TO BE HONEST, the fact that some people felt the need to ridicule me for the jacket for some reason... the jacket STAYS. Every video, until summer because it gets hot. If the jacket offends you, then I can't stress this enough, you really shouldn't be on the internet. It's literally just a leather jacket, what's wrong with you. Actually, it's not just any leather jacket, nows not the time for the story but for all intents and purposes it's just a leather jacket... and it stays. Onto less pressing issues! Quick correction... point number 1 about driven dimensions, it turns out Fusion 360 can actually reference driven dimensions (sort of, I think??) but it's the most convoluted ridiculous workflow that I honestly wouldn't be doing it in a hurry! If you know you need to reference a driven dimension, you have to: 1. Go into Parameters 2. Rename the driven dimension to something recognisable 3. Go into the User Parameters area 4. Create a new User Parameter, in the Expression, create a formula with the driven dimension i.e. DRIVEN+100mm and give the user parameter a name, like "Reference" 5. Beats me... no idea. I went to a sketch and created a dimension, and instead of the dimension numeric value I typed "Reference" and it errored out with red text and didn't solve the user parameter. 6. Maybe you have to then add "Reference" into the expression for other parameters but by this point I'm absolutely fed up and this is not an OK workflow, and this is exactly why I originally concluded that Fusion 360 couldn't do it.
Naw. You had it right from the start on this point. Fusion can not yet make an equation referencing a driven dimension outside of the same sketch. It took more than a few releases for inventor to get this ability so I’d disagree with the statement that it was there from the start. One last comment. There is not an architecture limitation in fusion that prevents this. In many regards this specific area of fusion and inventor are near identical. I full well expect this to improve in future updates.
Hi Kevin - the reason I said it was an architectural limitation was because a Fusion team member stated this in a reply on an IdeaStation post about this topic. I was doing the research a couple of weeks ago so I'll struggle to find the post, but that was the source of that statement and because it was quite an old post with the sketch feature still not being there, and it was an Adsk account who made the post, it tallied up that this was credible.
Wow that was some GREAT info! Thanks for sharing Neil! Here’s what stood out to me (as a complete novice in inventor and F360) - 1. LOVE the idea Structural end conditions 2. Family parts - I do this a lot, especially when making one version for 3D printing and one for manufacturing. 3. Assembly component REPLACE is huge for me! 4. 10:36 - LMFAO!!! 5. All the assembly mating stuff, for me, would be so important! 6. I love SHEET METAL, and I need the Inventor features 7. Pack N Go is so awesome - You said it perfect - a project compiler. A MUST HAVE!! 8. iLogic looks pretty cool - bascally custom macros in VB - I could totally get on board for that! 9. Simplification is so important, especially for large complex assemblies! Great review Neil - Thanks for sharing such a comprehensive list of differences!!
To be fair, Fusion does join subassemblies if they have joints of their own. So, if they have been fully joined the preview will only show one part moving but then the entire subassembly will be positioned properly. Also, Fusion does have the "replace component" command now. It was added a few updates ago. Although it only applies to components inserted into an assembly and not drawn directly inside it.
The content quality is many times better, than most cad bloggers I've seen. But for some reason not liked by UA-cam algorithm, I barely found your channel digging through different tutorial videos with many millions of viewers.
So, from my experience, when you join a part in a subassembly in Fusion, it does only move the part. But then when you hit OK, it will solve the other joints in the subassembly and move everything else accordingly. So, if the subassembly is properly joined it will, after the fact, follow that one joined part at the higher level. Maybe what you mention is for an assembly that has not been joined, just drawn with references to each other. Just what I remember, haven't had access to Fusion for a while.
Loving the new vids mate! A note on the Model States and Suppressed parts. The functionality changed there. Level of Detail would take suppressed parts out of memory. Model states don't so you no longer have that annoying problem when switching to drawings with a different LOD enabled. This is now done with visibility. Parts that are invisible are no longer loaded into memory.
Weldments Routed Systems Mold Design (although the mold analysis has been taken out of Autodesk Inventor Professional and moved to Fusion 360) Dynamic Simulation Local solve of linear static FEA, including Parametric analysis. (Fusion has far more analysis (cloud solving) types, but this seems to be important to the Fusion 360 users. These are entire fields of missing functionality, but there are numerous other smaller bits - sketch blocks is the first one that comes to mind…
Do you recommend i switch from fusion 360 to inventor, im an engineering student and im getting better at fusion 360, ive built chassis, assembled parts in fusion 360. I want to know if its better for me to start inventor early on or just continue in fusion 360
As a solidworks user it's interesting to see the features inventor has that fusion 360 doesn't are shared with solidworks. Makes the idea of transitioning between the two seem less daunting.
Transitioning between SOLIDWORKS and inventor isn't too bad once you understand what controls are fundamentally different. Often times they can be changed in settings to be similar. For a long time I hated that SOLIDWORKS defaults to free hand sketching then dimensioning after the rough shape is there, but then I found out there's a check box that changes that to work just like inventor where you define the dimension while drawing the feature.
It's impossible not to be impressed by Inventor's features. I'm learning how to use iLogic, and I'm very happy to be able to automate parts of the drawing. That's really good. 😎👍
@@hamdibziouech5804 Hi! Sorry for delay in replying. Better than my explanation, here is a video that explains what it is. ua-cam.com/video/hhlhIOkj92c/v-deo.html
10:50 the default workflow is what you did there and clicking OK. the preview only shows the component you selected moving, but if the rest is jointed or rigid-grouped to that component properly they too will move once you confirm the operation. And yeah joints can be nice and quick, but you definitely miss the freedom and power of good ole constraints. For component context, I can generally keep track of what component I'm working on, because I usually get there via the component tree. I also recommend enabling component color swatch, click the gearwheel on the bottom right. For small assemblies it's good enough, for large one you'll run out of colors though.
Nope the rest of the subassembly didn't move when I confirmed the joint, I obviously made sure of that before going live with saying it... fortunately I've still got the dataset and whilst comments like this always make you doubt yourself, I've just tried it again and it's definitely just moving one part. Tbh the state of the parts within the oil cover subassembly, whether they're rigid/joined/flappy/wobbly it shouldn't matter, if you're at a parent level and applying a relationship to a subassembly, it should apply that relationship to the entire subassembly. I can't even wrap my head around how F360 would even begin to track things like that when done at the parent level, it's blowing my mind.
@@Neil3D I think the root of that issue is that by clicking in the 3D view you're not jointing the subassembly as a whole, just the part that you clicked in the subassembly. But even just saying that proves the point: it's a hot mess and it should be better. Trying to joint the root component of the subassembly is shitty too, because it's not obvious that then you have to properly joint every subcomponent so it's constrained to the root component. That's what happens when you blur the line between assemblies, subassemblies and parta, which is what Fusion components do. By the way, great video, is Autodesk paying you yet for clarifying this kind of thing? Autodesk themselves is doing a pisspoor job of explaining what you get extra for the higher price of Inventor.
