools while maintaining the separation of the data.  It may or may not be of interest to you.

 

For me, I'd love to understand what aspects of separation are important between CAD & CAM, and what aspects of the CAD tools do you want in your CAM workflows.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.

acad-caveman
Collaborator
Collaborator

Al

 

   We are a jobshop for various fields, small to medium-small components.

We provide a wide variety of machining services for outside customers.

We do no, or more like very little design of our own, all drawings, models or blueprints are provided by customers.

Our primary CAD platform is Inventor Professional for solid modeling, and ACAD for ALL!!! 2D drawings.

We also maintain a Solidworks seat for back-and-forth collaboration with one of our customers.

 

In our field, we create an CAD drawing for everything we make.

Depending on complexity of the finished part, we may only draw up a quick 2D geometry in ACAD, or we decide

that a fully accurate solid model is necessary.

We also receive solid models from our customers, which can be of any variety of a native as well as a neutral format.

Hence: We do need and maintain the most capable CAD tool we can afford and prefer.

 

As to the reason for separation of CAD and CAM data, some of it you have eluded to in the video.

Also, a CAD independent CAM solution allows much more flexibility as to the input side, let that be a 2D drawing, native 3D or some other neutral format model.

We also decided to create our workflow to be manufacturing-centric rather than design-centric.

By this I mean that we may have multiple variations of the solid model in one CAM file indicating various stages

of the machining process.

Those multiple models may be in a form of multi-body solids, assemblies or even various iterations of the same model from different files imported on top of one-another.

 

At the same time, it is not uncommon that we have multiple CAM files for a single CAD file, once again to represent the various stages.

Add to this that we have one other CAM tool for some specific purposes, and, we also hand-code and/or hand-edit

program files.

 

Basically, this is what it boils down to: For us, the absolute final product is what matters, and that final product

is the G-code file that has been created by CAM, edited if-needed, tested, optimized and when part was finished

it was re-loaded back to the fileserver with any and all changes properly documented.

 

At this point the CAM file is no longer synchronized with the "final product", but it can be re-createde if needed.

 

The CAD file is first verified to be 100% correct to requirements. Edits are made as-needed for manufacturing purposes ( features modified to show median dimensions, features added or removed etc. ).

Once transferred to CAM however, it is the absolute last thing to govern or decide what is done and how.

IOW, We may make changes to the CAD file without any risk of modifying the final output.

We may decide that such changes are to be transferred to the final output, but that is done at our discretion, and

ONLY at our discretion.

 

Again, all this may seem chaotic to many, but in our case with all the variations we deal with daily,  it is quite reliable and traceable.

 

 

 

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

Thanks for the explication.  It doesn't seem chaotic at all, it sounds like the real world :cara_con_una_leve_sonrisa:

 

If you are free for a call some time, I would love to chat more.

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.

gregorANU4T
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Al, since you're engaging us and being somewhat candid, I'd like to push you for some substantive discussion about the core hard obstacles that render the F360/AD model non-viable for a massive percentage of your prospective user base. I am talking specifically about the "cloud" and the sovereignty of our data, and the subscription model - in combination, the root cause of the "bait and switch" and "ransomware" fears and accusations. To be blunt, AD's userbase have historical reasons to be mistrustful, and you should be mindful of that.

 

I'm sure your hands are tied with regards to subscription. I doubt that anything productive can be gained from talking about that, but I don't want to ignore it as it's critical. I'll come back to that.

 

Do you see a branch in the future of F360 (or whatever it evolves into) that will move away from connectivity and cloud storage and back towards traditional local file storage and ownership? I think it is critical for you to recognise that this is an effectively mandatory requirement for many who are primarily manufacturing orientated.

 

I also think it's critical for you to recognise that we are not necessarily a vocal minority; I can understand the rationale in terms of collaboration and anytime, anywhere access to you data, but neither of those are particularly relevant for manufacturing in an established, professional industrial environment, and the reality is that very, very few people working on the manufacturing side want this, or consider it to be a good thing.

 

Now, the subscription. As another poster already alluded to, in a typical machine shop in the real world, "as and when you need it" is simply not applicable. We always need it. What happens if a company doesn't get paid for six months by their customers and is forced miss a subscription payment? Losing access to software that drives their core operations at a time like that could easily ruin a company. The security of a permanent license is invaluable in that case.

