To any Autodesk employees that care.....

[PhilProcarioJr]

I have a few things I would like to say that I know a lot of your customers are thinking but just wont say it publicly so here it goes.

The first point I want to make crystal clear is this is not an attack on Autodesk, Fusion or it's employees. I'm trying to help.....

The GOOD:

First off I would like to thank the entire Fusion 360 Team for bringing us this innovative software at an affordable price. 

There has been a lot of hard work put into this software and it shows.

In my opinion Fusion has a brighter future then Inventor or Solidworks once more functionality is added and the kinks worked out.

The BAD:

The appearance from the outside is that the entire team is broken into segments that have no communication with each other.

Why does it look this way? Well ADSK employees are always saying the team that works on this doesn't necessarily work on that. So when there is a release (July release comes to mind) This (team) broke all of the other teams work or so it appears.

My observations:

There is a new mesh space environment ok great, but where is all the training on how to use it?

What good is an entirely new environment with no documentation on how to use it?

If this documentation exists where is it?

How can this new environment break so many other work flows but no one on the development team saw any of these problems?

I have noticed that the 3 or so times I asked if this release was tested I got no answers.

This is but one example...

The amount of confusion from new users at all CAD experience levels is astounding. How do I know this? Because I am on the boards everyday helping these people. They reference what training there is...so I take a look, and the videos confuse me half of the time and I'm an Autodesk expert elite! I know how to use the software and yet I'm sitting there watching the videos scratching my head half the time.

Lately myself and other very knowledgeable individuals have messaged each other back and forth because responses from ADSK employees make it seem like they have been in the dark for the last few weeks or that they didn't even read what has been said in the threads before giving an answer, or the work around they give has already been proven not to work.

There is a reason it's called a Development TEAM. Please start talking to each other....if a change is being made in the software, get with the training people an figure out what effect the changes are going to have on the old videos and update them if needed. If its a new tool make sure there is documentation and training videos on the new tool. If a change say mesh space deals with meshes test the meshes from mesh space in sculpt, test importing mesh files and not just from within the mesh space but the dashboard too. If you want all meshes to come in through mesh space then remove the ability to bring them in from the dashboard. Talk to each other because without proper communication and planning your not a TEAM.

Don't take our constructive criticism to heart, it's not personal. We want Fusion to be the best piece of CAD software out there more then you do! We wouldn't be here using it if we didn't.

When a knowledgeable person asks a question don't treat us like we don't know what technology is out there. I for one have read hundreds of thousands of white papers on everything dealing with 3D modeling and CAD and rendering. I have been doing this for 30+ years. Just tell it straight, if Fusion is lacking in that area just tell us so we can work around it until it is implemented. We understand Fusion is still in the newish phase. But understand this A LOT of people rely on this software for their business and we can't afford to be down for a day much less a week or two.

Read the forums and you will see you need to stop worrying about adding things like mesh space and look at your core functionality. Focus on fixing what you have before adding more problems on top of your current problems.

And please if your going to force the cloud down our throats fix the cloud problems! It's degraded or down at least twice a month...this is totally unacceptable. 

Take note this is very discouraging to new and old users.

I hope the entire TEAM including MANAGEMENT can read this and see I made this post because I care. This is not a RANT its CONCERN over current events.

If you took the time to read this thank you.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have been using Fusion 360 since January and I was and still am very impressed with it. It began as just being curious about other cad programs and quickly led to a part time job using Fusion 360. and a summer internship where I am going into a company of 30 years that has been using four different cad programs and am helping them to make the switch over to Fusion. Which means building a library of components they can use and easily modify using parameters, training the existing designers and engineers, and streamlining their process from sales to cnc. (The company manufactures custom conference tables). Everyone has been impressed with how powerful the program is especially for the low price. 

While they know that this program is more powerful and much better for their process than their other programs, They still seem cautious and nervous when I am teaching them or demonstrating something to them and bugs keep coming up slowdowns happen with the cloud and updates. My boss looked through some of the posts about what is new in each update and said "Why are they putting all of this stuff in when there are so many issues with the program as is".

