Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
Comments
F360 does a pretty good job of CAM, though.
I haven't dig deep enough to claim otherwise, if software doesn't feel good from the start it's like going for marathon with too small shoes (IMHO).
Onshape has proper branching and merging, Fusion does not (they gave it a shot, but realized their implementation wasn't good enough).
Fusion has much better surfacing capabilities (but in no way perfect).
Fusion has nice free-form modeling with T-splines.
Onshape is full cloud, Fusion is cloud storage. This is a double-edged sword, though. In cases of server issues you can still work in Fusion, not so with Onshape.
Fusion allows storing a full copy of your design to local storage. This copy can then be sent to others, or as a backup.
Onshape has full timeline preview (the "Final" tick box) when editing an older feature. I really miss that one in Fusion.
Onshape has proper deriving of parts, in Fusion it is kinda possible to do it, but it is kludgy.
Along the same lines is that the organization of bodies and components in Fusion is less intuitive.
Fusion has built-in rendering which is reasonable good
Fusion has 3D-splines (and 3D sketches) which can be manipulated with tangency handles, Onshape does not (at least I think not).
I haven't used the integrated analysis functions in Fusion 360, and also not any of the CAM stuff, but both of those requires 3rd-party apps in Onshape (which may or may not be integrated, it's been a long time since I checked which apps are available for Onshape).
The transition from Onshape to Fusion 360 did take me some time, and Onshape was my first foray into proper parametric CAD, but now that I'm well into it, I have no regrets. Onshape's no privacy policy (unless you go pro) is unacceptable, but at this point, even if Onshape had introduced a mid-tier subscription model (or re-introduced some privacy for the Free Plan), I would still stick with Fusion 360. My list above is obviously just a tiny glimpse into some of the differences between the two, and both a clearly capable systems. Functionality-wise you can do a lot more in Fusion 360, but Onshape is perhaps a bit more polished in what it can do.
One more thing, both have excellent support forums, where employees participate in solving both issues and modeling challenges, so that's a tie.
Some examples from Fusion:
The problem with Fusion is a number of bugs. It's not suitable for large assemblies.
Onshape have cleaner UI and better UX in general. Collaboration is beyond what any competitor can offer. Implementation of new features takes into consideration most common workflows and tries to improve them, so it's not just a new tool but a whole workflow. FeatureScript can offer more than just API.
It looks like Onshape devs have a much clearer vision of their product, at least when compared with Fusions development, which looks chaotic.
Honest advice, try both and you will know.
projektowanieproduktow.wordpress.com
DesignSpark Mechanical, a Free 3D Modeler Derived from SpaceClaim
I'm not sure why I stopped by here today...I never use OnShape anymore since the private documents were axed. OnShape called me a few times and I kept telling them the same thing...if they can get Fusion CAM into OnShape, I'll take another look. Until then I'll continue to use Fusion.
The loss of CAM integration is a bit disappointing, and Fusion's integraded 3D print button to automatically send the STL to Cura is nice too. I'll post back in a couple weeks when I've got some more experience, but so far for Parametric 3D design, Onshape appears to be a bit more polished and just as responsive.
I've used both on several projects. I see Fusion as a "jack of all trades but master of none" type of product. It can do a little bit of everything, but doesn't excel at any of them. As a hobbyist that was great. But when it came time to evaluate CAD for my company, the feature sacrifices were well worth the reliability and polish of Onshape.
Really, the two main things that convinced me to switch were the data management capabilities of Onshape and the reliability. I ran into multiple bugs and things just acting weird in Fusion, which I don't experience in Onshape. Also, with Onshape, I can design a part for one project, then easily use that part in other projects while managing revision control. Fusion just is not set up to manage CAD data where any sort of professional workflows are required. You might as well just be storing your files in dropbox.
In summary:
Fusion - jack-of-all-trades package for hobbyists, designers, small companies with broad feature set
Onshape - Professional CAD with data management, change control, and a growing (but polished and reliable) feature set.
It's interesting. My manager is anti-Onshape still, and he has read these articles from "random guy on the internet 31" and he is convinced Fusion is the better tool and Onshape is still for hobbiests. (Even though he has never used Fusion, or has any want or need to move to Fusion, and has had minimal experience in Onshape. I think he is just grasping at straws looking for reasons why Onshape isn't as good as I claim) Then he shows me a chart of market shares how Fusion is #1 followed by solidworks inventor a few others, and towards the very bottom Onshape.
I looked at him right in the eyes and said "Really motherfucker?! You are going to trust market shares over the engineer that has been living in it for the last few years 2 cubicles down?" I wish people would stop listening to people who do nothing but review a product for a few weeks and assume they know everything about it.
It took me a over a year to truly jump into the Onshape wagon with both feet. I put it through my toughest tests (and still do). I take these reviews with a grain of salt. Like all parametric CAD systems, they can be easy to learn, but hard to master. Onshape is no exception, and when you have parts coming in and out of existence based of of a feature tree, it blows the simple minds of the file based CAD users. Onshape has its fair share of faults and short comings, but at least it isn't a cesspool of bugs, clutter and feature-creep you get from these "Old and polished" CAD systems.
