This one, I am just tired of dealing with it. LOL. It has no pre-made slots in the parts. The pattern features can add new bodies which then require any other operations that refer to the pattern results to be adjusted to add those new bodies. This is why the slots are not built into the items, I could NOT get them to update automatically so the slots need to be added by the user once the final shape is achieved. It breaks, and this is the simplest geometry imaginable… it’s basically a cone and two different size boxes, it should not be this much of a pain. LOL
But it can also do some cool stuff, up to the point that it breaks. Check out the samples below, particularly the one that transitions from circular at the top to square at the bottom. Yeah, THAT was a mistake, albeit a happy one, that looks spiffy!
Yup ditto! I really have to get around to learning fusion. It seems to be a bit better at the parametrics over SW. Or @mpipes is a fusion master. Leaning towards second one.
I have parametric experience from other programs (Geomagic Design, Pro/E, Inventor, OnShape) but I would not say I’m a master at it. I havent used SolidWorks, but I’d imagine it’s pretty solid in terms of flexibility and capability. Geomagic Design, however, I KNOW would have been able to handle the patterned items exactly the way I needed it to work, but nobody can read those files and maintain the parametric constraints without a grip of cash to spend on it.
The are both great. I’m an F360 fan myself but there are OnShape fans here that I respect as well.
OnShape wins in portability as there is an iOS and an Android app for it.
F360 wins most everywhere else in my opinion. It is free to anyone not making $100K, the OnShape has a free plan but it is very limited. The F360 is full servises.
I’d agree with @markevans36301 for the same reasons. F360 doesnt put a limitation on the number of active projects you can have, like OnShape does for a free account. F360 uses a local software installation on your computer which I prefer for this kind of work.
OnShape might have more people working on developing more add-ins simply because it’s built from the ground-up to be more open.
Other than that, all the parametric modelers work very similarly using 2D sketches that are modified into 3D forms, and maintaining a timeline of command history you can always go back through to make updates to a design if needed.
