Brady's Wish List
Rather than 'nickel & dime' each request, I am listing a few here that I would like to see in future versions of the software:
- Restore Zero & Zero Rest buttons to the Shape Editor
- Restore Transform scale & rotate sliders
- I would like to see Copy vectors to... (new or existing vector layer) as a right-click context menu item
- I'd like to see a 2D/3D button added/restored to the Classic workspace layout. I would also like the ability to change the window/workspace and text color. I'd prefer light gray with black text vs dark gray/white text since it is easier on the eyes...and the dark scheme is depressing...
- I would like to see a tool that allows you to extend 2 vectors to a common point of intersection.
- I would like the ability to create a straight polyline tangent to an arc (anywhere on arc - not just quads) and a tangent arc between two existing arcs, with feedback of tangency while constructing them .
- I'd like to see Feature Machining (projecting toolpath onto a 3D relief) easier to to use. Vectric for example lets you V-carve, pocket, profile in, out or centerline vector, or drill by simply toggling a checkbox in each strategy. I know how to use Feature machining, but it's sometimes tedious to do even for the simplest ones.
- A reference plane or wireframe base geometry for the 3D assembler so you can see where the model is in XYZ space (like importing a 3D mesh and seeing the zero plane) besides just the gnomen. Alignment and rotation are sometimes limited to 'best guess' without XY, XZ and/or YZ planes as a visual reference.
- Better support & visualization for 2-sided (4-sided or n-sided) models. Vectric lets you transfer vectors from front to back sides with perfect alignment between them...automated positioning of the 3D model in the material column & compensation for toolpath depths even when you change Zzero reference and the ability to preview and view both the front & back sides of the toolpath simulation.
I'm sure there are a few others I forgot...but that's enough for now. Thanks!
Comments
Brady Watson wrote: "Rather than 'nickel & dime' each request, I am listing a few here that I would like to see in future versions of the software"
The benefit of posting each feature request separately is that they can then be assigned an appropriate status. For example, see:
Brady, if you separate them out then it lets support mark them as needed such as "Under Review", "Planned" or "Implemented" It also lets other members of the community respond to just the one request, such as this one.
I definitely DO NOT want to see "zero inside", zero outside" moved back to the shape editor. with their own icons on the top row allows you to zero inside or out while in the 3d view or any other relief creation tools, you don't have to open the shape editor just to zero. Secondly, since tools have been moving to real time, selecting a vector to zero then opening the shape editor will create the shape selected in the shape editor settings on that vector and clutter the model until exit.
I vote a big NO in that one.
the rest I will have to read more thoroughly before comment
Gary
Thanks for the feedback - I didn't want to be selfish and clutter up the Feature Requests section with my personal wishes filling up the top several lines...If you are OK with that, I will parse them out & post them individually. Yes?
Gary,
Thanks for the insights - I like the old school interface aka Classic with the Assistant on the left panel. The zero under color or outside color are there, but not zero or zero rest using a vector boundary. (unless I missed it?) I really dislike tools on the top ribbon & arbitrary 'loose' tool palettes and want to minimize the windshield wiper effect of panning the screen, while maintaining as much design real estate as possible...It's pretty easy to hit F12 and Zero or Zero Rest than it is to hunt around for them.
Maybe a good feature request would be to add zero & zero rest to the Relief Tools area of the Assistant...I'd be happy with that I think. It's extremely rare I ever use bitmap boundaries to zero.
I agree with Gary on the Shape Editor one. The reason they were moved out of there is precisely that; having to go into the Shape Editor every time you wanted to trim or cut something. They shouldn't have been in the Shape Editor to begin with in my opinion; just like Extend is located in Fillet Vectors?!
I do agree the Feature Machining toolpath could be a lot simpler to use. I've not used the Vectric one much, but doesn't it just have a check box to project? Pretty much the same as transforming the toolpath in Carveco.
A reference plane toggle in the 3D Assembly is a good idea though, Brady - would have helped me numerous times, especially when first using it.
Brady, they are no longer called zero, zero rest, couple of years ago they got moved and relabeled "zero inside vector, "zero outside vector".
