CLOSED - "Next Relevant Feature" Suggestions

[TimeraAutodesk]

**Feedback on this item is now closed.  Thank you all for your input!**

We have been working hard to make sure Fusion is as easy to use as possible and we understand from our community that certain feature sequences could be shortened. We have been investigating for a while how we can do this effectively and provide the best experience for the community.

We have been working with an idea called “Next Relevant Feature” where fusion would suggest the next best feature to apply to the design while you are creating the last feature. For example, if you're creating an extrude, the extrude command could allow you to create a shell at the same time.

What we need from the community

1. Do you currently find yourself having to use multiple features to achieve the desired result?

2. Is this something that you find intriguing?

3. What worries or fears might you have using this kind of technology?

We are also looking for partners to be involved in the early phases of these feature sets, so if you would like to share more information on how you achieve this now and want to be involved in the early phases feel free to reach out directly to harv.saund@autodesk.com

[Garret_H]

Posted in the wrong thread, please remove comment.

[Garret_H]

I clicked this thread thinking it would be "which feature to add would be most relevant to your workflow" rather than an in program prompt. 

I would not find an automated feature like this helpful, and would find the prompts to be distracting.

As an example when I create a sketch it may be to extrude, or revolve, or to use that sketch for controlling geometry. That next feature is always just a quick mouse click away, not something I struggle with. If I had to dismiss prompts that would slow me down.

I would suggest letting the user create their own next relevant feature routines where a "create multiple feature" pulldown on the ribbon can let the user select a routine that they defined. This would be much less intrusive while also encompassing the diversity of users needs. Suggestions are only nice when they are something you actually need.  Let's not bring back Microsoft Word's Clippy.

[TrippyLighting]

@Garret_H did you read the initial post of this thread or just the title?

[Garret_H]

@TrippyLighting I sloppily read the thread title and skimmed, made some off topic posts and then went back to edit my post so it was on topic. 

Of course if you received an email notification you wouldn't see those edits. Regardless I apologize for the confusion.

[Anonymous]

I may off topic with the latest entries today and yesterday on next relevant feature.

I find this subject intriguing but with some apprehensions

1.)  AI could take you down the wrong path. auto-generating something you will end up erasing; in part or in full.

2.) you should have a tree branch graphic to show the paths and options available to you at that particular stage of design. choose the branch that generates the best option and customize from there.

        like after I extrude and shell-  add hole and inner lip on inside face?

3.) semi automating modeling with some kind of map will reduce choices of wrong options and allow designer very quickly to develop a satisfactory product.

Thanks,

John

[Garret_H]

I was thinking on this some more about features I get spend a disproportionate amount of time on. It isn't as much creating features as creating multiple instances of components. @TrippyLighting touched off on this very well, particularly on components and bolt patterns. Whether one is using patterns or copying, creating multiple instances of something with joints is an arduous process. 

I was working on a job last week with extruded aluminum frame and brackets, copying each corner bracket would have me do an individual copy out an arbitrary distance, then apply a joint, and repeat. Bolts would have been even more time consuming, so I didn't bother there. In that particular instance there was no set pattern, but the challenge is the same.  

In this case a next relevant feature would be helpful, but not as much as a feature like "paste multiple with joint". Not directly related to the topic - which is why I don't feel the topic is the right problem to be trying to solve.

EDIT: If a "paste multiple with joint" feature could appear as an editable item in the timeline so that new instances could be added then this would solve a few of the problems mentioned by TrippyLighting with regards to patterns.

[bryan5]

1) Wrap a sketch on a surface

2) Complimentary angle call out (inside angle) in call outs on drawings and bend tables in drawings

3) Normal to thickness cutout for sheet metal parts

4) Sketch entities within drawings.

5) Text on a curve inside of sketch.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@bryan5 wrote:

1) Wrap a sketch on a surface

2) Complimentary angle call out (inside angle) in call outs on drawings and bend tables in drawings

3) Normal to thickness cutout for sheet metal parts

4) Sketch entities within drawings.

5) Text on a curve inside of sketch.

---

Can you explain how that relates to the initial post that started this thread?

Did you read and understand the first post before posting yourself?

[bryan5]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Wish,wish,wish I could just hit "I" keyboard shortcut again to clear Inspect measure tool!!  Or even TAB or ESC or ENTER?

Thanks for the help Guys!

Werner Berry

[Anonymous]

Wish, wish, wish I could search the browser, group and color code components!! Nearly impossible to navigate with thousands of items.

Thanks for the help Guys!

Werner Berry

[Anonymous]

Wish, wish ,wish I could hit keyboard Home, End, Page Up, Page Down when hovering the mouse over browser area to quickly move through the browser.  Again when working on projects with thousands of components the browser is the biggest thing slowing my down.

Thanks for the help Guys!

Werner Berry

[Garret_H]

I was thinking more on a situation where a "next relevant feature" suggestion could save me time in a workflow.

That happens with hole placement on features.

