What's new
What's new

Fusion 360 RIPS OFF subscription customers by removing multiaxis tool paths

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
Perhaps not, but do you have an idea what the undisclosed price was for Sandvik to acquire CNC-Software?
'Cos until then, said private company has started from scratch, built, and maintained an otherwise successful and profitable company.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or willfully ignorant or... what?

MasterCAM started in 1983, when the concept of CAM software was unheard of outside of places like Boeing or Lockheed. CAD was relegated to CATIA and Unigraphics which only ran on $10,000 (1980s money!) workstations. Christ, MasterCAM was founded about what, 10 years before SolidWorks came along and revolutionized CAD by putting it on desktop PCs?

2022 is not 1983. CAD/CAM software is now not only a thing, there are 50 companies who make these software packages and sell them. They have a mature customer base that has spent billions showing off their preferences already, and most of the customers are not shopping for something new.

You guys are bellyaching because somebody won't come along and make a reasonibly priced, perpetually licensed CAD and/or CAM package. I'm telling you that there is not enough market for that product to get an ROI off of the development costs. Simple as that.

Using your same logic though ...
What do you think the pricetag would be, should Gene decide to sell his self-built empire?

Or, are you saying that from here-on-end, only Multinationals need to apply?

I'm saying from here-on-end, the only CAD or CAM startups that will find any success are ones who innovate beyond anything we've seen in about a decade. Even then? If I was an investor, I would have a tough time kicking money into that kitty.

HSM Works was an ideal example. Big innovation in adaptive tool paths, plus a UI worlds better than anything else, and a low price to boot. They should have taken over the world, but because this industry is so crazy conservative and stuck in the mud, they had to turn to Autodesk for a buyout. Is that the sort of success a venture capitalist wants to replicate? Hell no!
 

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
lol niche is 9 billion. Ya, totally not worth getting into that market :nutter:

Cool Goooose... show me that list of new CAD/CAM software entrants who have jumped into the space in the last 10 years.

Software is software. CAM is no more difficult than any game. You think math is going to scare off developers?

Let's go back to my first question. The only answer is OnShape, the team that started SolidWorks (so they were already rich dudes with a proven track record, so getting $$$ from investors was easy). Even so, they burned money for 9 years until PTC bought them out.

No, I don't think developing CAD/CAM software scares developers. I can say that all of the data indicates that it scares the shit out of the people who would potentially be paying for it, so they don't.



lol that's the funniest shit I've read in a long time!

Tell me about your extensive experience in Fusion and SolidWorks and regale us with a detailed breakdown of why Fusion is not CAD feature complete against SolidWorks yet. Or how about this, show me a CAD model that you built in SolidWorks that I couldn't also build in Fusion in about the same time. While we are at it, give me a tour of SolidWorks' Sub-D surface modeling, I would love to see it! Or how about their topology optimizer? Algorithmic modeling? No? Ok...

I have 10 years with Solid Works under my belt and was at least dabbling in Fusion from launch. I pay for both.. and SolidWorks isn't even installed on my machine.

The next big thing in CAM will come from some kid who hacks something together over a year or two on his own, just like all the previous big things. Some company will buy him/her out just like all the ones before. VCs would throw every dime they could at this kid if they could find them.

VCs are not investing in $9 Billion markets. I know that must sound like a lot of money, but to the people who bet only on what they think are potential grand slam home runs, it simply isn't. They want markets so fucking big that even middling success equals massive gobs of cash. They are especially not investing in $9 Billion markets that haven't seen any fundamental innovation in about 20 years.

Can some kid in his garage create a new innovation in CAD/CAM? Absolutely! But that wasn't the question that sparked this debate! You guys were moaning that nobody is making ho-hum CAD/CAM with a perpetual license at a "reasonable" price. I'm saying that nobody is going to bother to make that product because price and an outdated licensing scheme are not compelling enough Unique Selling Points to want to drive a few million dollars of capital into the bloody bloody waters of the very mature and cutthroat CAD/CAM market.