You should have a play with creating your own layout and custom menu bars (window > toolbars and docking >customize) You can set up your custom menu's and position them anywhere in the workspace you want
Gary
Thanks gentlemen - I complete forgot extend vectors was in the filet tool...even in 2008...I've been using Aspire for most things in the past several years and I am a little rusty...
I'll have a look at creating those custom menus, Gary. Thanks
Leighton - Yes. Feature machining in Vectric is a one-click option in several of the toolpaths...they don't call it feature machining...for obvious reasons.
Having read all your needs, I think you are better using Vectric as it has most of what you are asking for. But must admit it would be great if they were incorporated into Carveco.
Bill, I do...CarveCo does permit higher resolution relief generation than Vectric, and a few other unique tools and features on the CAD side of things. There are certain CAM functions as well that are not found in Vectric, such as PowerMill derived 3D toolpath options...but aside from this, for most day to day operations, Vectric wins. My patience has run out with lack of development of this software; just mindlessly throwing money at maintenance and not getting any new functionality over ArtCam Pro 2018 Premium. Not even polishing the interface...menus/tools that don't self close, non-intuitive workflows & general clunkiness. Instead, I see my fees going towards developing lower tiered variants of the software geared towards hobbyists, and professionals are ignored. Sorry but times are tough and margins are thin. Professionals expect more than the privilege of being philanthropists for the modern versions of Insignia.
I am new to Carveco, but I am already
confirming what you have said. I use Vectric all of the time but I was attracted to Carveco for the reasons you mention that it has over Vectric, but on the whole I find it old fashioned when compared, Vectric are developing their programs the whole time with regular updates.
I will stay with Carveco a little longer to see if I can get round some of its problems but things like project text onto a 3D model should have been sorted out ages ago.
Its a real pleasure to see some spirited discussion on this forum. Its something I miss from the old days of the AC forum.
My 2 cents worth,,,,,,, I looked at Vectric (when AC was discontinued) and found it unsuitable. It had some nice features but there were things critical to my workflow that AC/Carveco provides in spades and Vectric does not offer. From time to time I check back in but the critical features (basic as they are to me) are still missing today. I for one am happy with Carveco but do agree that there is a lack of real development in the Pro version so no maintenance for me. Not sure what I would do if there were a killer upgrade on offer (like going from AC version 11 to 12--------I think those are the correct version references but I am getting up there in age and it was a long time ago so forgive me if I have my versions mixed up).
Bottom line, in my opinion, if you can get your work done to your satisfaction with MS Paint you would be foolish to invest in Photoshop or Illustrator. Everyone has to determine which program suits their needs best, for me its Carveco no two ways about it, Vectric not even close. Now, if you find multi program use suites you that's great (I use Carveco and Photoshop), if you find value in using Vectric and Carveco I say all the more power to you. But really, knocking Carveco in comparison to Vectric, you have got to be kidding me. Carveco is by far the superior program
I will now duck behind my desk because I expect to have things thrown at me for my comments.
Bill, what version of Carveco are you using? If you are comparing Vectric to Maker or Maker + then you may have a valid position, but to say without qualification that Vectric stacks up well against Carveco and not qualify your position by being clear in terms of the Carveco version you are referring to is not helpful.
I have just downloaded the latest version of maker. And I use V Carve plus 11 and Aspire 9.5
Thank you Bill,,,,,,,,,,,, I would urge you to keep at Carveco maker, I am sure you will find it a useful tool to have in your toolbox if you keep at it.