 

Then there is the issue of legacy data and time investment; A typical medium sized machine shop will invest thousands of man hours per year into programming parts in CAM. That is a data asset, but it's worthless if you lose access to the software used to access it. You have to place trust in that software vendor, that you will be able to use the software for as long as you might need to access the data. Again, the subscription model creates a great deal of uncertainty in this scenario.

 

With that in mind, do you see any changes to the subscription model in the future of your product? An option for a permanent license, or a means to "buy out" of the subscription model and have permanent access to the version you were on at the time? Or some other means to give prospective users a bit of a sense of security?

 

Unless these two issues are given some real consideration, I just can't see the F360 project ever breaking out of the small shop and hobbyist demographics, even if it has the best CAM in the world.

 

I am in no way averse to progress, if you successfully turn F360 into something that is objectively better then I will not mourn the passing of FC, but F360 in it's current form is just not something that I will consider, and when the time comes that my hand is forced it is effectively a given that I will look to one of your competitors for a solution.

 

Apologies for the wall of text, and thanks in advance for reading it.

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

@gregorANU4T   First, don't apologize for the "wall of text"  Appreciate you are constructively sharing genuine and real concerns.

 

Now to the meat of it, I hope I can answer this coherently, it is 5 AM for me :cara_con_una_leve_sonrisa:

 

In regards to subscription, you are correct, Autodesk is a Subscription company now, that is a reality.  However, I will share a few of my personal thoughts and observations in terms of the feel the subscription traps you.  (these are not official Autodesk Points of view).

 

First, is this idea of perpetual licenses being something you own.   It is and it isn't, it is in the sense that you have indefinite access to that technology at the point in time you made your perpetual payment.  However, it is not as it, you can't sell it.  So, in some ways, perpetual is actually prepayment of a lifetime term subscription that doesn't update.  Imagine if history had played out in reverse, you accessed software by paying each year as you used it.  For round number's sake, $1000 a year, and then one year we came and told you, we actually want you to pay us for 6 years ($6000) upfront, that's the cover charge and oh, if you want updates each year, well, we are still going to charge you $1000 a year.  It almost seems barbaric to think about in that reverse lenses.  Anyway, that is just food for thought, it is what helped me personally work through the change.

 

Also, in regards to subscription, there is also this fear that we as a company will use it to trap you and leave you stranded.  I can only point to how we handled Artcam (on a personal level it pains me that we Ended that product, it wasn't my decision)  However, I and the current leadership team where around to help try and make it right for our customers.  You should know, they all got access to Artcam after we ended it, and we did everything we could to help those users find a path forward.   I don't bring that up to scratch a wound, suggest or guarantee we will do the same for other products.  I simply want to let you know, when our decision leaves our customers stranded, and some decision will leave some customers stranded, we will do all we can to help them on a path that allows them to continue running profitable businesses.

 

Now I am knee-deep in a wall of text.

 

On the Data sovereignty topic: 

 

I am so glad you referred to it in this way, it how I refer to the problem internally as well.    ITAR for example is just one example of an issue of Data Sovereignty.  Look, I can any predictions about how, when, or if we will solve this issue, we are a publically traded company, I can't.  However, I can assure you, you are NOT a small minority as you perceived.   This issue applies to Automotive studios, Government contractors, and Aerospace not just on the Machining side.  Autodesk provides tools for Architectural design, Industrial design, mechanical design, and Manufacturing.   So, all I can say is, we are not blind or numb to the issue.   I also, personally thank you for continuing to add color to the problem statement to help ensure as a company we do fully understand the issue.

 

Again, thank you for your wall of text, I now apologize for mine :cara_con_una_leve_sonrisa:

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.

acad-caveman
Collaborator
Collaborator

@al.whatmough wrote:

Imagine if history had played out in reverse, you accessed software by paying each year as you used it.  For round number's sake, $1000 a year, and then one year we came and told you, we actually want you to pay us for 6 years ($6000) upfront, that's the cover charge and oh, if you want updates each year, well, we are still going to charge you $1000 a year.  It almost seems barbaric to think about in that reverse lenses. 


 

Al

 

  I think your fallacy in this is twofold.

