Sub assemblies broken when inserted into other assemblies

[frc68cad]

Hi,

We're having troubles with sub assembly designs, that look fine when editing them, but appear broken when inserting them into our full assembly design.  I've attached an example... one pic is a screen grab of what we call a sub-assembly,

and another pic of the same design, when viewed in the full assembly.  

In the full assembly, there are other sub assemblies, but I've isolated the sub assembly for clarity.

Each of these assemblies were created by different students, all new to F360.

Please advise next steps, as this is starting to hurt our productivity.

Thank you,

Paul

[TrippyLighting]

Please share your design. This is difficult to assess without having access to the data.

[frc68cad]

Thank you for your reply.

Sorry I am new to this process... I see how to share a public link, and I'm happy to share it with a few individuals, but I'm not at liberty to share it with the general public.

Is there a way I can share with individuals here?

[josef.kucera]

Share a Public Link of your Fusion 360 Design

[TrippyLighting]

You can send the public link in form of a PM to forum members per email or to AD employees if they share their email address.

To get tot eh PM you need to click on the avatar/image of the forum member and then on the right side in the Contact info you'l see a menu item called "send private message".

I'd be more than happy to look at this..

[TrippyLighting]

@frc68cad thanks for sharing the design.

First of all, Kudos you sur students. This is an assembly with 400+ components and it is done reasonably well.

There are several areas/details that could be improved in terms of how effectively Fusion 360's tool set was used and in how to generally design in CAD.

I  will share my findings in one or more screencasts that I can share privately. It would also be very interesting to share this interactively in a team session with your students perhaps per Skype.

I have not yet gotten to the ground of the assembly problem, however there are several areas of how this was designed that can be improved. The frame for example takes about 40 timeline items and is not that easy to edit. That can be done in under 10 and it will be easy to edit. 

[TrippyLighting]

I attempted to simplify the frame design and came across what I believe to be a bug, which I reported in this thread.  the goal of creating the base frame with less then 10 timeline operation was achieved by cheating 😉

[frc68cad]

Thanks so much for your help!

Yes, I'm very proud of the students - not just for the design, but how they worked together to make this happen.  Being this was the first time switching from Inventor to Fusion, there were some learning curve issues, especially moving from constraints to joints... but they've adapted quite well.  I'm sure if they did it all over again, it would have fewer (or no?) issues.

Thank you for your offer to share your screencasts on Skype - we gratefully accept your offer.  Let me know when you have time and are ready, and I'll arrange a time.  Generally we meet in the evening, Eastern time.

Take care.

[TrippyLighting]

Sorry for taking such a long time to respond.  I believe I've identified at least one culprit. I can currently not finish my investigation as the overall assembly repeatedly crashes when I try to update a linked assembly in it.

I'll see if I can get some help with that from some one folks at AD.

One thing I can tell you, however is that the INT-A01  assembly is odd in that everything is assembled and the assembly cannot be dragged around in reference to the main origin of the design.

However, there is not a single component grounded in it.

The way this was achieved was by using a joint (rigid64)  very late in the design process between the INT-001 Bracket and the said main origin. I can understand the thought behind it, but this is not the way an assembly should be built.

The first component in the design INT-001 should be grounded as soon as it is created. I believe this accounts for part of the odd behavior.

While there are a good number of things to improve, in general your students appear to have followed one thing very well and that is Fusion 360's R.U.L.E #1 they did not consider Rule #2 though - Name your stuff 😉

[frc68cad]

Thanks for your continued help & investigation.

I know in hindsight there were many things done incorrectly.  I think a big one was not activating components when creating sketches.  Yeah, and naming things.

We've reached a major milestone last night, by producing all the drawings needed for the shop to make the parts, so the bulk of the modeling has been completed.  We still struggle with crashing (a lot), and we're hopeful with each Fusion update, the platform will become more tolerant of designs that were less than ideally created.  (wishful thinking?)

I will share with you additional links that were emailed to Ahreum.

Take care,

Paul

[frc68cad]

Weird, I can't locate the PM link in your profile, on the right side.