Fusion 360 news

[Clive S]

I know many of you use Fusion 360. In my opinion Lars Christensen is the go to guy for tuition

The link below is a talk from him to try and clear up the confusion with the recent changes to the licence conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=r7U5Pky6EIo&feature=emb_logo

[Kitwn]

I'm expecting a few weeks/months of having more spare time than I'm used to in the near future and finally mastering F360 (as well as thumb independence) is on my ToDo list. Nothing I saw here puts me off that idea.

The comments are interesting, ranging from those who are comforted by the explanation and think the changes reasonable to those who probably believe that COVID-19 is fake and a global conspiracy by the big banks.

[RobC]

At the moment I'm not paying them a single bit of what money I have for their software until I can clearly see what they have removed/restricted as I'm still yet to truly understand how much it's going to impact me regards to the simulation and tool changes. Absolutely love using it but not too happy regards to what they may do in the future, I totally understand they are actively trying to stop the abuse side from companies using the personal use for commercial gain.

[m.i.k.e]

There is 40% discount for a limited time also.

[Doddy]

I *think* I have grandfather rights on F360, at least for now, through an Eagle subscription. I don't care for some of the CAM changes creeping through, though I can understand the rationale behind it.

[Kitwn]

At the moment I'm not paying them a single bit of what money I have for their software until I can clearly see what they have removed/restricted as I'm still yet to truly understand how much it's going to impact me regards to the simulation and tool changes. Absolutely love using it but not too happy regards to what they may do in the future, I totally understand they are actively trying to stop the abuse side from companies using the personal use for commercial gain.

Rob,
I thought the whole point of Lars video and the comments from the interviewee was to confirm that you will still not have to pay them any money for all the functions that you will reasonably need as a hobbyist. They pointed out that the simulation of the tool path in the CAM module is not removed and you can still manually edit the G-code to add tool changes, which shouldn't be a serious bind for someone who is not on a tight production schedule.

[RobC]

What they determine as a hobbyist though isn't always what some of us on here would agree with, quite a lot of people have been saying because we build our own machines and have auto tool changers because we have gone to the bother of learning and making the mechanisms we are now not under the hobbyist tag which I do not agree with. I'm stuck at the moment with not trusting them till I actually can experience what is missing and what I may have to pay for.

The original posts did include that simulation was being removed but didn't exclusively say which it was i.e the stress sim or the cam sim. I've experienced this before and paid for a premium subscription when I didn't need to so I hope you understand why I'm being very sceptical of what is going on and what is being said.

[Muzzer]

I can't figure out if my just-finished 4th axis is actually going to be able to do anything now. The Fusion sales team seem so excited by thoughts of what they will spend their forthcoming performance bonuses on that they can't seem to explain what's in and what's out on multi axis - and what requires those damned extension things we can't afford.

[Neale]

As far as I can see, the free licence gives you 3-axis CAM. The paid licence says "3+2 and 5-axis" CAM - as per the version we are currently using. I'm more concerned about the loss o G0 and M6, but then, I don't have a 4th axis...

[Muzzer]

It does say something like that but it also says something bizarre like 4 axis simultaneous being in the extension. Quite why you'd get 5 axis simultaneous in the paid version and have to buy extensions for 4 axis is beyond me. I'm sure the prat who wrote it knew what he meant.

I forget the exact wording and I can't be arsed to follow the hullabulloo. However, the wording was as clear as mud (hence the comment) and I doubt I'd get any sort of answer if I asked. I may have to see about using DeskProto or FeeCAD at this rate. Let's see what we have when the storm has blown over.

[Muzzer]

It does say something like that but it also says something bizarre like 4 axis simultaneous being in the extension. Quite why you'd get 5 axis simultaneous in the paid version and have to buy extensions for 4 axis is beyond me. I'm sure the prat who wrote it knew what he meant.