First, you're thinking that the perpetual vs. lease is a binary question, but it does not need to be so.

Autodesk DID make it binary by eliminating the sale of new perpetual licenses some 5 years ago, but that was their

choice.

ADSK could have easily continued to offer the perpetual licensing, and then - parallel with - offered up a new license

type ( lease ) as a true benefit for those who:

1: Does not have the funds for a large up-front payment, but can afford to pay-as-you-go.

2: Existing licensees who see a temporary need to increase the number of seats for a few months or even a year or two.

 

In both cases the option of "leasing" a license is a welcomed addition, not previously available.

Governing word here is: in addition

 

The second issue is the false equivalency.

In fact, Autodesk is doing the exact opposite of what you've described!

Autodesk is telling it's longtime users: Yes, you HAVE already paid $6000 for your permanent license, AND you ARE

paying $1000 annually to maintain that license, BUT we are now eliminating your right to the perpetual license AND

you WILL BE required to keep paying $1000 annually in order to use the software.

Your initial $6000 be damned!

 

Again, I do very much appreciate your engagement with us here, and hope you understand that none of the pushback

or negative comment is directed at you as an individual representative of the company.

At the same time you must also understand that it is us, the users who will ultimately decide the fate of our licenses.

We may let it expire and use it for as long as we can, at which point we may choose to switch to the subscription

model, OR choose to abandon Autodesk completely and get on a different train.

It is a risky proposition for all parties involved, but, it is not us, the users who asked for this.

It is all of Autodesk's doing!

 

 

 

al.whatmough
Alumni
Alumni

On both comments, on a personal level, no disagreement from me.   Much of it is beyond my personal control.   

 

I think you did summarize it well.  You didn't ask for it, but "the users who will ultimately decide the fate of our licenses"  That is the power you have.

 

For me, the power I have, it to build an amazing Manufacturing offering you see value in and want to subscribe too. 

 

Do I feel that I have a team and set of technology to do that at Autodesk, 100%   

Do I believe Autodesk will offer it to our users at an unprecedented value, 100%

 

Only time will tell if my personal beliefs and aspirations become a reality and if Autodesk can deliver on our vision.

 

It's up to us to prove it to you.

 

---------
AL Whatmough
Director Product Management - Manufacturing

Note, I love to engage on the forums. However, I spend a lot of time in meetings trying to help clear the path for our amazing team of Developers working on Manufacturing at Autodesk. So, if I don't respond immediately, it's not that I don't care.

dgeise
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Hi Al, (& hopefully Autodesk Executive Management),

 

I happened to run across this thread today searching for something else and wanted to contribute my perspective.  Hopefully an exec high up at Autodesk will read this outreach by your customers and see that long-term the path Autodesk is on is untenable and it's in the best interest of Autodesk & Autodesk investors to change policy direction.

 

Who am I?  I'm a software developer, but been an Inventor user on & off since 2000 I think (?) - a very long time.  The product used to be very bad, very buggy.  It nearly killed me when I tried to develop a product to build a business around.  Inventor failures was a primary reason I gave up on that.  Later, 2012-ish, I worked with the Inventor API as a contractor to develop some custom vertical software and ended up with a perpetual license seat 'gifted' by my employer.  When I use Inventor, it's as a casual amateur.  I'm also a generally inactive Autodesk beta tester and love seeing all the new features & improvements in the software.

 

But I'm stuck on Inventor 2014.  I'm missing out on all the features & bug fixes I see in the betas that I'd love to take advantage of.  Why?  Several reasons, many of which are alluded to here.  I think 2014 was the last year perpetual licenses were offered (?).  First off I just can't justify the cost of a subscription - I'm not generating income from the product.  Second, it's just a huge negative that "my" work product I generate with my sweat, blood & tears in the Autodesk product isn't in plain-text form.  My understanding is that the data files are basically encrypted, and the encryption key is tied to the license, everything is digitally watermarked and tracked by Autodesk at some level.  And it's all time-bombed.  I won't be able to open the product of my pain & effort in the future.  I'm simply unwilling to be unable to open a CAD file I worked on last year unless I pay a fee to unlock it.  In effect my files are time-bombed.

