Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
I am a little confused now about ADs product strategy because I see the tools I asked for / suggested to include in Fusion now in Speesform lattice and CV curves. I readily don't understand why this isn't in the regular fusion already. It would make it so much more useful.
The short answer is that what you are seeing are two different products that look similar but are being developed with two different customers/workflows in mind and by two seperate product teams.
Fusion 360 for product design and engineering, Speedform for automotive conceptual design.
I am not sure if I agree with that strategy and assumption that Fusion is for designers and Speedform for trans-people and both having different workflows. I think that is quite a misconception.
Solidworks was promoted as the bridge between product and industrial designer. However that strict parametric solid modeling process which is very labor intensive makes it less useful for concept modeling. The same is true with Inventor and I see Fusion somewhat stepping into the same foot prints.
As a product designer I do a large amount of concept sketches and then concept models to explore design and forms. That is not unique to trans people and is a big hope for us designers who are tired of the SolidWork/Rhino/Alias software islands for Fusion to offer:
T-Spline concept modeling
- already in Fusion and pretty great
Decent 3D sketch with blend curves like Rhino-Alias
- Fusion is really limited in sketching currently also speedform offers only some CV curves but nothing that would excite me as a designer because blend curves NURBS trimming and such are missing
Complete solid+surface modeling tools
- Fusion has some fantastic solid modeling tools, just the surface tools lack details currently compared to what I could do in Alias/Solidthinking/Rhino
Other wise I think it would not step out of the corner SolidWorks and such are in. Currently I can only teach Fusion as a finishing step for the solid part after we did the concept and finale design in Alias because certain details we cannot sculpt/model natively in Fusion at all or if the process requires too much time.
I am not rying to be critical - just stating after few years being with Fusion the direction I see it going and having tested it since the beginning in my class room alinongside other cad applications. I also understand that Fusion is still growing.
So this should not be understood as criticism but more like what I as a designer would need and where it could seperate itself the most from the competition like SolidWorks.
I am actually quite happy to see a Speedform to Alias push but honestly much better would be a Fusion to Alias or Alias to Fusion push. That would make more sense and be dramatically more productive.
In the end for you as a software company offering a perfect surface modeler and finishing the desing in Fusion would be perfect for designers and engineers if for example it is not possible to have in Fusion the same sketching and surfacing tools like in Alias.
I totally agree Fusion to Alias or Alias to Fusion would be more ideal. It just seems like a third piece of software has entered the flow and it's unneccesary. Not from a functional standpoint, but from a workflow perspectvie.
If the intended workflow is to sketch in SpeedForm, refine in Alias and finish in Fusion then my reaction is that it is too many steps, too many variables and too many platforms to support.
I've been using Alias since '96 as a product designer and have long been vocal about needing some sort of solids tools in it. I'm very happy with Fusion and hope to see it's development continue. But I imagine doing preliminary engineering layouts and industrial design in Fusion, doing final surface rebuilding/refinements in Alias, and then back to Fusion for parting-out.
So why should't Speedform exist in Fusion if I'm going to use it for initial component and ID ideation and sketching? If I were to have my wish fulfilled, Fusion and Speedform would just exist inside of Alias...
I gave Speedform a good run. Interetsing things happening. You can split trim fillet T-Splines?
Sculpting - mesh modeling
Detailing splitting fillet booleans etc
But I think this workflow is odd why having the timeline when I need to switch modes to see the update. Currently Fusion is more logical here with editing TS features-but hey this is fresh out of the oven.
I can see where you might think TS in Alias - not bad. But why not have Alias sketching and surfacing abilities in Fusion? The main reason I see is that in the end in UX Catia and such the model will be rebuild anyway. Why not keep it in one software. Alias is great for surfaces and pretty sad when it comes to solids. Rhino outperforms is even here.
I also see a problem with the TS model in Alias because the surface is very heavy. As far as I know from the developers the internal structure of Fusion is much better lighter than STEP export which looks the same like the Alias transfer.
I'd have to know more about how the math behind t-splines work, I guess. Are we getting true G2/G3 continuity across patches?
Based on my experiences with other Catmull subdivision systems, they tend not to be. I would argue that I could model better geometry in Alias without t-splines - but what I lack in Alias is any type of parametric or solids functions that I've come to rely on in a program like Solidworks. I get most of that in Fusion - which is great, by the way; truly loving it - but it still feels kludgy to go out to another software to detail a part. If I need to make a surface change then I feel like I'm starting over again without employing a workflow that divorces the A-side surfaces from the internals.
G3 not really - I tested for G1 and G2 and in Alias the edges are clean but heavy due to the TS to NURBS convert adding many many isoprams close to patch edge. The TS geometry is not as clean as pure Alias NURBS hand crafted. But when the data is created in Fusion and remains in Fusion and is good then who cares? I would not edit the TS generated NURBS in Alias but the TS mesh in Fusion.
Ideally I want to build either with TS to BREP or Sketch to BREP in Fusion based on which process is the most efficient.
I cant understand when company's make products that are pritty much the same but have different cores or api`s, when they could just do a reduced version of a product so its the same with less bits in it.
hsm is a good example of that but why make a diffrent version for fusion. I have asked this before but got the correct answer yes it would be easyer but we are not doing it that way
This item has been added to our backlog. Work will start this month to get the code from Speedform working in Fusion 360 and it will show up in a upcoming release.
It's 4 years later by now and there is no lattice function in Fusion. I am wondering, why is the idea accepted to begin with, when it hasn't been implemented?