@@antalz Yea when I click a component and it all highlights as one collective assembly, I expect that to behave as one collective assembly, so the joint should move it as such. But nope, I haven't taken a penny from Autodesk in 6 years and that was for a completely unrelated Vault job, they've never sponsored a video or paid for content. Although, discussions have begun for a potential big project with them for a series of videos... can't really say anything more than that as it might not happen, but up until now I've been 100% on my own!
Inventor: Single line plate marking. And drawing view labels referencing the model iproperties. Fusion: even if there was more visual contrast in the browser between the active component and the inactive ones it would help a lot. I remember when Fusion (not 360) was bundled with Inv. 2013, it only had a dark theme...
Intrested in an investor vs Solidworks video, don't know if you could make that happen. I'm curious about the differences between them regarding the most useful features etc.
Iirc, referencing driven dimensions is fully working in F360 for very few versions by now. Dk how well it works across multiple assemblies/different components.
Perfect timing Neal! I just bought a new windows laptop and I'm so disappointed in it I started looking for an alternative to Inventor (so that I can use a Mac). Of course my first thought was, "what about Fusion 360?". I searched last night, and could only find your video from a while back for good info, and WALA! here you are this morning!
Another top vid mate, keep up the great work. I do model threads(when needed) in Fusion, now that coolorange have discontinued their app and you have to upload to their cloud. Love the jacket 😎
Neil great Video mate. I've been using Inventor Pro for about 11 years now and I was thinking of getting fusion to play around at home for those things that you want to know how to do but can't waste time learning how at work. It doesn't look like that's really an option.
@@Neil3D SW miles ahead? They gotta be kidding themselves, check out virtualflatCAD we wanted to model a sheet metal part yesterday but SW was pushed to the limit. Do you think inventor can do it? Problem statement in that latest 8hr stream by him. Candle extinguisher.
Thank you finally someone makes a video about the shortcomings of Fusion. Before I knew Inventor I used Fusion and to this day work in both of them. I like fusion for not standing in the way for tiny assemblies, designs and mockups. But I cannot wrap my head around how someone would use fusion for even a small assembly with 50+ parts (counting nuts and bolts). I feel like fusion is a bit like python for programming. Perfect to learn and small things but nothing if you want to build rock solid complex software. But I think for fusion the ceiling for what is viable is much lower than with python (best example blender) ps: Reference dimensions were implemented a while back. But until that was the case I ran a couple of times right into that wall and it hurt
Fusion has driven dimensions yes, but you can't reference them. I tried multiple times during scripting. Once I'd created a driven dimension it was completely unavailable to the rest of the model.
@@Neil3D I am currently not entirely sure what is possible and can’t currently test it. Maybe you can only reference the driven dimension in the same sketch and not rename it or use it anywhere else. But I think this year they changed something regarding driven dimensions
A question popped up in mind while watching. I am a patron of the battleship USS Iowa museum (Pacific Battleship Center, San Pedro, Ca.). When built 1940-43 at the New York Navy Yard, the 887-foot Iowa weighed some 45,000 tons and was the largest ship ever launched in the western hemisphere up to that time. The blueprints weighed 350,000 pounds (I have no idea how many sheets) created by a team of some 300 naval architects. Additionally, USS New Jersey (Philadelphia Navy Yard) was laid down only three months later (USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin were to follow). The New Jersey design team often traveled en masse to New York to explore ideas and solutions during construction of these fast giants. My question: Can Inventor and Fusion 360 handle such a massive working environment? I am a lone hobbyist user of this software; I can't imagine the work flow for such a gigantic project. Thanks!
Short answer, no. Longer answer, Fusion definitely not, it has a part count limit of around 4000 parts which by then it starts to absolutely grind to a halt. With Inventor, it would probably struggle to handle an as-built fully detailed warship. You would likely design a lot of the internal mechanical components with Inventor, but a general assembly of that complexity would require input from dozens of different packages. Think of the electrical wiring alone, that would need to be done in something specialised, the vessel hull would need to be a specialised design which I imagine there are dedicated packages for. You've got almost everything imaginable going on in a battleship, HVAC, hydraulic layouts, architectural aspects, it's likely there would be multiple possibly hundreds of different agencies/suppliers working on various parts using various packages, and if a top level general assembly model existed it would likely be in a neutral project management package like Navisworks or something similar that can ingest data from Inventor/Solidworks/PTC/NX etc my brain is hurting trying to comprehend how such a project would be managed but definitely not all in 1 CAD package.
@@Neil3D Huh. Since posting this question, I've discovered this Autodesk article from three years ago: "How We Used Drones to Digitize the Biggest U.S. Battleship Ever Made" The powerplants of the four Iowas are the most powerful non-nuclear engines ever installed on ships (an unimaginable 36 knot speed resulted, or 41 mph). I was tickled to read Autodesk scanned Iowa inside as well as out, including the several turbine and boiler rooms. (What an undertaking.) I understand your point about multiple software packages for a vessel three football fields long and 17 stories tall. Fuel tanks hold 2.6 million gallons (3-1/2 Olympic pools); Iowa has 250 miles of electrical cabling; 16 miles of vent ducting; 80 miles of piping. Decks and platforms total 9-1/2 acres. Components and materials came from 38 states. Thank you for taking time to answer my question. As with so many others, I'm fascinated by the WWII period, and you have provided insight.
I really cannot live without using iLogic and the API anymore. There are almost no limits in automate Inventor except time 🤭 When I watch this video (well done as always), I sit in front of my screen, and thought, he does not use iLogic 😱 what if he would do.... I cannot imagine what you would be capable of doing with your skills in knowing Inventor... 🚀 I trained a lot of people in using iLogic and I think you need some one to open the door to enter and is standby for incoming questions, but then it's really easy to advance. If you ever find the time to start, please do. Really want to see, what you will create will be awesome, I'm sure 👍👍👍😁 and keep on your good work
I figured this out after this went live, but it definitely doesn't work the same way as Inventor as that's why I was convinced it couldn't do it. Having to go into the parameters manager, make a custom user parameter for each reference that you want to create is far from Inventor. But technically yes you can do it so I do need to drop a correction on that.
@@Neil3D you need to watch nycnc channel on fusion360 you can create them on the fly as you dimension things. He has a bunch of user videos. There were several more statements that were wrong but couldnt be arsed to correct each one. Maybe a do over. And some proper research next time. And also inventor is not as acessible to everyone as fusion. ;)
One thing not in your video is proper dxf export with the option to give bend lines, engravings etc. a different line colour. This resulted in me redoing several parts in Inventor…
I'm willing to pay ~90ish dollars a month for a really good CAD/CAM software. But that's the most I can afford/justify paying as I am mostly a hobbyist looking to make things for myself and my friends. This covers Fusion ($60) but doesn't even come close to Inventor ($260).
bro hi! you have wonderful videos, I subscribed to you and I try to thank all your material! I have a little question for you) how to change the Y axis to the Z axis in the inventor, so that Z is always vertical, and configure mouse control (alternatively, hang rotation on the right mouse button). Or is it possible to make a video with similar content? Thank you in advance!