 

When I write software, the files are saved as text files I can open in any application.  If I decided to switch platforms, I may have to port the code, but that's on me and there are no artificial restrictions imposed by my software development platform involved.  I'm not trapped by the vendor.  If Microsoft were to 'improve' VisualStudio by encrypting source-code files and potentially locking developers away from their hard-earned digital assets, very quickly there would be online riots & mass migration away from the product.  They know this, so they would never do it.

 

It's also a philosophical thing.  Who's the product here?  Us, your customers?  I reject buying into the razor-blade model, where I get trapped & thoroughly locked-in to vendor's pay-as-you-go revenue model.  Yes, I'm aware I could export & import aspects to other CAD systems, but at a 90% loss (losing parametric relationships for example) that make it easier to just re-create my digital assets from ground-up on the new platform.

 

I think I probably speak for the silent majority; we all know these things.  And please don't bring up Fusion360, although the barrier to entry is low, I feel even more strongly about having my work captured in the cloud.  "The first hit or crack" is certainly anything but free!  Not only are the above issues magnified but now the software platform itself is dynamic & out of my control - if the software evolves / changes / bug-fixes in a way that breaks my work, I don't even have the option of sticking with a platform that works, I'm forced to migrate.  Making that leap would take a lot of trust, as would the commitment to perpetual fixed reoccurring costs just to access the product of my labor in the future.  I'm simply not willing to cross this line, and I bet many, many of my fellow users are smart enough to strongly resist buying into the value vs. lock-in proposition being discussed here.  Thus I'm stuck on 2014, although I haven't really even used it seriously in several years.

 

Furthermore, and here's where I hope to add something new & hopefully interesting to the conversation, there's the general trend of technical evolution and taking advantage of that.  I'm a big proponent of open-source software.  Even Microsoft sees the writing on the wall and is changing direction to take advantage and even contribute to things like Linux.  Azure is built on Linux, for example, and Microsoft is now actively and enthusiastically contributing to many open-source projects.  They see that open, actively developed products by the community eventually evolve to become better products than their DRM-locked, closed-source competition.

 

Specifically speaking of relevance to Autodesk's future and to specific interest to senior management & investors:

 

I'm a game developer working with the Unreal Engine; a few years ago, in their "If you love something, set it free" campaign, Epic decided to open-source their entire game engine development platform.  A move that initially sounds crazy.  They historically charged millions to license their engine to game studios.  But Epic was recently valued at $17 BILLION dollars in their most recent financing round.  How can that be?  The effect of open-source, smart visionary management, the herd-effect of people like me, and the best developers in the world, similar to your customers seeing the advantages of lock-in avoidance and the result of best-practices like open-source adoption.  Etc.

 

Here's the thing.  Epic is actively working on projects (currently in semi-stealth branches) to revolutionize 3D design software, including open-source (non-DRM-locked) file formats.  Their adoption of OpenSubDiv is just the start.  Take a look at the related recent announcement by Pixar.  This stuff has been in the works for years:

https://graphics.pixar.com/usd/docs/Open-Source-Announcement.html

It may take a few more years, but Epic has and is able to recruit the very best developer talent in the world, bar none.  Their engine, which is already impressive, is evolving fast and it is guaranteed to become the next-gen graphics engine kernel that will become the foundation for if not direct CAD/CAM/CAE use-case support, it will become the platform plugins & mods that will target this market.  I expect in a decade Autodesk will be moving your tech to re-platform on UnrealEngine.  I'd bet money on it.

 

To summarize, "the trend is your friend":  I hope that Autodesk gets on the right side of these trends proactively, before it's too late.  I understand that the company has enormous overhead and executives like to protect their salaries & tenure in another form of lock-in.  But Autodesk needs to pivot with a smart migration strategy before other vendors and get the first-mover advantage they missed in the early 3D CAD days.  Doing so will lead to an open road into the future, not the cul-de-sac they (and many vendors) are barreling down now.  Yes, customers can be milked for a few more years, but that play is ending.

 

I hope this post is seen in the light it's offered, as openly given advice by a long-time (if inactive amateur) user who would like to see Autodesk prosper.  By putting its customers interests ahead of even it's own short-term quarterly profit.  And reaping the benefits of free-development contribution, community-lead development, and good will that philosophical paradigm shift would generate.  Before it happens elsewhere.

