Fussion360 issues - highly not recomanded for professiona use

[Anonymous]

Dear Sir,

I have used solidworks for last 3 years & I have good hands on CAD. While I have started using fusion from last one year & it's becoming very tough to work on fusion, since everytime I work on it, some new issue comes out & it takes a lot of time & efforts to resolve it.

Some of the issues I am listing here,

1. Initialization error (recent one): I can't move objects, can't resize them. fusion shows initialization error but doesn't tell us whats causing it & how to solve it.

2. Fusion becomes very slow, hangs & crashes: I work on critical components & assemblies. Fusion runs with snails speed when the number of features starts increasing especially pattern feature & it suddenly crashes down.

3. Fusion doesn't open sometimes at all. Just a white screen pops us with fusion name & then software crashes after that.

4.Joints: This command doesn't work sometimes. Suddenly this command stops working. Also sometimes when you copy & paste subassembly from another file to joint given in the assembly disappears

5. Sheetmetal related: "Convert to sheet metal from solid part option" isn't available in fusion which is very essential basic feature. You can't make critical sheetmetal parts without that command.

6. Drawing related:

i) When you import base view of the assembly in drawing, some of the parts get automatically suppressed. I need to go and unsuppress those parts individually. I can't do it for bigger assemblies.

ii) Projected view disappears suddenly & only dimension lines remain in the view. We need to replace the view & dimensions.

iii) One can't change sheet size after placing views.

7. Similar issues have been observed in fusion online forum & I did not get satisfactory answers from there.

8. As per my experience fusion is for basic level CAD modelling. I'll definitely not recommend it for professional use.

However, I'll be very happy if I get list of 5 companies in India, which are using fusion for professionals use, e.g. list companies who works extensively on sheet metal & drawings & they are happy with fusion360.

All these issues are time-consuming & affect projects badly. I can't send you the files for investigation since its confidential & these are common issues frequently faced by my other colleagues as well.

So I kindly request you to look into the matter & solve them as early as possible.

[PhilProcarioJr]

@Anonymous

I have also come to the same conclusion as you.

For some use cases it is great and will work but for many other use cases it just has too many bugs and too much missing functionality. 

We use it here at the Forge I work at and for half of our work it is ok but I find myself having to go to my other main CAD app to get the job finished.

Constantly having to use work arounds because of missing functionality waste a lot of time and money.

If they would iron out all the bugs things would be a lot better, but some of these bugs have been around forever....

I hate to say negative things about Fusion because it has a lot of potential and could be very revolutionary, but at the end of the day if it can't get the job done it's just not a good fit for a lot of people.

Fusion needs to mature a lot more before it can replace a lot of the old CAD apps out there.

[Anonymous]

@PhilProcarioJr Hi Phil, I think Autodesk should mention clearly about the use of Fusion360, like where it should be used & where it shouldn't be used. That will help a lot.

My recommendation

---

@PhilProcarioJr wrote:

@Anonymous

I have also come to the same conclusion as you.

For some use cases it is great and will work but for many other use cases it just has too many bugs and too much missing functionality. 

We use it here at the Forge I work at and for half of our work it is ok but I find myself having to go to my other main CAD app to get the job finished.

Constantly having to use work arounds because of missing functionality waste a lot of time and money.

If they would iron out all the bugs things would be a lot better, but some of these bugs have been around forever....

I hate to say negative things about Fusion because it has a lot of potential and could be very revolutionary, but at the end of the day if it can't get the job done it's just not a good fit for a lot of people.

Fusion needs to mature a lot more before it can replace a lot of the old CAD apps out there.

---

 is that use fusion for small concept or idea making level, may for freshers or some one who doesn't need to do complicated tasks. It really simple for them.

But for professional work go for reliable CAD software like solidworks, NX, Creo etc

[PhilProcarioJr]

@Anonymous

"I think Autodesk should mention clearly about the use of Fusion360, like where it should be used & where it shouldn't be used. That will help a lot."

I agree with this statement completely, sadly Autodesk marketing promotes Fusion 360 in ways it shouldn't. There are things that Fusion does better then the competition but a handful of select tools doesn't make it a direct replacement for a mature CAD package. I was a Solidworks user for a very long time and to be honest even though it is a very capable CAD package, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone either for reasons I'm not going to list here.

Point is all CAD apps have their problems and you will always find people complaining about this or that no matter the app, but two things that are deal breakers for me is missing core functionality and an uncontrollable amount of bugs. If Fusion has a lot less bugs I would recommend it to people IF the current functionality covered their needs, but until they fix a lot of the old outstanding bugs I just can't recommend it for any business. We lost thousands of dollars over cloud outages and broken functionality in releases over the last few years.

