Dynamic Precise (Relative) Positioning

[Helmi74]

Well, i'm not keen on the name DPRP but hey - it sounds sexy, doesn't it? 🙂

We talked about that in todays hangout. What Fusion360 is missing is a possibility to easily position a feature or object relative to other features, objects, edges or points. You can always position things relative to there actual position but not relative to other stuff.

It would be great to have a possibility to do so. One possible solution could be a dynamic positioning system where you choose the object/edge/point that you want to position relative to and then enter the values. Maybe another step is needed if you probably want to find a point relatively to two edges.

I hope this is also comprehensible for people not having joined the hangout if not i could still try to go more into a detail but basically i think we need some tools to do more exact relative positioning.

Frank

[lure23]

Frank,

also I remained thinking about how this could be done 'right'. Similar situations are handled by i.e. UI framework design tools (defining constraints between widgets).

I have an idea where any edge could be given two distances (in either or separately for both directions); a "no zone" where other elements are not allowed to be moved, and a "stick zone" where moving other elements (if they are also having a sticky edge) would get stuck = connected.

Describing this in detail takes a bit longer, but it should be intuitive and cover the positioning needs many of us are asking for, without overly burdening the UI. We'll see.

If you are interested, I'll post some pictures and describe the idea in more detail.

[Oceanconcepts]

This seems related in a way to this idea:  http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Request-a-Feature-Fusion-360/Improvements-to-the-Measure-tool/idi-p/43...

in that I think the reason many of us want the absolute coordinate measurement between objects is so we know how much to move in the X, Y, Z direction to position objects precisely relative to each other. Having more handles/ snaps available is also crucial to the usefulness of this function.  

Ron

[Helmi74]

Ron, you're right - it's kind of related. We discussed this topic in the Hangout yesterday two days ago and i wish this discussion could go on. Probably no single idea in the idea station is the perfect solution but maybe we should continue the discussion to find a good solution together with the guys from autodesk.

[lure23]

I posted my take here: Using no zone, glue and magnets for precise relational positioning

Thought not to place in IdeaStation since it's not cooked well yet.

On absolute coords, I'm perfectly okay without them. Actually, I think it may be a better tool without them. As Ron puts, need for such may tell of some other problem that absolute coords would simply give a way around (but complicate the UI, the learning curve, documentation and everything while doing this).

[Oceanconcepts]

Asko,

I think we are thinking along the same lines, but just to be sure…  I don't care much about the location of an object or feature in world space in an absolute coordinate system- however, I would really like to know from the measure tool what the X, Y, and Z offsets are between two objects I am measuring the location of. That is to say, relative position in terms of the world space coordinates. 

This is distinct from the limitations of the measure tool as to what you can measure between, which drive me nuts.

It may be that the ideas you are formulating re. sticky zones and keep out zones (reminds me of text wraps and columns in graphic design) would provide a better path to the intended result- I think a concept well worth developing. 

Ron

[lure23]

Ron,

just to make clear, I absolutely (pun) agree with the importance of the XYZ component distances in the measurement tool. As you say elsewhere in the forums, they are (to me too) more useful than direct distance.

[schneik-adsk]

What if we did this...

In the move command provided a context menu option to say "Relative to origin."

This would then show the x,y,z values relative to the parent origin.

A user could use re-anchor and chose any vertex or origin and all three values would reset to display toe current offset relative to the selected point.

Thoughts?

[Oceanconcepts]

"What if we did this...

In the move command provided a context menu option to say "Relative to origin."

This would then show the x,y,z values relative to the parent origin.

A user could use re-anchor and chose any vertex or origin and all three values would reset to display toe current offset relative to the selected point."

I'm not sure I really understand this suggestion fully. Most often what I would need is  the position relative to another object, or to move relative to another object. "How high is the center point of this cylinder above the surface of this board?", or "Move this cylinder so it's center point is exactly 6.5 mm above the board surface".   This kind of position information is almost impossible to get out of Fusion now, without making a sketch and projecting, for instance. The Measure tool doesn't allow me to select the measure from or measure to points in a way that is useful, and it doesn't give X-Y-Z coordinate information for one part relative to another.   

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that in my example above I could reorient the origin for the part to the board surface- but how do I then know what precise location on/ in the part is used as a reference for the X-Y-Z positioning? If it's the nearest point, like the Measuring tool, that's not useful in many, maybe most, situations. And what if (typically) I want to move the part to a specific offset, rather than by a specific amount? 

My thought is that what is needed is both 1) improvement to the Measuring tool, so you can precisely locate the specific point/ surface/ edge you are interested in relative to another point/ surface/ edge on another part, with ∆ X-Y-Z information, and 2) the ability to Move relative to a specific point/ surface/ edge, referenced to a specific point/ surface/ edge in the object you are moving and able to move in precise X-Y-Z increments.  If we had 1, we could fake 2 using reorient in the way you suggest.  

Of these issues, for me the limitations of the Measure tool are by far the larger workflow impediment. 

Ron

[Helmi74]

Hmm strange, didn't get notified about the status change... luckily came across this post when searching through ideas section.

I'm mostly with Oceanconcepts post - had it hard to understand and i'm still not sure if i got it right but i think it doesn't solve our problems. Mine are about that same than Rons and your suggestion would still leave this task complicated.

But i'm still not sure what you mean by parent origin. I'll give a simple example of the problem (really only a simple one).

I had to draw this piece this morning:

To get the holes aligned in the center and define there position i had to draw lines on the sketch of both faces (the lower one and the one that runs up) and had to move the holes by rough measure to this lines just because the holes don't even snap to the lines on the sketch.

In my imagination i would place a hole on the related face select a corner/edge to be the origin of my positioning and then enter a distance to this origin. If you mean this by "parent origin" that would probably solve some of our problems. Addditionally there should be default snapping points available to easily center a feature without having to calculate the values yourself.

But of course this would only solve these kind of issues. You would still have problems to solve issues like Ron described them with different height - this should maybe be done with the measuring tools.

[lure23]

Helmi, I think your case should be placed in the Autodesk Fusion 360 sample use cases catalog. If one exists.

[Helmi74]

Unfortunately nothing happened on this topic for some months now but i wanted to point out a feature in AutoCAD that i just came across and could at least solve parts of the issue here, too.

It's called temporary tracking and allows you to place elements relative to others in a really smart way. The shortcode for the command in AutoCAD is tk.

Also the popups while drawing in autocad that show distance to the last snap/point in object snapping and also an angle could be very helpful when sketching in fusion360.

Here's a video that shows all of this a bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904Do3dsXeY

[Oceanconcepts]

The recent update does seem to have some delta- X-Y-Z information in the Measure tool- though I still can't measure from the center of a cylinder or hole, for instance, which seems nuts. But moving, snapping and orienting bodies relative to one another is still weak, apart from joints, which aren't appropriate for many things. 

We need an Idea category for "Moving and Positioning" or some such heading, as there is a lot of duplication and with the idea forum being filled with many minor (though possibly quite worthy) suggestions, the things that affect nearly everyone get buried.