Carbide Create Pro- What do you want to see?

Trim ability please like Fusion360 to make vector files fit your project.

Don’t really know what to suggest, I read a number of the other comments from experienced users and they all sound good. I’m not well versed yet, so little to add apart from that I would somehow love the ability to do 3D work as opposed to only 2.5. I have been think of Vectric, but out of my price range at the moment. I suppose the only thing I can think of is having the option of being able to add certain features to the payed version as time moves on , sort of like pay a bit extra for uncommon features that maybe only the real serious person requires. Not sure if that makes sense or not… Dusty boots (Andrew)

1 Like

@Dustyboots

For really powerful and rather affordable 3D - check out Meshcam:

http://www.grzsoftware.com/

I use it a fair amount for some 3D work on my Shapeoko - including flip over machining. It’s really easy to pick up, and great functionality.

The developer @robgrz is one of the partners that formed Carbide3D - so you’ll get good support on any query you have directly from him or others on this forum.

2 Likes

Well first I would fix the extremely awkward ux. Like when adding a new tool, you don’t know where your tool went. Or not see the toolpaths of disabled toolpaths, so we understand what will be done. Or having to rename from scratch when exporting( it should incorporate the file name), oh and panning, having to zoom out and zoom in to get to different spots is so awkward. I think there are many things to fix in the regular version before going more complex and “pro”.
Once that is done, adaptive clearing, seeing depth, “rest machining” function…and much more to be able to compete in the “pro” environment.
I learned fusion 360 manufacturing space and UGSPlatform only because carbide create was so…so so.
I am no hater of carbide, I love your hardware and praise them everywhere I can. But your softwares have a long way to go though to get to the same quality level and feel of your hardware.
Thanks

PS: fix the regular version before going pro…

3 Likes

If there’s a way to stay away from subscription fees, that’d be awesome. It’s one of the main reasons that I’ve bought 2 machines through you (ShapeokoXXL/Nomad) over X-Carve (obviously not the only reason :)). Also, I second some of the other inputs, especially keeping it offline/standalone. Don’t be like the X-carve dudes.

Here’s some ideas and “second’s”:

-Ramping into pockets or depth of cut added to V carving. Right now it takes a bit of work with offsets (I use an excel spreadsheet calculator), but that would be an incredible feature to move from 2.5D to 3D.

  • Better mac functionality. Please pass along to fix MESHCAM for macs, still having issues.

-Roughing ability

-2-sided milling

-Inlays

Thanks gents. Keep doing what you are doing, you guys rock.

6 Likes

Thanks to everyone for the feedback here. We’ve got a few pages of notes and your feedback will absolutely change the path of Carbide Create.

Carbide Create Pro is going to add 3D modeling similar to what Vectric Aspire has. This is a major undertaking and we’re currently at a point that it’s almost ready to share in the “Unstable” channel.

Adding all of this functionality has forced us to reevaluate a lot of the decisions that we made when CC was originally started and we’ve had to make some big internal changes. Even if Pro is not something you’re interested, I think you’ll benefit from a lot of this internal work on Carbide Create.

We’re also going to start on a new tool library in the near future, which should hit on a lot of requests here.

Regarding pricing, we’ve been leaning toward a subscription model with the price being “very reasonable”. We considered offering a permanent license as well but we haven’t figure out how we’d manage updates over time (how long should you get updates, how much should updates cost for an extended period of time?). We’re open to your feedback around pricing.

4 Likes

Regarding subscriptions, I implore you to please figure out how to have a non-subscription option available. If I were making money off this, I could easily accept a subscription model, but as a pure hobbyist, I find it immensely (and perhaps irrationally) undesirable.

I can (and often have) justified significant “tool” purchases (both hardware and software), and the cost of replacement parts or upgrades doesn’t bother me a bit. On the other hand, the ticking clock (or should I go with “tell-tale heart”) of a subscription just makes it feel like I’m losing money for every day I’m not doing something, and that just sucks the enjoyment right out.

Like I said, it may be irrational, and I can certainly show that I’ve spent more on licenses and upgrades for some packages than I would’ve spent on a subscription for the same. I’m also permanently stuck on Photoshop CS6 and without Premiere, which makes me sad. Still, not having a subscription breathing down my neck (however lightly) is absolutely worth it.

10 Likes

I’m looking forward to this product. I like the idea of 3D modeling especially if it is compatible with Mac OS but the new version has to be compliant with the look and feel of the OS (Mac OS and Windows); e.g.: a Control C to copy, a Control X for cut and Control V for paste. If your goal is to compete with Aspire, it should have most of its functionality and maybe some other things it cannot do like stuff more akin to 3D CAD, metal machining and feeds and speeds calculations.

On the other hand, I hate subscription and in particular, one of the issues I have with the subscription model is that it will cost me something if I make 1 or a million project but like @ClayJar, most of us are hobbyist and if I don’t use the system for a few months I have to continue to pay. If in two years from now, I want to reproduce something and maybe do a small mod, I have to buy another subscription which is a deterrent.

Vectric has a policy for 6 or 12 month upgrade on initial purchase then after you have to pay for your upgrade. You can still use the old version of software but forego new features.

5 Likes

Same here, subscription will be a no-no.

7 Likes

Like Nathaniel, I too would prefer (perhaps irrationally) no subscription.

