I’ve been using it since it first came out. I’m a big Carbide fan and I want to see them succeed. Consequently, in the past, I’ve been openly critical about software issues. These have, so far, been taken in the constructive manner intended.
I think the software is excellent from a function and stability point of view. The testing is quite good…you don’t find a whole lot of defects in the code base — and the code base is doing a lot. I feel that the team listens to their clients, cares, and is both responsive and responsible with their responses. Sometimes I wish they were less worried about people getting themselves into trouble by not paying attention (or not reading), but I’m not paying for the tech support calls - so my opinion is just that.
Three areas where I feel the code needs improvements are in: User Experience, interface consistency, and ease of use. There are naggly issues that make the software less than intuitive and result in you being less productive than you could be. Dialogs with different interaction patterns, different buttons, missing functions like editing after commits, etc. In free software, that’s kind-of OK…but in paid software, it’s a serious ding. You can see the problems if you trend the questions that Will Adams can answer in his sleep - When enough people are confused by basic functioning - and keep asking the same questions (to the point is that he answers by providing a dozen links to other threads that have already attempted to explain how the software works) - something is wrong with the interface.
The biggest offender for PRO is the modeling interface. This is not new news - Carbide has acknowledged the modeling screen’s shortcomings and committed to overhauling it. We are waiting patiently-impatiently for that! I honestly think that, if they do a good job of rewriting this module - and making it consistent and integrated with the rest of the product’s 2D features - CC will be the ‘go-to’ for a huge majority of their clients - and not just for the 3D features. However, to be completely honest, given that modeling is the biggest differentiator for the PRO version, without that change, I don’t feel it’s at the quality needed for paid software. I can’t wait to eat that opinion!
The other pro functions - like Tiling, Engraving, Rest Machining, Textures, and Ramping - are really nice implementations. They are relatively simple to use…and they work. STL import, which I happen to be doing A LOT of lately, works well - but is suffering from some of the modeling interface and integration issues - hopefully to be fully resolved soon!
Bottom line: I’m confident that CC Pro will absolutely be a competitive product and worth paying for…very soon.
Gary
), and those Rube Goldberg-esque steps, shouldn’t really be necessary. And everyone shouldn’t need to go through it.