BIG frustrations!!! ->to Autodesk team.

[kjoellesdal]

So........., what in my mind and understanding of 3D geometry calculations is very simple, is seemingly for Fusion totally impossible. This leads to BIG frustration for my part.

I have lost track of the amount of time and attempts to do simple operations in Fusion that do not work. I have a hobby of designing boat hulls. These hulls is often constructed of simple splines and lines. Typically just a 3-point spline to make the keel. Two intersecting splines (2x2D to 1x3D) to make up the chine and similar as the chine for the gunwale. Then the transom is made of lines most of the time, but some times with a spline or two. Same goes for rail/guide lines for the coming loft. This is the construction of half the hull that then is lofted and patched into surfaces, then mirrored and finally stitched into a solid. There are never big changes is the method or the design. My splines never exceed 3 points. The bow converge into a single point. Still there is way to often a problem with the solid that will not shell. But also for other shapes I have the same issues. Making shells, bevels, fillets, sweeps and boolean operations is constantly giving resistance by not computing. Very often very small differences in the design without being able to tell why makes the operation compute or not at all. The error message from the application does not give any good help or hint if or what is wrong with the design, or at least very rare.

And then there is the FX parameters.... omg. You can not even do, this dimension multiplied with that dimension. Because there is no unit called m/cm/mm2 or m/cm/mm3. Ok you can use acre and liter. But what the duck. Are you serious?

Do not get me wrong, I really appreciate the software and its powers. But some tasks, unfortunately, the kind I often need to do gives me notting but head ache.

I really hope there is urgent plans to make improvements to these issues:

-The logic behind computational 3D solver. (normals, tangents, offsets (also 3d curves/splines), intersection and topology interpretation)

-The pure lack of super basic units to do parametric math operations.

I guess there is other things too, but this is what annoys me to a level of discomfort. Else I'd like to thank you for a really nice piece of software for us hobbyists. The buggy behavior is to me a big frustration leaving me with more time resolving and get by obstacles than actually designing stuff I like.

The philosophy of the software should be that any grandma with basic knowledge of a 3d space and design should be able to do what ever she desires without knowing about the technical aspects of software and its quirks. I do like your software, but I am really puzzled about how a big company like Autodesk mange to a release software at this price point and with such basic problems for the users. If you need one year or more of school to learn the software to design the way YOU intend instead of what users find as the intuitive way of designing, then you are on the wrong path.

EDIT (I was a bit harsh at first):

If you want a solid to shell, it SHOULD shell. If you want a fillet it should FILLET. Take a look at Plasticity, one man alone makes Autodesk look not so good. Autodesk has according to Google 13700 employees...... I bet you can up the game and review some core functionality and logic to better solve this kind of issues?

This sounds like a rant, and kind of is. But I am still very grateful for being able to use Fusion free for hobby use. So please take this as constructive criticism. Love and hope from Vestfold, Norway ❤️

[kjoellesdal]

Btw, this is my current project. Maybe Ill make a scale model of this or a later iteration. 

Wishing I spent more time designing, than butting my head with Fusion ❤️

[kjoellesdal]

Shell, fillet, chamfer, loft, sweep, boolean operations and such rarely need micro precision. But you want the job done.

I hope Im not the only one experiencing these issues and I really hope the Autodesk/Fusion team acknowledge it. It would be nice to get some support from other users as well. Okay, enough from me. Looking forward to have some feedback from Autodesk and other users.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

@kjoellesdal  wrote

If you need one year or more of school to learn the software to design the way YOU intend instead of what users find as the intuitive way of designing, then you are on the wrong path.

I would just like to make the following comments on your post:
1. I think your expectation about the time needed to master complex and interacting processes is unreasonable.
2. If a process is intuitive for one person, it doesn't automatically have to be for everyone else.

günther

[HughesTooling]

---

@kjoellesdal wrote:

If you want a solid to shell, it SHOULD shell. If you want a fillet it should FILLET. Take a look at Plasticity, one man alone makes Autodesk look like neanderthals. Autodesk has according to Google 13700 employees...... What do you all do?

---

You do know Plasticity uses the Parasolid kernel, you know the same one as Solidworks (owned by  siemens) and has been around for 30+ years?

[kjoellesdal]

That's a valid point. But here we are talking about basic operations on simple bodys based on very simple lines and curves. If one needs a long education to understand the software and to do it the "right way" or need to do numerous extra operations to get it "right" then it's not intuitive. 

