What is the scope of operations for Fusion 360?

[araugh]

Hello, I'm looking for some clarification on what the targeted scope of operations is for Fusion 360.

Based on the elevator pitch on the fusion website of "Fusion 360 is the first 3D CAD, CAM, and CAE tool of its kind. It connects your entire product development process in a single cloud-based platform that works on both Mac and PC." I was greatly intrigued and started working with it. This single product, end to end design philosophy seems ideal for my company where collaborative mechanical design is key.

In working much deeper with Fusion 360 I'm discovering that it's unparalleled when it comes to collaborative design for single parts or very small assemblies and the CAM is tremendous, but it doesn't seem built for assemblies or production environments. Lots of little issues like references between parts, how fusion handles libraries, joint organization, exporting of solid models, very slow operation in assemblies and the many weaknesses of it's drawing tools make it unsustainable for anything but single parts and the most basic of assemblies.

What I'm trying to learn here is if this is the intent of the Fusion 360 team. I get that there's merit in a less feature rich program and I should not waste time trying to force a program optimized for very small projects to handle mid size assemblies. The marketing for Fusion 360 though is positioning it as a lighter, redesigned from the ground up, replacement for Solidworks and Inventor. Is this a case of the software still being young, or is this a case of the marketing not really matching up with the true scope of the product? 

Thanks

[TrippyLighting]

I've been an Autodesk Expert Elite for a while. I've had several phone conferences with members and groups of the Fusion 360 team. I've thought a class on Fusion 360 at Autodesk University. As a member of the Fusion 360 Customer Advisory Board I've traveled to San Francisco, and several times to the head quarters in Oregon and know several off the Fusion 360 team members personally. They are all intelligent, motivated people with a passion for that they are doing.

But unfortunately, I'd have to say that I find that your observations match mine. That's all I am going to say for now, and I am interested what others have to say.

Thank you for this question that was so overdue!

[araugh]

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone in this.

I hope people don't misunderstand, I'm not knocking the product. There are many ways in which it's leaps and bounds beyond any other CAD package out there, I just wonder if I'm trying to screw in a nail. The only reason it's so frustrating when things are a bit off is because parts of the software are SO **** GOOD

[dieselguy65]

im curious, what you consider mid size projects?

i have been working on a huge project the past 6 months. large assembly, with alot of individual components.

my hold up has been, one huge thing. I cant get a motion type joint to operate in two planes.

think of a ball in a curved track.

garage door rollers following the track type situation.

other than that, its been more than capable. so far.

[TrippyLighting]

I fail to see your definition of a large assembly.

[araugh]

@dieselguy65 My company designs laser light show projectors. Mid size for me is 6-10 circuit boards exported from Altium, 10-60 fusion created parts, 2-300 fasteners. Nothing nearly as complex as a car or even a motorcycle, though the fusion website shows people working on complex designs like motorcycles and engines.

[cekuhnen]

@araugh

You have some valid praises and also concerns.

I am with Fusion since it was in closed beta, work with it professionally and use it in my design courses which I teach at Wayne State.

I have also a pretty diverse background in digital design in general ranging from motion graphics to product design to jewelry design.

With that said this is I think the way I would see Fusion.

Fusion is not a software but an environment where Autodesk ties together multiple technologies.

It offers tools for design, cam, sim, assemblies and drawings which is quite impressive.

The downside is that this means that Autodesk is working not on one but many construction sites splitting their focus and resources across many areas.

This logically means that development and stability for a particular tool or problem will take longer to solve.

AD's vision for Fusion is long term - meaning realistically in 2-4 years it will reach an overall maturity level.

At that point one can evaluate what is marketing and the power of images right now and real world experience of the product.

I would not say that Fusion is Inventor light.

They initially started Fusion as something very different (very light weight cad direct modeler and other ideas) and over time evolved into what we have today.

One could rather think of Inventor for PC users that cannot or do not want to use cloud services and Fusion is the next gen application that embraces cloud collaboration.

