topic Re: Component Pattern in Fusion Design, Validate & Document Forum

Component Pattern

Lonnie.Cady — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:14:20 GMT

I have a component that is joined to another component. I then created a rectangular component pattern. I was assuming that all was good then I discovered the patterned parts are not actually locked down.

I guess this is the intended behavior but can someone explain as to why it would be? I would think a patter would be rigid once created.

Re: Component Pattern

laughingcreek — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:20:09 GMT

pattern is frequently used as a quick way of making multiple copies that will then get jointed somewhere else. make a rigid group if you want them to stay put in relation to each other.

Re: Component Pattern

kb9ydn — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:57:34 GMT

I can see the utility in using pattern to make multiple copies of components that aren't rigidly joined together. The problem is that this totally violates the concept of a "pattern"! If you move all the patterned components around afterwards, it's no longer a pattern is it?

Creating multiple copies of components should be done with the Move/Copy command. Or at the very least, there should be a check box in the pattern command to create the pattern as a rigid group (by default) or not.

Re: Component Pattern

laughingcreek — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:06:47 GMT

I would hate for it to automatically add a rigid group joint. I could live with a check box. Would it also apply to child components? Another checkbox I guess.

I use patterns regularly to build multi component assemblies. In my case I usually pattern several different components before applying a rigid group to everything all at once. Applying the rigid group just once at the top level is preferred over having multiple rigid groups in the timeline.

Re: Component Pattern

kb9ydn — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:15:34 GMT

@laughingcreek wrote:
I would hate for it to automatically add a rigid group joint. I could live with a check box. Would it also apply to child components? Another checkbox I guess.
I use patterns regularly to build multi component assemblies. In my case I usually pattern several different components before applying a rigid group to everything all at once. Applying the rigid group just once at the top level is preferred over having multiple rigid groups in the timeline.

Well, ideally if you create a pattern as a rigid group the grouping would be inherent in the pattern feature itself; i.e. there would not be a separate rigid group feature in the timeline. Adding one would just clutter things up. If you decide later that you want the patterned components to be free instead of grouped, you would just edit the pattern feature and uncheck the "rigid group" option.

As for child components; the best thing would be if you could control the rigidness of each of the patterned assemblies (an assembly is a component with child components) individually, so that their internally defined joints are still honored (or not if treated as rigid). Being that Fusion doesn't really have a true assembly mode I'm not sure if that would actually be possible. Would have to think about that one.

Re: Component Pattern

Vreith — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 05:13:22 GMT

Again, with configurations this is another awful legacy decision that causes design-breaking behaviour.

I have a patterned LED array.

Different configurations have different sizes, and different numbers of LEDs, but now some configurations will have arbitrary LEDs that aren't fixed

The notion that users should be making a rigid group for every single configuration is ridiculous, and highlights why the original functionality was poorly thought through.

I won't discuss whether or not someone should be using a pattern to make components for use elsewhere, but there are already multiple workflows to do this. Whereas there is currently no way to make parametrically patterned components. Another confounding omission with the addition of "configurations"

Re: Component Pattern

TrippyLighting — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:10:29 GMT

I would not say it wasn't thought through.

It was simply not implemented at the time, and to be completed later. The latest feedback I received ( after having asked for it for much longer than this thread!) was that it hasn't risen to the top of the priorities. I find that that completely confounds and baffles me!

Re: Component Pattern

kb9ydn — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 19:05:32 GMT

@TrippyLighting wrote:
I would not say it wasn't thought through.
It was simply not implemented at the time, and to be completed later. The latest feedback I received ( after having asked for it for much longer than this thread!) was that it hasn't risen to the top of the priorities. I find that that completely confounds and baffles me!

It feels like Autodesk has taken a very broad but not so deep approach to building out the various features of Fusion. They seem to roll out features that are fine for simpler tasks, but don't have the depth of functionality to deal with more complicated situations. I understand why they did it (marketing, in the sense that they can say "look at all this stuff Fusion can do!"), but it ends up being frustrating because you get excited when a new feature comes out, only to discover it only does half of what you need it to do. It isn't right or wrong, it's just the way they've chosen to do things. And going about it the other way, depth of features before adding new features, might not be any better.

Anyway; I know that assemblies are a current development focus, so maybe we'll see something on this soon.

Re: Component Pattern

espablo — Sat, 01 Nov 2025 16:34:03 GMT

I miss this functionality too. Most of my models are designed parametrically and the distribution of components is largely dependent on other parameters. At this point, when I change the parameter, the rigid group throws an error because the number of components in the rigid group changes. In this case, the distribution of components makes no sense. I don't understand why it wasn't implemented immediately and what is blocking the addition of such functionality.

Re: Component Pattern

TrippyLighting — Sat, 01 Nov 2025 19:41:01 GMT

Since the introduction of the ground-to-parent attribute, this can be worked around, meaning that if done right, changing the number of pattern instances will not break a rigid group, as no rigid group is needed.. I think I made a screencast about that, but I will have to check.

Re: Component Pattern

espablo — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 01:29:56 GMT

This works well, but only when I have one component I want to create a pattern on. It doesn't work when I have two identical components attached to a document with a link, and I want to position each one differently and create a pattern for each at that position.

Re: Component Pattern

TrippyLighting — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 11:22:49 GMT

@espablo wrote:

... It doesn't work when I have two identical components attached to a document with a link, and I want to position each one differently and create a pattern for each at that position.

It does work with a bit of forethought. If you can share a concrete example and describe in detail what you want to do, I will create a screencast and demonstrate how that works with your data, or I'll eat my words 😉

Re: Component Pattern

espablo — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 12:28:44 GMT

Here's an example of how I'm trying to accomplish this. It's impossible to ground to parent the second Screw for Wood component.

Re: Component Pattern

TrippyLighting — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 13:21:17 GMT

Watch the video and look through the attached model:

(view in My Videos)

Re: Component Pattern

espablo — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 17:32:31 GMT

Thank you very much for this solution. This approach to document organization actually works well.