Moving all 5 axis simultaneous tool paths to the machining extension? Really?

[azdavidfarmer]

This is going to hurt a lot of hobby users, specifically people who have pocket nc machines, or small machines with 5 axis trunnions. at a minimum keep the 5 axis toolpaths that are available now included with the standard license. as mostly hobbyists we cant really justify an extra $1600 per year just for simultaneous tool paths.

[MaxWP2TT]

Its a shame for anyone effected by this, we pay for our machining extension, we would be lost without it, i dont like the price of it, but it sure beats paying £10K a year for the Powermill multiaxis """*maintenance*""".

However I believe the fact that they're adding new multi axis toolpaths in fusion, with that recent partnership, alongside machine tool simulation, although very rough right now, it is really increasing the value of having the extension.

I think they should bring over some of the features from softwares they bought, for example, Barrel mills, and more advanced tooling options, this software BADLY needs the ability to create a tool and tool holder from a solid model, the form tool never works, and some part specific tool paths like porting and impeller blades, ect.

I just think Autodesk at this point should just make a hobbyist licence, Ive seen too many people on the forums really effected by it all, say £400 a year or something for all CAM package features, for the 5 axis pocket NC users ect, perhaps with a yearly turnover limit to ensure that large commercial users cannot take advantage of it. It just doesn't make sense for the guy in his garage to pay 2K a year for the software.

Especially since this software was 99% hobbyists in the beginning times, it just seems like kick after kick in the nuts for these original guys..

[Don.Cyr]

I will keep hammering this point as I have posted many times, but with this recent info. I still do not understand why Autodesk can't make the extensions "a-la-cart" I use 5 axis swarf machining maybe 1 or 2 times a month but can't justify spending $200/mo or $1600/yr. for something I don't use often enough that was ALREADY included... and also try to justify spending money for extensions I may never use. For example, if hole recognition was say 50 credits, I would purchase and use that and feel like the money is well utilized.. and maybe add on more as needed... Users could also purchase the "Machining bundle" and instead of the 7 extensions @$50.00 ea. which would be $350.00 for the month, offer it at $300.00 or something??

We should be able to buy credits as we see fit and use them toward individual extensions inside the main "machining" folder. I do believe more users will buy and use extensions this way.. especially for the smaller or hobby guy. With the cost of the Fusion license and the extensions to get the functionality.. It might tend to push users away from Fusion

[timWNK2X]

I was one of the people that received the email yesterday.  It came as quite a shock to me.  We have purchased the extension in the past, but I do not think that we will renew.  This seems like a repeatable pattern that will further limit access to existing or new additions of functionality with, undoubtedly, increased costs in the near future.  We are in the process of deciding whether or not we will invest our capital into a different, more robust, piece of software that has similar maintenance costs to that of the current extension.  It will be a shame to leave Fusion seeing we've been users since 14 or 15, but it appears that the time may be upon us. 

[seth.madore]

@timWNK2X genuine question, no sarcasm here (honestly)..

What other options are there in the same (relative) functionality? Personally speaking, I've priced out Solidworks/MasterCAM and NX, BobCAD, to name a few, I keep on coming back to Fusion (this is for my own shop, I need to run a profitable business)

[Lonnie.Cady]

@seth.madore I think most people agree it is a good/decent value if it can do what you need it to.  I personally have yet to be able to completely replace our other cam systems.

However, this is not the first repackage of the product.  Not the second and not the third.  

So a genuine question is when can a customer rely on what they are buying today will be the same tomorrow?  Each time this happens the only arguments from ADSK are that ADSK was not making money and would have to significantly increase price or what else can you find for this price.  Those are arguments that say the ends justify the means.    It basically telling customers you can take it or leave it we don't' care because we know you can't find something else.  That does not sound like an argument from a company that cares about end users.  Its concern is shareholders.

ADSK has a long history of developing software.  They also have acquired many many other companies and have access to their information on development cost, user base, etc......    They would appear to have all the info they need to set a price and structure for their product but in 10 years have struggled to do so.

[timWNK2X]

I feel you on maintaining profitably.  I, much like yourself, operate a small shop.  It is just my brother and I at the moment.  I wish my wife, or HOA, would let me put my equipment in my garage!  You, Nueva, and many others have the ideal setup! 