There are also some fundamental differences in how you can approach parametric modeling and working with assemblies in Fusion modernizing in my point of view the

concept of CAD making it more accessible to designers and creative people, embracing the current trend of democratizing design, but also putting an end to old workflows

so common in apps like Inventor SW and such.

As a professional user I would say Fusion is a mixed bag:

SIM and CAM seem to be to be very strong and stable tools.

CAM along in Fusion is for the price AD charges for Fusion an incredible deal.

Cloud storing of data, sharing, and collaboration from my perspective works excellent making it also an ideal tool for my class room but also clients I have which are located in different countries.

Drawing made significant improvements in the last years.

Assembly for smaller projects features most of the needed tools but because of how Fusion approaches assemblies it can make large assemblies also difficult.

Modeling tools are pretty good but show the same shortcomings and problems Inventor has making this a frustrating discovery.

The sketch engine is the weakest link in the tool box here.

It contains too many bugs that are not resolved which can break the concept of parametric modeling heavily limiting the usability of the product or restricting you in the complexity of your design and how you work parametrically. To be honest as a power user I am surprised that this serious problem did in the past 2 years not get the most attention to be fixed because

ultimately it is the foundation of all design work all following steps such as modeling sim cam and assembly are based on.

I would out of principle strictly discourage anybody to switch to a software only because on the website one saw fancy images or such.

I would continue using your current software and at the same time test drive Fusion and compare through many projects over a lengthy timeline how Fusion compares.

This will prevent you from jumping ship to quickly and afterwards realizing the limitations.

And in case all you need to create in Fusion works great then you can switch.

I as a designer can say that the hefty amount of bugs in the sketch engine and some modeling limitations for 3d modeling in general are serious problems and limitations.

I however also know of some where what they want to model Fusion delivers well.

Yet some of the machine chop owners here praise the CAM power of Fusion.

So it all depends on needs.

You really have to test drive it deeply and evaluate what you need now and might need tomorrow - plan ahead!

Fusion has a lot to offer and if AD does it right will have even more to offer - but there is a significant amount of work that has to be done first.

Software development just takes time and waiting sucks - but that is reality.

Other companies did not create their software in 1 year either.

[Beyondforce]

@araugh, @TrippyLighting I share your "frustration".

Fusion 360 is really good I love it, but it depends on what your are working on. Industrial Design is huge and each industry requires some specific tools. As I always say, before you change to ANY software, it will be wise to test it and create some pilots - Compare and evaluate!

I don't think they have defined a Scope for Fusion 360 yet. They are adding new features and fixing bugs depends on the number of complains, requests and votes.

@araugh, my advice for you would be, start working and testing F360, but you also must have patience!

Cheers / Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept as Solution or Kudos button below.

Check out my YouTube channel: Fusion 360: NewbiesPlus

[araugh]

For those saying I should spend more time testing and be patient, let me clarify.

I am testing, that's why I posted this question. These are discoveries in the course of testing, the purpose of this question was to determine if my frustrations were the fault of the software being incomplete or of me for expecting Fusion to be able to handles these tasks that Autodesk markets Fusion as being capable of.

Thanks

[cekuhnen]

@araugh

Sheet Metal was just released with what I would say is a good start but it is not as feature complete as competitive products.

It will take few more updates to get to there. And that is normal also for software development.

Fusion has a lot of potential and areas where it can grow more but it also falls short in some areas and is haunted by too many bugs.

Personally I would still see Fusion simply as a software under heavy development. I find this helps a lot.

How it will grow and mature time will tell.

When you understand the nature of marketing in general (not specific to AD) their job is to generate excitement through good stories.

[Beyondforce]

It is really hard to tell without specifics, if the issues that you are facing with are because of the software limitation or because you are new to F360.

One thing for sure, knowing what each tool is doing is one thing, and knowing how to leverage and combine them together is another (techniques).