Now, someone develops something like 100% automated programming that makes programming a CNC mill/lathe as easy as running a 3D printing slicer? Or cooks up some sort of AI based post processor that you feed the PDF of a controller manual into and it makes a perfect post? Look, bring me that kid who can demo that past some due diligence, and I can literally get them a low 7 figure investment within a week.

But that isn't what you guys want- you want BobCAD or SprutCAM that doesn't suck and has a perpetual license. and that just isn't a thing people are willing to take a 7 or 8 figure bet on building.
 

jaguar36

Cast Iron
Joined
May 13, 2015
Location
SE, PA
Not to mention that of that $9B market the vast majority of it is locked up with the Big OEMs like Boeing, Lockheed, Ford and GM. They are basically never going to switch to a brand new system.

The development costs for a complete CAD/CAM software package are massive these days. I seriously doubt that Autodesk has recouped their investment in Fusion.

The only way you're going to get a 'cheap' CAD/CAM package is if someone develops a good open source one. There are a few open source CAD packages out there, but they are generally terrible. I think that speaks to the challenge of making a good CAD software. CAM is even harder since a potential developer would also need to have the CNC machines to run it on.
 

csharp

Stainless
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Location
PA
Tell me about your extensive experience in Fusion and SolidWorks and regale us with a detailed breakdown of why Fusion is not CAD feature complete against SolidWorks yet. Or how about this, show me a CAD model that you built in SolidWorks that I couldn't also build in Fusion in about the same time. While we are at it, give me a tour of SolidWorks' Sub-D surface modeling, I would love to see it! Or how about their topology optimizer? Algorithmic modeling? No? Ok...

I have 10 years with Solid Works under my belt and was at least dabbling in Fusion from launch. I pay for both.. and SolidWorks isn't even installed on my machine.

Hello gkoenig,

I have similar experience. 15years SW and Fusion before it was called Fusion. First time downloaded from apple app store in 2011.

I would agree that there is likely not much fusion cant model. But that is like saying there is not a house I can't build with a hand saw and hammer vs circular saw and air nailer.

Show me weldments, structural members, MBD, a decent 2d drawing creation. Smart Mates, Smart Fasteners, oring grooves, advanced hole wizard, SAE 1926 port geometry etc.......

I have tons of respect for you and not arguing just not seeing it the same way.

I currently pay for them and use them both daily. Two great tools IMO.
 

BugRobotics

Hot Rolled
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Location
Denver, CO
Hello gkoenig,

I have similar experience. 15years SW and Fusion before it was called Fusion. First time downloaded from apple app store in 2011.

I would agree that there is likely not much fusion cant model. But that is like saying there is not a house I can't build with a hand saw and hammer vs circular saw and air nailer.

Show me weldments, structural members, MBD, a decent 2d drawing creation. Smart Mates, Smart Fasteners, oring grooves, advanced hole wizard, SAE 1926 port geometry etc.......

I have tons of respect for you and not arguing just not seeing it the same way.

I currently pay for them and use them both daily. Two great tools IMO.

Yea, I'm in the same boat and agree. Own both and can't consider them on the same level with respect to CAD. Now, if we are talking performance/dollar then of course Fusion is the winner by a landslide. I agree surfacing is far superior in Fusion, at least with respect to how the software is built as the same stuff in SolidWorks is either not possible or can drag the software to a crawl.

All this is a moot point to the one who yields the almighty NX (beyond jealous)... :bowdown:
 

mhajicek

Titanium
Joined
May 11, 2017
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Software is software. CAM is no more difficult than any game.

Wow. This shows how little you know on this subject. I made games in Quickbasic when I was a teenager, decades ago, with physics and computer controlled players. I wrote a simple 2D FEA program, and a 4 axis backplotter. I wouldn't begin to touch trying to make something remotely resembling modern CADCAM. Lottery money probably wouldn't be enough to hire the necessary team.