 

Lastly, I have no interest in discussing this in private.  I'm happy to discuss / debate, but only in a public forum where others can consider the arguments & judge for themselves.

Anonymous
No aplicable

Ohh, give me a friggen break!

 

"First, is this idea of perpetual licenses being something you own.   It is and it isn't, it is in the sense that you have indefinite access to that technology at the point in time you made your perpetual payment.  However, it is not as it, you can't sell it.  So, in some ways, perpetual is actually prepayment of a lifetime term subscription that doesn't update.  Imagine if history had played out in reverse, you accessed software by paying each year as you used it.  For round number's sake, $1000 a year, and then one year we came and told you, we actually want you to pay us for 6 years ($6000) upfront, that's the cover charge and oh, if you want updates each year, well, we are still going to charge you $1000 a year.  It almost seems barbaric to think about in that reverse lenses.  Anyway, that is just food for thought, it is what helped me personally work through the change."

 

You are kidding right? The extent AD will go to insult their customer's intelligence is pitiful.

0 Me gusta

wmtcoinc
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I don't plan, down the road, on selling the software my company owns, I plan on selling the company.  The software is a valuable asset of the company.     

 

My 2 biggest beefs with Autodesk are the "ransomware stile" sale model,  and be charge $2500 a year (or over $200 a month) for so call maintains when they have not committed to a road map of future improvements ( and I'm not talking about fixing glitches), nor respond to the need to fix problems I or they already have ( z index milling for one).   Just go back the last few years and read the "what's new in Featurecam 202x.x"  and you will see that almost all the items are fixes to glitches.    And slow.  One of the problems they fixed in 2020.3 was a problem I reported 5 years ago.  Back then their answer was "no body else is having this problem" and they closed the ticket.

  The had writing is on the wall.  Autodesk is going to let FeatureCam wither on the vine while milking every dime they can get out of it from us.

 

 

 

  

Anonymous
No aplicable

@wmtcoinc wrote:

I don't plan, down the road, on selling the software my company owns, I plan on selling the company.  The software is a valuable asset of the company.     

 

My 2 biggest beefs with Autodesk are the "ransomware stile" sale model,  and be charge $2500 a year (or over $200 a month) for so call maintains when they have not committed to a road map of future improvements ( and I'm not talking about fixing glitches), nor respond to the need to fix problems I or they already have ( z index milling for one).   Just go back the last few years and read the "what's new in Featurecam 202x.x"  and you will see that almost all the items are fixes to glitches.    And slow.  One of the problems they fixed in 2020.3 was a problem I reported 5 years ago.  Back then their answer was "no body else is having this problem" and they closed the ticket.

  The had writing is on the wall.  Autodesk is going to let FeatureCam wither on the vine while milking every dime they can get out of it from us.

 

 

 

  


Be careful with that statement. Read your EULA from EGS, Delcam, and Autodesk. You don't own the software and you cannot sell it with the company. You only purchased the usage rights and they can legally reclaim your physical Hasp Key if they choose to do so if your maintenance lapses. When Fastenal bought my machine shop the deal with Featurecam going with the sale was Fastenal had to pay 50% of the new license and bring the maintenance up to date with Delcam

 

Of course Fastenal paid it as the only reason they bought me out was for the manufacturing rights to my products and they needed the programs and cad data since many of the drawings were done inside FC. 

 

If you sell your the hasp they can literally have you charged with theft of intellectual property. I've already been through this with them and they take it seriously. Hold on to your key for life.

 

IMG_2604.JPG  

wmtcoinc
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Don't worry I've got that covered.   Hope you have your  hasp insured.  FM told me if I lost mine I would have to buy a new one at full price of the software.  I said you can disable the lost key and give me a new one. They said nope!  So I have it listed and insured for 25K in my insurance policy.

Anonymous
No aplicable

I am new to FeatureCAM, and quite honestly, new to the process from the point of making a part to knowing how to communicate that information to CNC Lathe software. Is there a step-by-step guide on the entire process? Is it possible to make a 3D model part in the standard AutoCAD (that's what I'm used to) and then importing or opening that .dxf/.dwg in FeatureCAM to then generate the needed G-code "program" to send to the CNC database? It seems there is an abundance of information on metal based manufacturing but, I am looking for wood-turning specific help. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

0 Me gusta