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

[mac_ito]

For my part it is an attractive idea, but it is necessary for this that the set is configurable by the user so that he can choose which function will be displayed following the one he is performing . The fields of application are too varied I think for you to succeed in doing something generic which corresponds to a majority.

Sorry for my english, Google translate is my friend.

[youcangetme]

You added "Teams" but you forgot the thing that drives teams; Jira integration.

My software guys all use Jira and Github. Can't drive a software team without it. Jira is a Monopoly.

I may be the sole CAD/CAM guy but I still account for my time in Jira. It just makes sense come tax time and I need time based on billable and unbillable categories. CAD/CAM being unbillable for the time being and a loss for the company.

In Jira I can see check ins in Github because the team comments in this fashion; "PH-12345 Added new feature to class Blah." with "PH-12345" being the ticket name.

When Jira sees new check ins in Github it scans and connects the ticket name(s) preceding the comment with the ticket as a link. It doesn't download any content or the like, just the comments and makes a link you can follow back to the resource.

Now, in Github that link is tied to the change (the checksum) so you view it in historical context (as it was when that check in occurred).

I would love to see a link on my Jira ticket so I can follow it back and see that check-in in Fusion 360's web interface and the file at that version for that comment. If it is multiple files then see them like in GitHub as a list so I can browse them. Now, this is probably a bridge too far but if you could maybe color the changes in the file with a button so you could see them easier, that would be way cool!

Then I can say, "feature x" was added at this time and by "person x" and here is what it look like at that time of check in.

You let the camels nose under the tent with the teams, now the whole camel is on its way in 🙂

Thank you for adding this feature ASAP! 😄

--jb

PS. If the CAD/CAM community isn't using Jira, shame on them. They are losing money...

[TrippyLighting]

@TimeraAutodesk @brianrepp Can we close this thread?

90% of the participants are obviously too lazy to read the first post to inform themselves what this thread is about or god forbid read any of the other posts to evaluate whether or not their post actually adds anything to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

.or the writer of the post chose a title that didn't truly represent the
request. But sure, just blame people.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
.or the writer of the post chose a title that didn't truly represent the
request. But sure, just blame people.

---

And you wouldn't just be blaming the writer of the title to excuse yourself for your inability to read the first post in this thread? Give me a break!

[Anonymous]

You realize it's 2020, right? Most people have been led into a state of
reading a headline and reacting.this is why companies have editors.

Like it or not, that's just the current social trend.

[youcangetme]

Actually I came in from Google and correct, I didn't read the first entry.

Turns out to be another worthless feature nobody would use. Kind like this "generative design" stuff.

If I could delete the entry I would.

Have a happy day!

[Anonymous]

I would appreciate some suggestion on when a feature might be most appropriate, such as that filet or chamfer might best be placed at the end.

My concern would be that my thinking is often behind the design and I would find it a bit annoying to have suggestions for things I didn't intend doing, unless it was somehow really intuitive.  Its a bit like writing a story and the word software telling you how it ends.

I could see how for some (less experienced perhaps) who dont add tools to their own ribbon, this might be really good if their ribbon populated with the tools they might use.  For tools that must have a path before they can work this would be really good.

[GRSnyder]

Another very common compound sequence of operations: creating an offset plane that is a certain distance from an existing feature:

1. Offset plane to feature using To Object as the Extent.
2. Offset the just-created plane by a desired Distance.
3. Turn off the visibility of the first plane.

It would be nice if in To Object mode, there was also an Offset box.

[Think_Industrial]

Yes, welding. It would be really really nice to be able to blob on some digital welds in a design. Define what kind of weld process it is, have the ability to show up in the drawing. Is this stitch welded or welded solid? A drawing made just for the welder would be amazing. If the welds could show up in a different color on the drawing, even better. Make it idiot resistant. We all have color laser printers now. Now your TMAW welds are red, GMAW welds are blue and your SMAW welds are green (or whatever the user defines). Imagine how idiot resistant you just made your drawings!