AD like other people have mentioned please slow down a bit on these updates of new features and fix what is currently in place. I can't speak for everyone but I am willing to wait a few extra month or even a year for some functionalities that I really want if I can get a program that functions reliably. 

---

@Anonymous 

I hope you don't mind me quoting you here. 

But it's nice to see another echo my feelings. 

ADSK are running full pelt to get content out. That's THE problem. 

I only adopted fusion to get my head around the cam! Boy what great cam that is! Not perfect I know but it is far better cycle times than what I was using. 

So despite fusion not being able to take a stl file and machine it I didn't care.

You can pay people to retopologize a STL (I didn't even know that what it was called until @PhilProcarioJr@ & @TrippyLighting  told me that's what I needed to do. I will always be thankful for @PhilProcarioJr taking me under his wing and showing me the way! Plus, Peter for helping me with blender and fusion questions) until I get my skill set up to scratch. 

Heres the thing. The mesh space should never have been let out. It did nothing to add to the STL conversation side of things. I think that was intentional by ADSK. I think it was policy to keep STL firmly in the RPM spectrum where it came from. Conversely I also now know why you don't want to cam a  STL.  But many new mill owners/users may not know this. ( people who start out with RPM's will also one day want a mill or a lathe! Same the other way with people who buy or make a mill or lathe. 

They will get frustrated with not being able to cam STL!

Some  designers may think so what? But cad accurate mesh modelling is a great skill to master! And it can start( in a small way) from retopolgy! 

New users should be made aware that STL file is not supported for cam,BUT, here's the tools to help transform your STL file into a surface. AND THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT! Bingo! 

It's been mentioned before engineers are not designers and designers are not engineers. Same as mesh modellers are not cad drivers and cad drivers are not mesh modellers. 

Building bridges to plug gaps from all sides IS what ADSK is promising with fusion 360. But it don't . 

PLUS 

There  is no piont in trying that. if the core function can so easily be broke! After a up date! 

Every time you (I/we) show people what fusion can do and it bugs out. Opertuinty lost! 

PLEASE STOP THE UPDATES WITH NEW WORK SPACES. PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON CONTENT THAT IS THERE ALREADY for the next 24 months. Fusion users need that.

As far as the mesh space goes withdraw it. We could do all that stuff in mesh mixer. It adds nothing to the fusion work flow! 

And BREATHE,, 

See ADSK, how passionate we fusion users are? 

[Anonymous]

---

@prabakarm wrote:

"There are a lot of important comments in this thread and we’re taking them all in, but there is an underlying tone about quality, especially with our last update." 

Not just the last update! We expect there to be problems when it's update time. Rather wish we didn't have to update until a user was ready and the feed back on. Bugs shows there are no issues for users that are using the workspaces! 

"We understand your interest in expanding the mesh tools that drive TSplines."

No I don't think ADSK do!

"That is clear. The current Mesh workspace is not intended to solve that problem."

Yes 100% agree there.

" Mesh as a term and workflow is overloaded.  The new mesh workspace is a building block towards a broader generative/additive vision."

Irefer to my earlier post!

" There are three pieces to the mesh workspace.

 First, provide a first class data container for triangle, quad, and n-gon imported mesh data." 

Ok! 

" Second, provide a simple set of mesh cleanup and repair tools."

Yeah ok but that's in mesh mixer! 

"Third provide a set of retopologizing tools allowing better reuse of imported mesh data into other Fusion tools."

You should have STARTED with that. That's what we want. We can wait for it! 

"These new tools will be in additive and generative design where mesh data is common."

But not exclusive. Devs are not in charge of the way we use the software and what a community based drive program is asking for. Users wish to change the traditional view of what Dev teams think we want. That includes crossover workflows! 

"With this being a preview, we were excited to get the technology out there as quickly as possible"

THERES THE PROBLEM! 

"We are always listening and the community feedback about a better update experience is one we are working on. We’re improving how we can more gracefully handle service issues, both on our client side and on the server side.  There is an active effort underway to identify and improve the most common scenarios we’ve been running into." 

