topic Re: Fusion 360??? in Fusion Design, Validate & Document Forum

Advanced Support for Fusion 360

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:46:27 GMT

Is there advanced support for new Fusion 360 users? I've tried the forums, tutorials, videos, etc. My biggest road blocks are questions that I need to ask someone over the phone, with Skype or even better screen share would be great.

How do I get advanced support for Fusion 360????

Re: Advanced Support for Fusion 360

cekuhnen — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:26:06 GMT

what are your questions?

Re: Advanced Support for Fusion 360

TrippyLighting — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:25:11 GMT

You have 4 posts. What exactly do you mean with "you've tried the forum" ?

Skype would certainly be possible, Ive done this before with another user. This would have to be in the after hours or on the weekend.

Please share more details as to what it is you want to do with Fusion 360. Even amongst the Autodesk Epert Elite's not everyone has the same set of expertise in a given Area of Fusion 360, we all have out specialties.

Fusion 360???

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 18:30:38 GMT

I have many other post in a different Fusion 360 account pryor to having this one!

Here is a question that is long winded due to its complexity:

I'm working in a single design file with Capture History on.
I start building Component #1 and get it mostly defined.
I start building Component #2 referencing #1 and get it mostly defined.
I then insert a reference part as Component #3, and it's linked.
I then move Component #3 into it's correct position and "Capture its Position"
I then start building Component #4 referencing Components #2 and #3.
I then need to modify slightly Component #1 because of what I'm doing to Component #4.
When I activate Component #1 to modify it slightly, the "Capture Position" timeline entry for reference Component #3 goes away since Component #1 was created prior.
I now can't make my change to Component #1 accurately because now I don't have Components #2, #3 or #4.

Does this make sense?

Re: Fusion 360???

cekuhnen — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:00:20 GMT

@Anonymous

I see the problem now.

The move command can be used to position an object but being timeline based obviously you will see the previous position of the object

when going in-front of the move marker or further back.

Fusion allows you through the timeline to explore your design and build components on the fly.

Others build each component as a single file and then create a new assembly where parts are put together and tested.

Each one has ups and downs.

However I found the component system in Fusion quite sufficient specifically when you use the join objects instead of the normal move tool.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzv_NlyKp_2NDdaaElnY3FvVms/view

Regarding the order which you build something that again is a problem with the idea of timeline or feature stack.

Below is a screenshow that shows Inventor.

There when you move the marker up or down you have the same effect of seeing only what got created till the time / feature marker.

Ideally you have to be smart how you start the design. I currently work with Wayne State Bio Engineering bringing a new medical scanner

onto the market. The engineers supply me with the package which I can use and build my parts around. Important for me is with which part

I start and how they can influence each other. But if I edit part one I will not see part four.

So proper planing will help me building the parts. Often a multiple parts are build from one part splitting them etc. So I try to find a logical

order how to sort the stack of tasks.

I found thinking about foam model making always helps understanding the order and guessing it in a way that later enables you to be work well.

I hope this helps.

Re: Fusion 360???

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:33:04 GMT

Great explanation! Th you very much!

Base Features

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:37:38 GMT

What are "Base Features" used for? Why and when? The benefits and disadvantages?

Best Practice???

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:40:27 GMT

When working in a large single design file with many components, is it a typical practice to go back and forth with "Capture Design History" and "Do Not Capture Design History" and even making Base Features along the way too???

Re: Base Features

TrippyLighting — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:41:05 GMT

A base feature allows you to do direct modeling in a timeline environment.

You create a base feature and while you are in the base featiure you can edit geometry without items being added to the timeline.

Re: Base Features

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:46:03 GMT

Is it OK though to go back and forth many times during the life of a design file?

Re: Base Features

cekuhnen — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:52:12 GMT

@Anonymous

base feature:

can be used to insert a static model

Or create a model you want in the timeline however rather edit via Direct modeling

this will prevent the timeline beeing filled with the direct modeling commands.

