I think Autodesk should really investigate the possibility to have 2 (or more) branches of F360; I could write 10 pages on this vision, but I’ll make a simplified version here
The things I love about F360
- It is relatively simple to start with
- It is *‘free’ for hobbyists
- It has a rich set of features
What I really don’t like
- There are strange behaviors or bugs that keep me from going on with my work, every update now brings some fear of things not working anymore as expected and other stability issues
Context
Currently F360 works in a way of a ‘rolling release’, bug fixes and feature all go through the (forced and not postponable) release. Seeing what happens in the support forum I think this should be handled differently if F360 is used by professionals who REALLY rely on the product stability, and can’t afford to lose hours of work and time because of bugs that stops them from working. It can lead to frustration and , ultimately customers not F360 and Autodesk woulb be left only with hobbyists (like me) who don’t pay for it because they don’t trust the product enough
So here is my proposition (just as it comes to my mind)
Feature release :
That is the release currently available release, bug fixes and features and added as the updates arrive. Ones or twice a year, this release should be ‘snapshot’ and marked for being the next stable release. It should then undergo deep testing and flagged as some sort of ‘validation release’ or beta, however we want to call it. This version will continue to evolve over time like id does today
Stable release :
As the name says, a (really) stable release , 1 or 2 releases a year, with a support team committed to focus on bugs and solve issues rapidly, bugfix updates being pushed regularly, but with no new features. This version has to be rock solid, no surprises. Once the Validation release ready for ‘Stable’, users would get it, being assured that the support team is really focused on it; surprises can’t be eliminated but as this update is deeply tested with only one or 2 major updates a year, and regular bugfixes, it shall be more than acceptable
Validation/Beta release :
As mentioned before, this release would be the candidate for the next stable release, priority 2 in terms of bug fixes, this release would be something between conservative and cutting edge. Once this version becomes the stable release, the user would get an update to the next release flagged as ‘Validation (when it becomes available)
Distributing/Installing these releases
I see 3 options
- User chooses which one he installs, accepting the risk of the Feature release if he chooses that one, only one release type can be installed on the computer
- Parallel install of 2 different releases on the same computer, would let users use the safe Stable’ release, but try out the Feature or validation release here and then
- A switch or entry in the menu for choosing the release channel. In this case if a user decides to change channel, he’d get the downloads to align his version to his choice. Personally I prefer that solution but it might be more complicated to implement,… but I really like the idea
Considerations / Risk
If 2 or 3 branches are available it would be necessary, on the Feature and Validation Release, to have alerts or any other form of notice (ie colored menu entry) for each feature that is not backwards compatible with the Stable release
Conclusion
This might need a different and more complex organization, but it’s much safer, the risk today is very high that people start using F360 because it is easy to start with, ‘free’ for hobbyists, and get frustrated and even angry. The rolling release as it is today, is in my opinion, very dangerous for customer fidelity and of course, Autodesk’s business.
There were other ideas in the past with similar views, like this one from @friesendrywall, I'd just like to refresh the thought on that, so feel free to vote for this idea any of the similar propositions out there