Fusion dev team is a great and passionate group of people and I fully support them and I know over time they will get Fusion where it needs to be, that day just hasn't come yet. Software takes time to develop and I know that they are all working hard to get Fusion there.

[Ex_Machina_Engineering]

So, what you're saying basically is that you're using Fusion the exact same way you are using Solidworks and it doesn't perform as expected? That is true for every other CAD program.

Me, on the other hand, have been using Fusion for 3 years, professionally as my main CAD for my engineering consultancy and have had none of the problems you mention. I even find Fusion's sheet metal to be vastly superior to Solidworks' since I can produce the same geometry, quicker and can convert to sheet metal parts that Solidworks wouldn't.

Also, the advanced collaboration capabilities of A360 is also something that Solidworks lacks. It gives me the opportunity to work with remote clients with robust file sharing and mark up tools without them having the software.

I have only gone to Inventor for really large welded frames or geared transmissions, mostly for the easier drawing generation for members and automatic calculation and reporting respectively. And that is a very rare occasion for me.

Located in Crete, Greece.

[janus2]

Hello!

I don't want to go into all the details here. But one aspect should be considered:

You have to distinguish between real bugs and missing functionality.

If you drive a BMW for years and then buy another car with great new opportunities, you can't complain about missing features your BMW had. You have to make this comparison first.

With the bugs, the problem seems to be that they only occur with some persons/projects/computers. Other users do not have the problem. These bugs are hard to find for the Fusion 360 team (Hardware, operating system, drivers, ....).

All we can do is give the Fusion 360 team as many reproducible examples as possible. In my experience, concrete, reproducible errors were always fixed very fast.

Jan

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

I even find Fusion's sheet metal to be vastly superior to Solidworks' since I can produce the same geometry, quicker and can convert to sheet metal parts that Solidworks wouldn't.

---

Please post example file.

[Ex_Machina_Engineering]

Under 20'. Granted this was an example file I sent to the client and not a working file. But not having to go into every little detail, have everything handled by "Flange", and the ability to switch so easily between direct editing and parametric with the flat pattern still working is something I find stress-relieving.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

...ability to switch so easily between direct editing and parametric with the flat pattern still working is something I find stress-relieving.

---

That design is very easy to do as fully parametric model in either SolidWorks or in Fusion 360.

Why do  you need to go into direct editing?

[Ex_Machina_Engineering]

Again, this is not a paid-for model, so here it is:

https://a360.co/32KDnVI

But for me, the point is not to be dogmatic about how I design. Yes, this is still parametric with a bit of Press/Pull thrown in.

But I dislike having a correct way of design because it can become counterproductive. Of course, it needs to convey the design intent but other than that everything goes as far as I'm concerned.

There's no point wasting time thinking about how one can do it faster. Some ground rules need to apply, but too many rules make design cumbersome.

And of course, this applies to all CAD software.

P.S. I was originally taught CAD with ProEngineer Wildfire 3.0 and was told this is the best CAD in the world and that it was OK to look down on other CAD systems, except CATIA. I worked with it in my post-graduate studies as well so a total of close to 5 years. Then I took various engineering jobs where I always had to work with Solidworks and gathered, maybe, another 5 years of experience with it, including teaching it. And then I found Inventor's free student licence, on the last year of my M.Sc. course, and from there I heard about Fusion 360. I am the owner of my engineering consultancy now and the flexible licencing Autodesk provides is the reason I use their software almost exclusively with Fusion being the corner-stone of my business and paying for Inventor months when and if I need it.

I also find FreeCAD to be great software as well, though a lot less polished.

The point of all of this is:

I hate being a fan of one CAD system over another. I strongly believe that all systems can produce the same geometry. From CATIA to FreeCAD. Ease of use and speed is something you need to think of in a business environment as are established solutions and workflows. But there are no inherently better or worse CAD systems. There are just different CAD system philosophies. And I really, really like Fusion's philosophy!

[Anonymous]

I started using Fusion a few weeks ago and just as I started getting the hang of it, they forced an update that changed everything.

I find the controls super confusing and difficult to use some. Functions that belong together are spread in 3 different places and sometimes are only displayed under certain conditions. Everything is hidden and no proper tool bar/too many drop downs. Short cut keys are only listed for a few items making it difficult to learn them without looking them up separately.

