Fusion 360 just added Eagle inside it! Thoughts? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: hlavac
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2020, 07:24:01 pm
content: It looks like Autodesk managed to fuse Eagle derivative inside of Fusion 360.I don't know, too good to be true?Not really fan of subscription model... Somehow I always see them jacking up the subscription price in the future so high we will hit the moon...They may give nice temporary discounts now, but I'm pretty sure they will make up for it later when I 'm locked in...Anyway, it is pretty interesting they have added Eagle in without rising the price (so far). The CAD part is pretty good... must... resist... temptation...

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 10:56:03 am
content: No surprises.Being bounded to that LICENSE-WARE model**if ** they do not add value for the money...chances are that today they will be more and moreobsoleted by large adoption of good quality open sourceCAD/EDA tools.Bottom line: Those folks are NOT used to competition.They really don't want competition - they've locked outall competition by controlling underlying vendors andfirmware blobs with bundled license-ware daemons.Crippled OS to the maximum extent of controlThese days are gone. Adding value for the thing willjust buy them some time... IMHO until some changethey will be forced into** IF ** eventually those "embrace and extinguish" works or not..wait to seePaul

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 11:43:37 am
content: Given the subscription only model, Eagle is dead to me and all future development in it is irrelevant.QuoteHow is that good? Mandatory integration is never good.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:08:08 pm
content: A subscription model could be interesting due to lower the upfront costs but it also means you are renting your own IP. Stop paying and you'll be locked out of your own IP.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:15:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 25, 2020, 12:08:08 pmEXACTLY. They want YOU as a TENANT only...This is deeply linked to proprietary "FORMATS" in whichthey have been quite diligent to keep closed and proprietary.I remember first time around the ~2000s when an open sourcelibrary to "read" assets based on R12 was launched... and very soonthey LOCKED OUT all formats with a proprietary "CERTIFIED" R12.They KO the project and since all our assets are bounded to a proprietaryformat.. you are doomed and hopeless stuck with a no way to go (read)all your assets.Putting a huge ASSET BASE into a vendor locked down format isto say the least - something not very clever..They have you in their pockets:- YOU PAY FOR THE HARDWARE- YOU PAY THE BILL OF YOUR ASSETS- they actually own the property of bothas your hardware will not function wo the lockeddrivers or formats (some versions are dongle based)I had enough of this on the 90/early 00s.dumped them as soon as possiblePaul

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:24:02 pm
content: We are still using V7.70. It's extremely stable and reliable (at least on Linux). Subscription is a no go.I would like to buy a license for the Professional/Ultimate version of V7.70 for personal use but autodesk doesn't want my money

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:26:38 pm
content: Ignoring the issues with Eagle it does fit into Fusion 360 and seems to work fairly well.10 minute case with one of their examples. All I did was use the Fusion insert Derive on the existing board and do the usual sketch bits, created mounts using the PCB dimensions etc. The key thing here is in a workgroup type of situation if the Layout whiz changed the position of the holes or moved a component then the derived model gets auto updated.So without looking closer I would think it is more an easier way for Designers and Mech Eng's to make the working bits look nice instead of forcing an amalgamation.Conspiracy nuts aside it is just another 'feature' that in my case I won't use much as I don't play Eagle but I do play with Fusion on their FREE sub $100k licence.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:32:42 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 25, 2020, 12:26:38 pmhardly "FREE" as your assets are stored into a proprietary format.They do own the intrinsic asset in that format by law.Just a business model - it pre dates open sourceand before that it was a very cost oneA few less than half dozens "partners" in the clubsOpen source formats and soft to handle themchanged a lot that limitationPaul

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:40:04 pm
content: If I ever hit the $100k threshold for Fusion then I am likely to be fine with justifying the annual subscription at that time. I used to use Coraldraw back in the day and I paid more in actual $ to keep that updated than several years of Fusion license.As to proprietary most of the more modern CAD packages are like that so you are trying to peddle some sort of conspiracy with no foundation so don't!For information and NO conspiracy I attach a list of the formats you can export into from Fusion.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 12:49:37 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 25, 2020, 12:40:04 pmDon't get me wrong. There is no conspiracy. Just Business.I have tried to "export" several times... Results will vary a lotdepending on your files but the bottom line ?They DO NOT MATCH - SAME PROBLEM WITH EDA formats.Not even EDIF succeeded. You still won't have the thing as is.I tried that countless times.. No go. EACH CAD/EDA vendorstill fallback to own format - even EDIF failed ..They are not "inter-operational"no conspiracy. Business .You do the math if it worth it or not.Today there are alternativesThere was not such thing by 90 or early daysZero alternativesPaul