You can't completely change it; you can set your template file to show Z as up but it's really only visual. Regardless of what shows on the screen is irrelevant, if you are moving the model to a CAM workspace, you can define Z as up at the time.
Does Inventor have a free version like Autodesk? As a hobbiest, I cant afford the insane prices to rent the software. Autodesk does not have a reasonably priced yearly subscription. What does inventor offer to the hobbies ?
I've got an EQ which is supposed to remove the frequencies that conflict with vocals, been using it for ages now but there must be a track in this one which is overpowering. Must admit, I'm monitoring just on levels now instead of listening on headphones myself as I'm doing it all on a laptop, the levels seemed ok but I must have missed something. Thanks for pointing it out 👍
While Inventor has many super cool features, the thing I don't like about Inventor is the UI. As someone with no formal CAD training I find the UI to be clunky and hard to make certain features behave. At some point I need to sit down and learn it for work, but for now it's just frustrating.
Nice video - Can you dimension the length of an arc in a sketch in Inventor? It's one of the irritating omissions from F360. I used to use Creo / Wildfire / ProEngineer for work, but use F360 as a hobbyist. I like it, but there are some iritating 'features'. The sheet metal part is a bit naff - it doesn't seem to include any stretch allowance in its developments. I do like how it integrates CAM however, even in the 'not paid for' home version. Is there a "hobbyist" version of Inventor? I haven't been able to find one outside bona-fide education use. It's very interesting to see the comparisons between packages, anyway. [ETA] Drawings in F360 are very weak, too, but luckily, I only need to do them for myself these days :)
yep Inventor can do arc length dims in sketching, and tbh Fusion 360 was supposed to be the hobbyist version of Inventor, the argument being why would hobbyists need engineering gear/frame design generators and all that. They did used to have Inventor LT but it was toilet.
The only thing that I would like Inventor to have is: a version of Vault on the cloud. In Fusion, you have something simple but it works quite well. I know that there are alternatives like Dropbox, but it's not the same thing as having a native integration of Vault that works as it works on a LAN setup.
We use vault with storage in our server, this has the same functionality as cloud based. We are based in Canada and have team members in Spain that pull from the server with no issues. Cheers
Have you compared Inventor and/or fusion versus BricsCAD Mechanical? Mechanical is a very small part of my work but as I was watching the video I realiced that I could do most thinks easier and more intuitively in BricsCAD, would love to see your comparison
Haven't watched it yet, but already giving a thumbs up for the comments. My guess is that you missed the 'can publish part libraries to Infraworks' though... And can technically publish libraries to Civil 3D, but that tool is complete garbage
@@Neil3D I also found out that you're not an ilogic super user (I just assumed). I've dived deep enough into it that I can get an excel sheet live linked to Inventor to control all the key parameters (ie. Have excel open on your other screen and whatever changes you make in excel instantly change your models... It's pretty awesome.
The answer to any question is $$$$$ How much do you want to Spend ?? Fusion gets it's strength from the Budget minded people who use it. In many cases most have not spent 1 Cent on buying Fusion. You would think that Fusion was the only lower priced Software on the market the way people like to bang on about it ??? Usually the same people who are banging on about Fusion, are the people who Never paid for Fusion ???? Another advantage some like about Fusion is ? CAD & CAM in one Software. This feature does give Fusion some leverage for end users.
I'm a programmer by day and home machinist for pleasure. Cost-wise I use Fusion because I can justify it's cost for my use. What really annoys me with Fusion are some very basic things that I have to interact with constantly. Namely the sketch environment. I'm 53 and have old eyes and I really, really need to control the colors and lines in sketches so I can see them better. Sketch absolutely sucks at this and it should be absolutely easy to make customizable.These values are already in the program, background color and line colors. Just expose them to the user. Also, how about making it blindingly clear when you hover over a sketch constraint just which elements it controls. Throw them in red, grey out the rest. Should be simple. Yeah, I could go on and on about stuff that seems to be very basic. Features that should have been some of the first things developed. I used Autocad decades ago - as in a math coprocessor was a requirement and a separate chip you added to your motherboard - and it had better customization of linetypes. Although programming in AutoLisp wasn't fun.
Fun story, 2 weeks after I bought it I was randomly stopped in the street by someone who'd been searching the entire UK for it! It's the Hugo Boss Mercedes F1 AMG jacket for the 2016 season, the single most expensive item of clothing ive ever bought in my life by a considerable mile!!
You don't really need to understand "programming" to use ilogic, but you need to understand logic in general. Cause and effect, it certainly helps when you start trying to read or write anything more complex than iproperties and parameters, then yes visual basic and inventor API knowledge helps, but for setting a few simple parameters based on the results of other parameters or driven parameters, then you don't really need to know how to program, just follow a few simple instructions
you may have noticed everytime more universities ditch inventor in favour of Fusion...interestingly it is Autodesk itself that is pushing this, and also funding free Fusion training for whole departments 🤔
Possibly to deny Solidworks a toehold and increase the user base? Maybe they think they can wrap up the small company market, where the cost and abilities of Inventor are overkill?
ugh dont get me started on spur gear, for my assignment i spend 3 days going over tutorials on how to do the formulas to do a spur gear only to then notice the bloody tool button haha
nice hair cute Neil :) I posted something on Linkedin which i have since deleted as and my "friend" was quick to slate maybe looking out for me. He supporting helping sometimes with one of the fusion 360, friend basically said merging two software's that are written in the same language can't be merged easily so you can imagine my thoughts "cough" "cough. his quote was "they want what's considered an prosumer platform and a commercial offering which are two completely different beasts". I have a licence of fusion 360 but my confliction is do I invest in the Product Design Manufactuing Collection and yes fusion 360 comes with it but do i just then stop using Fusion 360 and carrying on using in inventor....id like to think it would be inventor but i want to really no where i need to invest my time.
i know 9000 things initially and 1500 things a year inventor has that fusion doesnt... the huge bills. i know something that fusion comes with that inventor doesnt, cam included for the $299 a year as someone who has used AutoDesk for 35 years... 2% might need something inventor has that fusion doesnt.
@@Neil3D To use as a skeleton for assembling parts. For now, I have to create a separate .ipt just for the 3D Sketch. I knew Solidworks including 3D sketch in their Assembly. I saw some requests to add 3D sketch to Asm on Inventor Forum, but it never gets executed.
I don’t understand why Autodesk made a new codebase for Fusion 360, and not extended Inventor to have Fusion 360 manufacturing capabilities, and then made a feature subset for a less expensive product. Seems to me like a waste of resources.
I think they probably wanted to create new software for more "limited" use and I suspect that Inventor has so much features embedded into that it was simply easier to creatre new product alltogether.
I think the fusion kernel was the first designed to make proper use of multi core and hyperthreading that the new computers were getting back in the day. Most Cam was single core optimized, at the time of launch.
I'm addressing a question that gets asked by thousands of people, the price difference does not make anything immune to comparison. In fact, with Fusion, once you add on an extension or two it's about in the same ballpark in annual cost.