• I first create a sketch on a surface placing points with each hole located at a set distance from projected geometry of a feature (say 1 1/2" away from the back of an L3x3x1/4") and then at a set space from each hole (6" center to center).
• Then I exit the sketch, open the hole command, and select each hole individually*. No problem when its 2 holes, very time consuming when its 12.
• After this is fastener placement and joints, again lots of time to do.

The biggest time saver in this workflow would be if after I've finished my sketch (only points & construction geometry) and clicked Hole the F360 helper (call it Spinny instead of Clippy?) asks me if I would like to select all the points I just drew on that sketch to make holes from. Then ask me if I want to insert fastener and walks through the steps there (after a bolt comes a nut and a washer for instance).

There could be multiple ways to simplify the workflow above by adding new commands (such as a "hole location" in sketch), but this is one case I can think of when I really wish Fusion could read my mind.

*With the way I need to place holes the pattern feature isn't useful to create more holes. The pattern often ends up non-linear and the spacing is less important than what the hole is space FROM. 

[kb9ydn]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

I was thinking more on a situation where a "next relevant feature" suggestion could save me time in a workflow.

That happens with hole placement on features.

• I first create a sketch on a surface placing points with each hole located at a set distance from projected geometry of a feature (say 1 1/2" away from the back of an L3x3x1/4") and then at a set space from each hole (6" center to center).
• Then I exit the sketch, open the hole command, and select each hole individually*. No problem when its 2 holes, very time consuming when its 12.
• After this is fastener placement and joints, again lots of time to do.

The biggest time saver in this workflow would be if after I've finished my sketch (only points & construction geometry) and clicked Hole the F360 helper (call it Spinny instead of Clippy?) asks me if I would like to select all the points I just drew on that sketch to make holes from. Then ask me if I want to insert fastener and walks through the steps there (after a bolt comes a nut and a washer for instance).

There could be multiple ways to simplify the workflow above by adding new commands (such as a "hole location" in sketch), but this is one case I can think of when I really wish Fusion could read my mind.

*With the way I need to place holes the pattern feature isn't useful to create more holes. The pattern often ends up non-linear and the spacing is less important than what the hole is space FROM. 

---

The hole command in Fusion is ok but it could use some streamlining.  I'm thinking something like this:

When you want to create a bunch of holes, the first thing you do is open the hole command.  If you do "from sketch" it will ask you to select either a pre-existing sketch from the design tree/timeline, or a face/plane to create a new sketch on.  Either way it will automatically create holes at every individual point in the sketch (not line endpoints).  Now you can select all the hole options, threads, etc..

Adding fasteners is an assembly task and not a modeling task, so it should be handled separately.  A cool way to make this easier would be to have a "feature driven component pattern".  What this would do is allow you to use an existing hole feature as a pattern for other components, like fasteners.  To use it you would first add the fasteners you want (screw, nut, washer, etc.) and join/align them to one hole.  Then with the "feature driven component pattern" you would select the components to pattern and the hole feature to drive it from.  It would also allow you to select holes to skip, in case you don't want to populate every hole.  The beauty of this method is that you aren't limited to just fasteners, you can pattern components or even entire assemblies based on a series of holes.

C|

[TrippyLighting]

---

@kb9ydn wrote:

---

  A cool way to make this easier would be to have a "feature driven component pattern".  

---

Yep, just like Solid Works or ZW3D.

I put that idea into the Idea Station 3 or 4 years ago 😉

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

---

@kb9ydn wrote:

---

  A cool way to make this easier would be to have a "feature driven component pattern".  

---

Yep, just like Solid Works or ZW3D.

I put that idea into the Idea Station 3 or 4 years ago 😉

---

It's such a great feature isn't it?  Makes it almost trivially easy to fully detail an assembly with all the fasteners.

C|

[JulianGroeli]

Quick UX suggestion on the new Joint dialog box:

Please move the Joint limit controls into the "Motion" tab. That way all of the joint properties are available from one place instead of specifying them in two different places. 

I made a little mockup of what it could be like, see attached video.

Thanks!

[alu0101125336]

With th recent update the simplify tool, in the simulation workspace have changed from place, furthermore it has lost one of the key features, for me, because of the use that im giving it, and its the habilty to connect to the autodesk cfd software straight from the program. It would be very nice to get it to be how it was before the 16 of march's update 

[JulianGroeli]

More appearance controls would be extremely valuable:

1. Faster access to opacity control. Maybe use the "V" key to cycle between show, 50% transparent, and hide.

--- Also: allow opacity control on linked files

--- I basically end up not using and forgetting opacity controls are available because they are buried a few clicks deep in a menu.

2. Allow wireframe / shaded / shaded with edges display on a per component basis. This would be great for comparing two files, or for working with reference geometry.

[JulianGroeli]

More powerful patterning!

Sketch driven pattern -  This would be so great for boss / hole / hardware patterns that may need to change or might have to have one of the pattern instances be nudged off the pattern slightly. Sometimes I don't know which one it will need to be at the beginning of the design process. Also great for funky patterns.

Old Pro/E concept: reference pattern (ie make this feature or component follow an existing pattern)