We purchased our first 5 axis trunnion in '17 because of the addons that Fusion started to implement.  Since that time, we have invested further in full 5 axis machine tools with the purchase of our DVF5000.  Over that period of time, we have discovered that Fusion does fall a little short, in our opinion, in the 5 Axis department.  We totally understand that we are using a very economical piece of software that, for the price point, is quite feature rich, but with the reshuffling and addition of the paywalls, it seems that we could invest a little more and get exactly what we are looking for.  

We looked into getting started in NX and it was quite steep for us to justify considering the functionality of Fusion at the time.  If I recall correctly, Q4 of 2020, the quoted price was some where around 28-29k for the package that we needed.  I'm quite sure that didn't include the CAM either because we were still going to use Fusion for that.  That was and still is completely out of the question for us.

We can get in to Mastercam for roughly 15k for mill and lathe with annual maintenance coming in around 1800-2k yearly.  While the initial 15k will hurt a bit, I believe that our ROI will be greater with a more comprehensive seat of software.  There are several toolpath options in Mastercam that will save us programming time over some of the work arounds that we have to use in Fusion to accomplish some of our jobs.

The software companies don't make it easy on us little guys do they @seth.madore !?  We have to give major props to Autodesk.  Without their release of Fusion I'm not quite sure where we would be at.  I cannot imagine having to fork over 15-20k when we started this endeavor of ours.  We would have had no money left over for holders and cutting tools.

[seth.madore]

I should really log over to my LibertyMachine account to make this post, but that's a pain (I've got a dozen tabs opened, it becomes a pain to swap around). So, consider this as being written from the point of view of a customer, not an employee.

Yeah, that was the same boat I was in when I started. I scraped together the 12k I needed to buy my first used mill, barely had anything left for software. I also may or may not have used an....unlicensed version of another software. Fusion provided me with a platform that allowed for CAD/CAM and at a price I didn't think twice about.

Consider the maintenance though on MCAM or NX; that's "almost" the price of the Extension and base subscription. And, I know for a fact that the remainder of the year and into next is going to see some very heavy hitting additions to the 5 axis world, now that we've licensed ModuleWorks toolpaths to close up some gaps in our offerings (this is publicly available information)

Not at all trying to be defensive about some of the changes over the years, I too have had to process those changes as a shop owner.

[DarthBane55]

@seth.madore To answer the question directly, not considering the upfront cost (yes, this is a big cost), the maintenance cost of a CAM software with similar capabilities will be similar to the yearly cost of Fusion WITH extensions, or slightly less.  Over time, the upfront cost will be absorbed, but of course, it's a big chunk.  It's not really the point tho, it's more about deceiving the customers.

It's just a strange way for Autodesk to tell its customer "we got you by the curlies now, we will keep doing this every few years because it's still cheaper than others and you have so much data with us that you won't leave now, take that suckers".  It might not be the intention, but it does carry that message in our heads, the customers.

It's just that mentality that I can't really accept, more than the actual cost.  But again, I'll wait for your report on whether this will affect all customers on March 29 as per email, or not.

[seth.madore]

I encourage all of you, if you have the time, to make your voices heard on March 10th when @al.whatmough has his "fireside chat"

[DarthBane55]

---

@seth.madore wrote:

Consider the maintenance though on MCAM or NX; that's "almost" the price of the Extension and base subscription. And, I know for a fact that the remainder of the year and into next is going to see some very heavy hitting additions to the 5 axis world, now that we've licensed ModuleWorks toolpaths to close up some gaps in our offerings (this is publicly available information)

---

@seth.madore ok, you wrote this as I was writing my last reply.  Thanks for your honesty on how you feel about it.

Referring to the quote above, MCAM or NX is lightyears ahead of Fusion for capabilities though (we have NX), if you need 5-axis.  What you just said about ModuleWorks, that seems like great news, why not charging the extra when those new toolpaths come into play?  That would be a lot more justifiable than right now, where nothing new is added except the price.

Also, I enabled my 7-day trial of the extensions a few months ago, and as a result, I got a bunch of calls from Autodesk and other resellers about it...  One of them, from Autodesk, told me that what I was looking for (engine port toolpath) was at least 3 years away.  This was a few months ago.  When did this ModuleWorks licence come in?  That is probably the main reason for the 5-axis paywall, need additional funds for this license...  But does that change the porting toolpath deadline?  I have no idea when the ModuleWorks deal came in, in relation to this 3 years away answer I got.

