Cloud is NOT secure. Saving files out in STP, IGS or any other exported format other than the native file format will defeat the purpose of having a parametric modeler because all that data is stripped out when exported.
Again most often many prototypes do not need full parametric features.
I use Inventor and Fusion 360. Inventor is not free but Fusion is. Fusion 360 is amazing. Check out the YouTube videos on it. It will let you do surface modeling as well as the typical extrusion modeling. It does not do surfaces like rhino but it is great for free.
I have no use to use Fusion because of the subscription terms and the fact it is cloud based. So as amazing and wonderful it might be it will never be in my shop. Not interested and very happy with what I am using.
I use OnShape and Iâm incredibly happy with it. Thereâs no reason you canât use cloud-based software for patentable inventions. For me, OnShape was the most intuitive of all the packages I looked at and Iâm still convinced that there isnât anything easier to use. It doesnât have as many features as some of the big name programs but it seems I donât need any additional features for the work Iâm doing.
@KenCitron, youâre paranoid. Rarely will anyone steal a product idea which isnât already in the market making money. Copycats go after products which have proven market traction. Besides that, cloud is secure so you just donât know what youâre talking about. Quit fear mongering.
The cloud is not secure, securing your data outside of your own local machine is not secure. Data gets mined and hacked all the time far more than you can believe. I personally wonât put my files at risk but if you want to then go ahead.
Indeed, data does gets hacked and mined all the time, but itâs no more secure in your hacked-together NAS, or Synology-consumer thingy, even less your computerâs hard-drive, than on a cloud. The cloud also had usually much better redundancy and is less prone to ransomeware than your own system. Also if parametric software isnât necessary then itâs not an issue to export in STEP, right ? Since all the model feature are locked in the proprietary format and parametric modeling doesnât matter, then a STEP file with a software that has good direct edit functionality is enough.
I see that your are paranoid with data security but you donât see to know much about it. If you have data to prove that a cloud-.based service is less secure than your own storage then I would be happy to read it⊠but I bet that without some overly complicated/bothersome measures OR an entreprise-level server and firewall, it will not be the case.
I just see it as an unnecessary risk. The other issue is it is still a subscription based program where once that runs out not only are you locked out of your files and are married to that software for a price.
There are other alternatives like I mentioned for reasonable moeny that are not subscription such as the perpetual license for Xenon if you truly need parametric features or FormZ Pro which is semi parametric hybrid modeler or Rhino and Moi3d that are direct modelers.
Back to the original question where BluesMatt was looking for a free modeler. I have not found one that was stable enough and/or had a reasonably usable gui that was free with no strings attached.
Personally I tend toward Solidworks although I find it somewhat buggy. Iâve played with Onshape and love it. Wrote a forum post a while back titled Goodbye Solidworks, Hello Onshape. If youâre new and donât mind being tethered to the cloud, Iâd say thatâs the way to go.
Havenât tried Fusion 360 yet, will have to.
Are you seriously saying that OnShape is superior to Solidworks? Donât get me wrong, I like OnShape, as it has borrowed a lot from Solidworks, so it feels like working with a âSolidworks Liteâ, but âGoodBye Solidworksâ???.. I donât think so. OnShape has a long, long way to go before it provides 1/4 of the functionality available in SW.
And what exactly is âbuggyâ about Solidworks?
Yes, it lacks a lot of advanced features, but the basics are there - guessing 85% of what I need in the type of work I do. âLiteâ is a good analogy. Where itâs missing more sophisticated constructs, Iâve generally been able to derive what I want from basic building blocks or rather approachable FeatureScript. Iâll bet the models I work on arenât as elaborate as yours.
I agree it has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near feature parity with Solidworks. But frankly some of whatâs missing is bloat I donât want (e.g. my motion simulations are pretty basic, I donât touch plastic deformation or flow simulation, I tried the electronics design tools once and coming from an EE background found them a joke). Qualitatively, Solidworks kind of feels like they kept âtacking onâ new stuff (at times compromising the integrity of the platform before going back and fixing it - most of the people I talk to avoid âSP0â releases like the plague), whereas Onshape feels nascent but more well thought out (not surprising since they started from a clean slate) and Iâd say benefits from a more consistent UX. While Iâve still only done a few projects with it (so youâre right, I havenât yet truly said âgoodbyeâ), I find it offers a pleasant and intuitive design experience with more predictable productivity. For someone new to parametric design I would absolutely point them toward Onshape first before recommending Solidworks (although if they can afford the latter Iâd strongly encourage them to try both). I wonât argue itâs superior, but I do think itâs more approachable.
One area where I did hit a major show-stopper was performance involving huge collections of pattern instances (here body patterning in Solidworks offered a significant edge, provided you know in advance how to correctly approach the problem). Instead of being told âopen a ticket with your VARâ the nice support guys at OnShape quickly reproduced the issue, confirmed it as something needing improvement and presumably added it to their development queue (granted Iâm still waiting for a fix). I didnât need to fight off accusations about hardware validation, which graphics card is installed in my PC, conflicting software, etc.
Thereâs certainly a large swath of things Solidworks does better than Onshape, but theyâre slowly narrowing the gap. e.g. Once upon a time I wouldnât have touched it for anything to do with Sheet Metal, apparently now theyâve got that. I would have used it for my recent BabyForm2 project (reduce open-source âfrictionâ by using a tool anyone can get at for free), except that I needed to be able to work while traveling / on plane / without internet (that being my main biggest complaint about their platform).
My general impression is if you know what youâre doing in Solidworks youâll find it superior and think OnShape is a bit of a toy. But if youâre starting out and want an intuitive albeit smaller toolset thatâs easy to get started with, Onshape fills that niche nicely.
As for bugginess, I describe some examples in my article and more can be found by searching around the Solidworks forums (Iâve posted a few myself). I will say the team seems to be doing a bit better on the stability front these days.
I donât want to dive too much into specific examples here, but I will mention unreliable undo buffering is one that really killed me once, corrupting hours worth of work on a SLDPRT file. Maybe there was a deterministic explanation but it didnât feel that way. I now find myself being a bit less liberal with CTRL+Z and CTRL+Y, and I keep a rolling set of previous point-in-time backups just in case. (From the perspective of a software engineer, thatâs the sort of cognitive overhead a user simply shouldnât have to deal with).
Hyperbole from other frustrated users isnât hard to find in the Solidworks forums.
Sorry if I come across as insulting software youâre passionate about. These are just my views from my own experience :-). Iâd love to hear about where you find OnShape sorely lacking.
I hate Solidworks with a passion. I went out for a competitive quote through another VAR and Solidworks removed all discounts previously offered to me and went full price. They claimed to be âshocked and disappointedâ Iâd go out for competitive bid.
That said, I canât see myself going to OnShape or Fusion 360. Some of the functionality I need just isnât there yet. In addition, all of your work is at their mercy. Great as long as they are in business. Once they shut down (and it can happen quickly) you are high and dry. Does anyone remember when Microsoft decided to shut down their DRM servers? Terabytes of hosted content suddenly worthless and irretrievable.
I had been working with Catia and Solidworks. Recently Iâve been working more with Fusion 360 and even though itâs a bit clunky to use at first but just about everything I need is there. The ability to directly modify STEP and IGS files (move holes delete fillets etc.) is a plus for me.
A big bonus for me is being able to generate CAM tool paths with the native solid. No more errors because the mesh isnât fine enough in the STL.
Havenât used the print tools yet but they do have some support alternatives people can try.
Fusion may be the most powerful âfree to hobbyist/small businessâ CAD CAM software out currently.