I think Fusion is a mistake. I think they should focus all their efforts to catch up with the functionality of Creo, Solidworks, Solid Edge and others. Inventor is fine, but the 2010 version would be enough for me, there is still nothing in those versions that would make me say wow (maybe one wow model state). I thought they would add Sheet metal to Frame or Tab and slot or a much better Frame, but they put it in Revit as Functionality Advance steel wanted in Inventor. There's a lot to change and I'm still waiting. I'd like to be proud of Inventor, but I'm sad that development isn't fast enough against the competition. Why did they cancel Force Effect for Inventor? = I don't understand to this day.
You miss the overall goal and focus of Fusion360 - it is not to emulate Inventor which is such an let me say old way of doing things. Maybe for older cad trained folks thats fine. For the modern designers Inventor is a nightmare … just old workflows - Fusio360 tried to set a different approach till the marketing / investor team told them to focus on engineers and not designers as a market - remember when Fusion was called design differently ?
Since the day fusion went public, their user base has spent time and effort trying to get the product team to emulate/replicate inventor features. Just look at the now archived ideastation, it's a graveyard of both completed requests and open requests to get fusion to where inventor is. A large proportion of the fusion team are ex inventor. So whilst at no point did I say that the goal of fusion was to emulate inventor, you've just probably heard other people say it and just assumed that's what I'm doing, but actually yes in fact fusion very much does emulate inventor in more ways than it's different
@@Neil3D at this point now yes it seems more to emulate inventor - but it started more as a different design tool. The problem Fusion had was that from the start it decided to work on too many different areas not finish one tool first. It took years for loft to be usable and not requiring 3D sketches to stabilize rail edges. Or look at the sketch engine it is till plagued by massive hickups and bugs which go back 6 years. We had over the last 10 years a lot of meetings with them most designers and over time everything was put into the focus of cadcam being more profitable than industrial design. Fusion said that here are not enough ID users - we simply said that there are not many ID users because fusions toolset is incomplete Chick or egg question … Still besides all fusion is my preferred modeling and teaching platform.
just watched your video for a second time at 1.0 play speed instead of normal. I have a hard time keeping up and I think its just due to the heavy english accent. You create excellent videos but a suggestion comes to mind, SLOWDOWN , for us dumb americans that cannot always pick up what you are saying with the accent. I am sure you have seen this comment before and are perhaps sick of it but it has merit . PS love the leather jacket and for whoever thought is was distastefull should pound salt where the sun does not shine! TANK'S
Hi Neil, Great informative video as per usual, BUT, are you rushing off to audition for the Danny Zuko part in your local am-dram production of Greece? Did you loose a bet? loose the biker jacket for all future videos it doesn’t suit at all!
I'm here because fusion 360 sheet metal is so broken I'm losing my mind. Cut the wrong place on a model and the entire sheet metal math history is just gone.
Well, let's face it. Fusion 360 is not a replacement or alternative to the Inventor. It is a 3D modelling toy software for hobbyists. Quite expensive toy, but comparing to the price of Inventor, it must lack of the features of its older, wiser brother (or sister:). And that will not change ever I believe. For me the only way to use Inventor is that I have it through the company I work for. Otherwise I would need to use Fusion 360 for my hobby modelling. If you are doing modelling for 3d printing, cnc milling in small company and don't need full drawing documentation, Fusion is way to go. Otherwise, you need Inventor or other equivalent software from other provider.
so you dont use ilogic, thats ok, instead of a tutorial on it why do you do a video on trying to learn how to create an ilogic function. some thing for us noob to follow along with. i dont just an idea. would be fun to see an expert trying to learn some thing :)
As a many decade AutoCAD user I have found that Fusion’s sketching ability is an abysmal failure. It took me several hours of workarounds to make a sketch that AutoCAD would have taken mere minutes to achieve. There are so many missing tools that make it basically useless. I had to revert to .dxf output in order to produce anything in a reasonable amount of time. Shame on your part, Autodesk. I’m hoping you bring your Fusion standards up to adequate industry usability soon.
Not mentioned is: That greatest Power of Pack & Go is that what ever the Project file of the source is, there will be a new one created in the ZIP file. *VERY IMPORTENT*
The only reason I use fusion 360 is for CAM. Even for that, I create the model in Solidworks then import it into Fusion 360 then do the CAM. The design functionality of Fusion is simply trash.
each has its uses but I always go back to the $495 per year and it does what I need. for 10 years under its belt think its been doing well. again sorry but I am not sure how much inventor cost but you pay for what you get and I get just what I want inside fusion. why pay more, save up and buy a jacket like that?
Cos the levels were perfectly fine in editing and on my studio monitors, I can barely hear the ambient music on every device I play it on. But either way, toodles.
TO BE HONEST, the fact that some people felt the need to ridicule me for the jacket for some reason... the jacket STAYS. Every video, until summer because it gets hot. If the jacket offends you, then I can't stress this enough, you really shouldn't be on the internet. It's literally just a leather jacket, what's wrong with you. Actually, it's not just any leather jacket, nows not the time for the story but for all intents and purposes it's just a leather jacket... and it stays.
Onto less pressing issues! Quick correction... point number 1 about driven dimensions, it turns out Fusion 360 can actually reference driven dimensions (sort of, I think??) but it's the most convoluted ridiculous workflow that I honestly wouldn't be doing it in a hurry! If you know you need to reference a driven dimension, you have to:
1. Go into Parameters
2. Rename the driven dimension to something recognisable
3. Go into the User Parameters area
4. Create a new User Parameter, in the Expression, create a formula with the driven dimension i.e. DRIVEN+100mm and give the user parameter a name, like "Reference"
5. Beats me... no idea. I went to a sketch and created a dimension, and instead of the dimension numeric value I typed "Reference" and it errored out with red text and didn't solve the user parameter.
6. Maybe you have to then add "Reference" into the expression for other parameters but by this point I'm absolutely fed up and this is not an OK workflow, and this is exactly why I originally concluded that Fusion 360 couldn't do it.
Naw. You had it right from the start on this point. Fusion can not yet make an equation referencing a driven dimension outside of the same sketch. It took more than a few releases for inventor to get this ability so I’d disagree with the statement that it was there from the start. One last comment. There is not an architecture limitation in fusion that prevents this. In many regards this specific area of fusion and inventor are near identical. I full well expect this to improve in future updates.
if it was made from dog skin, then youd have a problem with it lol
Hi Kevin - the reason I said it was an architectural limitation was because a Fusion team member stated this in a reply on an IdeaStation post about this topic. I was doing the research a couple of weeks ago so I'll struggle to find the post, but that was the source of that statement and because it was quite an old post with the sketch feature still not being there, and it was an Adsk account who made the post, it tallied up that this was credible.
Wow that was some GREAT info! Thanks for sharing Neil!
Here’s what stood out to me (as a complete novice in inventor and F360) -
1. LOVE the idea Structural end conditions
2. Family parts - I do this a lot, especially when making one version for 3D printing and one for manufacturing.
3. Assembly component REPLACE is huge for me!
4. 10:36 - LMFAO!!!