Look at FreeCAD. Dozens of volunteer enthusiast programmers working for years, and they have the equivalent of a barely functioning Model T to compete with modern cars. Would you buy a new Model T for your daily driver today, even if it was dirt cheap?
 

gustafson

Diamond
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Location
People's Republic
Wow. This shows how little you know on this subject. I made games in Quickbasic when I was a teenager, decades ago, with physics and computer controlled players. I wrote a simple 2D FEA program, and a 4 axis backplotter. I wouldn't begin to touch trying to make something remotely resembling modern CADCAM. Lottery money probably wouldn't be enough to hire the necessary team.

Look at FreeCAD. Dozens of volunteer enthusiast programmers working for years, and they have the equivalent of a barely functioning Model T to compete with modern cars. Would you buy a new Model T for your daily driver today, even if it was dirt cheap?

To be fair, you have to do it without copying their code. Autodesk bought the rights to a bunch of code, which is a lot faster than writing a unique competing product.

And aside from fancier menus and some high speed toolpaths, I feel like what have you done for me lately? What are you getting paid for?

The heavy lifting was done years ago. This is really about keeping their fancy office going, not software development.
 

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
I dunno, with the problems I've been having lately with it I'm about ready to start my own NX Rant thread.

What kind of problems?

I keep things updated to whatever the latest CR is, on a machine stripped down for only CAD/CAM weork, and NX is pretty reliable. I do have one model that keeps having some weird crashy issues though, but only that one .prt file? Strange.
 

SeymourDumore

Diamond
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Location
CT
You guys are bellyaching because somebody won't come along and make a reasonibly priced, perpetually licensed CAD and/or CAM package.

If I was an investor, I would have a tough time kicking money into that kitty.

First, show me ONE SINGLE POST of mine where I've bellyached about the cost of the software.
Just one!
Please!

Did I bitch about the lack of perpetual license of the software I've already invested in? Yes, that I did do on multiple occasions because it was a slimy fucking move from Autodesk!
I've lost the ability to keep my CAD and CAM license on maintenance. Pure and simple!
But, I have never once bitched about the cost of acquiring, and then maintaining those licenses.

Since when is the definition of a successful venture ( or adventure as it may ) that an investor MUST shine upon my product and make it world renown?
Are you trying to say that no code is to be written - like ever and by anyone - which is not destined to be a part of a software package owned by MegaCorp?
By those definitions, no plumber, baker or Gene Haas should ever take on a private venture of their own!

At the same time, I also question ( more like strongly disagree with ) your view on the difficulty of CAD software development.
For evidence of that, all one has to do is look at the previously posted Autodesk Graveyard link. Every single one of those dead pieces were once started by someone in someone's basement!
There are still a shitton of basements out there!
Not saying that CAD or CAM is easy, but certainly not any more difficult than many other fields where software developers are employed.
In fact, CAD has one thing going for it: It is built on a solid, etched-in-stone foundation that is never ever going to change.
Once you write an algorithm correctly, it's done for good. No need to ever modify it again because someone changed their minds, wanted it done differently
or because new research found that 2+2 is not really equal to 4.


Oh, and ...
Dunno about Solidworks, but please, compare for us the differences and capabilities between Inventor and Fusion?
 

dcrace

Aluminum
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Location
U.S.A.
If I were you I'd reach out to AutoDesk, they need to hear feedback. Likely they won't give a crap and ignore you or tell you to pound sand. Its seems to me that the AutoDesk business model is based around trying to see how many customers it can piss off.

Today Fusion 360 can be purchased for $495 a year or $1410 for 3 years (US prices). The Machining Extension adds another $1600 year which is a tough pill to swallow since it more than triples the cost. I'm curious what is the cost of alternative software that can handle 4 and 5 axis work?

Good luck with that! I have so far had 2 zoom interviews and when I try to mention this, they kinda brush it off and move along... Here is my most recent post from their forum:

Pretty disappointing how I have heard ZERO feedback from Autodesk about the subject I have been preaching to have extensions "a-la-cart".... challenges or benefits... Both on this forum and the insider forum.