Barry,
In all honesty, I don't think you've actually used Aspire in recent days. If you did, you'd understand what I meant by an intuitive interface. Don't get me wrong, the spirit of my post in no way was to be some kind of 'Ford vs Chevy' thing for lack of better polite term. You'd have to be way up in the 85th percentile of user ability to see any deficiency between a $2k and nearly $9k product. That's a fact. If you think otherwise, I'd like to hear what you think is missing from Aspire (aside from jewelsmith specific tools) Did you know that the same head developer at Artcam started Vectric? Comparing the two using Photoshop vs Paint is like comparing CC to ZBrush...I don't think you want to go there since ZB really does make ACP/CC look like a comparison between PS and Paint. My beef is with professionals footing the bill for lower tiered offerings and not getting any real substance for their maintenance dollar. I want to see CarveCo be the best it can be, but for some reason nobody really cares about doing the things necessary to get there. Just polishing the interface so it doesn't interrupt your creative flow is major...and this is a beef with many I'm in contact with, so I know it isn't some obscure thing. Tabs/bridges are a mess, feature machining is a mess, Transform tool is worse than vintage versions... Reliefs you have to cookie cut instead of just grabbing strait up and moving around at will...and on and on. It needs work...but for those that haven't used anything else, they don't know what they're missing or how much better it could be. I expect more at this price point.
I can see where Carveco could be, it's just infuriating that no one is taken it there. There is a lot I like about this program but also lot I don't. There is a lot of unnecessary and confusing steps to get to the end result. I can see myself useing Carveco for some jobs and Vectric for others, as they both have a place in the market.
Brady, ,,,,,,, first of all I did agree with you in regard to the development and maintenance issues. I also agree that Carveco Pro is VERY expensive. I thought AC was expensive when I bought it in 2007 but now its even more so. I had hoped that Carveco would be more modestly priced with an aim to increasing market share thus generating revenue through volume sales,,,,,,but it was not to be. As noted above I bought Carveco when it was first offered for sale. I got a very good price and declined the maintenance package. So really we are not that far apart if at all. I will take another look at Aspire but unless they support the exporting and importing of high quality tif files (I am a heavy Photoshop user) its a non-starter for me. Still (by the way I am aware of Vectrics history, its a non-relevant point though) I will, on your say-so take another lookat Aspire but my workflow is so seamless between AC/Carveco and Photoshop, and I am getting real close to retirement, that I doubt that it would make sense for me to invest in another program at this time.
I do however stand by my statement, at least until I take another look at Aspire, that Carveco Pro is the superior product,,,,,,, but maybe we are comparing apples to oranges. Its certainly not fair to compare an entry level product like Vectric (Maker and Maker plus as well) to a top of the line product. A more fair comparison would be possibly between Carveco Pro and Aspire, but that's not the comparison that was offered above. Vectric does not top Carveco Pro,,,,no way,,,,no how. I also stand by my statement that if MS Paint does the job you would be foolish to buy Photoshop, so if Vectric does it for you use it, if not look for something else that will do the job. Just expect to pay more for it.
PS: I did look at Z-Brush some 6 or 7 years ago and found it complicated and cumbersome in comparison to AC, but then I had been using AC for years at that point and was able to appreciate its relative simplicity and power so perhaps I did not give Z-Brush enough time. We do tend to be most comfortable with what we are familiar with.
Bill,,,,,,its not for us to dictate where the Carveco team should take anything. Its their program and they can do what they want with it. Buy it or not, its your choice. If however you are working with the base entry level program you can have no idea what is possible with the EXPENSIVE (in my opinion) pro version. I bet you would find Aspire better than Vectric as well. It stands to reason it would be.
Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.
I must confess however that if I were faced with a $9,000 bill today I might balk at the prospect. I also must say I balked at the AC Jewelsmith price at the time. I decided to go for it because of the fellow (my reseller) who I was dealing with. Anyone from the old AC forum will recall how tough I was on the developers of AC at the time. I felt it was an excellent program that had inadequate support and I made it very clear that that was how I felt. I took a lot of crap from others on the forum for my position BTW.
I'm with Brady on this one and I only use Carveco, There have been times I get overly frustrated with all the steps I have to take to make things, some of those steps add a lot of time, they could be cut to 1/10 by just giving us the tooling.
You were correct Barry, this is their program, but it is my money that affords them the opportunity to sell, I am the customer, like my customers I have to give them the product they want and are willing to pay me for. It does bother me that looking at the many ideas to implement, add too, and fix carveco and it feels as though those are not qualified, 2 of mine are and would be fantastic additions and would cut the time down when we model, I am frustrated because I want carveco to be the best, not an after thought in 3 years. Like you my time is short, I am old now (when did that happen) and I don't have the time to wait any longer.
mike
I have no idea about the more expensive versions of Carveco or what it can do, but like Mike I am old and I do this as a paying hobby, having bought Both Aspire and VCarve Pro I do not have great sums left to buy another high value program. Not everyone's needs are the same as others, if you are happy with what you have got that's great, it is not a competition between manufacturers, its just something works so well and easy on one is frustrating when it takes so long on the other, in my humble opinion every manufacturer should be looking at others to see if they can improve their product.