5. All the assembly mating stuff, for me, would be so important!
6. I love SHEET METAL, and I need the Inventor features
7. Pack N Go is so awesome - You said it perfect - a project compiler. A MUST HAVE!!
8. iLogic looks pretty cool - bascally custom macros in VB - I could totally get on board for that!
9. Simplification is so important, especially for large complex assemblies!
Great review Neil - Thanks for sharing such a comprehensive list of differences!!
To be fair, Fusion does join subassemblies if they have joints of their own. So, if they have been fully joined the preview will only show one part moving but then the entire subassembly will be positioned properly.
Also, Fusion does have the "replace component" command now. It was added a few updates ago. Although it only applies to components inserted into an assembly and not drawn directly inside it.
BRAVO NIEL !!!!!!!!.......... as always....a superb delivery and clarification.
appreciate you SIR !!!
The content quality is many times better, than most cad bloggers I've seen. But for some reason not liked by UA-cam algorithm, I barely found your channel digging through different tutorial videos with many millions of viewers.
Don't I know it! I've been grinding at this for 9 years, just haven't caught the big break that most other channels tend to get in their time.
So, from my experience, when you join a part in a subassembly in Fusion, it does only move the part. But then when you hit OK, it will solve the other joints in the subassembly and move everything else accordingly. So, if the subassembly is properly joined it will, after the fact, follow that one joined part at the higher level. Maybe what you mention is for an assembly that has not been joined, just drawn with references to each other.
Just what I remember, haven't had access to Fusion for a while.
Loving the new vids mate! A note on the Model States and Suppressed parts. The functionality changed there. Level of Detail would take suppressed parts out of memory. Model states don't so you no longer have that annoying problem when switching to drawings with a different LOD enabled. This is now done with visibility. Parts that are invisible are no longer loaded into memory.
Weldments
Routed Systems
Mold Design (although the mold analysis has been taken out of Autodesk Inventor Professional and moved to Fusion 360)
Dynamic Simulation
Local solve of linear static FEA, including Parametric analysis. (Fusion has far more analysis (cloud solving) types, but this seems to be important to the Fusion 360 users.
These are entire fields of missing functionality, but there are numerous other smaller bits - sketch blocks is the first one that comes to mind…
Do you recommend i switch from fusion 360 to inventor, im an engineering student and im getting better at fusion 360, ive built chassis, assembled parts in fusion 360. I want to know if its better for me to start inventor early on or just continue in fusion 360
@@sdnoqhasdedf4930 I no longer have access to Autodesk software so I can’t comment on a moving target.
As a solidworks user it's interesting to see the features inventor has that fusion 360 doesn't are shared with solidworks. Makes the idea of transitioning between the two seem less daunting.
Transitioning between SOLIDWORKS and inventor isn't too bad once you understand what controls are fundamentally different. Often times they can be changed in settings to be similar. For a long time I hated that SOLIDWORKS defaults to free hand sketching then dimensioning after the rough shape is there, but then I found out there's a check box that changes that to work just like inventor where you define the dimension while drawing the feature.
It's impossible not to be impressed by Inventor's features. I'm learning how to use iLogic, and I'm very happy to be able to automate parts of the drawing. That's really good. 😎👍
part like what brother
@@hamdibziouech5804 Hi! Sorry for delay in replying. Better than my explanation, here is a video that explains what it is. ua-cam.com/video/hhlhIOkj92c/v-deo.html
10:50 the default workflow is what you did there and clicking OK. the preview only shows the component you selected moving, but if the rest is jointed or rigid-grouped to that component properly they too will move once you confirm the operation. And yeah joints can be nice and quick, but you definitely miss the freedom and power of good ole constraints.
For component context, I can generally keep track of what component I'm working on, because I usually get there via the component tree. I also recommend enabling component color swatch, click the gearwheel on the bottom right. For small assemblies it's good enough, for large one you'll run out of colors though.
Nope the rest of the subassembly didn't move when I confirmed the joint, I obviously made sure of that before going live with saying it... fortunately I've still got the dataset and whilst comments like this always make you doubt yourself, I've just tried it again and it's definitely just moving one part. Tbh the state of the parts within the oil cover subassembly, whether they're rigid/joined/flappy/wobbly it shouldn't matter, if you're at a parent level and applying a relationship to a subassembly, it should apply that relationship to the entire subassembly. I can't even wrap my head around how F360 would even begin to track things like that when done at the parent level, it's blowing my mind.
@@Neil3D I think the root of that issue is that by clicking in the 3D view you're not jointing the subassembly as a whole, just the part that you clicked in the subassembly. But even just saying that proves the point: it's a hot mess and it should be better.
Trying to joint the root component of the subassembly is shitty too, because it's not obvious that then you have to properly joint every subcomponent so it's constrained to the root component. That's what happens when you blur the line between assemblies, subassemblies and parta, which is what Fusion components do.
By the way, great video, is Autodesk paying you yet for clarifying this kind of thing? Autodesk themselves is doing a pisspoor job of explaining what you get extra for the higher price of Inventor.
@@antalz Yea when I click a component and it all highlights as one collective assembly, I expect that to behave as one collective assembly, so the joint should move it as such. But nope, I haven't taken a penny from Autodesk in 6 years and that was for a completely unrelated Vault job, they've never sponsored a video or paid for content. Although, discussions have begun for a potential big project with them for a series of videos... can't really say anything more than that as it might not happen, but up until now I've been 100% on my own!
Inventor: Single line plate marking. And drawing view labels referencing the model iproperties. Fusion: even if there was more visual contrast in the browser between the active component and the inactive ones it would help a lot. I remember when Fusion (not 360) was bundled with Inv. 2013, it only had a dark theme...
For me as a hobbyist the most important are referencing driven dimensions, and family parts.
Thanks for explaining the differences!
Intrested in an investor vs Solidworks video, don't know if you could make that happen. I'm curious about the differences between them regarding the most useful features etc.
You could check out the Inventor vs Solidworks challenges to get an idea.
Iirc, referencing driven dimensions is fully working in F360 for very few versions by now. Dk how well it works across multiple assemblies/different components.
Perfect timing Neal! I just bought a new windows laptop and I'm so disappointed in it I started looking for an alternative to Inventor (so that I can use a Mac). Of course my first thought was, "what about Fusion 360?". I searched last night, and could only find your video from a while back for good info, and WALA! here you are this morning!
Another top vid mate, keep up the great work. I do model threads(when needed) in Fusion, now that coolorange have discontinued their app and you have to upload to their cloud. Love the jacket 😎
Thank you for the video sharing the perspective
Neil great Video mate. I've been using Inventor Pro for about 11 years now and I was thinking of getting fusion to play around at home for those things that you want to know how to do but can't waste time learning how at work. It doesn't look like that's really an option.
Got any videos on cables in Inventor? Cable routing, metadata etc.
curve on a surface is MIND BLOWING, SW is light years behind, I'm switching, I'm done dealing with STONE AGE Technology.
It's funny hearing different takes on that, some think SW is miles ahead, some think it's behind, just goes to show it's healthy either way!
