Some simple features request

[I_Megaman_i]

Hey

1) A box from center. PLEASE!!!?😀

see the video!

2)Why these arent active by the default!?  Why did you hide all these filters behind a sub-menu?!!!! Cant even put it somewhere on the toolbar or assign a hotkey to enalbe/disable all:-(

3) The same goes for these too, is there a hotkey to "check/uuncheck all" filters at once?! No? then why are they also hidden so deep so that you have to spend 5 seconds just to enable them all, this happens all the time, and is very annoying and you dont even know how.:-(

Please!

[I_Megaman_i]

Just one example when a primitive becomes a pain?

[jeff_strater]

primitives are not parametric.  In the screencast below, the Cylinder is placed on the top face of the cube.  But, if you edit the cube, the cylinder does not follow that face.

[I_Megaman_i]

its not suppose to do that in first place, why do you think it should? Does solidworks has this feature?

[chrisplyler]

---

@I_Megaman_i wrote:

Just one example when a primitive becomes a pain?

---

I think what you typed was, "1) A box from center. PLEASE!!!?😀"

That's just one example of when a primitive becomes a pain.

[chrisplyler]

---

@I_Megaman_i wrote:

its not suppose to do that in first place, why do you think it should? Does solidworks has this feature?

---

Don't you understand? The typical cylinder - the type that all the rest of of make by sketching a rectangle and then revolving it around an axis - can be parametrically controlled to follow along with the box edit, or not, as desired. Heck, it could be made to move in the opposite direction. It could be made to do whatever you want, like perhaps you want the total stacked height to be constant, so when you shorten the box the cylinder gets longer. Whatever!

A primitive cylinder, on the other hand, can't easily be made to parametrically do anything at all.

[J.C.jones]

OP: idea! please make primitive tools (more) parametric, that would make them more useful

Forum: no, you should not be using primitives

OP: why not?

Forum: because primitives are not parametric and are therefore useless

???

[chrisplyler]

---

@J.C.jones wrote:

OP: idea! please make primitive tools (more) parametric, that would make them more useful

Forum: no, you should not be using primitives

OP: why not?

Forum: because primitives are not parametric and are therefore useless

???

---

Yeah. That's right. Well, at least for the first four primitives, as I said earlier. The coil/helix thingy has its occasional uses. But the first four definitely do not. They do not offer any benefit that's worth the heartache. They do not fit within the intended/accepted usage methodology of Fusion 360.

Now...if Autodesk DID improve them a lot...maybe I wouldn't say that. But it seems very unlikely that that is ever going to happen. There's just no benefit. And honestly even if they did, I would probably still say most of what I said. They might become BETTER, but still not fit within the usage methodology, and therefor just be a source of inconsistency. It's quick and easy enough to make any of those four shapes with a quick sketch and a Solid>Create>feature, as you would typically do for any other shape, and by doing so you GAIN so much more consistent control like you do for everything else that isn't a primitive.

What's your question exactly?

[laughingcreek]

can you suggest a framework that would the same way as everything else? that would be great.  unfortunately every thing I can think of would involved a different approach, adding another layer to the way things are done in the program.

most straight foward way I can think of is to make every primitive automatically into a component, and have a dialog pop up to place a joint origin.  pretty sure that would drive most users batty.

the other would be to not delete the back ground processes that happen  when you make a primitive (there is a sketch and a feature that get produced, and then wiped out in the background during the process of placing a primitive. 

[I_Megaman_i]

I wouldnt call that a pain, Id be happy if it were different but its not pain, a little inconvenience rather which can be improved easily. I understand you got a personal vendetta against the primitives but what I described is not pain.:-)

[J.C.jones]

Interesting question @laughingcreek, but just so I understand you correctly, what do you mean exactly by framework that would make it work the same way as everything else? Do you mean a procedure that Fusion 360 would carry out in the background to create the primitive using other existing tools?

I don't necessarily disagree with the current method of temporarily creating a sketch to generate the actual primitive, if that's what Fusion 360 does in the background. I just think that when it comes to generating the temporary (position) sketch I would like to see all the same geometry snapping/anchoring abilities that the Create Sketch tool itself has. Create Sketch snaps to edges and vertices in the same plane from geometry, and also to elements in other sketches in the same plane.

[chrisplyler]

It's also not a pain to just sketch a rectangle and extrude it into a box. And it has sooooooooo many advantages.

I don't have anything personal against the primitives. I've just been using Fusion long enough to know better. So have many people in this forum which would tell you the same things I'm telling you. But you do what you want. Good luck.

[chrisplyler]

---

@J.C.jones wrote:

I don't necessarily disagree with the current method of temporarily creating a sketch to generate the actual primitive, if that's what Fusion 360 does in the background. I just think that when it comes to generating the temporary (position) sketch I would like to see all the same geometry snapping/anchoring abilities that the Create Sketch tool itself has. Create Sketch snaps to edges and vertices in the same plane from geometry, and also to elements in other sketches in the same plane.

