Add Cam Operation Folders Association to Model Component Visibility

[bensbenz]

Currently it seems the visibility is only associated with the workspace, which is nice, but I suggest taking it a step further.

Wouldn't it be nice to have each CAM operations folder associated with the visibility selections of the respective components that are used in that operation?

It could be either a manual selection, meaning as the user toggles what they want visible in that setup it remembers, or perhaps it could be related to the models and fixtures selected in the setup itself.

As my parts and designs get more complex with various versions of components, fixtures ect, it gets to be a hassle toggling visibility of the components that relate to each cam setup. I think as you are working in a setup, it should remember what components were visible and when you toggle each folders radio button only those components should be visible and all the others hidden. It would make things much less confusing and save a bunch of time.

My two cents,

Benjamin

[ProteumMachining]

Agreed.  If they want us to use this as a multi-component multi-body CAD and CAM there needs to be a way to organize your toolpaths.  Even on a simple assembly with 2 different parts with CAM it gets confusing unless I'm really good about my naming. 

[Anonymous]

This has been making me crazy not having this. Please add

[gman-r]

Please add this feature. I was about to submit a similar idea. It is nice to be able to model multiple parts in one design, but it is a nightmare constantly changing the visibility of items. I would suggest that each setup remember what objects were visible when it was last active. It is unlikely that one will bring in other objects arbitrarily in the cam environment. Please implement any solution that avoids the constant visibility changes. Thanks

[keqingsong]

Hey there! Thanks so much for submitting your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get a lot of votes from the community, and now is 2 years old. We're changing its status to archived. If you still feel strongly about this idea, you can resubmit it. Check out some idea submission best practices here: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/community-faq/ideas/m-p/5384681#M44

[gman-r]

I didn’t realize it was such a political process, I would have campaigned for this. I assumed that ideas that seem logical would get consideration from Autodesk. It seems to me that if fusion encourages modeling complete assembles in one environment, then it would make sense that there would be a sensible way to machine parts which are almost always done one at a time. This causes a lot of frustration and sometimes errors.

[bensbenz]

Apparently this is in the works and available with a feature flag!