Before you make the final decision, I want you not only to give F360 a chance, but also give us (those who love to help) a chance. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to help you 🙂

Cheers/Ben

[cekuhnen]

@Beyondforce

I think our concern is less with not having a tool we need.

Fusion's modeling tools are based on Inventor - yet they were brought over to Fusion in an odd way.

Loft now has G1 G2 for rails which is fantastic. But like with patch G1 G2 loft Rail G1 G2 lacks the weight function Inventor gives users.

Most of the tools are also ported to Fusion. Sweep is missing a twist and some other specific tools like lip making and such are not there.

But in general I would say with the tools and sketches Fusion offers you are now able to build every shape you need to a certain degree.

Very often the comment is made industrial design vs engineering and such. I find those comparisons while logical at first fail to realize one

major aspect, we all create 3D geometry. Thus I would put the focus onto the modeling ability for common shapes.

In the industry designers and engineers also increasingly work together which makes the separation for designer and engineers needs even less logical.

This is particular also evident when the engineer has to rebuild the designers design intent incase they do not collaborate on the same data set ( both using the same software).

The other major concern is just the massive amount of bugs and problems in the sketch engine.

For sure every program has problems - look at SW. But the sketch engine in particular is hurting.

Just yesterday I worked on a project for a client and the sketch engine was producing so many problems forcing me to delete and restart sketches

multiple times to repair them. When billing a client this is simply an issue.

That is why I said that I would see Fusion as a "Under heavy development" tool and not as a finished product.

If through testing it can already sufficiently do what you need testing modeling, assembly, joint, and sketching and the type of model does not change much in

the future then I think it would be save to say to focus on more on it as the main application.

If you test more heavily the parametric capabilities of the program you however will quickly find where the problems are.

I was considering the future of Fusion for my teaching because the sketch engine bugs, which break everything that follows can be a significant issue when you encounter them.

But there are some pretty good benefits to Fusion.

It makes learning and teaching digital design very easy. I taught designing with Alias before and with two classes parametric modeling and how Fusion operates leads faster to good results than Alias.

It allows me to also teach the concepts of constraint sketches (crossing fingers when doing that nothing breaks).

While Alias or Rhino only offer surface tools Fusion also comes pretty strong solid modeling tools very useful for prototype design.

The cloud approach and sharing is pretty fantastic and works incredibly well.

And very important students can get it for free and it is Mac and Win based.

Our woodshop quickly was retrained into Fusion. They switched from SW and found the CAM module in Fusion amazing.

This for us was a huge bonus because it makes all faculty I train work with the same software helping the students to better transfer their data.

Again thanks to cloud sharing for designs this is A like amazing!

Even in architecture where my faculty used Rhino they are now considering Fusion for the conceptual work because it is better than Revit which for modeling is rather heavily limited.

And since Fusion can save as SketchUp also consider replacing this atrocity of a design tool (SketchUp) with a real design tool. 

So I personally remain in waiting mode.

One also has to be pretty fair about Fusion and Autodesk. They give the software away for free to hobby users. That is unheard of.

And the yearly price for commercial users is also a deal - considering what just the sim and cam modules are worth alone!

So as I said it is a mixed bag of very good but also some pretty painful issues and time will tell how it matures.

[Beyondforce]

@cekuhnen,
We had those discussions many times before, which is why I try to keeps most of my responses shorts 😉
I'm trying to look at things positively and to report every time a see a bug, which unfortunately happens quite a lot lately!

[araugh]

@Beyondforce thanks. In large part it's a death of a thousand cuts, which is why I asked about scope. Here are a few specific things I'm coming across, please if you can provide any instance where I'm just missing something, I love being wrong because it means I get to learn something!