If I add the blue lines as rails, it will not compute, this design. If I start from scratch and design the lines and curves a little different but still basically the same, rail could some times work. Now you tell me where the logic is and how to overcome such obstacles within reasonable time and where and how to begin?Cant be much more simple than this?

[kjoellesdal]

No actually, I did not know that. Kind of interesting.

[kjoellesdal]

No actually, I did not know that. Kind of interesting.

[kjoellesdal]

Nottin crazy going on here: 

Clean curves

[jeff_strater]

I don't see any models attached in this thread.  If there is a specific "simple body" and "basic operation" combo that you think should work and does not, please attach a model, and describe the operation.  Otherwise, there is a) nothing we can do to help you make progress on your designs, and b) nothing we can do to identify and fix any underlying problems with the software which might be causing your "BIG frustrations!!!".  If all you want to do is rant, that doesn't help anyone.

[kjoellesdal]

Not asking for help. I am asking for Autodesk to make a better solver. One should not need to have 20 years of experience to do simple things. I tried asking for help earlier. But I did not actually get any smarter or better understanding of why it did not work then as now with other iterations of practically the same design. You can have a look at this, https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-design-validate-document/why-will-this-design-not-shell/td-p/1... if you are interested. Problem was solved. But far from in a desired way. Why on earth do I want to add non relevant geometry to a simple design to make it compute? One should not have to be a software engineer or need to understand weird quirks in the software to work with design of this simple matter.

[kjoellesdal]

Btw, no one has addressed the simple fact you cant do simple math functions with parameters. If I have a rectangle with two mm dimensions and want the extrude to be based on a cubic volume, I cant to it. It will not even let me do X mm * Y mm. That is sad and so simple to fix.

[Phil.E]

Hi. Thanks for posting. I noticed that you mentioned lack of units for basic math using parameters. I'd love to help improve the units, and parametric math experience in Fusion. If you have a moment, can you please comment more about this?

[kjoellesdal]

Sorry if I appear to be a grumpy turd. But I have had this frustrations for many years and have not yet been able to understand how to do what I want in a "proper" way. I am 100% sure there is big room for improvements in Fusions 3d engine/solver.

[jeff_strater]

We cannot "make a better solver" without examples of where you think the result is not correct.  Yes, the referred thread is one example.  I believe that the analysis on that thread is correct - lofting to an singularity will always cause downstream concerns.   But, you imply that these problems occur with great regularity, so please supply more examples.  That way, we can see:  Are all of these, at their root, caused by lofting to a singularity, or are there other themes that emerge?  Surely you can appreciate the problem from our side.  You can not expect to, say, tell BMW "your cars are terrible", and expect them to fix the cars without concrete examples of why you think the cars are terrible.

And, to be honest, if you really do want to effect change, I would recommend against name-calling, and implied accusations of laziness in the future.  If you sincerely want to help us improve Fusion, we welcome your objective input.

[kjoellesdal]

Thank you.

lets say I have two dimentions, X mm and Y mm ,then want a third dimension from these. I can do X * Y because there is no simple mm2 or mm3 units. I dont know why but you have acre and circular mm2 but not plain mm2. I find this very strange.

[Phil.E]

Thanks. I see what you're saying about area units. Can you give an example expression of how you'd like to use area in a parameter or expression? 

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Please show an example from everyday construction where a height is to be determined from an area and a volume.

günther

[kjoellesdal]

Yeah, sorry about the prehistoric name and that I compare a one man project to your rather large organisation. I'm just really frustrated over the same kind of problems over and over if I work with shapes that is not based on the simplest forms or shapes.

In my mind a shell operation should in general be as simple as:

1. Offset flat surfaces.

2. Offset curved surfaces in regard to their normals.

3. Find new intersections and trim/extend new surfaces.

5. Calculate new lines and curves based on intersections.

This should probably work with any shape and topology.

EDIT: By all means, if you are happy with a Lada dressed as a BMW dont make any effort. But I have seen VERY many posts on the forums here illustrating the same problems over and over. To often it solves with either the user made a mistake that needs to be corrected and this is not the softwares fault or some quirky fix by a techie. The latter tells me there is room for improvement. 

[kjoellesdal]

Edit: Sorry I forgot the example.

Length: 100mm

Width: 100mm

Volume: 1000000mm3

Hight: Volum/(Length*Width)

There could be an easy to see option to be able to do math without respect to units. But also just adding all square and cubic units to the, Add parameter dialog under:

Units:Area: mm2, cm2, m2 km2, in2, ft2... etc

Units:Volume: mm3, cm3, m3........ ect

Another workaround could also be to use unit less parameters to drive parameters with units. This is now not possible.