They list “simulation” alongside “manufacture”, so I think what they mean the “simulation” tab, the stress/thermal simulation rather than the toolpath simulation.
I must have posted 2 seconds before you replied lol. I hope this is the case.
Although the 40% off code brings a year subscription down to $300.00 which isn’t nearly as wallet puckering as $500.00.
That was pretty inevitable, there was a team who got permission to try out a new type of product with Fusion 360 but sooner or later the Autodesk board were going to look at it and either;
a) turn it off because it didn’t make enough money
b) turn it off because it was reducing revenue from another product
c) deploy the normal Autodesk license model where the pricing is deliberately byzantine and key parts of common workflows are spread across as many extra cost bundles as possible to extract extra revenue from anyone without an option to go elsewhere
The exec board don’t get yacht sized bonuses for ethics or decency, they get them for share price and dividend.
I had stated:
The thing is, a very high up at Autodesk promised that the Startup/Hobbyist licensing would stay and continue to be useful.
but am not finding the interview with the wording which I recalled. Not sure if that’s because the interview is off-line, or I’m not remembering accurately — see further down some interview links which accurately transcribe statements on what was then the current state-of-affairs, and note how Autodesk wanted to work with users to improve Fusion 360.
Time for something else to step in there and grab some market share!
Starting a separate discussion on that at:
Of course, and they have not technically reneged on that. All they’re doing is redefining what “hobbyist” and “useful” mean.
Reading the post what appears to have happened is they’ve looked at lots of hobbyist users’ cloud accounts, seen the number and compexity of the models stored there, the amount they use the product etc. and decided that those people are now dependent enough on the product that they are a source of revenue. This use of the product is referred to as “misuse” of the hobbyist licensing.
“we need to eliminate both the confusion and the misuse that exists within our offerings.”
The misuse word keeps appearing, they want you to know that it’s not benevolent Autodesk who are moving the goalposts, it’s evil users who are at fault here.
I’m sure there are people out there doing commercial work on the personal license. This time around, unlike Microsoft and the single copy countries they had to give up on, Fusion was written to be cloud dependent, meaning fully enforceable licensing and no gold discs out there with a keygen.
What will be interesting to see is whether Google or somebody else with a “free” model fills the gap with a sufficiently functional product to force Autodesk to keep enough of Fusion free to be useful.
All that said, I have a good idea what the development and maintenance of this product costs and the current license costs (even without discount) are pretty good for what you get. What the Autodesk board does to them in the future when they really need a new lake house to park their yacht at on the other hand is anybody’s guess.
“You can swap an archived document for an active document at any time.”
For the amount of time I use the program, I don’t think 25 a month is unreasonable. Not sure if I use any of the features they are removing anyway…
Unless you need to use other documents for sub-assemblies.
After seeing what autodesk did with sketchup, I am not really surprised by this and why I was a little hesitant to learn fusion 360 in the first place. I don’t mind paying upfront for software, but avoid subscription based software like the plague. Hopefully the removal of simulation is talking about FEA / mechanics not toolpath simulations. If toolpath simulations are removed I will just delete the software.
No rapid feed… What does that mean? It can’t mean no G0’s, can it?
@dmouw25 Wasn’t it Google which made SketchUp free for long enough to get enough Google Earth modeling done that they tired of it, then sold it off to Trimble?
@neilferreri I believe that’s the case — I suspect that’s also why there’s no tool changes — can’t use a fast tool to move around, then switch to one at cutting speed.
Silly question, no “automatic tool changing” does that mean we cannot have multiple tools in the same file?
I believe so — I suspect that’s part of how they’re enforcing “no rapids”.
Be aware export formats are highly limited. I’ll be exporting all my files to .stp while I still can, just to be sure.
Uh, don’t you mean Google? And they didn’t do anything but sell it back to Trimble as Will said. And now its gone to subscription based, too.
I thought it was Autodesk, but that is what I get for posting without checking first. Still frustrating that they took really useful “free” software and moved most of the features to a subscription basis.
That “no rapids” bit might ruin this for me. Does anyone know exactly what that means?
No G0 rapid moves seems to be the consensus — presumably the tool will only move at the feed rate defined for the one cutting tool.
Perhaps pair it w/ @fenrus’ nifty tool for dynamically recalculating feed rates?