But you don't depend on the software. Fusion is a product for ADSK. That some hang their business on fusion, active effort for stability is not up there with the reassurance levels users need! It's an area we users simply can't help you with. It's a big problem for users! We can help with beta testing work spaces so why not let us do that! Get the breaks and fix them before you let a update go! 

"Stepping back a bit in terms of the overall focus, core is exactly what we are invested a lot in.  Majority of our resources are focussed on the core (Data Management, Modeling/Sketching, sheetmetal, drawings, system robustness/scalability).  We have a very small portion of our resources looking ahead and mesh workspace was from that investment." 

Curently that investment looks a bust! I'd didn't have to be! It didn't need to be! 

Let me ask a question? 

Whats the rush to get the new mesh stuff out? 

---

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous I don't mind at all. 

I think another issue is that the people that use Fusion the most and are pushing it to its limits are being somewhat ignored. When most users see an idea in the IdeaStation from someone like an Autodesk Expert Elite or by someone close to that level, the idea goes right over their head, and if they do understand it they think they will never use the idea and they don't bother to vote for it. I used to be the same way when I first joined and I have talked to other people that have done the same thing. I think there should be a tab in the IdeaStation called "Recommended". Here Autodesk Employees or Autodesk Expert Elites can post their own ideas and promote other ideas that they think should be implemented into Fusion and are important to Fusions growth. This way great ideas can be focused on more and developed further so that we don't run into issues like this in the future where functionality is left behind to bring in new tools. 

[cekuhnen]

@michael.k.jansen

Thank you for the images and obviously I will show them in the appropriate manner only!

The first rendering is a nice catch! the camera angle and reflection of the water on the boat hull is a nice detail!

To Fusion:

Class A surfacing is when done as good as with cars also a job where you need a digital sculptor full time doing it.

At GM hardly a transportation designer does it - it is just too time consuming.

That is where I feel this idea of freefrom + Class A surfacing like in Alias vs 2d sketch based parametric modeling like in Fusion etc has to stop being

two different worlds and fuse together or at least have both abilities to a certain degree available so you still have to adjust your workflow but you

can get the surfaces you want.

Here are some examples highlighting what I mean.

The student who created this box cutter design works in roofing himself is also a Veteran from Vietnam and of older generation.

We started in Alias where most of the curves can easily be perfected and surface patches created.

Creating the Y transition between the two handle parts and the tool tip however was a challenge for a student like him.

Possible in Alias but again dramatically to stiff and time consuming and technically really hard to get right.

We tried to create the Y transition then in Fusion recycling most of the handle and tip data Alias created but the surf tools were problematic

ands till produce many errors failing here with two simple lofts and G1 or G2. And those errors start requiring you to figure out what to do to help the tool code which inflates the time used and impacts usability.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 11.48.15 AM.png

m2.jpg

In the end the clean Alias sculpting for the proportions and layout and then adding the tip via TS and patching in the needed transitions via loft worked out actually

quite well.

Building the complete body in T-S seems logical but as long as T-S cannot offer smooth curvature combs it is less reliable to manage the surfaces and CV positions.

Your eye can easily be fooled.

This project from Carmen was also quite interesting.

carmen.jpg

Fusions sketches on sketch planes and creating a dynamic layout where sketches use references from other sketches made skinning this object in Fusion actually a pan cake to cook while doing this with quality surfaces would have been like mastering French cuisine.

So after some quick initial Alias explorations we just rebuild the complete part in Fusion.

Creating domes and smooth tips in Alias is very possible but again requires a lot of work and proper pre planing.

Fusions patch tool can dome ends quite nicely. While it is a dirty draped surface it still works well giving you access to G1 or G2 options. But then there are no weight values which makes you as a designer not be able to influence how the dome looks. One can see that the dome is not well fitting the curvature.

So the initial hey this works easy (control) and fast turned into "duh ..."

Here are just two tests to also show some of the problems and limitations the surface codes has since the beginning of Fusion.

As long as along a rail you do not need G1 or G2 the process in Fusion works fine and pretty precise. The resulting surface here is nice.

loft rail.jpg

But when you need that G1 you hit a wall with 120mph. 

