Share your experience using Autodesk Fusion

We are still using Oracle as a database engine because we are still on the engineering applications which support Oracle databases.

This is basically related to engineering applications for the oil and gas industry design applications, like 3D modeling databases. Our main core business is engineering, so as a back-end platform to store the repository data, we use Oracle database.

For the engineering applications, we work with Bentley, Autodesk, Hexagon and AspenTech, which are the engineering developers we collaborate with.

Autodesk is mainly used for the drafting engine, but for some customer demands for 3D, we use Plant 3D as a tool for the design of the oil and gas industry.

We use Autodesk AutoCAD, Autodesk AutoCAD Plant 3D, Civil 3D, Navisworks, Navis Simulate, and Revit. We are using all of these tools.

It basically depends on the customer. Most of the drafting work is done on Autodesk AutoCAD, but design and the terrain and 3D work related to civil is done in Civil 3D.

For Autodesk AutoCAD, our main end customer is the oil and gas industry in UAE and Saudi Arabia. This is the main customer.

It is for drafting, design, and the process industry. All aspects, whether the civil design, process P&IDs or the mechanical design work for the equipment, everything which needs to be drawn, our draftsman uses Autodesk AutoCAD.

Autodesk AutoCAD is a very generic tool. We believe worldwide it is acceptable, so there is a big demand. Every format is comfortably converted to any other software engine. This is a very good supportive tool.

Most of the drafting works are very comfortable to do and easy to share and easy to load on normal PCs. That is why every designer is comfortable doing this.

The version control feature is very good. If we store the previous version data and then we compare, we think that sounds very good. It helps while updating the drawings with reference to the previous work.

We think the split between 3D and 2D areas needs to be addressed. While loading Autodesk AutoCAD on a normal desktop PC, it seems to be very graphic-intensive, even for 2D. Upcoming versions are very high-demanding of hardware. We think that is a very key factor that needs to be addressed.

The second issue is the licensing matter. It is on a subscription model. Other companies in parallel are offering perpetual licenses. That is also in the competition, with BricsCAD from Hexagon. They are offering perpetual licenses, but Autodesk has dropped the perpetual license option. That is a big challenge with the subscription model.

We have been using this for the last 20 to 25 years.

We would rate the stability as an eight.

We would rate the scalability as more than ten. For scalability, we think there is no match. We think that is perfect.

The support is very fine, very efficient, and very active. Even in all circumstances, we get a very positive and very early response from them.

Neutral

The main competitor we are currently seeing is BricsCAD from Hexagon. It is very challenging and very stable. Previously ZWCAD hit the market, but in the current circumstances, we think BricsCAD will give it a tough time. Its interface is similar to Autodesk AutoCAD, its behavior and its features are everything, but the difference is the perpetual licensing being offered by Hexagon.

In our region, Autodesk prefers to deal via their partners. That is why we go via partners to deal with Autodesk.

Drafting becomes more efficient within a system when someone adopts this as a CAD engine. We think their ability automatically grows and they get more productive.

Our main streamline is the 2D in Autodesk AutoCAD, but for 3D we prefer to use Smart 3D from Hexagon.

We do not work with certain features and never have.

Certain features are not preferable because most of the things which work on LISP programming are quite helpful. We think that is enough for us for the current work scenarios.

We never use certain features. For validation tools, some of our customers basically provide us with a digital tool to extract the data to align things with layers, coloring schemes, text heights, and every attribute to map to their systems. We normally use that type of toolkit to get the data and align it with the customer data.

We would rate Autodesk AutoCAD as a nine or ten overall. It is good for us because the customers we are dealing with prefer to use Autodesk AutoCAD. That is why we never shifted to any other CAD engine. Our customers desire to have it. If they say you should have this license, then we have it. This is the final call. We believe this solution deserves a review rating of nine.

I was a design engineer using Dassault Catia V5 and V6. I designed many kinds of parts including casting parts, injection molded parts, and created technical drawings, macros, scripts, surface development, and generative shape design activities, mostly for the automotive industry.

The most valuable capabilities of Dassault Catia for me are the surface design, as the control of surfaces is the best for me, along with the Part Design commands, which align with manufacturing methods, and the technical drawing features, which are also quite user-friendly.

The handling of the model in Dassault Catia is quite successful, as it alerts me to design updates or errors by turning corresponding parts red, enabling me to identify and debug any problematic areas quickly.

I enhance project teamwork using Dassault Catia's collaboration tools, including file-based design or embedded PLM systems, allowing real-time collaboration on designs without conflicting changes, as the system locks parts upon assignment, ensuring secure modifications.

The clash check analysis feature in Dassault Catia is quite powerful, helping me visualize clash points clearly within sections and providing detailed reports on problematic areas for validation of complex designs.

Dassault Catia has significantly impacted product design efficiency, particularly in the automotive industry, where predefined workflows facilitate processes like injection molding and sheet metal designs seamlessly with the necessary production outputs.

I find that Dassault Catia is not very user-friendly for newbies, as it can be quite challenging to learn compared to other CAD software, due to its different structural approach that stems from its aerospace industry origins.

I have negative comments about Dassault Catia's pricing policy because the costs for different modules and export licenses such as the STEP model license are very high, making it expensive for comprehensive use.

The scalability of Dassault Catia requires a significant investment, making it less affordable for smaller companies, as it is best suited for larger organizations with more extensive design teams to justify the costs.

I have been working with Dassault Catia since 2011.

The stability and reliability of Dassault Catia are among its most powerful attributes, as it can handle detailed models such as entire airplane designs without any issues.

I have communicated with the technical support of Dassault Catia, which varies by region; while support in Turkey is quick and helpful, I found the Canadian support team to be slower and more difficult to access.

Positive

I used NX prior to Dassault Catia, which included no issues with STEP model creation, as all necessary functionalities were part of the package without additional costs.

I participated in the initial setup and deployment of Dassault Catia, configuring it according to my company standards, especially for V6, which operates directly from the cloud with all features embedded.

I did not see the link to the Siemens NX review; could you tell me which email you sent it to? My overall review rating for Dassault Catia is 8.