You need a tool chest like adobe etc has so you can click the tool you need and go. Especially for basic geometric shapes

WHERE IS THE JOIN BUTTON? I spent 2 hours looking how to add two pieces together so their edges forms 1 edge.

Same with switching planes.

It takes multiple clicks to move an object (select, right click, click move, figure out which move dialog popped up, set all the different options, then move and realize the snap to grid is turned off again, calculate the offsets and type it in for 1 axis, figure out the next axis calculate again and type it in.) The sliders are way to laggy/touchy to be useful.

I like that fusion doesn´t look as cluttered as blender for instance but the UI was made by psychopaths

Also working in the cloud is NEVER a good idea when working with proprietary and confidential stuff. Or anything work related. No professional workflow should include cloud systems. Too much can go wrong and keep you from working or loose work. Hackers can steal trade secrets and companies going out of business or discontinuing products can cause problems. Keep in mind banks still pay huge money for Fortran coders because of legacy systems running on old tech.

I forgot the online parts library. If you don´t have an internet connection while traveling etc. you can´t work.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

I don't want to go into your contribution in detail.
Just this much: I don't know any user who shares your opinion in this radicality. As with every application, there is individual criticism of functions, UI and behavior, but in the overwhelming majority there is agreement with the concept up to enthusiasm.
But for you it is good to know that nobody forces you to work with Fusion.

günther

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

I strongly believe that all systems can produce the same geometry. 

---

That is not the case whatsoever!

ZW3d, CATIA, NX, Alias and ICEM surf to name a few can generate and handle higher order/degree NURBS surfaces required for Class A modeling. They also have a tool set specifically designed to be able to manage these surfaces. Fusion 360, Autodesk Inventor, Solid Works and other main stream software can only generate 3-degree surfaces because their geometric modeling kernels (ACIS or Parasolids) cannot deal with these higher order surfaces. You might be able to create a 5-degree spline in Fusion 360 but surfaces created with such splines still are only 3-degree.

One does not even have to go that far. Even solid modeled fillets are created differently between different applications and return different results. If you look at the CV distribution of curved surfaces (fillets are only one example) created by different applications you'll be quite surprised.

[Ex_Machina_Engineering]

I will give short (not complete) answers to your concerns based on the paragraph you mention them in. i.e. the adobe-style tool chest is mentioned in paragraph 3.

3: Hit the "s" key on your keyboard. The menu that pops up is fully customisable and searchable.

4: The "Joint" (not "Join") command is in the assemble tab and can also be accessed by hitting the "j" key or via the menu mentioned in 3. Switching planes? You don't need to activate a plane in Fusion. Start a sketch and Fusion will ask for a plane. Left-click on any plane or face and you start sketching. Standard behaviour for Fusion, Inventor, Solidworks, SolidEdge, ProE,.........

5: Left click on the part in the model tree and hit "m". The menu that pops up is extremely helpful, IMO.

6: Ehm........

7: Autodesk has a Cloud Safety White Paper. Please read it.

8: It's not an online parts library. It's an add-in that links to the McMaster-Carr online library. Fusion does not have an official parts library since it is supposed to be a lightweight parametric CAD system. That being said, download the Sheeter add-in (adds Solidworks Configuration-like functionality) and create your own library of standard parts that you use often. The derive button is also great for that sort of thing.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I started using Fusion a few weeks ago and just as I started getting the hang of it, they forced an update that changed everything.

I find the controls super confusing and difficult to use some. Functions that belong together are spread in 3 different places and sometimes are only displayed under certain conditions. Everything is hidden and no proper tool bar/too many drop downs. Short cut keys are only listed for a few items making it difficult to learn them without looking them up separately.

You need a tool chest like adobe etc has so you can click the tool you need and go. Especially for basic geometric shapes

WHERE IS THE JOIN BUTTON? I spent 2 hours looking how to add two pieces together so their edges forms 1 edge.

Same with switching planes.

It takes multiple clicks to move an object (select, right click, click move, figure out which move dialog popped up, set all the different options, then move and realize the snap to grid is turned off again, calculate the offsets and type it in for 1 axis, figure out the next axis calculate again and type it in.) The sliders are way to laggy/touchy to be useful.

I like that fusion doesn´t look as cluttered as blender for instance but the UI was made by psychopaths

Also working in the cloud is NEVER a good idea when working with proprietary and confidential stuff. Or anything work related. No professional workflow should include cloud systems. Too much can go wrong and keep you from working or loose work. Hackers can steal trade secrets and companies going out of business or discontinuing products can cause problems. Keep in mind banks still pay huge money for Fortran coders because of legacy systems running on old tech.