For example in this design it is currently hardly possible to surface this right because the wing tip cannot be made to flow into a wing body - in addition to the loft code issue producing self intersecting surfaces on top.

Because of the lack of a good square tool like in Alias creating smooth rounded noses can also be quite a task in Fusion. In Alias one needs 4 edges to make it. Labor intensive but it works. In Fusion we get close. The loft code just pinches the surf in a corner and a trick is to later cut that away and patch the hole with a bigger cleaner surface. This can work to certain degrees but is also not really ideal.

I hope I was able to show some of the problems I encounter when dealing with smooth/organic surfaces and the bugs or limitations with surfacing tools Fusion provides.

I have obviously also a large package of successful student projects. For example nearly all furniture projects in Fusion are a success. But thats mainly because the geometry is rather linear and flat and thus easy.

Those organic rounded parts are what is hard to achieve and it is not ideal when I see a student ignore an idea because the work or workaround involved was unrealistic to expect.

Again this is not to say that Fusion is terrible but as others observed it is problematic when new features and modules are introduced but the core tools remain at the same limited level.

wing.jpg

[PhilProcarioJr]

@prabakarm

First thank you for taking the time to give your perspective of this issue, that is greatly appreciated. I'm sure this topic was under a lot of discussion at ADSK and to be careful of what your reply contained as was my initial post about this subject matter. I wanted to make sure this wasn't an attack on you or any of your co-workers because that's not my intent. This discussion is all about Fusion and the people that use it and the Dev teams perception of what the team thinks we want and what we actually want. Do I want more functionality with meshes and T-Splines? Yes I do, but not at the expense of the core of Fusion. Regardless, what this topic is really about is NOT the new mesh space per say but rather the fact that myself any many others feel that the entire GROUP of people that make up the Fusion Dev Team should step away from mesh space, sheet metal and whatever other new fangled stuff you guys have in the works. Now before all the guys out there jump up and scream foul let me explain. What good is sheet metal tools if the sketch engine is still slow and flaky? What good are T-Splines without G2 and G3 curvature? We still don't have proper splines or curvature. The CORE should be the focus. The BUG reports should be the focus. STABILITY should be the focus. Proper TESTING of releases should be the focus.

Now lets break down a couple of things you said:

" We’ve reacted as quickly as possible with updates and fixes, but along the way we’re also understanding how they happened in order to implement changes and make sure they don’t happen again."

I hope ADSK really means this because if it happens again I will be forced to move on to a different CAD App. (and I'm not talking about little obscure bugs, I'm talking about a release that breaks a lot of Core functionality). Sorry but my work can't be compromised like that, I have a family to care for.

"Let me address your concerns about teams talking.  It is easier for me to think about this in terms of problems we are trying to solve for customers.  It is true that we separate out problems we are trying to solve in order to make it easier to communicate and work more focused.  We may talk about this as “teams”, but what we really mean is “a problem” the product is solving.  It just happens to be people solving these problems and it’s easier to call the group working on one problem “A team” doing this or that.  The reality is that none of these teams can solve problems for a customer without working together, which they consistently do.  Some of what they do may appear separate, and in a situation like the mesh preview, it may appear more disjointed simply because it’s an early tech preview, not a final polished workspace."

This paragraph bothers me a lot...if this is true how did no one on the dev team experience the loss in performance or all the broken functionality that occurred with the release? Especially when the forums were flooded less then an hour after release with problems. Can you explain how this happened if the entire team has great communication?

"We understand your interest in expanding the mesh tools that drive TSplines. That is clear. The current Mesh workspace is not intended to solve that problem.  Mesh as a term and workflow is overloaded.  The new mesh workspace is a building block towards a broader generative/additive vision.  There are three pieces to the mesh workspace.

First, provide a first class data container for triangle, quad, and n-gon imported mesh data.

Second, provide a simple set of mesh cleanup and repair tools.

Third provide a set of retopologizing tools allowing better reuse of imported mesh data into other Fusion tools. Tools like modeling, CAM, Simulation or rendering. Eventually there will be more tools built on the mesh framework.  These new tools will be in additive and generative design where mesh data is common."

