Creo challenge

[Anonymous]

I have been trying to move CAD systems since black Friday 2014 when my current CAD supplier decided to start selling Alpha updates as Commercial updates.

During this time I have tested every system available and came across this challenge on the Creo website and thought it would be a good test for Fusion 360.

By the time I had viewed the thread only one person had responded to the challenge on the Creo website, they stated they had done it in about 20 minutes but they did not sound convincing and posted no image.

I completed the model and drawing with my current CAD system in about 35 minutes, I lost about 10 minutes because of the inability of the system to section views correctly.

With Fusion 360 it took me around 50 minutes and the drawing is a little messy as this is only the second time I have used the drawing function.

I have about 5 hours modelling experience in Fusion 360 whereas I have been using my current CAD system for around 8 years.

It was pretty easy to do and any errors or frustrations are down to my inexperience with the system and the fact that I have to change my way of thinking when using Fusion 360, I used the Include 3d geometry function when creating the inner web and it went very smoothly.

A big hats off to the Fusion 360 team.

Craig

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
...By the time I had viewed the thread only one person had responded to the challenge on the Creo website, they stated they had done it in about 20 minutes but they did not sound convincing and posted no image...

---

What is the url to the challenge?

In the pdf you attached - I see three prominent issues and perhaps a fourth.

There is a missing dimension that would require the operator on the shop floor to make assumption about location of the R10 (center horizontal with top of cylindrical feature and upper rib equal length at cylindrical feature?).

Superfluous dimension that requires operator on shop floor and inspector to make assumption about precedence.  (50+50+50=150)

Missing dimension for fillets (and are fillets complete by design intent?).

Could be an optical illusion - but the 135° rib does not appear to be uniform thickness along entire length where I suspect the design intent is uniform thickness.

Can you File>Export and then attach your *.f3d file here?

Also, number of decimal places of dimensions implies (and often is directed) precision of the dimension.  Angle dimensions are very difficult to hold in manufacturing.

I would never specify an angle dimension to 2 decimal places.  I would have issue with the extension lines as well.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input JD, I took responsibility for the mistakes in the original post.

As it was a Sunday morning and the fact that the drawing is going nowhere near a manufacturing facility, plus I am not being paid and it is my second try with the drawing function......I wasn't too worried about it.

The main dimension that is missing is 40mm, the three times 50 is the way they did it except they had ref next to the middle 50, I did think it was a bit strange but I am not a CAD professional so just followed their lead.

I left the fillet dimensions out as I was in a rush and they had used 8xR2, 4xR2, 6xR2, I could not figure out how to add text to the dimension (same for the ref above).

Under 50 minutes and a few mistakes is a compliment from an new user to the software developers, I was hoping the pro's would crack the 20 minute mark (no cheating now, the ultimate creator is watching).

On a more fun note, I gave the Sculpt function a try and as I had started a car body in Blender recently I thought I would try the exact same body in Fusion 360.

It was a lot easier to get to the same stage in Fusion 360 and it was a lot more fun, the Sculpt function is very well put together, more praise for the Fusion 360 team.

[HughesTooling]

Here's my go. I didn't finish the 2d drawing though, I couldn't figure out how to get the trailing zeros to display. I don't use the drawing workspace much because it's not that good and you can't export a usable DXF\DWG.

Mark

[HughesTooling]

Finally figured out how to set the display of trailing zeros, there's a small menu bar at the bottom of the window. I think someone a bit more proficient in the drawing workspace than me should be able to do this in under 15 minutes.

Mark

[Anonymous]

Very nice work Mark.

I was thinking that this may be a good way for the developers to see the progress of their product.

Put up a Fusion Challenge and then ask people to post their progress and their issues, it could be done for all the different modes from Sculpt to Drawing.

[HughesTooling]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I was thinking that this may be a good way for the developers to see the progress of their product.

Put up a Fusion Challenge and then ask people to post their progress and their issues, it could be done for all the different modes from Sculpt to Drawing.

---

Sounds like a good idea, @jeff_strater do Autodesk use anything like this to get feedback? My screencast shows a couple of problems in Fusion that could waste quite a bit of time if you've not seen them before.

Like at this point the long horizontal line shows constrained but the length is not set.

Then when I add the lines between the offset and the original outline you can't add the 300mm dimension.

Mark.

[HughesTooling]

@Anonymous A few years back I'd got disillusioned with the way Geomagic was going and downloaded a few different programs to test, at the time I'd just drawn up what I thought was a simple part to fit a vintage car engine for my brother. All I could measure were the 3 dimension in the drawing below, I'd drawn it in Geomagic in a few minutes without any problem. Trying to draw it in some other programs and make it fully parametric was almost impossible, Ironcad took about 20 minutes, I even had the UK sales on the phone for half an hour and they failed to make it fully constrained. 

I can draw it quite easily in Fusion, not quite as quick as Geomagic mostly because you can't draw construction geometry, you need to draw curves first then convert. Fusion also lacks quadrant constraints.

Mark

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark,

funnily enough Geomagic was the last piece of software I tried before I had had enough and was heading over to FreeCAD and Blender for good, I have quite a bit of experience with both systems.

There is some lovely software out there but they have all been destroyed by very poor marketing and pathetic management.

I am still getting emails from software vendors whose software I tested over the last two years and now they are saying they will give me an extra licence for free, the bull is running down the road and they finally wake up!

I had a bundle of cash and my only sticking point was that they all had a one machine policy, sure I could get a dongle for some systems but when I asked how much they were very vague and came back with things like, “not much, only a few hundred”!

I had given up and then heard about Fusion 360 so thought I would give commercial CAD one more try and I applaud the way Fusion 360 is being managed and marketed.

Sure there are problems but I feel that they are the only ones that are really treating their customers as customers should be treated and the software is heading in the right direction.

You can have the finest product on the planet but if it is poorly marketed and managed it will be destroyed.

After running the development centre for one of the worlds largest marketing companies for almost three years I have seen this happen first hand to a number of quality products.

Craig