Not at all arguing that advanced functionality of ANY software should come with additional cost but now Autodesk is expecting people to pay up to $1800.00/yr currently, will this increase with the Moduleworks integration?

It also forces a guy that may NEVER use for example multi-axis machining as an advanced feature to pay for that functionality. To keep the car reference going, its like buying a car with a high horsepower secondary engine in the trunk and never use it or have the need to for that matter but it came with a horsepower tune we bought for our primary engine.

Fusion is a low-cost very capable software and many small shops, hobby, or entry level machinists are drawn to it for that reason. A guy might benefit exponentially from some of the "basic" extensions like hole recognition or toolpath trimming, etc.. and those should be available at a reduced cost to still keep it affordable but give the option of advanced capability. If we can't purchase credits and put them towards an individual module of the extension, than it would make better sense to break them up and group them into levels as the capability increases? each level will have it's own cost associated. I truly believe with this approach, more users will purchase extensions as it is a better value for the money. Even if some only see it as "perceived value"

For a quick example with what is currently available:

Level 1- Hole recognition and toolpath trimming (limited to mostly 3 axis style toolpaths & positioning)

Level 2- Multi-axis toolpaths

Level 3- Advanced probing routines



*Mastercam for example, breaks up their add-ons similar to what I described.. I won't post a link here but you can go visit and read more info if you wish. And I am in no way suggesting or endorsing their product. Fusion will be using the same Moduleworks toolpath strategies to drive the code.. I can only speculate the "Modules" are purchased individually so why wouldn't Fusion sell them to us in a similar way?

DCmotofan91_0-1646519192498.png
 

Marvel

Aluminum
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Location
Minnesota
MasterCAM started in 1983, when the concept of CAM software was unheard of outside of places like Boeing or Lockheed. CAD was relegated to CATIA and Unigraphics which only ran on $10,000 (1980s money!) workstations. Christ, MasterCAM was founded about what, 10 years before SolidWorks came along and revolutionized CAD by putting it on desktop PCs?


TekSoft now known as Geometric since 2007, started in 1981 with the goal to develop the industry's first PC based CAD/CAM system which was introduced in 1984 being ProCAD/CAM. Geometric introduced CAMWorks in 1997 as the first CAM software fully integrated in SolidWorks.

CAMWorks foundation was developed from a CAD/CAM platform that has been around just as long as MasterCam has.

And for those who also don't know, SolidWorksCAM isn't a NEW CAM software, SolidWorksCAM is powered by CAMWorks, its CAMWorks base modules rebranded........there are rumors SolidWorks may at some point acquire CAMWorks and the rebranding was an initial phase......these are just rumors I've heard from reliable sources but have also shared there's rumors of other companies interested in buying CAMWorks.

..........just a share

What kind of problems?

I keep things updated to whatever the latest CR is, on a machine stripped down for only CAD/CAM weork, and NX is pretty reliable. I do have one model that keeps having some weird crashy issues though, but only that one .prt file? Strange.

I always find it interesting to see the issues others have with software and automatically put it an software issue, case in point, you don't have any issues with NX. I see people that have plenty of issues with SolidWorks. I used to have tons of issues when I was an employee at shops that bought workstation PC's. I now have a computer that I built, and made some setting changes and I have never had SW crash or any issues creating complex toolpaths within CAMWorks/SW. I found that it simply just comes down to not having a fully compatible computer and or settings not set correctly.


Hello gkoenig,

I have similar experience. 15years SW and Fusion before it was called Fusion. First time downloaded from apple app store in 2011.

I would agree that there is likely not much fusion cant model. But that is like saying there is not a house I can't build with a hand saw and hammer vs circular saw and air nailer.

Show me weldments, structural members, MBD, a decent 2d drawing creation. Smart Mates, Smart Fasteners, oring grooves, advanced hole wizard, SAE 1926 port geometry etc.......

I have tons of respect for you and not arguing just not seeing it the same way.

I currently pay for them and use them both daily. Two great tools IMO.