@@Neil3D SW miles ahead? They gotta be kidding themselves, check out virtualflatCAD we wanted to model a sheet metal part yesterday but SW was pushed to the limit. Do you think inventor can do it? Problem statement in that latest 8hr stream by him. Candle extinguisher.
@@Neil3D another massive point inventor is free for students. Talk about getting access to pro software, SW has no FREE version even for students.
Thanks that made me feel a lot better!
Thank you finally someone makes a video about the shortcomings of Fusion. Before I knew Inventor I used Fusion and to this day work in both of them. I like fusion for not standing in the way for tiny assemblies, designs and mockups. But I cannot wrap my head around how someone would use fusion for even a small assembly with 50+ parts (counting nuts and bolts). I feel like fusion is a bit like python for programming. Perfect to learn and small things but nothing if you want to build rock solid complex software. But I think for fusion the ceiling for what is viable is much lower than with python (best example blender) ps: Reference dimensions were implemented a while back. But until that was the case I ran a couple of times right into that wall and it hurt
Fusion has driven dimensions yes, but you can't reference them. I tried multiple times during scripting. Once I'd created a driven dimension it was completely unavailable to the rest of the model.
@@Neil3D I am currently not entirely sure what is possible and can’t currently test it. Maybe you can only reference the driven dimension in the same sketch and not rename it or use it anywhere else. But I think this year they changed something regarding driven dimensions
Fantastic video!
A question popped up in mind while watching.
I am a patron of the battleship USS Iowa museum (Pacific Battleship Center, San Pedro, Ca.). When built 1940-43 at the New York Navy Yard, the 887-foot Iowa weighed some 45,000 tons and was the largest ship ever launched in the western hemisphere up to that time. The blueprints weighed 350,000 pounds (I have no idea how many sheets) created by a team of some 300 naval architects.
Additionally, USS New Jersey (Philadelphia Navy Yard) was laid down only three months later (USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin were to follow). The New Jersey design team often traveled en masse to New York to explore ideas and solutions during construction of these fast giants.
My question: Can Inventor and Fusion 360 handle such a massive working environment? I am a lone hobbyist user of this software; I can't imagine the work flow for such a gigantic project. Thanks!
Short answer, no.
Longer answer, Fusion definitely not, it has a part count limit of around 4000 parts which by then it starts to absolutely grind to a halt. With Inventor, it would probably struggle to handle an as-built fully detailed warship. You would likely design a lot of the internal mechanical components with Inventor, but a general assembly of that complexity would require input from dozens of different packages. Think of the electrical wiring alone, that would need to be done in something specialised, the vessel hull would need to be a specialised design which I imagine there are dedicated packages for. You've got almost everything imaginable going on in a battleship, HVAC, hydraulic layouts, architectural aspects, it's likely there would be multiple possibly hundreds of different agencies/suppliers working on various parts using various packages, and if a top level general assembly model existed it would likely be in a neutral project management package like Navisworks or something similar that can ingest data from Inventor/Solidworks/PTC/NX etc my brain is hurting trying to comprehend how such a project would be managed but definitely not all in 1 CAD package.
@@Neil3D Huh. Since posting this question, I've discovered this Autodesk article from three years ago:
"How We Used Drones to Digitize the Biggest U.S. Battleship Ever Made"
The powerplants of the four Iowas are the most powerful non-nuclear engines ever installed on ships (an unimaginable 36 knot speed resulted, or 41 mph). I was tickled to read Autodesk scanned Iowa inside as well as out, including the several turbine and boiler rooms. (What an undertaking.)
I understand your point about multiple software packages for a vessel three football fields long and 17 stories tall. Fuel tanks hold 2.6 million gallons (3-1/2 Olympic pools); Iowa has 250 miles of electrical cabling; 16 miles of vent ducting; 80 miles of piping. Decks and platforms total 9-1/2 acres. Components and materials came from 38 states.
Thank you for taking time to answer my question. As with so many others, I'm fascinated by the WWII period, and you have provided insight.
I really cannot live without using iLogic and the API anymore. There are almost no limits in automate Inventor except time 🤭 When I watch this video (well done as always), I sit in front of my screen, and thought, he does not use iLogic 😱 what if he would do.... I cannot imagine what you would be capable of doing with your skills in knowing Inventor... 🚀 I trained a lot of people in using iLogic and I think you need some one to open the door to enter and is standby for incoming questions, but then it's really easy to advance. If you ever find the time to start, please do. Really want to see, what you will create will be awesome, I'm sure 👍👍👍😁 and keep on your good work
Well said! It really depends on what you are designing in your job, some people manage without ever needing to get fancy.
sold.. does inventor also have a student version? :)
Thank you bud great vid.
Fusion360 does have reference driven dimensions, its called Equations, and just works the same way as described in Inventor.
I figured this out after this went live, but it definitely doesn't work the same way as Inventor as that's why I was convinced it couldn't do it. Having to go into the parameters manager, make a custom user parameter for each reference that you want to create is far from Inventor. But technically yes you can do it so I do need to drop a correction on that.
@@Neil3D you need to watch nycnc channel on fusion360 you can create them on the fly as you dimension things. He has a bunch of user videos. There were several more statements that were wrong but couldnt be arsed to correct each one. Maybe a do over. And some proper research next time. And also inventor is not as acessible to everyone as fusion. ;)
infotainer!! teach me! now I'm educated! thanks bud!
One thing not in your video is proper dxf export with the option to give bend lines, engravings etc. a different line colour. This resulted in me redoing several parts in Inventor…
you on red drawf or somthing?
I'm willing to pay ~90ish dollars a month for a really good CAD/CAM software. But that's the most I can afford/justify paying as I am mostly a hobbyist looking to make things for myself and my friends. This covers Fusion ($60) but doesn't even come close to Inventor ($260).
I just liked your video .. Just by seeing the title of your video
Great Video. Love it!
I need to know more about family parts, would be crazy useful right now.
It's just iParts... exactly the same thing just renamed
bro hi! you have wonderful videos, I subscribed to you and I try to thank all your material! I have a little question for you) how to change the Y axis to the Z axis in the inventor, so that Z is always vertical, and configure mouse control (alternatively, hang rotation on the right mouse button). Or is it possible to make a video with similar content? Thank you in advance!
You can't completely change it; you can set your template file to show Z as up but it's really only visual. Regardless of what shows on the screen is irrelevant, if you are moving the model to a CAM workspace, you can define Z as up at the time.
Does Inventor have a free version like Autodesk? As a hobbiest, I cant afford the insane prices to rent the software. Autodesk does not have a reasonably priced yearly subscription. What does inventor offer to the hobbies ?
the bass from the music in my earbuds sometimes goes over your voice, but other than that great video!
I've got an EQ which is supposed to remove the frequencies that conflict with vocals, been using it for ages now but there must be a track in this one which is overpowering. Must admit, I'm monitoring just on levels now instead of listening on headphones myself as I'm doing it all on a laptop, the levels seemed ok but I must have missed something. Thanks for pointing it out 👍
Where is my Automatic Exploding view in assembly ?