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2020, 08:31:12 pm
content: QuoteThat's not the issue. There have been many products where the 'private' or low-count usage has been free, and over time the features available or level at which you start paying has dropped. Ultimately, you end up paying just a little for the basic version and then the price starts going up. Well-known password manager and remote access vendors spring to mind, here.Additionally, the type of vendor who sells only subscriptions also tends to dictate what version of the product you can run (must be the latest, 'to reduce support costs') so if the new version screws your workflow or worse, it's just too bad. Excellent example of this is Kaspersky where their new 2020 version prevent subversion being able to commit changes to a repo held on a NAS. Fortunately, in that case I persuaded them to let me keep running the 2019 version, but next year it looks like I'll have to jump ship if they haven't fixed things. Of course, I don't have any designs stored with Kaspersky so it would be just the loss of a useful tool rather than being locked out of my IPR.Worth also looking at the recent Sonos u-turn. They did that because of the massively bad PR they got, but if it had just been a few people who got burned, Sonos wouldn't have even shed a crocodile tear before gouging them some more. The more people that see subscriptions as perfectly OK force the ones that see ahead to the bent-over rogering that's on the way into a smaller percentage that's less able to do anything about it.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2020, 12:48:05 am
content: Quote from: PKTKS on January 25, 2020, 12:49:37 pmThat might be the case with Eagle to other PCB software but with Fusion apart from the normal STL (faultless every time) export I do for 3D printing the couple of time I have exported a sketchup model it has been fine too. The reality is this is adding a feature such as it is to existing software and has nothing really to do with export options.Quote from: dunkemhigh on January 25, 2020, 08:31:12 pmYour two totally unrelated software packages as a warning fine. But what complete dick in CAD development would ever obsolete current clients designs by forced disallowing reverse compatibility the backlash would be HUGE and the lawsuits crushing? Even the dummies at Microsoft have managed to leave Office largely able to do that for over two decades and if anyone was going to screw it up they would be a prime candidate.The Subscription/Cloud model is and will always be a concern no matter which software and there is already another 'dedicated' thread on thathttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/proof-that-software-as-servicecloud-based-will-never-work-for-long-term/msg2729318/#msg2729318Really zero need to re fight the war in this thread or every other thread where subscription or cloud is mentioned.Back on topic I would call it a benefit but no use to me as I work for myself/contract and don't use Eagle. If on the other hand I was to do a job for someone with an Eagle based board it would be easy to say yep no worries send me the link to your work group and I can do some Mechanical work for you.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2020, 11:02:13 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2020, 12:48:05 amThanks I was not aware of that discussion**VERY** interesting postings...Paul

author: m3ch
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 28, 2020, 08:36:27 pm
content: This "Locked into a proprietary format" bollocks is just that, absolute bollocks. You can export in step along with a host of other file formats, likewise, the cloud integration is painless, you can take all you files offline into a local archive if you want to make your life difficult, you can take the whole program offline for up to a month at a time if you need to.As for cost, it's cheap as, and if you are earning less than 100K US a year derived from it or a student etc, it's free.

author: MitjaN
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2020, 07:13:56 am
content: I also agree that proprietary format is a non-issue. You'll always have that. The formats for interchange (step, gerber) have a limited feature set, while the format's native to each tool have full feature set, but you cannot really count to open them anywhere else (obviously there are exceptions).One of the issues I see is cloud integration. It requires workflow change. And people are obviously resistant to it.Standalone tools offer you the capability to switch versions whenever you like. So if you want to switch to new version 4 years after it came out (for whatever reason), you can do it. You can usually also run different version side by side (old version for current projects, new version for small new project to test the stability ...). You can also store the specific version for decades so you can still open and edit designs that are 20 or more years old (I know of companies that have a couple of Win95 PC's in storage with specific versions of development software siting in storage. Heck with storage being so cheap, you can store complete OS, libraries and development tools in a VM image. And in some industries (medical/automotive) it might be way cheaper to modify the existing design with the same version of the tool it was used to make it due to certification issues.The way I see it with cloud integration somebody else has a power to specify you which version you should use. And I imagine that when the cloud part gets its version upgraded sooner or later the desktop side of it will have to follow. And if the desktop version will require OS version bump, you might be screwed. Especially if you are running different SW and some of it does not want to have OS version bumped. Then you are running shop with two different OS versions. And to top it off, the new OS version does not run on some of your hardware.Just look at how Windows 10 upgrade is done. Sure you can get the version that leaves the upgrades up to you, and you might even get the access to specific version of the cloud part of the solution, but you have to be a big player with a lot of internal IT resources.I think that we are becoming more and more aware that the SW dependency management is a real PITA with no obvious silver bullet. And the old way of doing allowed is/was way more flexible to different setups.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2020, 10:17:13 am
content: Well..depending on how much longer you have been dealingwith such issues... your opinion will vary.I am dealing with that for a while... long enoughto have in between Accel TANGO and OrCADPADs, PROTEL, Altium .. EAGLE binary blobs ...then EAGLE XML then KiCAD...Bottom line: with some RARE cases 99% never couldbe that easily imported... "EXPORTED" sure they may beBut trying to put the thing back into another workspace..Well... I am still to find a single one case .BTW.. even among versions.. Some formats arenot even perfectly matched just because library changesOrCAD when making transition to Cadence made a good"recipe" by converting old libs on the fly..for those not used to handle them .. libs at that timewere largely made by the user.. custom libs.. A realtime consuming problem.. today you take libs for grantedon the internet...Nevertheless the results are never the same.Obviously your timeline with these tools should be long enoughto hit such under the hood pitfalls...Paul

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2020, 11:23:22 am
content: Quote from: PKTKS on January 29, 2020, 10:17:13 amThe libraries from internet are not free in many cases. About a year ago I switched to a different PCB package from Orcad. I did manage to convert the footprint libraries but I did had to write some scripts to tidy up the padstacks. Fortunately the tools allow to export/import the padstacks to/from XML.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2020, 01:37:45 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 29, 2020, 11:23:22 amEXACTLY. You hit the point of trouble.In my case I had not one but several of these issues.Each one in a very specific way must be handle.The older OrCAD cases even have "classes" of troublewhile SDT and ESP use BITMAP libs versions startingto also employ vector libs. Fortunately they care to convertthat themselves as long as you have a working functionallibrary repository.My most recent problems were to convert KiCAD 4 formatsto KiCAD5 formats which unfortunately changed quite a lot.Another mind boggling thing happens when grid misalignmentcaused by different grids used in different libraries clash.I have another set or parsers just to realign the grids toa default of 10 mils (which i rather use mostly) avoidinga complete mess when opening such "EXPORTED" things.Time consuming and never - never they match at first tryLibraries just are not identical. Not even between versionsPaul