This software feels kind of like it was made 15 years ago because of some unaddressed issues, no offense just being real about it.
Seems to me it could easily be fixed by updating the worst offending problems:
Layer management feels terrible and is critical to managing a complex project. Just copy photoshop. Have a layer toolbar with very similar functionality, drag layers up and down, easily duplicate and delete or lock layers, very fast hide / show layer, very fast lock / unlock. Right now everything feels slow and rigid. Tons of clicking around.
Sorting toolpaths and managing toolpath groups feels bad as well. Easy delete, duplicate, maybe have an option for a toolpath to repeat x amount of times, create a “process chain” where you can have 2 toolpaths repeat x amount of times one after the other.
Why do I have to right click → delete instead of just press delete… this is basic QOL and when you have to repeat something so many times in a day it adds up.
Chris:
thing is that there are some people that are used to the ergonomy as it is. If the program changes the manipulation philosophy these ones get lost, and possibly are lost for the software. These are issues that always go along with ergonomy families as I call it. Lets say Windows users usually use GUIs, and are great with it. If they switch to Linux they soon get lost, because Linux is more focused on using command line interactions. Most impressive example: the basic text processor in Linux can be used on a non-graphical interface, was used by keyboard freaks long before things like “color” on screens were a thing. And these huge masses of shortcuts over the keyboard still are used, and there is simply no way to translate that to a GUI controlled equivalent. It is everything else than intuitive! Needs a lot of exercise.
Same with the interface family of CC. IMO it is simply impossible to transfer that to a interface that reminds one of paint or paint shop or even common CAD software. That would mean to produce a completely new software.
There are several big BUTs.
Even CAD software is so different in the kind concepts are designed, if one thinks he knows one and may switch to another software family easily: Will not happen.
It is not really necessary to use CC as CAD, one can use the CAD he likes, export (pseudo)standard graphic formats (DXF, SVG, STL), and CC is needed just for assigning the toolpaths
CC / CM even can eat bare Gcode, and every ambitious CAD software exports GCode from defining toolpaths withing that CAD. Usually that needs some developement, and these CAD software houses charge extra, and not for cheap, for those extensions.
Very often when one thinks CC does not offer this or that tool it is there, unbeknownst to the user. The documentation of all functions is not one of CCs strenghts, we have to admit. But then the forum will find an explanation, at least a reasonable workaround.
I’m a Mac and have been since Oct. 11, 2007. I won’t be going back to a PC ever. So, I’m thankful the minds at Carbide Create had enough sense to make the software work for Macs. I’ve been wanting to switch to Vectric but it was pointed out to me one night during a conversation in Ryan Drapela’s CNC Academy video night that Vectric only plays in the Windoze world.
For me, I have no desires to Aspire or Vectric even though there are so many features there that I find would be handy in the .c2d environment.
It seems to me there are just some things that Carbide Create requires the long way to get done and I have years of experience of working in the Photoshop and Illustrator worlds. Using the Boolean and Trim Vector tools in tandem is still something that seems awkward all too often, but I’m coming to face that designing for the CNC is just something that is going to take longer than I expect. I don’t like it, but there isn’t a viable alternative without returning to the lameness and hassles of Windoze.
That said, I find that assistance from those like William is quick, responsive, and usually pretty complete. I’m thankful for that. When I send in a query about a problem, they are quick to respond and very thorough. And times have been more than once when I was asking something a little more complex than most and its turned into a tutorial for the benefit of all.
Another thing to note is that I was having trouble clicking on the “eyeballs” for the layers the other day–intuitively, I think just clicking once would suffice in turning a layer on or off—but it takes a double click, come to find out.
To his credit, in his response, William included the URL of the documentation he’s been working on and I am leaving it here, too. I’ve printed all 37 or so pages and begun reading them cold from page one on through. Amazing what little hidden tidbits are noted without any fanfare that have led to a few “ah ha!” moments already.
Folks who expect Carbide Create to function like a “normal” design program will probably be happier using a 3rd party tool such as Inkscape or Serif’s Affinity Designer (though that may depend on the announcement today), or Adobe Illustrator (for folks who can accept Adobe — I’ve been using Illustrator since v3.2 and have never found it pleasant to use), or some other vector editor.
As noted, I’ve been working on a couple of pages touching on Carbide Create at:
If there is anything there which is not covered, or which needs to be corrected or improved, let me know and we will look into it.