• Little interface things, like in assemblies joints are not easily identifiable unless I name each one as I go
• No way to convenient export files to STEP or another format. I can go through the a360 browser and get a download link for each file, which is fine for a few files, but extremely cumbersome when it comes to 60 files.
• No hole support. This is killer for me. The Solidworks hole wizard saves me tens of hours per project in the ability to rapidly create accurate sized holes for the appropriate fasteners, quickly modify them when needed and quickly call out their specifications on an manufacturing drawing. It's my understanding that some of these features are coming to Fusion at some point, but there's no current plan for hole callouts on drawing which is pretty fundamental.
• Projected reference geometry in assemblies doesn't link, so it doesn't update when the base geometry changes

These are just a few examples since you asked for specifics. Thanks!

[Beyondforce]

Okay lets see...

1. I don't like the joints icons either. I wish the icons resized automatically and got bigger every time you hover the mouse on them!

2. You are 100% right. Someone else mentioned this limitation few days ago.

3. There is a Hole command under the Create menu. Have you tried it?

4. Projected geometry ALWAYS updated when the base geometry changes. If you could make a screencast that would be great, I want to see how you do it!

[araugh]

@Beyondforce thanks for the reply

1. I just want them referenced on the part as well as in the master joints list. Fusion does a great job of pointing out what features and components are involved in every action you take, except joints.
2. I was really hoping on this one I was just being an idiot.
3. Yup. The hole command makes it easy to sync up several holes which is great, but what it doesn't let me do is say "this is a #6 clearance hole" and instead I have to look up that my clearance hole size should be .1495". no big deal for a few holes, but when you have a few hundred fasteners it adds up very quickly.
4. Here's a video showing the behavior in Solidworks I tried to replicate in Fusion. I got some help with this last week and it turns out it's possible in Fusion, you just have to be extremely careful in what your order of operations is, to the point where it's impractical in assemblies with more than a few parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3cLIWA2wtY

[Beyondforce]

I hope this will help:

[TrippyLighting]

Thanks of the screencast! I answered that question already a week ago as I was the one that helped @araugh.

You can continue to address individual concerns in isolation, but it's not going to get you or @araugh anywhere.

He works in a design-engineer-manufacturing supply chain and in that environment practicality details matter.

I've worked with Solid Works in productive environments since 1998 and in different roles using different feature sets. I know the mechanical engineering side of Solid Works very well.

It has very many smaller and larger features that make designing in it very efficient. The hole wizard is really only one of them. The thing is that the industries I've worked in as diverse as they were the software needs to work across that entire spectrum from design through manufacturing and often installation.

Fusion 360 has many great concepts, which is what you Claas and I and I enjoy. But in a productive environment it often fails deliver on a lot of the details that actually make it work in such environments. But even if It would have these features Fusion 360's large nemesis, the fire breathing dragon or maybe worse the plague that slowly but surely eats away at its flesh and rots its bones is the enormous amount of bugs in Fusion 360 that the team appears to fail to get a real impactful handle on.

[araugh]

Thank you for taking the time to produce a beginner video for me, I'm familiar with how to do projections and your video helped reinforce that.

There are some common cases where it becomes important that holes created by projection move when you move the parent object. After all, we're doing parametric modeling, so we need things to operate in a parametric fashion. The most common case for this is having an assembly where Part 1 is a circuit board that you use on many products and it comes from your Library (asset libraries are a whole other issue with Fusion) into Assembly 1, where you create Part 2. Part 2 is a piece of aluminum where you need to mount Part 1. As you place other parts in Assembly 1 in the design process, it is common to discover you maybe need to move Part 1 by 5mm along the x axis or similar. 

In Fusion when you move Part 1 by 5mm, the hole in Part 2, which was a projection from Part 1, does not follow the parent feature the projection was based on. This means you now have to go back and recreate these holes all over again.

Again, no big deal for a few parts, but in assemblies of more than 10 parts it becomes a huge time killer, which is surprising for a program that implements so many time saving interface tools elsewhere in the design process.

[araugh]

Exactly, thanks again @TrippyLighting!

For what it's worth, the helpful community here is one of the many benefits of Fusion for sure, but as noted above this is more of a philosophical question about the software.