topic Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised? in Fusion Design, Validate & Document Forum

Is Move operation is not parameterised?

soswow — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 21:52:11 GMT

I have a component. I move it by defining distance in terms of user specified variable. When I change value of this variable - component doesn't change it's position.

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

Phil.E — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:25:36 GMT

You are correct. Move, which creates a snapshot, is not parametric. In the case where you would enter a user parameter, the value is used only.

Fusion assumes that all objects are freely movable unless jointed or otherwise constrained. So by definition, a position of a component is it's parametric position. After being moved, Component positions are captured in snapshots in the timeline and become part of the timeline history. Parameter changes are not part of the timeline history. The timeline reads the parameters when Calculate is happening. Thus a component position is only parametric depending on what parametric item it is associated with, such as a jointed connection.

Ways to use parameters to move components:

If your component is created on a workplane that has a parameterized offset, it would move.
If your component is jointed to anything parametric it would move. Such as a sketch or another component.
Joint origins are parametric. You can place JO's where you want the components, joint to them, then change paramaeters.

Thanks!

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

cekuhnen — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:02:12 GMT

And I think this has to be improved.

Moved and rotate and such has to be parametized or do you want users to always use pen and paper to remember the values they used?

Specifically when you explore a design this is crucial. Not everybody is a mechnical engineer and not everybody wants to work like they do.

Joints are pretty fantastic but only when you need them.

Otherwise capturing move rotate in apps like Alias or Blender just kills the workflow in Fusion - period.

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

Phil.E — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:11:26 GMT

No Claas, we intend to improve the move command to capture each delta. But as you know, there are only so many new features we can add at one time. Many people think we add too many new features :).

Do you move bodies or components? Do you intend to use parameters to do this if we improved it? Or just see the history?

Thanks!

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

cekuhnen — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:34:21 GMT

@Phil.E I think if users are somewhat upset it is more about new features in new areas and not in the core function. At the end like in my previous project the SVG import and sketch engine speed was so slow I was not able to even use Fusion and did the design simply in Rhino. And that is somewhat sad. The point is "what is the value of all the cool advanced stuff when the basic toolset contains roadblocks".

My other comment was more an opinion about the direction Fusion takes addressing the workflow and needs engineers work and not designers or makers. There are to factions. Those who adore engineering typical workflows as industrial standards and being cool and those who design and find that specific workflow or requirement is one of the biggest hand cufs a designer could experience.

That obviously does not mean Fusion is bad - I am talking specifically about the workflow. And for certain tasks it is very useful but just not for everything specifically for the concept phase and designing/exploring an idea fast.

That is why in terms of ideation I am faster and more productive in Alias/Rhino than Fusion because of how stiff Fusion is when it comes to certain things. But that is also true somewhat in other application. It is understandable when you know the blue prints that you then build components and later use the joint system which by the way works in Fusion spot on perfect.

But again in the conceptual phase you dont have the blueprint nor do you want to be slowed down by how sketches and sketch planes have to be set-up because they are restrictive and time consuming.

This actually goes hand in hand with the ability to also add move and rotarte cplanes freely without being limited to offset from xyz a face or running it through or along a line of sketch.

So for objects one thins is simply curcial:

be able to move scale(less) and rotate an object(body) and component as needed including remebering the value and allowing you do later move and rotate also along local and global orientation.

The main point or advantage is that I am timewise getting the job done faster and I am more free to explore.

Once the design is settled I can then still go back and do it the way an engineer wants.

Also while it sounds like I am ranting about engineers way to do things(CAD) my main criticism is that today it shows that what softwarehouses and industries developed as the industry standard is simply ready for a major overall. So this has nothing against engineers but more what they are also forced to use.

Thats why I few times made a reference to NX which somewhat is hybrid and offers you the ability to use 2d sketches and solid modeling or freely work like in Alias.

I might be more experiemental or giving less about fancy words like industrial standards. Well Word is a standard and who thinks it is an efficient product? I dont know anybody.

Thats also why I said that Fusion is in a uniquie position to do what SW failed to do. Offer a design environment that is hybrid and caters to both engineers and designers.

So I am quite curious about next year with the advanced modeling tools. Plus you are on both OS!

I hope this explanation might set things right - looks like I came across to critical in my previous post.

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

Phil.E — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:44:09 GMT

No worries Claas! I like your explanation. I was getting at the difference between what you want and what the OP wants.

I think what you want is much easier to implement: a list control of delta values for each Move command in the timeline. So you can edit the move, see all the deltas, and make edits as you please.

I'm curious, would you use named parameters if they were able to drive the Move operation's list of delta values?

Re: Is Move operation is not parameterised?

cekuhnen — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:53:57 GMT

@Phil.E

Alias and Blender offer you the location rotation and scale value of the 3D container that includes the mesh / nurbs data.

In each application the pivot point is the XYZ center for the object.

As you can see below in the image this is quite informative because I can see where that pivot point is. Obviously one has to be careful about where it is placed!

Another insanely usefull tool is the switch between local and global

In this case actually Blender beats Alias because in addition I can sample an edge or face and save the as a custom orientation

here I sample a face by using the normal

and then I can rename and use that vector

being able to drive the value is an interesting idea.

Sofar I either copied the rotation value from one target object to others

or add a copy rotation constraint

or rotated all objects at the same time around their individual pivot point

now I think if you would have 4 objects in Fusion and U can set the pivot point being able to drive then all 4 objects with the change of one value like for fillets etc. is an interesting idea.

But personally would already be very happy with plain delta values.