I forgot the online parts library. If you don´t have an internet connection while traveling etc. you can´t work.

---

[Ex_Machina_Engineering]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

I strongly believe that all systems can produce the same geometry. 

---

That is not the case whatsoever!

ZW3d, CATIA, NX, Alias and ICEM surf to name a few can generate and handle higher order/degree NURBS surfaces required for Class A modeling. They also have a tool set specifically designed to be able to manage these surfaces. Fusion 360, Autodesk Inventor, Solid Works and other main stream software can only generate 3-degree surfaces because their geometric modeling kernels (ACIS or Parasolids) cannot deal with these higher order surfaces. You might be able to create a 5-degree spline in Fusion 360 but surfaces created with such splines still are only 3-degree.

One does not even have to go that far. Even solid modeled fillets are created differently between different applications and return different results. If you look at the CV distribution of curved surfaces (fillets are only one example) created by different applications you'll be quite surprised.

---

Sorry I didn't read your message carefully enough before replying. Class A modelling is a term used in the automotive industry for geometry that is curvature continuous if I am not mistaken.

As for higher degree splines... So, the actual shape of the bezier curve between control points? I am not qualified to say. I did the math in my M.Sc. course but I am not proficient enough to comment on it without putting pen to paper on an actual example.

And I have never needed that for a client's design. But I do mainly work with industrial engineering and design, so not the car's fender but its suspension type of stuff.

[HughesTooling]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

WHERE IS THE JOIN BUTTON? I spent 2 hours looking how to add two pieces together so their edges forms 1 edge.

Same with switching planes.

It takes multiple clicks to move an object (select, right click, click move, figure out which move dialog popped up, set all the different options, then move and realize the snap to grid is turned off again, calculate the offsets and type it in for 1 axis, figure out the next axis calculate again and type it in.) The sliders are way to laggy/touchy to be useful.

---

As I said in your other thread, if you're using move you're doing it wrong. I see designs on the forum all the time where faces don't combine\merge because they were inaccurately positioned with move. Every time I've seen this it would have been quicker to create a sketch in the correct place then just extrude with join enabled. The design would end up with less features in the timeline, be fully parametric and not break when modified. 

Have you used solid modeling programs before? Have you done the tutorials and how to's in the help?

Mark

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

---

Class A modelling is a term used in the automotive industry for geometry that is curvature continuous if I am not mistaken.

---

Correct, but this does not only apply to the automotive industry and other transportation design, it is also heavily used in consumer product design. For example there's not a single circular fillet on the exterior of an iPhone and this likely applies to many such devices despite the fact that a rectangle with rounded corners is hardly a very sophisticated shape.

Class A simply refers to the visible surfaces such as exterior panels, as well as interior surfaces such as instrument panel and center console. The non-visible surfaces are Class B. Class A surface transitions usually are G2 curvature continuous and sometimes even G3.

---

As for higher degree splines... So, the actual shape of the bezier curve between control points? I am not qualified to say. I did the math in my M.Sc. course but I am not proficient enough to comment on it without putting pen to paper on an actual example.

---

Well ... I am certainly not qualified to talk to the underlying math either but I'll link to the Autodesk Alias Theory Builder as it is excellently written and with a wit that is usually missing from nowadays corporate sterilized educational materials.

---

@Ex_Machina_Engineering wrote:

And I have never needed that for a client's design. But I do mainly work with industrial engineering and design, so not the car's fender but its suspension type of stuff.

---

The same was true for a few years ago. But then I was presented with a problem I could not solve with the usual solid modeling methods. I found two Autodesk Expert Elite mentors here on the Fusion 360 forum (both are pretty absent here nowadays) that helped me understand how some of these things work, but the truth is I am still in the early stages of understanding ... after doing CAD and other forms of 3D modeling for more than 30years 😉

It is really interesting to design seemingly the same geometry in a range of CAD packages and then look at it I a higher end CAD package that allows you to see how the  different software packages create surfaces, trim surfaces etc. There is definitely a difference, even in solid models. As soon as you sweep or loft anything in Fusion 360 you create NURBS surfaces. And there definitely is a difference in how deferent packages create the "same" geometry.

[Anonymous]

I'm just going to say what no one else is saying.

You simply don't know how to use Fusion 360. Many posters on here can attest my overall cluelessness about the program as well at one point. I thought it too was a POS software.

