Group Components?

[ARTHUR-HM]

Is it possible to group components? I've been trying to figure out how to make that work with no luck. I see "create group" in the menu when I right click selected components but it doesn't do anything that I can tell. In a larger assembly, it would be really nice to be able to do so. In my example image below you can see for instance "4 - ENCLOSURE REST" used 6 times. I could create another component and then add them as sub-components, but then in my parts list, it no longer generates the number of times that part is instanced. Being able to have even just a simple folder to help organize larger assemblies would be fantastic. Hopefully someone can point out a better way for me.

[TrippyLighting]

Yes, that is called an assembly and you alreay have several of them in your browser 😉

Working excessively with linked components as you do, however, at least at the moment is incredibly inefficient and will very much slow your design process down.

To create an assembly from existing components:

1. Right click on the root of the browser and slect create new component.
2. Then you should be able to select several components and jsut drag them into that new component.

[ARTHUR-HM]

The reason I do not want to throw all the same parts into an assembly comes down to creating my part list in drawing mode. It will not give me quantities of those parts if I throw them all into an assembly. It will only give me the assembly name and a quantity of one. The reasoning behind so many linked components and assemblies comes down to manufacturing all of these parts. I need programs for each and every part in this assembly. So I want them to be standalone outside of my assembly for my CAM work. Then if I make a change to those parts externally from the assembly, they'll update both my CAM operations as well as the assembly. Otherwise I would have to have all the CAM setups in my assembly file, would I not? At least if I'm understanding you correctly.

[HughesTooling]

I don't know if this might help but there's an addin that saves out a BOM as a CSV file and it counts components like you're after, t doesn't output the components holding the subassemblies either.

Addin.

Parts list CSV in openoffice.

Mark

[TrippyLighting]

I should have read your post a bit more carefully, sorry about that!

I agree that BOM management is lacking in that one cannot really explode the BOM of an assemebly. So if you have an assembly with subassemblies in it you'll have to creatre a drwaing for thes subassembly to get the number of components. The script that @HughesTooling has pointed out might help some.

If in fact CAM setups have to be stored in the Assembly if it only works with Internal components then it soulds like there could be anumber of improvments suggested in the Idea Station.

[HughesTooling]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

If in fact CAM setups have to be stored in the Assembly if it only works with Internal components then it soulds like there could be anumber of improvments suggested in the Idea Station.

---

You can work on an assembly in the CAM workspace with linked or internal parts, but with a big assembly it would be difficult to manage. I think what @ARTHUR-HM is doing in his situation and an assembly with that many parts is probably the best workflow. What would be nice would be the ability to push components out of a design and maintain a link back to the assembly so the CAM is in the external design only.

Mark

[ARTHUR-HM]

@TrippyLighting I actually like the fact that fusion doesn't export sub-assemblies into the list. I like having to open up the sub-assembly and it having it's own part list. This is how we always worked prior to Fusion. That is why I'd like a feature where I can create just a folder that is nothing other than an organization tool, rather than a sub assembly. That way I can throw all repeated parts in a folder, yet still have the quantities show up in the list. This would be especially nice for hardware. There are a ton of bolts, nuts, etc. on this assembly. If I could throw them all in their own "Hardware" folder, and still have them export out all the quantities needed for the assembly, that would be fantastic. I'll probably add it to the ideastation today.

@HughesTooling Yeah the workflow I've used here seems to be the best for my sanity. The last thing I want is to have copies of all those parts elsewhere that do not reference each other. It would be nice if I could reference parts outside of a project folder and still keep the link though. The project folder for this assembly is very crowded in order to keep everything linked. 

[TrippyLighting]

I posted the Idea proposing exactly that at the end of 2015.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@ARTHUR-HM wrote:

@TrippyLighting I actually like the fact that fusion doesn't export sub-assemblies into the list. I like having to open up the sub-assembly and it having it's own part list. This is how we always worked prior to Fusion. That is why I'd like a feature where I can create just a folder that is nothing other than an organization tool, rather than a sub assembly. That way I can throw all repeated parts in a folder, yet still have the quantities show up in the list. This would be especially nice for hardware. There are a ton of bolts, nuts, etc. on this assembly. If I could throw them all in their own "Hardware" folder, and still have them export out all the quantities needed for the assembly, that would be fantastic. I'll probably add it to the ideastation today.

---

Yes, folders are helpful for that, but folders can be a bit one-dimentional.

I could also imagine a system that allows to filter and sort the browser for user defined tags with the ability to assign multiple tags to an item.

[ARTHUR-HM]

@TrippyLighting Let's hope we see that soon.

[Anonymous]

Yes I agree with your suggestion. I honestly can't believe this doesn't already exist. I have a massive assembly that needs to have linked parts that I'm NOT going to program in the assembly file. We should be able to work an assembly to how we like and the parts become linked items that one can update as the assembly improves.

Good stuff, Ian

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

---

"You can work on an assembly in the CAM workspace with linked or internal parts, but with a big assembly it would be difficult to manage. I think what @ARTHUR-HM is doing in his situation and an assembly with that many parts is probably the best workflow. What would be nice would be the ability to push components out of a design and maintain a link back to the assembly so the CAM is in the external design only.

Mark"

---

[TrippyLighting]

Well, in that case, you can vote for it here. 

As you can see I posted the idea by the end of 2015 it was archived due to other work going ongoing work in that area that would address these problems.

2 years later we still don't have this implemented in a software that attempts to be a mechanical design solution.

[Anonymous]

Ya I see that, it wont let me.

[abqmichaelj]

I would think that creating a group from components would act that way. However, when I try doing it, the components won't move. I am on a Mac right now.

[TrippyLighting]

Please create a separate thread and describe in detail what you expect to see and provide a screenshot and/or a screencast and maybe even share your model.

[Anonymous]

I created a new component but I can not get my components to nest into it. What am I doing wrong? select and drag and nothing happens.

Thanks

Jason

[TrippyLighting]

@Anonymous please create another thread with your issue. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Somehow this "drag some components into another" feature is now disabled in an specific file that I am working on, at the beginning I was able to do it without problems but now I cannot do it with anything. I tried creating another file and it is doable but not in the one I am working on. Any suggestions? 

[jeff_strater]

@Anonymous - by any chance, is your timeline rolled back so it is not positioned at the end?  Restructure operations are blocked in this state.

[Anonymous]

No, the History Market is at the end. I clicked in "move to the end" to make sure and there are no operations suppresed.