I forget the exact wording and I can't be arsed to follow the hullabulloo. However, the wording was as clear as mud (hence the comment) and I doubt I'd get any sort of answer if I asked. I may have to see about using DeskProto or FeeCAD at this rate. Let's see what we have when the storm has blown over.

[RobC]

I've tried Freecad and gave up, so incredibly hard work to use. Took me nearly 5 minutes to make a single cube as apposed to the 2 seconds in F360! I would like to try other software as I don't really have the funds to pay for another expensive yearly sub.

[MetalMagus]

Can I still machine parts?




From AutoDesks website. No 4th axis and no rapid moves kind of kills it for me.

"Yes. 2, 2.5 and 3 axis milling will still be available in the new Personal Use offering.

More advanced manufacturing functionality such as 3+2 axis, 4 axis, and 5 axis milling will only be available in the paid subscription.
Toolpath simulation in the Manufacture workspace is not going anywhere and will still be available.
Automatic tool change capability will not be available, and rapid feedrate are limited to cutting feedrate."

[Washout]

The G0 removal is a bizarre move imho - I'll live with it and maybe see if I can script their insertion/change - so a post post processor perhaps...

If adaptive clearing goes, then that's a different matter, but so far it looks like that's still available.

I'm more concerned about this active projects/files and archived projects/files - currently if you have an archived project its invisible to your Projects list in the Fusion 360 app and you need to log into the web site of your Autodesk account and recover an archived project and I assume you'll have to make sure you have archived something to make room for it in the app. That's going to be a pain in the rear for some of my work if that's still the case and I can't say I'm impressed with Lars' changing terminology between Documents, Files, Projects and more importantly Components,,,, Will just have to see what this actually means.

It all smacks a bit of "damage limitation" from Autodesk' shills, because somebody didn't properly work through their business case and the AWS bills have become due...

[Kitwn]

We may be seeing an example of Putt's Law here:

Any technical organisation is dominated by two types of people. Those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand.

[Neale]

I wonder if we are being caught in the fallout of a discovery (or a belief) that too many small businesses were using the free version? The innocent are paying for the sins of the few!

It's still looking like the best free 3D cad tool out there (and I'm not anticipating the "open design" limit to affect me too much as I tend to have only a couple of projects on the go at a time and have a lot in each one - not a lot of separate component files) but the G0/M6 business is more concerning.

[Neale]

I have just discovered something interesting in the new hobby version of F360. ATC support is officially withdrawn. The effect is that you can only generate gcode files which use a single tool and if you have a component that needs several tools, you can't combine them in one single output file and have to write each separately.

But...

I have just generated a component of which I wanted two mirrored versions. So I used the pattern feature to double-up the cuts - all straightforward stuff. I just thought I would try to post-process all the toolpaths (four different tools) in a single file - and it worked! By using the "pattern" feature, you seem to bypass the "only one tool per file" mechanism. I have also tested it with a single component in a pattern (I know, stupid thing to do, and who would try that?) But it is allowed, and it produces a single file with all the right M6, etc, code in it.

I wonder how long this loophole will last before someone at Autodesk spots it?

[Muzzer]

There's a lot of investigation required to find out what they have actually done. The spiteful wankers who decided to kill rapids and prevent multiple tools weren't the ones to actually implement it. The practicalities of how to achieve the changes are probably a bit more involved than they fondly imagined but they just have their minds on their bonuses.

If you don't change existing work, it seems you can still generate toolpaths that have multiple tools and rapids. But if you "make changes to the files", that goes away, whatever that means. So that will take some investigating. Sure enough, last night I managed to open a busy assembly and regenerate a load of g code with no obvious loss of function. Mulitple tool changes, G0/G1, all in one file. I must play further to see at what point it clamps down on the content.

Mostly pissed off at the loss of multi axis (> 3 axis). They claim this is the mark of a professional user but a lot of the 4th axis stuff I've seen is by amateurs like myself. True professionals have 5 axis or more.

