And no one was truly surprised. Autodesk is like Adobe + Oracle of engineering.
Which is why I'm always amazed the semi-pro and hobbiest community standardized on fusion. They've already pulled that rug multiple times but fanboys don't learn.
I'm open to suggestions for alternatives for functional part 3D modeling.
I use Fusion 360 because it's free for hobbyists and it's features for functional 3D modeling blow away any other software I've tried in the open source/free/low cost market.
Fusion 360 handles parameters beautifully, has a very flexible timeline editing system, and generally is very forgiving about how you use the software.
I'd happily pay up to $120/year for hobby use. It's that good. I can't afford $600 a year for a hobby tool though.
The closest alternative I know is FreeCAD. It has a notable following, but compared to Fusion it's slow, clunky, buggy, and fights you every step of the way you use it. In FreeCAD, there is usually one right way to do something, and dozens of wrong ways that all end up with you having to redo tons of work.
TLDR: I've created all sorts of useful things in Fusion. All I've created in FreeCAD is tears.
FreeCAD works if you work on learning the workflows. In my own experience the number of ways to accomplish a simple task can be overwhelming. The last two years the development pace has really picked up. If it's been a while since you've tried I'd advise trying again.
As for other alternatives, SOLIDWORKS is a great contender. It's inexpensive or free for hobbiests, has everything you need and the kitchen sink, interoperates with industry standard formats well, is generally fast and stable.
I've also heard good things about Siemens Solid Edge, which has a great set of features for free and is hobby friendly.
It was more fucked up than a simple rug pull.
Autodesk used the hobby community for years as free resource to develop Fusion and when they deemed the product finished, and sufficient amount of people hooked, the company put up a paywall. Then another one. And another one.
The old system worked fine. You bought a version and you get to keep it forever. You typically got a year of updates along with it. If your didn't want anything new ever, you were done. If you wanted more updates, you could buy another years worth typically with a nice discount. That way the customer chooses how much they need updates and the company gets paid for the updates.
You're right, and that model actually forced/encouraged development and innovation of the software. If they didn’t make it compelling, no one would buy the new version. Now with the subscription model, these companies don’t need to do anything more than putting a new shade of lipgloss on it every year, they have a captive audience. They can basically pull a Valve and just patch security flaws.
It's all a symptom of Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) becoming the primary revenue metric for many SaaS companies. It's a simple metric that provides a good foundation for forecasting future revenues, so it keeps shareholders happy when a company can explain how much ARR they have and how much they expect it to grow / decline.
Like you said, companies don't need to do anything except protect their ARR with a bit of lipgloss and it also leads to the company shaving off any other parts of their business that are not contributing to that ARR metric.
unfortunately with that style of software it also encourages crackers to pirate the subscription in, I know many are doing that with netlimitor because with newer releases it is forcing a paid bi yearly sub in place of the perma license. I’m holding onto my keys and staying on the older version for as long as I can. Sublime Text is the same way
Yeah, its unfortunate that Netlimiter went with a sub. Its such a miniscule sub, yet a sub … if only it was updates for a year and you keep your latest version I’d probably update my license every year …
This. I'm totally for FOSS, but among four commercial apps that I use (SublimeText, SublimeMerge, Reaper and Bitwig), all four use this older model. You buy a period of free upgrades, but you may keep using the current version as long, as you wish. I see this model as beneficial for user and the company (providing them with money), but also encouraging it economically to continue developing the product. In the case of subscription-based model, I see little reason for the company to improve the product.
Add comment