But honestly from most of the people I have worked with that have years of experience in Solidworks, they haven't even mastered solidworks, so dumb people are just everywhere I guess. Just today I looked over at a co-worker and heard him complaining about splitting a frame into two pieces (the stock length was too long so he needed to but-splice it as two pieces) It took him about an hour in Solidworks. I chuckled and showed him how it would be done in Onshape. (sketch a cut line, extrude surface, thicken .005" for the gap and boolean subtract, Bam! two new parts all of 3 minutes) nope, he had to edit sketches where he literally drew a rectangle 10 separate times, and dimensioned each rectangle 10 separate times, then had a dimension the gap between each rectangle. There were more dimension lines than sketch lines! Jesus Christ, haven't you ever heard of a pattern? Then he had to make a copy of the part and set the gaps from the other direction and make the opposite side of the splice dog-bone.
And people like this want to put their two cents in when talking about software they have never used. Sorry I digress but it is very irritating hearing stupid people win most of the time.
Generally a lot more mouse clicks.
Was really surprised by number of crashes. One was during start of program when F360 was just unresponsive. One while trying to use the 'hole' function. Nothing special going on at the time. Last one was while trying to modify a large file import (has been sluggish in OS as well).
Not used to having program crashes since working with OS. Slow downs at times 'yes' when dealing with large documents.
My general take was that there are way more steps in F360 to perform the same function.
OS hole function takes care of threading while making a hole where as F360 needs a second operation to add threads to the hole.
For me the great thing about Onshape is I can be running a laser cutter on the shop floor, designing the next part in a browser rather than returning to my desk while the current part is running, and natter on the forum at the same time :-)
The worst thing is they still can't spell OnShape properly.
Also @john_mcclary please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Cheers, Owen S.
HWM-Water Ltd
I'm not going to be designing bridges, cranes nor factories any time soon but for my workshop projects along with my other new interest, 3D printing, it's Onshape every time for me.
There are two ways to sell a product. Sell very few for $$$ or sell many for $. Onshape is going for the professional market, which is leaving out a huge number of people that go to Fusion just for that cost savings.
The problem is what can Onshape actually Limit for a mid-tier user? Onshape is good about every user can use every feature. (with the exception of the top tier enterprise features, which only enterprise level companies would actually want/use)
The only thing they could do is what they did before. Limit the qty of private docs. But who would pay for a limited number of docs? maybe it is a limited Docs per year model instead?
Maybe charge a fee on making a doc private. Treat them like a pro user with access to edit private documents, but charge a reasonable fee to make a document private or something. on top of low annual or monthly subscription. Small annual sub is basically to allow editing of existing private docs and rights to commercialize.
You could give free users the ability to store private docs too for the same fee. but they cannot edit unless they make it public, then pay the fee again to make it private when they are done. If they only need to do that a few times a year, they only shell out a hundred bucks, rather than a thousand and a half.
Or they could choose to stay purely free like the current model.
Sounds like hassle, but that would fit every level of user up to pro all at once. This should scale well too, the more someone uses Onshape the more they pay from $0 up to Pro$, at that point they can justify buying a full seat, or end up paying more than a pro user on a busy year. Kind of like going over on your dataplan on your phone. Some months it is worth the extra $15 to keep a very low dataplan. Or micro-transactions in free-to-play video games. I feel like an arse for suggesting they do a micro-transaction model, but when it's done FAIR and correct, it can be a good model for everyone.
I considered Fusion 360 when abandoning OtherCAD as fast as I could because the interface made me stupid. OS interface was like a breath of fresh and I was on board right away, hoping I could learn and become proficient enough to create the proprietary product I had envisioned. The initial $1500 (if I remember correctly) was steep for my purposes but had no options if I wanted to keep my docs private.
I am still working on that single project that could live in maybe 3 - 4 private docs quite easily but they need to be kept private. I do other stuff that can be public but these others docs must remain private. Is there a plan that would accommodate my (and similar) needs?
I am most likely in a very small minority and the size of that minority will dictate and kind of subscription or limited private document plan that would be worth the effort, from a strictly business standpoint.
Designing that plan could be complex as illustrated and at the end of the day does Onshape profit from such a plan? Is it worth the effort? From a strict ROI business point of view perhaps not, but would it expand OS' user base and if so how?
Would there simply be a bunch of users who are not willing to pay for a high end professional CAD system with no future to bring on board to the PRO level? Or would it expand the user base, expose the features and greatness that is OS to those who need only very limited private doc access/security?
Again likely complex but doable as your suggestions illustrate but the big question remains, "Why would OS do such a thing?" What's in it for the company? And the user? I for one would be on board immediately, but that's one user. How many others would actually take advantage of such a plan? Another big question, and changing plan policy can have a devastating effect on the user base so it must be done right.
Did people abandon OS for Fusion because of the new (kinda old now) private doc policy? Anecdotally yes. That would concern me as a company but the OS policy gurus decided it was worth it to perhaps create a more professional user base? As good a plan any I suppose. And so what if it leaves users like myself with no options but an expensive one for their limited purposes? Why would/should OS care if the goal is to create a professional user base?
I don't see limiting amount of docs as option, if you are cheap enough all you need is one single doc for all work. Just create new branch from empty workspace.
I think the only option would be to bring back monthly payment option if license not in full use. Obviously, the platform would probably enable a lot more intuitive payment plans according to usage than payment by period of time.
So far as private documents go, I'd probably want a couple of dozen with perhaps one or two hundred parts. That would probably cover a few years of my "business" use.
File based CAD is like a religion that programmed us to be scared and defensive. Anything that is different could only be the devil! Onshape is the rider on the white horse coming down to wipe away all the corruption.