[Neale]

I've just done a quick test. Created a simple component, so generated under the new licence, and then used that to CAM a couple of toolpaths using different tools. If I select the two toolpaths and post-process, I get the "you need to pay for that" warning. If I add them to a pattern and PP, it all works fine. The generated code still has the "no rapids" warning in it.

I agree, though, that there are probably more 4th axis users than ATC users in the amateur community, and a divide between 4-axis and 5-axis would be more appropriate given what Industry is doing.

[m_c]

I've been using F360 today for the first time in a while to design some basic storage containers I can print, and I'm getting fed up with the whole cloud processing to create an STL.

For what is essentially a 40x40x30mm hollow box, it's taking over 5minutes to export the STL.

[Doddy]

>5mins?, wow!, I take it you're mouse-RMB over the component and "Save as STL"?, I've just tried and it works with mine but that's on the back of an Eagle subscription. There's a lot of noise on this recent release with a lot of dissatisfied users (I'm expecting to get hit at some point with them rolling Eagle into Fusion and bang goes the "affordable" licensing). It's a shame as, until now, I've been a big fan of Fusion, but it's hard to justify promoting it to other newcomers in the current guise.

[Neale]

Another inconsistency - having removed the ability to use cloud rendering so that has to be done locally (although I've never actually used it) they have moved STL processing into the cloud - which is probably something that a lot more people use. Like you, I discovered that a couple of days ago. Ho hum...

[m_c]

So it turns out STL production can still be done locally.
After Doddy's post, I just tried a few options, and if you right click on the top branch for the Browser tree, there is an option for Save as STL, which exports immediately.
I had been using the Export... option in the file menu, which uses the cloud.

It seems to be functionality changes aren't being done in a very cohesive way, and more just as they get around to it.

[magicniner]

At the moment I'm not paying them a single bit of what money I have for their software until I can clearly see what they have removed/restricted as I'm still yet to truly understand how much it's going to impact me regards to the simulation and tool changes. Absolutely love using it but not too happy regards to what they may do in the future, I totally understand they are actively trying to stop the abuse side from companies using the personal use for commercial gain.

Naa, they want to stiff everyone for the maximum gain, that's what AutoDesk are all about!

[Muzzer]

You can also export a part-machined body from the manufacturing environment and then import that as a body. Then you can use it as stock for the next operation.

I've done this a few times and it's very handy when you need to machine one side then the other. Worth bearing in mind - assuming the thrusters at AD haven't decided to remove it of course.

[Clive S]

I have come across this:-

https://github.com/TimPaterson/Fusion360-Batch-Post

That might be of interest.

[Muzzer]

Good stuff. Thanks for pointing that out - glad to see somebody's on it.

Presumably he's figured out what they have done. Certainly worth looking in to!

I guess this will become a game of cat and mouse....

[Neale]

Indeed - thanks, Clive! To date, I haven't found these limitations to be too bad - on large work where the "slow rapid" might be relevant, it's generally in wood where cutting speeds are high anyway; low cutting speeds are generally on small work where it's not a problem. And as my whole toolchange process is very manual, swapping files at the same time doesn't take much effort. I have already picked up on the idea of prefixing filenames when post-processing with serial numbers so I run them in the right order.

However, this is just the kind of thing to have up your sleeve just in case... Let's hope the poachers stay just ahead of the gamekeepers!

[Muzzer]

Today I tried out Tim Paterson's add-in for Fusion. It didn't end well - or wouldn't have if I'd a) not been air cutting and b) stopped it after 20 seconds or so. It seemed to have planned to drop the cutter 4.5m below the reference point in Z and somewhere unspecified in X and Y. I'm guessing it got its absolute and relative moves mixed up.

No criticism of his work, 'cos I know it's work in progress but just be warned that the Centroid post doesn't like it. I don't know if other systems get on better with it.

Hope somebody better qualified than me can figure it out. Hopefully it's relatively straightforward. I've posted about the issue on his Git repository and will respond if I can help.

FYI - Here's the offending g code. The add-in inserts comments where each replacement was made to the original, so it's fairly easy to see where the changes are.
29232