While Inventor has many super cool features, the thing I don't like about Inventor is the UI. As someone with no formal CAD training I find the UI to be clunky and hard to make certain features behave. At some point I need to sit down and learn it for work, but for now it's just frustrating.
Nice video - Can you dimension the length of an arc in a sketch in Inventor? It's one of the irritating omissions from F360. I used to use Creo / Wildfire / ProEngineer for work, but use F360 as a hobbyist. I like it, but there are some iritating 'features'. The sheet metal part is a bit naff - it doesn't seem to include any stretch allowance in its developments. I do like how it integrates CAM however, even in the 'not paid for' home version. Is there a "hobbyist" version of Inventor? I haven't been able to find one outside bona-fide education use. It's very interesting to see the comparisons between packages, anyway.
[ETA] Drawings in F360 are very weak, too, but luckily, I only need to do them for myself these days :)
yep Inventor can do arc length dims in sketching, and tbh Fusion 360 was supposed to be the hobbyist version of Inventor, the argument being why would hobbyists need engineering gear/frame design generators and all that. They did used to have Inventor LT but it was toilet.
@@Neil3D Thanks for the reply.
Extremely helpful video.
You're like the Autodesk ball shit filter!
Great vid as always and that jacket!
The jacket is royalty, it needs more air time! It's just too hot in the summer to wear it but in the winter I reckon it needs to be seen more!
@@Neil3D Something to look forward to then! 😄👍
Love that jacket
At least the professional comparison for pro, thank you
The only thing that I would like Inventor to have is: a version of Vault on the cloud. In Fusion, you have something simple but it works quite well. I know that there are alternatives like Dropbox, but it's not the same thing as having a native integration of Vault that works as it works on a LAN setup.
We use vault with storage in our server, this has the same functionality as cloud based.
We are based in Canada and have team members in Spain that pull from the server with no issues.
Cheers
There is Autodesk Upchain. I would just host Vault on a Cloud VM though.
Have you compared Inventor and/or fusion versus BricsCAD Mechanical?
Mechanical is a very small part of my work but as I was watching the video I realiced that I could do most thinks easier and more intuitively in BricsCAD, would love to see your comparison
Haven't watched it yet, but already giving a thumbs up for the comments.
My guess is that you missed the 'can publish part libraries to Infraworks' though...
And can technically publish libraries to Civil 3D, but that tool is complete garbage
Yea I didn't go that niche! If I went that far I'd be on a 4 hour long video!
@@Neil3D I also found out that you're not an ilogic super user (I just assumed). I've dived deep enough into it that I can get an excel sheet live linked to Inventor to control all the key parameters (ie. Have excel open on your other screen and whatever changes you make in excel instantly change your models... It's pretty awesome.
Real shame Inv is nearly 4x more expensive per year than F360 :(.. Nice video :)
Yah I like I said in this, the point is to go some way to explain why it is. Although, add an extension or two onto F360 and they're about the same.
Item 5 the Best One for Me!!! Top!
Dope jacket
Maybe fusion was created to gain market share against sketchup.
16. Drawing environment API's
Neil do you have a secret channel where you sing country music? You might have a twin separated at birth
Damn your good, I have used inventor for ~1 year and didn't even know most of those exist. 😭
Aye I've been using it for about 17 years now!
The answer to any question is $$$$$
How much do you want to Spend ??
Fusion gets it's strength from the Budget minded people who use it.
In many cases most have not spent 1 Cent on buying Fusion.
You would think that Fusion was the only lower priced Software on the market the way people like to bang on about it ???
Usually the same people who are banging on about Fusion, are the people who Never paid for Fusion ????
Another advantage some like about Fusion is ?
CAD & CAM in one Software.
This feature does give Fusion some leverage for end users.
I'm a programmer by day and home machinist for pleasure. Cost-wise I use Fusion because I can justify it's cost for my use. What really annoys me with Fusion are some very basic things that I have to interact with constantly. Namely the sketch environment. I'm 53 and have old eyes and I really, really need to control the colors and lines in sketches so I can see them better. Sketch absolutely sucks at this and it should be absolutely easy to make customizable.These values are already in the program, background color and line colors. Just expose them to the user.
Also, how about making it blindingly clear when you hover over a sketch constraint just which elements it controls. Throw them in red, grey out the rest. Should be simple.
Yeah, I could go on and on about stuff that seems to be very basic. Features that should have been some of the first things developed. I used Autocad decades ago - as in a math coprocessor was a requirement and a separate chip you added to your motherboard - and it had better customization of linetypes. Although programming in AutoLisp wasn't fun.
Tell us about the cool jacket :)
Fun story, 2 weeks after I bought it I was randomly stopped in the street by someone who'd been searching the entire UK for it! It's the Hugo Boss Mercedes F1 AMG jacket for the 2016 season, the single most expensive item of clothing ive ever bought in my life by a considerable mile!!
It's made from genuine 1970s sofas!😂
Would love a nerfed version of Inventor for us makers, tinkerers, etc.
Well, ehh Fusion is that tbh
You don't really need to understand "programming" to use ilogic, but you need to understand logic in general.
Cause and effect, it certainly helps when you start trying to read or write anything more complex than iproperties and parameters, then yes visual basic and inventor API knowledge helps, but for setting a few simple parameters based on the results of other parameters or driven parameters, then you don't really need to know how to program, just follow a few simple instructions
you may have noticed everytime more universities ditch inventor in favour of Fusion...interestingly it is Autodesk itself that is pushing this, and also funding free Fusion training for whole departments 🤔
Possibly to deny Solidworks a toehold and increase the user base? Maybe they think they can wrap up the small company market, where the cost and abilities of Inventor are overkill?
ugh dont get me started on spur gear, for my assignment i spend 3 days going over tutorials on how to do the formulas to do a spur gear only to then notice the bloody tool button haha
nice hair cute Neil :) I posted something on Linkedin which i have since deleted as and my "friend" was quick to slate maybe looking out for me. He supporting helping sometimes with one of the fusion 360, friend basically said merging two software's that are written in the same language can't be merged easily so you can imagine my thoughts "cough" "cough. his quote was "they want what's considered an prosumer platform and a commercial offering which are two completely different beasts". I have a licence of fusion 360 but my confliction is do I invest in the Product Design Manufactuing Collection and yes fusion 360 comes with it but do i just then stop using Fusion 360 and carrying on using in inventor....id like to think it would be inventor but i want to really no where i need to invest my time.
Interesting
i know 9000 things initially and 1500 things a year inventor has that fusion doesnt... the huge bills.
i know something that fusion comes with that inventor doesnt, cam included for the $299 a year
as someone who has used AutoDesk for 35 years... 2% might need something inventor has that fusion doesnt.
Spaceclaim..... Or Design Spark Mechanical.
i joined you mate :)
Woooooo thanks Darren!!!
@@Neil3D no problem. It's not much but I appreciate the knowledge you have and love how you deliver it.
We need to tell Autodesk to put 3D Sketch into Assembly.
Why? To use for what?