---

Right? So just create a sketch and make your shape! Way better than using the primitives...at least until such time as Autodesk significantly improves them...which will be never.

[J.C.jones]

Wrong. I wouldn't even have to do that if the tool just basically worked as you would expect, saving time and effort.

[laughingcreek]

---

@J.C.jones wrote:

... if the tool just basically worked as you would expect....

---

which is the crux of the whole question.  exactly how are you expecting it to work?  My "framework" question from before, I'm asking what would we have to do (what would we need to click, what definitions would we have to make) to make it behave in a parametric way in relation to other geometry with in the design?  

right now it behaves EXACTLY like a DM or base feature object.  (with the exception that it's size can be controlled with parameters).

[Ajay_Kumar_Reddy]

I have some suggestion for the hotkey setup.

at the end of select by body, face, component you'll find three dots just click on that and assign the hotkey in your favor.

with that you can switch bw selection right away.

[J.C.jones]

---

what would we have to do (what would we need to click, what definitions would we have to make) to make it behave in a parametric way in relation to other geometry with in the design?

---

@laughingcreek This is how I envision things:

Box:

• When defining the initial rectangle, make the tool snap to any existing geometry in the same plane as the selected one (corners, edges, sketch elements, etc.) and not just the (projection of) the origin. Basically make it behave the same way that Sketch > 2-Point Rectangle does. You could also add the 3-point method or the Center method as optional methods.
• When defining the height, make it have the same options as the Extrude tool (Direction, Extent type, etc.). Now it only supports a direct dimension.

Cylinder:

• When defining the initial circle center, make the tool snap to any existing geometry in the same plane as the selected one (corners, edges, sketch elements, etc.) and not just the (projection of) the origin. Basically make it behave the same way that Sketch > Center Diameter Circle does. You could also include all the other 2D circle creation methods found in Sketch as options (2-Point, 3-Point, 2-Tangent, 3-Tangent).
• When defining the height, make it have the same options as Extrude (Direction, Extent type, etc.). Now it only supports a direct dimension.

Sphere:

• Enable the tool to select any existing point in the design (corners, edges, sketch elements, construction geometry, etc.), not just the (projection of) the origin in a plane, as the center.
• Make the tool have the [To Object] option as a possible Extent Type to in addition to [Dimension] when defining the radius. Now it only supports a direct dimension.
• Note: you could also conceive of new methods to define a sphere. For instance, the 2-Point method used for 2D circles, but you could also define a sphere from 4 tangent planes, or 4 points, etc.

Torus: you could make two options: from an inside diameter and torus diameter (used currently), or from a major and minor diameter.

First method (current):

• When defining the inner circle center, make the tool snap to any existing geometry in the same plane as the selected one (corners, edges, sketch elements, etc.) and not just the (projection of) the origin. Basically make it behave the same way that Sketch > Center Diameter Circle does. You could also include all the other 2D circle creation methods found in Sketch as options (2-Point, 3-Point, 2-Tangent, 3-Tangent).
• Make the tool have the [To Object] option as a possible Extent Type to in addition to [Dimension] when defining the radius. Now it only supports a direct dimension.

Second option (conceivable):

• Define one circle first, then define a second circle after that. When defining these circles, make the tool snap to any existing geometry in the same plane as the selected one (corners, edges, sketch elements, etc.) and not just the (projection of) the origin.
• Basically make it behave the same way that Sketch > Center Diameter Circle does. You could also include all the other 2D circle creation methods found in Sketch as options (2-Point, 3-Point, 2-Tangent, 3-Tangent). Fusion should infer infer from the diameter values which one is the major diameter, and which one the minor.

Coil:

• When defining the initial circle center, make the tool snap to any existing geometry in the same plane as the selected one (corners, edges, sketch elements, etc.) and not just the (projection of) the origin. Basically make it behave the same way that Sketch > Center Diameter Circle does. You could also include all the other 2D circle creation methods found in Sketch as options (2-Point, 3-Point, 2-Tangent, 3-Tangent).
• Choose to define a starting angle from either a [Dimension] (angle), or a [To Object] by snapping to an (extended) ray emanating from the center point of the original circle to a selected point. Again, this tool must snap to any existing points in the same plane (vertices, points in sketches, construction points, etc.).
• For the rest, I would say the Coil tool is pretty much there, perhaps add the [To Object] Extent Type option alongside normal dimensions.

Pipe:

In my estimation, Pipe is probably parametric enough already because it takes an existing path as an input. You could also conceivably have the [To Object] Extent Type here as well, but there's probably not much point to that.