Yea, I'm in the same boat and agree. Own both and can't consider them on the same level with respect to CAD. Now, if we are talking performance/dollar then of course Fusion is the winner by a landslide. I agree surfacing is far superior in Fusion, at least with respect to how the software is built as the same stuff in SolidWorks is either not possible or can drag the software to a crawl.

All this is a moot point to the one who yields the almighty NX (beyond jealous)... :bowdown:

I would agree with you both on this one, I've played in Fusion, personally didn't like it. I've been a SolidWorks user for about 15 years. I've yet to come across something I can't do with it. But with that being said, IMO all CAD software is somewhat competitive but also are designed for different industries. I always see the comparison of NX and SolidWorks, which IMO isn't necessarily a comparable product, yes they both fall under the category "CAD" but they are marketed to different industries and are powerful in their own aspects.

I also see a lot of people start comparing the CAD side within CAM, which to some it matters, but there's a lot of guys or shops out there that the CAD side is irrelevant, they take a model, create a program and that's it. Whereas there is some of us designing basic parts, fixtures, etc to complex designs and that will change your software choice dramatically. There was another forum recently (SW CAM/CAMWorks) gkoenig really pushes NX and hits all the points on how powerful the CAD side is, which is great, but not all CAM users need the power of NX CAD, and on the CAM side, you said it "If you are doing 3+2 programming, you aren't missing much with NX".

I said it many times over a few forums over the years that Autodesk would do this with Fusion and a majority of responses were "no they wont, why would they do that, they have such a huge following" well it's business and they are in business to make money and went at it with a great strategy, get people hooked at a low cost point and slowly develop it better and raise prices, but keep them low enough to where the next closes software is still not worth it for some, keep it growing, develop it further along to get users some time invested and efficient where making a switch doesn't make sense and you'll continue to pay. Switching software in any industry isn't the easiest thing for everyone to do, people get comfortable with what they know.
 

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
Since when is the definition of a successful venture ( or adventure as it may ) that an investor MUST shine upon my product and make it world renown?
Are you trying to say that no code is to be written - like ever and by anyone - which is not destined to be a part of a software package owned by MegaCorp?
By those definitions, no plumber, baker or Gene Haas should ever take on a private venture of their own!

Look Seymour, it's a free market system. If all of this is so easy, why aren't you the CEO of Perpetual CAM?
 

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
I won't touch NX (or any Siemens product) with a ten foot pole.


Why is that?

Aside from the sort of software gripes everyone is going to have with their CAD/CAM system, I absolutely love NX. The only *real* complaint I have about it is the absurd price.

But I also like Snap On tools, so I clearly am a masochist who is willing to pay 50% more for that last 5% of quality.
 

Marvel

Aluminum
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Location
Minnesota
It also forces a guy that may NEVER use for example multi-axis machining as an advanced feature to pay for that functionality. To keep the car reference going, its like buying a car with a high horsepower secondary engine in the trunk and never use it or have the need to for that matter but it came with a horsepower tune we bought for our primary engine.

For a quick example with what is currently available:

Level 1- Hole recognition and toolpath trimming (limited to mostly 3 axis style toolpaths & positioning)

Level 2- Multi-axis toolpaths

Level 3- Advanced probing routines



*Mastercam for example, breaks up their add-ons similar to what I described.. I won't post a link here but you can go visit and read more info if you wish. And I am in no way suggesting or endorsing their product. Fusion will be using the same Moduleworks toolpath strategies to drive the code.. I can only speculate the "Modules" are purchased individually so why wouldn't Fusion sell them to us in a similar way?

DCmotofan91_0-1646519192498.png

CAMWorks used be similar to MasterCam with a a la carte style selection with modules and add ons, 2015/2016 they changed and have bundle options, I have that same though, I’m over paying for options I’ll never use.

I have CAMWorks Milling Professional Bundle and it includes full 3 axis with pre positional 4/5 axis, rotary milling, turning, mill/turn, sub spindle. I only have mills, I have no use for anything else.