I don't know,,,,,when Autodesk cancelled AC there was a lot of anguish. Carveco was born and many had a sigh of relief. So has anything changed from the old days to the new? To me not much has changed except the price of AC/Carveco has gone up. Big mistake in my opinion. Still, the program exists and is supported, that's a big plus to me. I used to complain about lack of development and the vanishing of my maintenance fees into a black hole. No change except I no longer pay maintenance. Haven't since AC version 2009.
MIke, are you on maintenance? If you are why?
I am not defending Carvecos owners quite the contrary, but if you don't like whats going on don't support the owners or the program. Use the program until you no longer need (obviously you bought something if you are complaining about it) it and then say goodbye. Saying that Vectric is a better program than Carveco is silly. Its not. The comparison is more of a Maker + versus Vectric Aspier as far as I can see. And that's the crux of the matter. Personally I do not care. I am happy with what I have and satisfied with what I have paid for it. I get things done and I do not find the "steps" onerous. I developed a workflow that is efficient for me, and that's good enough for me. If its too onerous for you then don't use the program,,,,,,,or at least do not pay for maintenance.
I remember that back in the Delcam AC days the feeling of many on the forum was that the one or two seat license holders were not Delcams main source of revenue. That it was the large manufactures who were the main focus and I guess they were satisfied with the way things were run by Delcam. Perhaps its the same today.
MIke, I bet there are customers, or rather potential customers, that you walk away from, or who walk away from you because you would not do what they wanted for the price they wanted to pay. The customer does not dictate what I do, I offer them my services, if they would like to engage my services that's fine but if they are hard to work with, rude, aggressive, or unreasonable I let them go bother someone else.
Brady wrote:
"I'd like to hear what you think is missing from Aspire (aside from jewelsmith specific tools) "
Just reread your post and I had missed the line quoted above.
I am a jeweller so there is no contest. Perhaps I should have been clear about this but without the Jewelsmith specific tools Aspire could be free and I would not use it. I guess we all need to be more specific and we may all be correct. Maybe Aspire is better than Maker and Masker +, good chance of that I suppose. Not having used Maker or Maker + I would not know. I do know for sure that Aspire would not work for me as probably 40% of my work is done in Photoshop and Aspire only allows the import and export of jpg files. I need 16 bit tif files. Regardless without the Jewelsmith specific tools Carveco Pro would not be Pro and would not be a candidate for any jeweller, at any price. I did use Rhino for a while in conjunction with AC but found it accounted for too little of my work flow and I eventually dropped it.
Anyway I hope I did not offend anyone with my posts, it was not my intention.
Barry,
Not sure why I got a notification that you responded, but anyway - Yes... Aspire/CarveCo top of the line is not a direct comparison. For clarity, I in no way am saying that they are, but rather, Aspire fits the bill for about 90 percent of routerheads out there because they'll never use or appreciate the full depth of what CarveCo offers. My main point and source of frustration for lack of better term is that CC could be so much better with just a bit of tidying up of the interface so that it flows better and is intuitive enough not to interrupt the creative flow. That's a difficult point to convey if you're a hardcore Artcam/CC user that has a few specific workflows that you've done so many times it's 2nd nature. So again, not 'dissing' CC, just expected more and better from essentially the same software for the past 5yrs (Pro 2018 Premium). ZBrush...yes...hard to get into. Completely unintuitive, alien interface...It took me many years to really get to a point I can use it predictably and reliably. However, once you get your workflow somewhat sorted, it'll really knock your socks off when it comes to sculpting. It's really brilliant. I learned a lot watching YT vids of TS Wittlesbach - worth the view if you're into making jewelry. Cheers 🥂
Please sign in to leave a comment.