This last paragraph is how I know the dev team doesn't listen to me...let me explain. I don't want mesh tools that drive T-Splines I have awesome mesh tools to drive my T-Splines. I don't want you guys reinventing the wheel. I want you guys to add CORE functionality....G2 and G3 curvature, fix the sketch solver, fix the bugs, increase performance add missing tools to the CURRENT toolset. NO new tools are worth anything if they are built on buggy code like the sketch solver. Surfaces are close to useless without G2 and G3 curvature. The forums are chalked full of issues and the dev team wants to add mesh space, sheet metal etc....I'm sorry but I don't get this. If I was in charge it would be all hands on deck fixing bugs..period. When the bug list can be written on one page of notebook paper then it's time to add the bling.

"With this being a preview, we were excited to get the technology out there as quickly as possible, listen, learn and iterate - we did this at the expense of detailed learning material as well as articulating our overall intent."

This is the part that upset me a little. You did this at the expense of your CUSTOMERS. I was dead in the water at work for over a week and we lost a very big contract.....

"Stepping back a bit in terms of the overall focus, core is exactly what we are invested a lot in.  Majority of our resources are focussed on the core (Data Management, Modeling/Sketching, sheetmetal, drawings, system robustness/scalability).  We have a very small portion of our resources looking ahead and mesh workspace was from that investment."

If the CORE has always been the focus why is the sketch solver so slow and flaky? Why does surfacing lack G2 and G3 curvature? Why don't we have proper curves? People have been asking for this for over a year, yet I see mesh space, I see sheet metal coming....but no CORE tools. Again I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Anyways I have conveyed my thoughts as best I can. Thank you for your time and reading over this thread.

[cekuhnen]

@prabakarm

Thank you for joining.

It seemed to me that with mesh module is intended as a container to house the mesh data which then later the Base Feature or TS can make use of.

This seems already address some of the common problems like in TS seeing all mesh imports.

Today that is gone - you only see the TS models now. Yeah!

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 12.40.30 PM.png

Regarding manual and the new mesh module I think the focus is less on having with the release also  proper documentation for the new addition.

The criticism goes more towards a general absence of good documentation and user manual for Fusion. I learned most of the sketch engine from the Inventor manual.

Fortunately the concept was easy to transfer and apply but I hope this makes it evident that the for user provided documentation is simply not sufficient.

I like very often to reference to Alias here because they nailed it down with limited text and images communicated the most information.

It is actually great to see that the mesh module at one point also support tools for retopology. This are great plans, but:

Since 3 years I hear about improvements to the Fusion surfacing tools and hardly anything visible to us users is present.

The sketch engine besides speed issues (can be helped with by keeping sketches slim) lacks actually many needed drafting tools such as a line perpendicular or tangent to a spline or a line perpendicular to an arc while the line can be made collinear to the arc center and coincident to the arc itself offers a somewhat odd and not logical alternative.

I know CV curve is coming so I will not mention them here. This will help us to finally make better smooth curves because the constraining handle workflow with splines is a disaster.

Talking about the spline handle opinion, it seems to me also that development very much follows the engineering mentality. But I am a designer. I actually value many engineering workflows

and do not think designer tools are better, there are however sometimes better workflows.

When Fusion was released it seemed this was trying to do what SW failed making a bridge software for designers and engineers with a mix of tools and workflows both can learn and apply

comfortably and most important efficiently. I will always prefer capping an open tube like I can do in Siemens NX(like Fusion patch just better surface) compared to what Alias wants me to do.

So when the term Core is being used -  I as a designer and I think Phil Trippy and Co will join me here - I ask myself what Core means for you and for what user?

I understand that with TS and the Mesh module you want to provide a toolset inside Fusion that can serve the needs for surface solid and sub-d like modeling.

And probably when that works out I might switch from Alias + Blender with Fusion to only Fusion.

However we are far away from that ideal state. People who do serious sub-d work use other modelers for that task and feed Fusion later the end-result. While this is a two app workflow it however currently combines the best of both worlds Maya Modo Blender being superior at Sub-D and Fusion with TS and Solid features is the strong part for CAD.

