Is Fusion 360 Really intended for engineers?

[Anonymous]

I have been using CAD software for over 20 years like SolidWorks, Creo (Pro/E), Unigraphics etc.

as an engineer i am seriously struggling understanding Fusion 360 demographics.

i like to try new technologies but i am struggling with basic simple functions in Fusion360.

my question: is Fusion eventually will replace Inventor and will have all the features of Inventor, which are similar to SolidWorks features? or it will always be a lower end software for casual users who do not require all the real engineering features?

i love using the CAM module for Fusion, it is by far the best i have seen, the modeling part is just inferior to almost all existing CAD packages on the market, maybe except ONSHAPE

the topic is so long to cover here but here are my comments:

1.   joint as designed for fusion are OK for simple symmetric parts, it would be nice if lower level mating is considered also, for instance i wanted to machine a cylindrical part in a V shaped jaw vertically, i simply wanted a tangent relationship which is not available ( too many steps to get it to work currently)
2. for some reason when i import a part into an assembly, the original plane and coordinate system are locked in one place on the screen even though the part was moved around, they are in the right location when the part is opened alone
3. i couldn't create a diameter dimension in a revolve feature, everything has to be designed in a radius environment, this should be a no brainer 
4. i cant create relationships to any existing datum plane, it only supports the origin only!
5. too many steps to rotate a component in 3D
6. capture position is so frustrating to deal with, it should be optional not the default

this is a small list of things i still believe should be addressed.

i am really here because i like Fusion360 to be a successful software, i think it is a good platform and priced right.

my biggest issues with Solidworks after using it for 18 years is the lack of attention to its increasing instability.

my previous Autodesk encounter was AutoCad which is bullet proof regarding its stability.

please don't look at my comments as negative ones but more of constructive criticism, i believe competition creates better product for everyone and would like other companies to be a real competitor to Solidworks.

thanks,

[TrippyLighting]

1. The joint system is clearly missing some joint types and we've complained about it for a long time. The Cylinder in V-Groove you are mentioning requires re-thinking, or simply use Lower level mates, which we don't have, unfortunately.

2. You may want to create a screencast and show that behavior. There are a number of things that can lead to this behavior.

3. You can use diameter dimensioning 

5. Can you explain what you mean wit that ?

6. Does this go along with 5 ?

In an assembly, using the capture position function should almost never be necessary if you are using joints. Sometimes you'll have to move a component to be able to access the geometry you want to select for jointing and then you'll have to accept the position capture feature, but then you can delete it after the joint is completed.

While I have been an engineer for almost 30 years my initial draw to Fusion 360 was for the "design differently" approach that ties Sub-D modeling, surfacing and solid modeling together. OK maybe throw in the CAM. This is clearly visible in Fusion 360's  top down design philosophy. That is still what attracts me to Fusion 360. It is very quick for concept design.

However with it's constant marketing efforts to compete with SW, Fusion 360's aim at the machine design and engineering market is clear. I think this is a big mistake, for exactly the reasons you are describing.

While that market segment is a big chunk of the CAD market, it is already populated with a number of overwhelmingly stronger competitors in terms of functionality albeit at a higher price. That then leaves the lower market segment for people that would all like to have that functionality, but cannot afford it. It will be hard to ever make those folks happy.

[Anonymous]

Most of the concerns you have are actually design tasks and not engineering tasks (at least as I would break them down)...but that doesn't mean they aren't valid in some instances.

The simulation package in fusion 360 is actually much better than solidworks, which gives it an advantage on the engineering front. The only things that solidworks has that f360 is missing are: shell elements, harmonic analyses/linear dynamics and design optimization tables. For any harmonic response simulation I'm running ansys anyways because sworks is so bad at handling the results and isnt nearly as robust of a solver.

Solidworks certainly wins on the design and drafting front...but your post is in regards to engineering. If f360 fixes their drawing package they will be approaching top tier status

[TrippyLighting]

@Anonymous we've had this argument before and as it pertains to Simulation you might be correct.

However as it pertains to mechanical design and particularly machine design top tier status is far away particularly given the current speed of development, which certainly did not improve after the layoffs in December.

Having a good drawing package is really only small part of what is needed to compete in today's market.

Fusion 360 has no real library concept for anything. No sketches, no features, no components. No real integration of trace parts etc.

As I sit here at work and develop a small automation concept for a proposal I already have 300 components in the design. In a real machine design with real components for a real BOM the component count is easily 3-5 times higher. Fusion 360 cannot handle that many components in a parametric design.

Try to reorganize an assembly with thousands of components and hundreds of assemblies and subassemblies in a timeline based design and still keep working in it.

How do you manage that data in the flat structure of the data panel without going insane ?