[seth.madore]

@DarthBane55 here's the public info on MW:
https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/moduleworks-partnership-announcement/

Regarding the porting toolpath, I don't think I've seen anything like that thus far. That's not to say it won't exist, it's just that I've not seen it (bear in mind, I'm a fly on the wall in most internal conversations, only getting bits and pieces)

I should add, if you attend the chat on the 10th, you may or may not see a slide with some "work in progress" toolpaths 😉

[Don.Cyr]

This strategy could apply to more complex simultaneous multi-axis toolpaths as they are developed but Fusion should still allow/include a basic multi-axis toolpath strategy such as swarf so us users can still at least have the basic ability to dip into multi-axis machining without the increased cost of having to buy the extension.... I have use several different CAM software suites over the years and if I was a new user looking for CAM software and I was comparing cost vs functionality with the new pricing structure, I personally might look beyond Fusion. Hard to justify the additional cost for "simple" multi-axis toolpaths... as mentioned above, Fusion does lack some ability in this department and Autodesk hasn't outlined any MAJOR improvements to make any of us excited about the increased cost to us.

I do hope this discussion finds the appropriate Autodesk personnel and it truly sparks a discussion as to their strategy moving forward.

[DarthBane55]

@seth.madore 

Ok, this is a game changer.  They should have put some information about this in the dreaded email!  I'm sure this paywall is related to this deal.  It does affect how I see the move now...  Thanks for this information, I think it's a critical part of what customers can expect going forward.  Need to think some more... haha

[seth.madore]

---

@DarthBane55 wrote:

@seth.madore 

They should have put some information about this in the dreaded email!  

---

I wasn't involved in the creation of the email, that (teaser about new stuff) would have been a good addition! 🙃

[Bug.Robotics]

The continuous bait and switch will screw Autodesk over in the end.  Not now because the cost for the software is so low (read unsustainable pricing), but it will when they have some competition willing to put honesty and their customers first.

They will be able to buy up most competition for a while no doubt.  But not forever.

[Claytonics]

ModuleWorks, okay now I understand. I was upset but if AutoDesk can beat Mastercam's implementation of ModuleWorks then anyone that needs 5axis will be happy for the price.

That said it is very bad practice to bait and switch on your customers and doubly so when they are already trapped by the subscription + cloud model. This move will drive away pro customers that need more trustworthy partners. I feel there is a functional limit to how good fusion will ever be, it can not competed against Delcam by design. Its a loss leader to move pro customers into Delcam.

[al.whatmough]

@seth.madore   Thank you for encouraging folks to join the conversation in the in Fireside Chat next week. We trust that providing a week buffer gives folks time to plan on joining. For any that can’t, we’ll post the recording on the blog.

Reading the thread, it’s fun to see users have identified some of the roadmap pieces coming together here specifically with toolpaths from ModuleWorks. That said, adding toolpaths from ModuleWorks to Core and Extension users is far from the only development work planned for the year.  I am certainly excited to share some plans with you in our live conversion. Suffice it to say, many if not all of the toolpaths have significant improvements planned for them.  As an example, It’s no secret 5-axis tiling in PowerMill is better than the 5-axis tiling from HSMWorks that's currently only available on the 3D contour toolpath.

It feels like I have already written half a book and we are just scratching the surface of this conversion. I really am excited to have this conversation with you.

See you there.

Cheers,

Al

I hope it’s ok with you @azdavidfarmer I’ll started a new thread in the forum so we can make the topic sticky and ensure any user that wants can join the call. I really appreciate your input and the concerns you've surfaced here. Thank you.

[smcdonald_76]

Thank you for the alternate software suggestion.  Adsk can present this as an exciting step forward with all these new implementations all they want.  And, as I user I might have been excited to see what is in store as I always am with new updates.  However, in my eyes REMOVING existing functionality is a greedy slimy move and fully demonstrates exactly why Adsk extorted users into subscription only.  

[Don.Cyr]

@al.whatmough 

I did not get this e-mail announcement unfortunately... Reading the announcement today, it may have slightly altered my opinion on this compared to earlier..

While it is exciting news, I still feel it’s unfortunate that now Autodesk is removing functionality that some of us use and nearly TRIPLE the cost of the software to get it back. The extensions should be for ADVANCED multi-axis toolpaths and I completely believe these should be at an additional cost. Give us a few simple ones currently available... swarf, etc.. and allow us the ability to use our equipment and software for basic multi-axis and get familiar and comfortable with that and eventually venture into more complicated work.

I have registered for the fireside chat and hope to contribute to this conversation.

[azdavidfarmer]

I agree 100% keep the current swarf tool path, and rename it "basic swarf" and whatever was forked from module works will become advanced swarf. do the same to multi axis flow and multi axis contour.