This simply will no matter what company or product generate the impression that either dev. resources are split up too much or that improving surfacing tools is not a focus at all.

Reality is that Fusion surface tools are really lacking dramatically in some areas making it look like a CAD light app and not like a professional tool.

If one pairs that then with how great the CAM system works it is just creates a really odd mix if amazing and lacking tools.

I also understand that it can be tricky to talk in a road map about what will come and then when it does not happen users will be disappointed.

In the past weeks and thread power users here talked about the needed improvements for the surfacing tools and I hardly see really any response from AD.

But I am quite sure that there is a balance one can strike between communication what the target for the app is and what will be only realistic to expect / hope for

for both users and developers.

[cekuhnen]

@Anonymous Thats a good idea while I think the AD team runs an internal list and filter anyway.

BTW also advanced users learn and dont know everything! There is still often ideas where I need to google first a little to understand it 😉

[PhilProcarioJr]

@cekuhnen

"It seemed to me that with mesh module is intended as a container to house the mesh data which then later the Base Feature or TS can make use of.

This seems already address some of the common problems like in TS seeing all mesh imports.

Today that is gone - you only see the TS models now. Yeah!"

This for me is a nightmare....I want T-Splines to see all mesh imports....

[Anonymous]

I don't think it would hurt at the very least. 

I understand. My dad has been teaching cad for over 20 years now and he comes home almost everyday with something he learned from a student.

To users like me who have only been using cad for a few years, you advanced users seem to always have a great answer. 

[cekuhnen]

@Anonymous I just wanted to say that we are no Gods and dont know everything either - I don't!!!

@PhilProcarioJr 

Ops I overlooked the fact that in TS mode the mesh is not visible in the browser at all.

Yeah I see what you mean now. This would require me to make sure to have the correct mesh object on first.

mesh.jpg

@prabakarm

This is I think what we mean. That the mesh module update bricked so many tools I write off as an oversight and product of a rush

update without having it tested well enough. The way how the mesh modules are now treated however is not very intuitive either.

I think my idea that we need to be able to structure the browser with folders as well collected many votes but also a lot of dust 😉

It would greatly help here in this case!

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about a specific item of context here.

when @PhilProcarioJr says 

             I don't want mesh tools that drive T-Splines I have awesome mesh tools to drive my T-Splines.

I wonder what tools Phil is referring to, and how much they cost?

In previous discussions with Phil and others here, it seems apparent they have access to some very expensive sw packages like Maya, 

which I and many people like me (amateur, non-expert, individual not business) do not have access to and cannot afford to purchase or licence.

It seems to me that sometimes that maybe what ADSK is doing here is oriented more toward people who are ONLY Fusion users,

and maybe less sophisticated users like me, who don;t really know sh*t,

and not aligned with the expert users who have a rich available existing toolset,

and a deep expertise in how to use it. 

To me the mesh workspace appears to be no more or less than an attempt to fill out a feature complete product supporting every step of a generic design and manufacturing workflow.

I work in environments in another industry where we do this sort of thing: attempt to create and maintain complex sw products with diverse categories of both features and end users.

it does not seem to me unusual or controversial to spin up separate scrum team oriented around a specific category of features,

nor does it seem unusual to do this and implement features in this new category while features in some other categories, maybe even important ones, are outstanding.

Highly expert users are asking for a specific prioritization of use cases relevant to their understanding of the needs of the user base and the market.

If I were an ADSK employee I would be very grateful for the sense of ownership and depth of emotion we are all expressing here.

I would also be very worried as well.

Maybe ADSK is making the product for someone else, or has developed a prioritizaton schema that takes into account inputs we are not aware of?

It's a huge challenge to communicate that sort of thing effectively, and to manage expectations, when the expert users are not not necessarily a representative sample of the target market for the feature roadmap. 

so I guess my question is, do we know who this product, and who these features, are for?

do we understand why they are prioritized the way they are?

and do we understand the persona of the target customer, their budget, expected level of expertise, the tools we assume they bring on their own, and so on?

and to what extent do each of us match that persona in our individual circumstance?