Lets say that you get all that stuff done anyway and you have a design. How do you get that data out of Fusion 360 ? How do you connect that to an ERP system, so you can manage the amount of components and make sure they are all purchased and tracked. Printed PFD's ?

There are machine building companies that manage all of that data without paper. They have large monitors on the assembly shop floor and have mostly eliminated paper from their workflow.

That is what I call top tier. the road to that is hard and rocky!

[Anonymous]

You do bring up a lot of good points and maybe I'm thinking more in terms of my experience and a direct comparison to sworks. (Also I intended to reply to the OP and not your response)

In my mind, solidworks is way overrated by a lot of people because that's what they learned on. I have to use solidworks daily on large assemblies and hate it. I use ANSYS for simulations so I'm already used to not analyzing designs in the native CAD format. Solidworks has a lot of functions that are half baked (tolerance module especially).

I didn't realize there was a layoff...but that is undoubtedly concerning.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In my mind, solidworks is way overrated by a lot of people because that's what they learned on.

---

Indeed!

[Anonymous]

thanks for your feedback, not sure how to use a screencast, really new to the site, the paste Doesn't work:(

anyways i included couple pictures for item 2 before and after.

item 5: i meant you have to right click and pick from drop down menu to rotate a component click on arrows, this is simply right click in SW on the model and drag with mouse to rotate and left click to drag, i am just saying time adds up when you work with large assemblies

item 6: i agree with you for the solution, it does keep asking me if i want to save it and i have to click no every time, not sure why anyone would design an assembly without proper mates move the parts around until final mates are done why capture a view you can duplicate anytime, it just make the tree too busy.

[schneik-adsk]

Lots of good tips from the community. One thing to remember. SolidWorks's first release was in 95 and Inventor in 98. Nx is even older...

So missing features is not just a function of wanting or needing it. Its also a function of building it which takes time.

[Anonymous]

I just want to clear things up, I didn't mean to criticize the CAE package itself, it is not fair since I never used the FEA module at all, I currently use SW simulation Premium and not really impressed by it due to its stability issues.

I am looking at it as a mechanical engineer, realistically top down design is not an optimum solution when you use common parts, which what most companies like to do to reduce product cost. also it doesn't have any configurations or family table which dramatically reduces file count. imagine you work for hardware OEM and you need a separate file for each component. it gets crazy pretty fast, with SW or Creo and probably other similar software the ability of multiple configurations is a really great feature.

top down design would be an absolute nightmare for PDM like software (vault system), it is already complicated when 3D parts have no reference, in top down the assembly is always referenced for each part of it (absolute nightmare) the Vault in top down will be super complicated and hard to use.

so as an engineer I need all these features especially releasing molds and subassemblies in the Vault. sometimes I like to use variables in equation to drive geometry in each configurations, also super handy especially in template creation.

another example there is no parametric curve creation, I use it all the time to create real gear involutes, it is missing advanced pattern also.

so my point that all these advanced features are super useful for engineer in almost every day work, and I am not sure if Inventor will be used for that to compete with SW and leave Fusion for light users.

I really didn't want to get in details but I believe it would be the easiest way to clarify things.

thanks   

[TrippyLighting]

Well,  before continuing you need to first learn the difference between a component and a body. This exists in Sw as well, but it does not have the same implications as it has in Fusion 360.

What you did is as many many SW users before  (guess how I know), you selected a vertex, edge or face of the object you wanted to move/rotate and then moved/rotated it. However that object was the body within the component and in reference to the component origin. In a mechanical design such as yours that is actually very rarely what you want to do. What you might want to do (not really, but I'll get to that) is to move the component. IN order to select a component in the viewport you'll have to double right-ckllick it. You'l also see that the highlighting in the browser is different pin the two cases.

Now that you actually have selected a component you actually don't want to move it, because than when you make a joint it'll ask you if you want to capture the position or revert to the old one. So in seed create a joint right away. That will avoid this question altogether.

Also, just for good measure, here's a link to Fusion 360's R.U.L.E #1.

That link collection also contains a link to another collection that lists a good number of class recordings from Autodesk University, which I can hotly recommend. If you want to know I'd recommend Kevin Schneider's @schneik-adsk Assembly Master Class.

Kevin has a teaching style I'd describe as "brilliant clarity".

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

... realistically top down design is not an optimum solution when you use common parts,

---

Exactly! 

But top down design is one of Fusions 360's strength, that is where it really shines.

In product concept design this can be used very effectively.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough,

but looking at missing features I talked about in previous post we should both agree it is not ready for primetime right now, at least for mechanical engineers who needs advanced features.

where would inventor fall after these features are added to Fusion?

again I am currently using the CAM module and love it, but the simplest CAD Changes seems to take so much time.