@@Neil3D To use as a skeleton for assembling parts. For now, I have to create a separate .ipt just for the 3D Sketch. I knew Solidworks including 3D sketch in their Assembly. I saw some requests to add 3D sketch to Asm on Inventor Forum, but it never gets executed.
I don’t understand why Autodesk made a new codebase for Fusion 360, and not extended Inventor to have Fusion 360 manufacturing capabilities, and then made a feature subset for a less expensive product. Seems to me like a waste of resources.
I think they probably wanted to create new software for more "limited" use and I suspect that Inventor has so much features embedded into that it was simply easier to creatre new product alltogether.
I think the fusion kernel was the first designed to make proper use of multi core and hyperthreading that the new computers were getting back in the day. Most Cam was single core optimized, at the time of launch.
i wish fusion360 had imates! for easy assembly of repeated parts....
Ahhh damn I forgot about iMates! This could have easily been hours long if I'd went that far, possibly needs a part 2!
Jensen Huang does CAD
Neil, you're comparing a Ferrari to a Fiat. Fusion does a damn good job considering the price.
I'm addressing a question that gets asked by thousands of people, the price difference does not make anything immune to comparison. In fact, with Fusion, once you add on an extension or two it's about in the same ballpark in annual cost.
@@Neil3D Fair enough, keep up the good work. I've always enjoyed your inventor tutorials. Although I never get to actually use it.
What is the goal? A hobbyist tool or is it to beat SOLIDWORKS? Does Autodesk have a different goal than typical Fusion or Inventor customer?
For a brief moment I thought I could work in fusion, but I realized, NO, I could not😆😆
family parts == Configurations for SW people
This will make a new wave for AI
I think Fusion is a mistake. I think they should focus all their efforts to catch up with the functionality of Creo, Solidworks, Solid Edge and others. Inventor is fine, but the 2010 version would be enough for me, there is still nothing in those versions that would make me say wow (maybe one wow model state). I thought they would add Sheet metal to Frame or Tab and slot or a much better Frame, but they put it in Revit as Functionality Advance steel wanted in Inventor. There's a lot to change and I'm still waiting. I'd like to be proud of Inventor, but I'm sad that development isn't fast enough against the competition. Why did they cancel Force Effect for Inventor? = I don't understand to this day.
Today I am using version 2023.
You miss the overall goal and focus of Fusion360 - it is not to emulate Inventor which is such an let me say old way of doing things. Maybe for older cad trained folks thats fine. For the modern designers Inventor is a nightmare … just old workflows - Fusio360 tried to set a different approach till the marketing / investor team told them to focus on engineers and not designers as a market - remember when Fusion was called design differently ?
Since the day fusion went public, their user base has spent time and effort trying to get the product team to emulate/replicate inventor features. Just look at the now archived ideastation, it's a graveyard of both completed requests and open requests to get fusion to where inventor is. A large proportion of the fusion team are ex inventor. So whilst at no point did I say that the goal of fusion was to emulate inventor, you've just probably heard other people say it and just assumed that's what I'm doing, but actually yes in fact fusion very much does emulate inventor in more ways than it's different
@@Neil3D at this point now yes it seems more to emulate inventor - but it started more as a different design tool.
The problem Fusion had was that from the start it decided to work on too many different areas not finish one tool first. It took years for loft to be usable and not requiring 3D sketches to stabilize rail edges. Or look at the sketch engine it is till plagued by massive hickups and bugs which go back 6 years.
We had over the last 10 years a lot of meetings with them most designers and over time everything was put into the focus of cadcam being more profitable than industrial design.
Fusion said that here are not enough ID users - we simply said that there are not many ID users because fusions toolset is incomplete
Chick or egg question …
Still besides all fusion is my preferred modeling and teaching platform.
15 billions features Ferrari has that Reliant Robin doesn't have
If you buy Fusion 360, then add the simulation and product design extension, you're paying as much each year as you would for Inventor.
@@Neil3D I use fusion mostly for cam though,its a bit better at cam then inventor ;) add a package of cam to inventor and i think you are paying more.
just watched your video for a second time at 1.0 play speed instead of normal. I have a hard time keeping up and I think its just due to the heavy english accent. You create excellent videos but a suggestion comes to mind, SLOWDOWN , for us dumb americans that cannot always pick up what you are saying with the accent. I am sure you have seen this comment before and are perhaps sick of it but it has merit . PS love the leather jacket and for whoever thought is was distastefull should pound salt where the sun does not shine! TANK'S
Hi Neil,
Great informative video as per usual, BUT, are you rushing off to audition for the Danny Zuko part in your local am-dram production of Greece?
Did you loose a bet?
loose the biker jacket for all future videos it doesn’t suit at all!
I'm here because fusion 360 sheet metal is so broken I'm losing my mind. Cut the wrong place on a model and the entire sheet metal math history is just gone.
Being able to work offline
Come on Dave, hurry up and sub!
Well, let's face it. Fusion 360 is not a replacement or alternative to the Inventor. It is a 3D modelling toy software for hobbyists. Quite expensive toy, but comparing to the price of Inventor, it must lack of the features of its older, wiser brother (or sister:). And that will not change ever I believe. For me the only way to use Inventor is that I have it through the company I work for. Otherwise I would need to use Fusion 360 for my hobby modelling. If you are doing modelling for 3d printing, cnc milling in small company and don't need full drawing documentation, Fusion is way to go. Otherwise, you need Inventor or other equivalent software from other provider.
f360 is free for personal use (not commercial).
so you dont use ilogic, thats ok, instead of a tutorial on it why do you do a video on trying to learn how to create an ilogic function. some thing for us noob to follow along with. i dont just an idea. would be fun to see an expert trying to learn some thing :)
As a many decade AutoCAD user I have found that Fusion’s sketching ability is an abysmal failure. It took me several hours of workarounds to make a sketch that AutoCAD would have taken mere minutes to achieve. There are so many missing tools that make it basically useless. I had to revert to .dxf output in order to produce anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Shame on your part, Autodesk. I’m hoping you bring your Fusion standards up to adequate industry usability soon.
Not mentioned is: That greatest Power of Pack & Go is that what ever the Project file of the source is, there will be a new one created in the ZIP file. *VERY IMPORTENT*
I hate Inventor , prefer Solid Works ,Fusion360 I don't know 😁
Get on with it man....
The only reason I use fusion 360 is for CAM. Even for that, I create the model in Solidworks then import it into Fusion 360 then do the CAM. The design functionality of Fusion is simply trash.
each has its uses but I always go back to the $495 per year and it does what I need. for 10 years under its belt think its been doing well. again sorry but I am not sure how much inventor cost but you pay for what you get and I get just what I want inside fusion. why pay more, save up and buy a jacket like that?
bend
Is inventor more stable than Fusion? Fusion is the buggiest, laggiest, most crash prone piece of crap I've ever seen. It's horrible.
Get real and buy Solidworks!
Why would you pound my ears with this background noise, oh.. because you do not want anybody watch this longer than two minutes. I am out of here.
Cos the levels were perfectly fine in editing and on my studio monitors, I can barely hear the ambient music on every device I play it on. But either way, toodles.
Oh my word, 80's jacket, just no!