Ok - here is my initial draft, we have approx 2 weeks to clean it up - but here we go..
Memo:
Date: 5/24/2021
RE: SolidWorks (SW) – Fusion (FU) 360 (Comparison)
TO:
From: John Stoltzfus
Good afternoon,
Interesting comparison, very similar to a Platypus and an Ostrich, they both lay eggs, however both can’t fly.
SKETCHING
After using FU for a few weeks now, the ease of modeling is very comparable to SW or any other 3D modeling program, all programs are pretty much the same to where you need a flat surface or plane to draw a sketch, (except a few can model right off using 3D sketches). Drawing a rectangle, circle or line is no difference, almost all have the same Icon, so there’s no confusion from that part.
MODELING – EXTRUDING OR CUTTING
There is no difference with these features either, where you can input numeric values or use the drag handles.
DRAWINGS
I personally like more Drawing Features on Fusion then SW, primarily the dimensions don’t go all over the page like SW sometimes does, however that’s it. There is no comparison between SW or FU on all other aspects of the Drawing discussions, Custom Properties, BOM’s are all a huge part in Computer Generated Models/Drawings.
ASSEMBLIES
There is no comparison between the two on this – FU is worse than the neighbors step child. I spent considerable amount of time trying to come up with a robust method to mate parts and they still breakdown. This is not a training issue it is a FU issue, to correct the Assembly Model, I needed to add sketch points and mate those, and if you don’t do it that way, the Assembly Model will blow up.
There are only a few people that work here who realize our Product Development Workflow in SW, much less the years behind the development of our process and how that workflow can be used in any modeling process. I think we all know that, yeah, I used SW for many years, (23 ½ years), and I have never been satisfied with my Workflow and modeling Processes. For years I have been working on a process that I call the Skeleton Sketch Part process and feel that is the only way and the quickest way to model anything that needs to be transferred from Solid Model to Drawings etc. This process is now used throughout the World designing a lot of different components and assemblies, for instance, how about a draw bridge in the State of LA Drawbridge Division, so the first thought in your mind is “We’re not building bridges”, true, but the same process applies in building/designing a (four pc) bookshelf. Today there are a lot of people using the SSP process, it is the “Only” robust parametric process, where the tough error diagnostics are a thing of the past.
I’ve applied that same SSP Process using to FU and the results are the same, which is good, however I’ve had a few things breaking in the assembly/part updates, so I’ll need to see, it definitely is harder to do the diagnostics, not only trying to find the issue, how to correct it was a challenge as well. So comparing SW with FU strictly based on price, SW will always surpass FU to where it’s a speck of dust.
CONFIGURATIONS
Nothing to compare here, FU has no Configuration Options
CUSTOM PROPERTIES
Custom Properties is the most “Undersold” feature in SW, where SW is so far advanced that there’s no comparison between the two
DESIGN TABLES – OPTIONAL DRIVE WORKS
Nothing to compare here, FU has no Design Table Options
MACROS
Nothing to compare here, FU has no Macro Options
CAM
While FU does have CAM integration there is no comparison between SolidCAM and FU CAM, in a lot of different aspects, (this is from Users that I know that have compared or used both) We do have the machines in MA updated to the correct posts for the FU collaboration, so they would need to be modified if we go with another CAM software. The machine posts in PA would need to be modified any way so there’s nothing new here, additional training would be required though, so on the CAM side, it’s possibly a bigger investment jump, but the ROI should add value later on.
PRICE
Understanding the values above makes the Price Comparison ludicrous, there are literally no comparisons between them. The time savings alone using SW far surpass any of the initial costing, just looking at the Subscription Costs for instance, let’s say that FU is $495.00 annually and SW is $1,500.00 for a difference of around a $1,000.00 per seat, which equates to 20 hours at $50.00 per hour per seat, so the adder to that pricing is the approx. the seat price of $4,000 which is a difference of 80 hours at $50.00 per seat, both would equate to 100 hours total per seat per year. We already have most of the licenses in place and ready to go. SW supplies us with a certain amount of “Free Training, per seat per year”
With slightly over 2,000 working hours (40hrs/week) the difference in the above pricing can easily be saved and possibly increase the Engineering through put by a huge margin, plus we’ve wasted a whole lot more time in meetings and discussions, by people that don’t have a vested interest and care more about a, in your face visual using charts etc., so they can take credit in saving the company money, while in reality they are the ones costing the company a lot of money.
SUPPORT
Nothing to compare here, the SW support and the SW International Community is the best in the Industry, hands down.
ENGINEERING STRUCTURE
The “Lack Of” an Engineering Department Structure should be a bigger concern, product development, inventory management, and revision management/control are haphazard at best. The challenges will remain by having (2) two different campus’s and no model/drawings transparency, especially magnified by currently using two different modeling programs.
All I need to add in small print “The words and comparison statements are only a matter of opinion” and “Re-quoting anything from this document is will be classed as taken out of context” lol