I really want to know if I should invest time to learn Fusion in depth, in the end of the day I don't want to spend time on a tool that I will not use at real engineering work tool

thanks

[Anonymous]

thanks, your described workflow worked as planned, however this move/copy is super confusing I just redid it my way using right click and made sure I pick component and it disregarded it and still have things moving relative to the center.

I really do not want to sound like a broken record regarding this small issue, I really don't see any reason why this move functionality even an option, especially the change doesn't carry over in the base model.

in the end of the day I agree it might be a good tool for quick concept no question asked there but not ready for full blown consumer product design tool, from what I understood earlier it will be later but it is still not there yet.

[schneik-adsk]

People are not born with a phd in Mechanical Engineering. Software does not appear on first release with every feature every other package has either.  It takes time to add depth.  To compare 25 year old software to Fusion 360 will produce a long list of things that other tools do. Some useful. Some not. 

To ask if it's for engineers based on what it can do today is to ignore that it updates every few weeks and adds more depth every year. There are plenty of engineers who's needs are met today. There's plenty Fusion could do better.  Fusion 360, did not even have parametric features on its first release. Look how much has been added over time and plot the trajectory. Only you can decide if that works for you. Just realize that is your personal decision. Other "Engineers" may be just fine with what is there today. Avoiding generalizing ones personal opinions across the whole community will help avoid the flame wars that arise by assuming ones persons needs are the same for everyone.  This is a general comment to all, not specifically pointed at your original post.

And to your original post... I guess I could have just answered "Yes, it is intended for engineers."

[Anonymous]

I definitely see what you're saying, but let's break this down a little differently: 

• First we will start with the original topic..."Is Fusion 360 Really intended for engineers?"
  • Most of what you've listed as a complaint Cannot be done in any ANSYS product. Not in CFX, Fluent, Mechanical, HFSS...etc. Does that mean ANSYS isn't intended for Engineers?
  • I think there is confusion regarding engineering tools and business management tools, operations tools, data management...etc. 

• Second, there's a big difference between the following terms:
  • Incapable of doing a task. (Fusion 360 is incapable of configurations)
  • Poor Usability when performing a task (Fusion 360 requires you to select the move command instead of floating the part...the usability is poor in your opinion)
  • Different manners of accomplishing the same task as compared to a different package. (Joints are different than mates, you have to right click instead of shift click to dimension a diameter)
    • A lot of these challenges are not inadequacies...they're simply doing things a different way.

• Lastly, you can't ignore price point and tenure
  • The cost of Fusion 360 is an order of magnitude lower than solidworks and between 20-100X cheaper than ANSYS depending on which package of each you choose. They are not after the same market. 
  • As @schneik-adsk has said, the products you're comparing this to are 20 years older. 
  • There is no other product close to this price point that is even as remotely capable as F360

I started my career in ProEngineer which became CREO and used it for about 6-8 years. Then I changed jobs and they used solidworks which only took 2-3 weeks to learn, but I thought the software was so dumb. This is because I was confusing capability with useability and sometimes just a different way of doing things. And even though solidworks is one of the top CAD programs, it's far from flawless. It's still highly unstable and handles large assemblies poorly. 

I definitely understand how a lot of these issues make wide scale adoption a challenge in a corporate setting. But there is no reason that F360 can't succeed in product development for a large majority of products released today. It's obviously not targeting system level automotive or aerospace customers. The other stuff should come in time (hopefully)!

[Anonymous]

i joined this forum with the best intentions and hoping success for the product.

i am not here to claim any engineering superiority, i simply reacted to fusion advertisement and got intrigued.

it simply shows it is not ready for my application but it seems at some point it will be. (really hoping for it)

since i have been doing consumer designs for twenty years, unfortunately using SW, this is my only measure.

i used pro/E (creo), AutoCad mechanical desktop and i really believe the hard to use pro/E is the far superior modeling tool.

i am not here to trash or to be biased against any product, i can actually see the pros and cons for each one.

you also have to understand my point of view, obviously you are deeply involved with Fusion. most people who are looking for a tool want it to be ready "now". most people don't care about the development of the software and the huge strides that it accomplished, it just happen that i do.

it is no different than a new smartphone company expected to have a stable OS from the beginning. consumer do not care what this company did to get to this point. it is kind sad, the lack of appreciation but it is also true.

i said before it is Ok if it is work in progress, this is great news, i understand it is a monumental task and i expect nothing less than a great product coming from Autodesk. Autodesk earned it by offering great array of bullet proof software ( ask any architect in the world regarding AutoCad, they will all agree it is the best) 

i guess the Fusion approach is different from traditional approach it is something greatly welcomed when bugs and added features almost get updated on the fly.

i will keep following the progress and hopefully it would be capable to compete with the big boys ASAP