Judging by your (*Spam posts*) large string of repetitive forum posts asking for help on various things, you simply have no clue how the program works, and then you decided to come to a conclusion that it's not for professional use. Fact is, fusion 360 is pretty much the same as solidworks and other design software, the only difference on the workflow level is just that...Different workflows. It's like complaining that Affinity is worse than photoshop, because you're not used to affinities work flow. 

Take some time to learn the program, google whatever issues you have (I'm sure others have had the same issues), and don't spam the board with questions, then come up with an expert analysis that the program is no good, when you hardly know how to use it.

/rant. 

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

1. I'm just going to say what no one else is saying.

2. You simply don't know how to use Fusion 360.

3. Many posters on here can attest my overall cluelessness about the program as well at one point. 

4. ...you simply have no clue how the program works, and then you decided to come to a conclusion that it's not for professional use.

5. Fact is, fusion 360 is pretty much the same as solidworks and other design software, the only difference on the workflow level is just that...

6. ...then come up with an expert analysis that the program is no good, when you hardly know how to use it.

---

1. From my quick research on your experience - it is my opinion that you should gain a bit more experience.

2. Previously, I was not familiar with your level of experience, but I was very familiar with the Fusion work of @PhilProcarioJr .  I don't know of anyone here who has put Fusion to a more exhaustive test.

3. I went ahead and reviewed your profile. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/5297430  See #1.

4.  See #1 - 3. 

5. Can you provide link to your portfolio of SolidWorks projects?  Where did you gain the expertise to make this statement?

6. See #1-5 above.

I can tell you that my opinion is largely the same as @Anonymous , perhaps for different reasons.  I consider it an insult of the most egregious nature for someone to suggest that I use Fusion in my program for preparing professionals.  I would not even be able to get past the first semester given the limitations...  

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-design-validate/honest-comparison-between-fusion-360-and-i...

...there might be a place in the market for the tool, perhaps even a bit place in my program, but I could not recommend it for professional use given the other tools I have available.

Students can get Autodesk Inventor Professional for free from http://www.autodesk.com/edcommunity

[ToddHarris7556]

@JDMather with the utmost respect, I'd like to share an alternative perspective.

Like you, my background includes manual drafting, then making the leap to AutoCAD (r2). I was using DCL, AutoLISP and then later VBA a VC++ to develop AutoCAD add-ins. I've been a CAD Dept Chair, and also spent 19 years consulting corporate CAD standards, document management systems, training and leading multi-billion dollar process plant projects. When I switched to Inventor/Vault, I never looked back. I'd been using AutoCAD to do 3D plant designs for years, but IV takes it to a whole new level. As an Instructor and Consultant, I have always promoted sound fundamentals as the key to long-term productivity. Standards and methodology matter.

I believe I speak your language (if not your exact dialect), and in many ways feel similarly. 

HOWEVER - 

I started a small design/build firm in 2010, and it's largely a creative firm. We do have engineers, but mostly artists, industrial designers and craftspeople. I continue to use Inventor, as it's the tool I'm most familiar with. From both a cost and learning curve perspective, we settled on Fusion 360/Fusion Team as the platform for most of our team. 

In some ways, it pains me. We have a working ground internally that focuses on Fusion training and standard practices, but still... I see people rushing to get a project done, and taking 'shortcuts'. Those shortcuts would be fireable offenses in most of the places I've worked in. 

At the same time, I've watched sculptors pick up Fusion, and with a few weeks training, they're actually making usable CNC molds and casting products. Every one of our cabinet makers can design a basic cabinet, go fire up the CNC router, and make parts. They've watched a few YouTube videos, and the next thing I know, they're 3D printing scale models. They're sending relatively spectacular renderings out to clients. 

We've all been watching this evolution for decades. The separation of engineers and CAD drafting. Then modeling and simulation started changing that workflow, putting the tools right into the hands of engineering. Fast forward, and now we have a generation who thinks that the read it in Make magazine, and watched a YouTube video, and now they're expert. I've made it very clear to our folks that there is a level of professionalism above that, that we need to be aware of - and strive for - every day. I find it's balance between developing the skillset, and offering practical experience that makes the learning more efficient. I've found it necessary because I've been unsuccessful in finding the exact skillsets we need on the street, so we have to grow them internally. 

I haven't stopped believing in all of the fundamentals and rigor. I have, however, come to depend on Fusion as a key tool in our business. Though this business is quite different from the career I've spent designing chemical plants, I still consider it very much a professional endeavor. 

I should add that I acknowledge it's a maturing product, and it still has pain points. Several 🙂 That's another thread!

Offered most respectfully.