Creating complex car designs requires powerful and intuitive software. This article explores the experience of a design professional using Autodesk Fusion 360 for car design, comparing its capabilities and workflow to industry-standard Alias. We’ll delve into the specific tools used, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each software for automotive design.
Fusion 360 for Car Design: A Surprising Contender
Traditional NURBS modeling techniques were employed in Fusion 360 to create the entire car model, avoiding T-Splines except for potential use in detailing areas like rearview mirrors. This approach contrasts with previous attempts in Blender, where Sub-D modeling was explored for concept car design. While Sub-D offered speed and flexibility for initial shaping, maintaining accurate hard transitions and edges proved challenging, requiring workarounds that could compromise surface quality and complicate the conversion to BREP for detailed design.
Fusion 360, while lacking the high-degree surface capabilities of Alias and tools like the square surface, provides a different approach to car design. The primary tools utilized were patch for organic surfaces, and loft and extrude for the remaining geometry. Fusion 360’s patch tool, similar to Solidworks, creates a trimmed draped surface.
While this method results in a denser surface compared to Alias’s multi-patch approach, the simplified workflow in Fusion 360 significantly accelerates the design process. The ability to quickly draw curves and loft surfaces without meticulous patch layout planning provides a significant advantage.
Comparing Workflows: Fusion 360 vs. Alias
A key difference lies in the approach to surface creation. Alias excels in precise surface control with multiple patches and curve segments, minimizing spans. Fusion 360, however, utilizes a denser surface structure due to its reliance on lofting and patching. This denser approach, while potentially less refined for Class-A surfacing, significantly streamlines the modeling process.
Fusion 360’s solid modeling capabilities further differentiate it from Alias, offering powerful tools like push/pull for quick shape adjustments, and automated extrusion and trimming functionalities. These features expedite tasks that would be more labor-intensive in Alias.
While Fusion 360 lacks some of Alias’s specialized tools, such as advanced fillet control and G1/G2 rail options for lofting, its streamlined workflow and integrated solid modeling tools make it a compelling alternative for car design. The ability to leverage sketches that dynamically respond to surface changes fosters a generative design process, facilitating rapid iteration and exploration.
Conclusion
Fusion 360, while not a direct replacement for Alias in all aspects of Class-A surfacing, offers a compelling alternative for car design, particularly in the early stages of concept development. Its simplified workflow, powerful solid modeling features, and generative design capabilities allow for rapid iteration and exploration, making it a valuable tool for automotive designers. While certain advanced features are missing, the overall efficiency and ease of use in Fusion 360 contribute to a significantly faster and more intuitive design process.