Just being able to build a project and have an easy measurement of how many inches of welding is on the machine would give estimators a MASSIVE advantage as they have some idea of how many inches or pounds of weld a welder can deposit in a minute or an hour. If we can define the fillet size like applying a chamfer then log it and add it up.  This would be the killer app for making money with Fusion. 

Bonus points for this weld fitment working when doing strain and stress testing of a project (but that is asking a lot). This would allow a lot of welds to be removed from a design, saving lots of money and time.

[GRSnyder]

This thread really needs to be locked. Virtually no one seems to understand the actual question being asked. There are better places for most of this feedback to go.

[Think_Industrial]

Ummm, I read the question again and I'm not picking up on the problem here? I thought this was a place to put an idea for a feature suggestion. Perhaps more thought could be put into clarifying the question that was asked if everyone keeps answering it incorrectly?

Would you could be so kind as to point me to a place where I could post this idea? I think it is really important that Fusion improve it's support of welding as it is literally one of the most important steps in manufacturing.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Think_Industrial wrote:

Ummm, I read the question again and I'm not picking up on the problem here? I

---

Do you really mean to say that you read the initial post in this thread and don't understand what it meant with the "next relevant feature"?

Also, this is not a general suggestion/idea board. You're just about 6 years too late to the party 😉

The idea station which did offer that possibility was closed and replaced by the feedback hub end of last year.

[kb9ydn]

What I find most curious about this thread is that there has been literally zero additional input from Autodesk about the original idea.  Is it just really low priority?  Was the idea scrapped?  Have they forgotten about it?  It's currently a black hole where words go in and nothing comes out.  🕳

C|

[tkornack]

Flexible circuit board support!

[GRSnyder]

---

@tkornack wrote: Flexible circuit board support!

---

Man, I hope this is a joke. 🙂

@Think_Industrial, my response above was not directed at you in particular. If you look through the thread history, you'll see that many, many people have done exactly what you did, which is to interpret the thread subject "Next relevant feature" to mean "What should we implement next?"

Totally reasonable; that's what "next relevant feature" means, right? But the responses don't address the actual question asked at the head of the thread, and more importantly, I fear that good feedback is getting buried in this backwater, dead thread. Everyone looks through the feedback forum and concludes that "next relevant feature" is the only subject that vaguely matches what they want to talk about, so they post here. There is something really wrong here from a systems perspective.

[dario.gigi.festa]

Hello there,

I recently opened a topic for knowing if there's an inverse fillet option, and sadly there isn't. It's a simple feature (and Inventor already have it) and I think it would be greatly appreciated expecially in the attached screenshot context where you have to work with thin bodies and round recessed fillet path (because the pipe command,which is the most frequently used workaround cannot do it properly), It can really saves you a lot of time!

[TrippyLighting]

@brianrepp @jeff_strater Can we please close this thread?

[kasparjj]

Hi,

I have been working with almost all aspects of Fusion 360 and it's awesome!

I rarely have an issue that i can't solve in the design tab, but I really miss this feature:

Migrate the "Unwrap" tool which is available in Autodesk Inventor into Fusion 360. 

In many projects, their is an necessity to make and print templates from surfaces/faces of the 3D model used to design, cut, bend/fold objects within manufacturing. Such templates are extensively used within fabric sewing, cutting foam, plastics, bending/folding sheet metal etc. The sheet metal tools is great when it comes to sheet metal, but for more complex/organic surfaces and shapes, where is a need for such tool.

I have been explorering Exact Flat as a solution, but the cost of their solution dosen't make sense for small project where you need only 1 or few templates. The minimum price for a license is $ 600 for 90 days.

Best regards,

Kaspar

[brianrepp]

Thank you all for your input (both on-topic, and off-topic 😀)!  This thread is now closed and we look forward to your input on other active Feedback Hub topics.