Improve parametric UI/UX

[Helmi74]

Parametric design is a great thing but the Fusion360 UI and the overall UX is still a pain:

1. The Interface for generating user params and changing values is separate to the rest of the Fusion UI. To create new user params or change values you have to open the parameter window that blocks everything else. This could be done better. Make this a pallette or window that can be left open.

2. If you use lots of parameters it is hard to remember the exact syntax you have used for every single parameter. Make the value field on each value also an auto complete field for parameters. If it's to resource intensive to always have auto complete on it would be possible to use a special character like the "=" in MS Excel/Numbers.

3. Make the creation of new user params more intuitive. For example if the user enters a parameter name in a value box that doesn't yet exist just create it and let the user define a value for it. This would greatly improve the workflow of creating new user params.

4. The forced binding to units should not be there. Make user params smarter. Why not make "no unit" the default and make it use the best fitting unit when applying the value to a feature like you do it when people enter their values manually?

[daniel_lyall]

+100

[Ndenekamp]

Agree on all four counts! 

For item 2. perhaps in addition to autocomplete, the drop down menu you could list the 5 last used parameter just as it currently shows the 5 or so last used value imputs.

Also, I would also like the parameters window to be able to stay on the screen while modelling. At the moment you have to dismiss it in order to execute certain actions.

These points combined would greatly strenghten the parametric capabilities of Fusion!

Niels

[daniel_lyall]

if you use 2 screens it`s not so bad but they are good idea`s number 2 is a very good idea most people know the simple MS EXCEL

stuff.

and yes 4 be what ever the file is set to or no unit 

[roambotics_scott]

I'm ambivilant about 4 (I like units) but am way behind all the other ones. (3), in particular, would by itself make parameterics way more usable (assuming the paremetric designs don't break; I've never had luck with that except for with very simple designs).

[GRSnyder]

In Inventor, you can enter a dimension of the form "table_width = 4m" to create and name a parameter and assign it a value all at once. That should definitely be brought over.

Fusion 360 already does seem to default to "no units" for plain numbers, so for example "2 * 3in" works fine (and = 6 in). You don't need to enter "ul" for unitless quanitites. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of allowing unitless values to be used as, e.g., dimensions, though. The current unit system is actually kind of a jewel - I wouldn't want it to get "leaky".

I have kind of the same feeling about undefined parameters. Fusion does a good job of keeping the equation system consistent by heading off dangling references before they get into the parameter database. But I wouldn't mind an inline definition system that would let you enter, say, "(part_width = 3 in) * (number_of_parts = 4))". That would define part_width and number_of_parts and reduce immediately to "part_width * number_of_parts".

The OP's item #1 is really the bigger deal for me. You get the sense that parameters are something of a red-headed stepchild in both the Inventor and Fusion 360 worlds. I don't get it - they seem completely central to me! And they deserve some UI effort and attention.

[jdheeter]

#1

As a person who is just picking up Fusion, I was super confused when I discovered this huge oversight in the UI implementation. I need to be able to see and modify variables without inturupting the modeling workflow.

[roambotics_scott]

Yeah it's really non-obvious and (even though I know it's there) very disruptive to the workflow just to go in and do that (not that I can ever stay in parametric mode long enough for it to matter).

[keqingsong]

Your #2 idea is now a part of our May 7 update!

[matth]

There are still parts of this post not yet implemented that has my support. Should this really be marked incorporated?

[roambotics_scott]

Seriously @matth

Damned near every new feature like this seems to get built out to the point where it's demoable enough to be plausible to include in marketing material, and then it's forgotten about