I never switch from Timeline to DM. Parametric modeling is about being able to define

everything of a design and being able to change it and let the rest of the design update for you.

Thats the idea of having a time line

Re: Best Practice???

jeff_strater — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:25:55 GMT

Hi @Anonymous,

In general, no, it is not a common (or recommended) practice to switch between history-based/parametric design (Capture Design History) and direct modeling (Do not Capture Design History). The transition between history and direct is destructive. All the features in the timeline are lost. So, capturing some history, then switching to direct modeling, then switching back to parametric will not preserve your history-based features.

Backing up a bit, it is probably worth discussing some of the related concepts:

parametric vs direct designs. This attribute is on the entire design, as discussed above
Base Body. A Base Body is a way for you to have an "island of direct modeling" in an otherwise parametric design. This allows you to, if you want, create some components as direct models, and other components as parametric models, all in one design. The idea is: If you have some extremely simple components that you are not likely to ever want to change (for example fasteners), you can then create those using a single base feature. This avoids polluting your timeline with features that you are unlikely to ever need to edit.
You can also design, on a component-by-component basis, your component as a parametric model, then later, decide to convert it to a base feature using the "Convert to DM Feature" command. This takes all the features of that component that are to the left of the selected feature in the timeline, and converts the result into a single Base Body feature. So, once you are happy with your design for that simple component, you can turn it into a direct modeling component, and clean up your timeline significantly.

If any of this is not clear, I can record some simple screencasts that illustrate.

Jeff

Re: Best Practice???

cekuhnen — Sat, 27 Aug 2016 00:07:21 GMT

@jeff_strater

Where would this be useful?

You can also design, on a component-by-component basis, your component as a parametric model, then later, decide to convert it to a base feature using the "Convert to DM Feature" command. This takes all the features of that component that are to the left of the selected feature in the timeline, and converts the result into a single Base Body feature. So, once you are happy with your design for that simple component, you can turn it into a direct modeling component, and clean up your timeline significantly.

I am genuinely curious since I never ran into this this situation where I could see this being useful to the way "I" work.

I am simply pretty happy with what Fusion offers and how components and timeline works!!!

Re: Best Practice???

jeff_strater — Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:28:10 GMT

@cekuhnen. It's not a common workflow, I'll admit. But, the basic idea is that, if you have all your components in one design, some might be off-the-shelf components. If you don't have a CAD model of those components (it's getting easier all the time to find components that have CAD versions, but not always), then you can create a direct modeling component for it. For myself, since I am so used to working in parametrics, I would first create the component as a history-based component. That way, I can fix up the design easily if I make mistakes in creating it. But, at some point, that component is "done", and will likely never change again. But, now, I may have 10-15 timeline entries for that component. That will affect recompute times, add extra parameters to the parameter dialog, make your timeline longer, etc. So, you could just convert the entire component into a direct model. I've used it, but not often, to be honest.

Jeff

Re: Best Practice???

cekuhnen — Sun, 28 Aug 2016 18:48:55 GMT

@jeff_strater

I see what you mean but seems not so uncommon as well at least to me.

It seems to me that what @Anonymous is asking for is a mix of somewhat non time based modeling

like with Ashlar Cobalt or SolidThinking and when editing an earlier state in the design still seeing the end result.

I think that is kinda the problem - but we can only step by step build a design when it is parametric.

Also in Cobalt when I edit a feature others rely on it is a step by step.

Also in SW you have the issue if a design has to many features you at one point will hit a bottle neck similar to the

timeline.

Maybe when we have quantum computers this will be less of an issue 😉

Re: Base Features

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:45:15 GMT

Im trying to find create base feature so I can later create a OBJ but there's nothing in my drop down for creating a base feature...Am I missing something?

Re: Base Features

jeff_strater — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 03:10:14 GMT

Hi @Anonymous,

From the image, it looks like your design is a Direct Modeling design. So, all features are "base features". The Create Base Feature is only available in a Parametric design, and is used to create "islands of direct modeling" in a parametric design.

Jeff