I would way rather sub out turning, mill/turn and sub spindle for a simultaneous 4/5 axis module. I don’t NEED it but there’s always a part or two that comes along where I think, I could utilize a simultaneous movement here.

I’m comparison to how CAMWorks had modules priced out, I am saving $ with all the options but I don’t need them, and in comparison to other CAM packages with what I have, it is significantly cheaper.
 

goooose

Hot Rolled
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Location
canada
But I also like Snap On tools, so I clearly am a masochist who is willing to pay 50% more for that last 5% of quality.

Back to the main point of this thread, how would you feel if Snap on showed up tomorrow and removed your ratchet wrenches ability to loosen a bolt unless you paid an additional fee.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Location
Airstrip One, Oceania
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or willfully ignorant or... what?

MasterCAM started in 1983, when the concept of CAM software was unheard of outside of places like Boeing or Lockheed. CAD was relegated to CATIA and Unigraphics which only ran on $10,000 (1980s money!) workstations. Christ, MasterCAM was founded about what, 10 years before SolidWorks came along and revolutionized CAD by putting it on desktop PCs?
A few historical corrections here, just going from memory but APT was available, it's public domain, was written in 1966. Also used in the highest of high-end applications, was doing 5 axis long before any of the graphical guys were out of diapers. There were lower-end versions available for a reasonable price in the late seventies. I bought one for $300. Also well before 1980 there were simple CADCAM programs available on peecee; NCHQ and others. Heck, there was Geoworks ? that ran on a North Star ? had 8" floppies, was fairly advanced. In fact I have disks somewhere for a parametric graphical DOS-running cad app by Computervision ! No idea how old that is.

CAD was not relegated to Unigraphics and Catia, Cadkey blew both those away and ran on a peecee, purchased my copy early eighties, $875 ? On sale and that was already version 6 or 7. Wasn't real fast on a 286 but didn't cost $50,000 either :)

So if some dumb little shop had cadcam by 1985, it certainly was not just Boeing and Lockheed. When did the original HP Vectra first come out ? cuz that's what I ran on. Mmm, color 13" VGA (I hope. Might have been CGA.)

Solidworks did not revolutionize doodly, they were a renegade group of Pro/E programmers who went off and streamlined the interface but didn't really change anything else except the price, the Pro already ran on peecees by v 16 or so ? Pretty sure I-DEAS was also running on peecees by then. Solidworks just brought a lower price to the game, along with good marketing and a willingness to listen to small shops, which PTC was famous for not doing. I guess you could call that revolutionary but I just call it a cheaper price :)
 

SeymourDumore

Diamond
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Location
CT
Look Seymour, it's a free market system. If all of this is so easy, why aren't you the CEO of Perpetual CAM?


Dude, what the hell is the matter with you?
What is your beef with perpetual licenses?
Tell me ONE SINGLE CAD or CAM application that was not born and raised by perpetual licenseholders?

Sure, once a product matures and reaches critical mass, it is also becoming harder and harder to provide "shareholder value" ( as if that is what should make the world go round )
but that doesn't mean it all has to switch to SaaS or else death is upon it!
 

gkoenig

Titanium
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
Back to the main point of this thread, how would you feel if Snap on showed up tomorrow and removed your ratchet wrenches ability to loosen a bolt unless you paid an additional fee.

So what hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that the Fusion 360 team is contacting individual users and making sure their accounts still have access to these tools. They are not saying this publicly. My (3rd hand) understanding is that the deal with ModuleWorks is a revenue share with the Manufacturing Extension, and ModuleWorks wanted to see a definitive split between 3+2 axis and 4/5 axis.

If you have a multi-year subscription, or are dependent on the multi-axis tools, Autodesk is proactively reaching out and making arrangements for you.

(Also, and this is ironic given the discussion - Snap On's entire network infrastructure is down right now, and has been since Thursday. For what is almost a full week now, shops and technicians with the latest and greatest $10,000 SnapOn diagnostic tools can't actually use them.)
 








 
Top