Just some thoughts and some of these questions may already be answered: I'm behind in reading as I've been tied up elsewhere. 

But I think we need to think of these things as we may be more diverse than we realize in our tools, capabilities, and needs.

[PhilProcarioJr]

@Anonymous

"I wonder what tools Phil is referring to, and how much they cost?

In previous discussions with Phil and others here, it seems apparent they have access to some very expensive sw packages like Maya, 

which I and many people like me (amateur, non-expert, individual not business) do not have access to and cannot afford to purchase or licence."

I have Maya which I paid $7000 for pre-Autodesk days. I worked my rear off at a minimum wage job and saved every penny I could for 3 years to get it. I bought Lightwave on sale for $325. I bought Zbrush on sale for $400. I bought Topogun for $100.

Now let me be the first to say that I understand the "I can't afford" statement, but let me also be clear that some of the stuff I have posted on here I used Blender and its free! Not only is it Free but it can handle all of your polygon needs except retopo. Before @TrippyLighting screams foul let me explain why Blender will not work for retopo when using meshes to convert to T-Splines. In Topogun there is a tool to remove surface tension, there is no such tool in Blender or plugins that do this and you would have to do it by hand and that's way to much trial and error. So you can be doing everything I am for $100...period.

"It seems to me that sometimes that maybe what ADSK is doing here is oriented more toward people who are ONLY Fusion users,

and maybe less sophisticated users like me, who don;t really know sh*t,

and not aligned with the expert users who have a rich available existing toolset,

and a deep expertise in how to use it. "

I have no problem with this, but let me tell you what I do have a problem with. For the Fusion team to implement the necessary tools to match other free tools out there would take years. The people here on the boards are crying they need this capability now...well give up everything your working on for 2-4 years and you might have the tools you need, or grab a free app and get work done now. I understand you don't know a lot about this stuff. Well all you have to do is ask and we will help or at least point you to what will help you. All the information I bring to these forums is to help the new people because when I got started doing all of this years ago I got no help I had to figure all of this out with trial and error. I am trying to save everyone the little guy (you) and the big guy (Fusion) a lot of headaches. I have spent about 8-12 hours a day at least 5 days a week for the last 30 years. Ok give or take a few holidays and vacations but I think you get the point. Now back to a point I was trying to make: my problem with this is the CORE functions need more tools and bugs need to be fixed FIRST. Then we can move on to the neat tools.

I hope that answers your question.

Cheers

[cekuhnen]

@Anonymous

Regarding T-S tools: 

Upfront I am with T-S since it came out and even used a similar tool that is in Maya itself.

You can literally use every available polygon modeler that has a subdivision module build in to feed T-Splines.

Commercial:

Maya Modo Lightwave C4D are 4 that are there for MacOS and WinOS while 3D Max is only for Win.

Cheetha3D 90$ is also a very fine C4D clone with a nice and elegant easy to learn and work with UI

Free:

Blender 3D (OS X Win Linux)

Wings3D

Houdini Apprentice

There are for sure some others but I feel those are the most powerful.

I know Maya and Lightwave but settled for Blender (free powerful and emulates a feature based work similar to Alias) but the UI one needs

to warm up to.

What as Phil stated Blender is not ideal with is dealing with very large meshes - it is more a modeler less a touchup app for scan data.

I would then anyway load the scan data and re-skin by hand.

[cekuhnen]

@PhilProcarioJr

I fully agree with:

"my problem with this is the CORE functions need more tools and bugs need to be fixed FIRST"

Just today have two sketches fail and the loft tool give up lofting between two rings when going G1 or G2.

Just today I needed to add more features to the timeline because the loft code failed with a simple ring to ring blend

requiring me to an extra sketch with rails so the in which I also needed to create the blend curves 4 times because each time

the smooth constraint went RED.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 4.39.10 PM.pngScreen Shot 2016-08-11 at 4.38.25 PM.png

But the loft code can do this type pf transition - so obviously the STEP Import BREP to TS BREPS geometry bugs it.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 4.41.52 PM.png

This is then when fluid modeling turns into finding ways to make it work = loosing a lot of time workarounds ...

and this is not really ideal at all.