4 Likes

Me 3, or 4? I don’t do “The Cloud” or subscription. One of the (many) reasons I don’t/won’t use Fusion360. I also keep a home file server, and despite my many Apple products refuse to commit anything to The Cloud. My only subscriptions are Netflix, CuriosityStream, and a public television monthly donation. Like others I may use a piece of software everyday for a few weeks, then not use it again for a year. If after that year I need it again and my subscription has lapsed, I’m likely to look for a different tool. As far as cloudware goes, I don’t wanna worry that I can no longer access my files, or will be charged to access my files at a later date. If it’s all on my computer/server I don’t have that issue. I WILL however happily pay upgrade fees if there are new features I want/need, and I’ve bought plenty of upgrades in my lifetime. Just my $0.02

Dan

8 Likes

If there is the ability to make a poll it would be interesting to ask members here how they feel about subscriptions.

3 Likes

I can understand a desire for subscription based model, when it comes to software delevop cost and the additional stability of recurring revenue. I don’t particularly love them for most software, and worse in small avenues (companies) that has the additional risk of closure (i.e. Printrbot) when cloud services are required (i.e. desktop software that has to phone home) to use said software. GWizard license model scares me in that exact reason.

I use JetBrains software and I like their subscription model they adopted, if your subscription expires you still have a perpetual license to the last version before the sub expired.

3 Likes

P.S., make the license not restricted to machines, or a license covers at least 3 installs/machine - cross platform. I hate having to buy two or more licenses for my Windows desktops and Mac laptop.

1 Like

Get rid of Boolean and make it possible to delete selected segments. That is the most maddening thing! Allow it to import multiple svg’'s into one project. Be able to manipulate curves easier. If you could import a picture and it do a trace feature that would make this program awesome!

3 Likes

Agreed - I’d never buy a subscription for software if there is an alternative product available.

2 Likes

Rob, although I agree very much so with a lot of the suggestions on the new paid product (am also against subscription-based software) and believe it’s needed, I feel some attention needs to be paid to the outstanding issues with the existing version of Carbide Create that comes with the machine. A lot of these issues shouldn’t be issues given the maturity of the existing software and machines, are so extremely basic in nature and resolve yet seem to still persist in even the unstable versions you’re releasing so I just don’t get it. Now a paid version to draw attention away from the free version leaves me scratching my head at some decision making. Not my company though, just my .02.

2 Likes

I think a lot of people miss how subscription-based models are extremely attractive to companies. It takes the risk off the company and puts it on the user. No longer do they need to budget out the initial cost into how long they can support a product but instead they know that people continue to pay for updates and support so it makes the company’s income much more stable.

I think what that means is that perhaps a more realistic scenario that ensures Carbide3D can make money to pay people to develop the software is that there should be a subscription option but that the way we pay for it can vary. I think a 1/3/6/12 month license option would work well. Allow people to pay per month if they want or per year for a discount. Then, if you buy the yearly subscription, you feel less stressed to use it every month since some months work and travel and family might be big. However, you could also buy a month, use it, stop for a month because you’re going to Europe to visit @Julien for 3 weeks, and then start it again when you get back.

The concept of paying for updates will be hard for Carbide3D to navigate without people at times arguing they are doing a money grab. Release 3 updates in 2 months and charge $5 each for them = people upset. It’s a better cycle if they can release bug fixes and new features while they make them.

Another side aspect is that people forget that subscription models also allow high end software for low end recurring prices. There is no way I will ever shell out the money Vectric charges for their software but if they switched to $20 or less per month, I might check it out for a few months and see if it is worth it.

5 Likes

Well written, @The_real_janderson, and I concur with it all with respect to the company’s perspective. I certainly understand how the more stable, more predictable revenue stream of a subscription model makes it highly desirable, which is why I felt consideration of a non-subscription option needed to have a clear justification.

What I might suggest is that the primary model could (should?) certainly be a subscription model, but a non-subscription alternative could be made available. Price it so the subscription model is a clear winner in terms of cost, with the non-subscription option coming it at a premium sufficient to justify having to support two licensing options on the business side. Most users should clearly prefer the subscription model due to its lower cost, continuous updates, and worry-free billing. On the other hand, those who have sufficient reason to pay the premium for the non-subscription option could choose to do so.

The real difficulty, however, with such a split licensing concept is that you need to have “major version” upgrades to make it viable. If you charge for every minor patch, that’s basically just subscription-by-parts, which is a headache for both the user and the business. On the other hand, charging only for “major version” upgrades can add undesirable constraints on the development side, as you need to be able to bundle enough significant changes to “justify” a “major version” upgrade. Maintaining two gradually-diverging forks between “major version” upgrades (a subscription fork getting everything as it comes, with new features being held back in the non-subscription fork) is a headache that would need to be justifiable.

If developing Carbide Create Pro were compatible with a subscription/“major version” two-option licensing scheme, the hypothetical $20/month subscription would basically be a $1200 “major version” upgrade every five years – or a $480 one every two years. (The “major version” cadence is a significant factor in the math.) The initial license would, of course, be significantly higher than that (to help the business case of maintaining two forks, to tilt the field toward the subscription model, and to make the future “major upgrade” fee not look like a full-price purchase). Obviously, Adobe decided to abandon that model and go all-in on subscriptions, but perhaps the calculus might not quite be the same here.

Of course, this is all philosophical discourse based on imaginary scenarios, since we have no actual numbers or anything. We shouldn’t run completely off into the weeds (at least not yet, eh?). Please accept my apologetic shrug (complete with sheepish grin), and do understand that I absolutely do want a Carbide Create Pro to become a successful, ongoing thing.

4 Likes

I feel like the subscription issue for the hobbyist is dramatically influenced by the price point. I currently use Solidworks + hsmworks and vectric aspire for my modelling, and between those two option I have pretty well every design covered. If CCpro came in at US$50-75 / year with most of the features mentioned in this thread then it is something I’d definitely consider, but once we’re past $100/year then I think I’d find something else…

For a perpetual license with 3-5 years of updates I’d pay US$300-400

2 Likes