[daniel_lyall]

@prabakarm good to see you're taking ownership of the problems shows you give a toss.

the core function like the sketch solver need fixed, I get my arse kicked hard if I do a design from a .dxf, if I did the same design straight out in fusion it's just ok I can find where it is failing and fix it.

with .dxf I only can get them to a point where they don't explode and are just useable even though it is a fusion sketch sort off.

I don't use all the new 3D modeling stuff, it's a pain to use it breaks easily so I can not be bothered learning to use it. when it is solid I will use it.

you see people having problem's all the time in this forum, most time's it's a work flow problem people not knowing how to do something and why the way they are doing it is wrong.

bug's yer.

but there is a problem I have said about quite a few times get rid off all out of date material, youtube vids are big one, info on pages to do with fusion someone asked about something that was on the ADSK web site it was to do with fusion it was a year out of date.

A team member replied to the person and told them that's not happening bla, bla I read it and replied to the staff member if you look closely it is out of date get ride of it, he did but that was a staff member spending wasted time on something, and a user ask what the.

it's silly little things that need done but don't get done very often, and it makes problem.

fix the core please.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous I don't mind at all. 

I think another issue is that the people that use Fusion the most and are pushing it to its limits are being somewhat ignored. When most users see an idea in the IdeaStation from someone like an Autodesk Expert Elite or by someone close to that level, the idea goes right over their head, and if they do understand it they think they will never use the idea and they don't bother to vote for it. I used to be the same way when I first joined and I have talked to other people that have done the same thing. I think there should be a tab in the IdeaStation called "Recommended". Here Autodesk Employees or Autodesk Expert Elites can post their own ideas and promote other ideas that they think should be implemented into Fusion and are important to Fusions growth. This way great ideas can be focused on more and developed further so that we don't run into issues like this in the future where functionality is left behind to bring in new tools. 

---

I have voiced that concern many times! 

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to make sure they heard it at least once from someone that is not an Autodesk Expert Elite. Also that someone is listening to you. 

[daniel_lyall]

@Anonymous they are

[Beyondforce]

Hey All,

@a.malcolm.stanley, have made a good point.  When an Expert and an Amatuar talks about "basic" functionality, They are not necessarily mean the same thing!

Anyway, when I (Amatuer) talks about "basic" functionality, then I'm talking about for example, the Constraints. What I have realised the other day, that I was making a Big mistake comparing Fusion 360 commands and functionality to Inventor.

If you look at this new YouTube video Fusion 360: Sketch Constraints, you'll might understand what I mean. For example: In Fusion, the V/H constraints have been merged together (God knows why!) and it changes automatically based on whatever is closest, WHY!!!!!!? (I REALLY don't like it!) They have also changed the behavior of the Tangent command.

So, if you are used to work in Inventor and you are assuming that the commands are working in the same way, you will surprised and think that there is a Bug in the system. But in fact, that's how someone decided they should work in Fusion. I wish I knew that in the beginning, it would have saved me a lot of Gray Hair 😉

Now, I'm in a conundrum. Everytime I try to do something and it doesn't work, I'm not sure if it me not using the command correctly or maybe it's just a bug in the system. But in most cases, I manage to find a "workaround" 🙂

Anyhow, I look forward to the next update. I'm really exited to what they will cook for us next time 🙂

Best Regards.

Ben.

[cekuhnen]

@Beyondforce

I actually dont mind that we have only one icon for both functions and the software understanding / guessing which to use.

Sometimes this requires to move the cv to a more clear position so it does not guess the wrong way.

I compare this a little to Rhino. Rhino has many different tool and thus icons to draw a line.

In MOI you just have one line tool but with options.

Thats my I don't use Rhino but MOI because it is the same but with a slimmer UI.

The UI in Fusion is what makes it actually so ideal and easy to teach.

But I ran into the same situation as well when learning something from the manual in App X and trying to apply that to Fusion.

However proper Fusion manuals would solve that!