Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Don't rename a body when its promoted to component
I see that when I promote a body to an component (via option Create Components from Bodies), the object gets renamed in the browser to ComponentX.1 (where X is simply the next component created for the project in the sequence). This can be annoying, esp if the name of the body was long and carefully named.
... also, after the body is promoted to a component, it would be useful for the browser object for the new component to blink a few times so the user can quickly locate it.
FFS @daniel_lyall - «RULE 1» in a 58 minute video isn't remotely useful or helpful.
FWIW @kdeuler it's at 14:28* and is just «always start by creating a new component and making it active»
If that really is «RULE 1» (and I still don't think it should be), then shouldn't the program do it for you ?
Even if someone does follow that and always starts by creating a new component there are still plenty of situations where they might reasonably create bodies and then later want to promote them to components.
Telling people to make new components for everything as they go is great for technical sales people who know exactly what they're building and are just going through a highly refined / scripted demo, but it totally misses the point of the program.
I don't sit down with Word knowing even a rough outline of what I'm writing, never mind having every sentence and paragraph well planned out. The great thing about F360 is that you can sit down to a blank canvas with only a rough idea of what you want to make, start working, and have the design evolve into something complex. The program is at its worst when it forces me to start over and throw out a design I've been honing and dialling in. That's like Word insisting that I rewrite everything whenever a better idea presents itself and I want to make major structural changes.
Also - if «create components from bodies» exists then somebody at AD must think it's useful (I use it all the time) and why not tweak it to make it behave in what seems an obvious way (that would save people time, and unnecessary frustration /annoyance) ?
* Daniel - even at 2x speed with skipping, sitting through that much of that video to get to something is boring and a huge waste of time. In the future, you could just as easily (a) write it down and (b) provide a time code for it. I'm applying Hanlon's Razor here but personally I'd rather see someone screaming in anger and frustration than providing what comes off as snotty, cryptic, dismissive, and entirely unnecessary, non-help «help». I know you probably just want to help, but please if you're going to say something, think first and make sure that you're actually being helpful and adding something, and not just telling people their idea is wrong (especially in the Ideastation where things like this actually belong).
well for a start in the future it wont matter a single bit if you start from a component or not.
if you wont to reuse a part, do it in a component it keeps everything attached to that part together if you convert it then copy and past that body into another sketch it is a broken object or a DM part.
if you move a body after it is converted where is the sketch, it gets left behind.
you keep doing this attack on me it is getting very old
I pointed the person to a vid that has a lot of very good info all the way through it, a lot of that info come's from some one that know his stuff.
doing stuff in components is a better way to do something if parts are going to be reused so you have the sketch, parameter, planes all together. if you don't you lose it all.
and please stop swearing at me using fancy words ES WWCKD
and you have no clue if I like this idea or even if i voted for it what i did but you can't do things that way yet and keep everything together, in a year or two yes you will be able but not know. so getting pointed to a vid and being told the the thing to look for is helping.
yes I could of said watch this vid it has RULE 1 in it what is a good idea to do as a lot of stuff works better if you do it this way at this time.
it is start from a component not convert to a component. and if it is just playing and working out a idea it is not so important how you do it but if you wont to reuse a part from a model it is better to do the whole thing inside a component as it keeps the sketch, planes, and body together and you can move the component around inside a assembled part and everything to do with that part moves with it.
is this better by the way other ADSK employees like this idea and vid too and think that it is the way to go for now.
It might feel like I'm attacking you but I'm trying to be constructive.
You're welcome to prove me wrong but I'm pretty sure I didn't swear at you here (the closest I can find is saying «FFS» and I think that was completely appropriate in the context).
Not sure what you mean by «fancy words» but I'm certainly not doing that intentionally. I presume you're not writing a single long / run-on sentence/paragraph thing to be confusing.
If you meant Hanlon's Razor (the only thing I can find that might not be common knowledge), then why not just get stumped, google that and learn something ? That's what I'd do and afterwards, you might actually [gasp] learn something new.
All it means is that I'm presuming that you're not intentionally being an a-hole even though what you wrote comes off as rude and a𝚜sholish [and if you consider that swearing at you, then I'm not sorry because that's how I talk and it's the best word I know for what I mean].
«you have no clue if I like this idea or even if i voted for it»
I have no clue if you like it (though if you did, your responses don't suggest so) but (unless the vote counter is broken) I can say with confidence that at the time you wrote that you didn't vote for it because I did and at this moment, it has only one vote.
All I'm saying is if you're trying to be helpful, be helpful. Saying «that's not the correct way to do it this is» and sharing a link to an hour long video and expecting someone to find something mentioned a quarter of the way through it isn't helpful.
I didn't mean or say that you should say «watch this vid it has RULE 1 in it what is a good idea to do as a lot of stuff works better if you do it this way at this time». Do you really not see that it's unreasonable to ask someone to sit for an indeterminate amount of time and watch an hour long video when you could just have said «start from a component not convert to a component» ? It happened to only be 14:28 in but could have just as easily been 45 minutes in for all they knew, and no reasonable person would sit through even 15 of that (and yes - if it's not clear, I am saying that I'm not a reasonable person; a reasonable person would have just said something like «
Daniel, sorry, but what's not the right way to do what? Perhaps you can direct me to the spot on the video timeline. Thx.»)
what does FFS mean then if not for F___ sake. for some reason if I use Rich Text or HTML it make's my post's look like that.
it's up to the person if they use speed incress there is a lot of good stuff in that vid that covers a few area's that is lacking in the materials , by not saying go to this spot they may learn something new as well. if I was going to direct them to a spot it's a wast off time they may miss something they did not know at all.
yes it may be rude or being a A hole but it is forcing people to learn more than they think they need to know and it get's the words into there head that there is this thing that some one thinks is a good idea they go looking for it in the vid and as it's going along o bugger I did not know that.
it's teaching when you teach you don't say goto page 40 line 10 the answer is there, you say go to chapter 3 page 40 or if there is info about the subject before that page that has the answer you would say page 39 to 43. it's doing a point to not a point at.
if you are a higher learner you say book so in so chapter what ever
I could just past in the reason why you do it a way if it is a important file that may need lot's of tweaks and some off the parts will be use some where else.
playing what ever goes.
I don't see you saying to anyone else the same stuff you say to me, who at times do say the same things as me be it sort or a long answer, or a forces to go to the learn section or just watch a vid.
There are two possibilities here, Daniel. (1) I'm for some reason going out of my way to pick on you despite not knowing you personally or anything about you or (2) I treat people as uniformly as possible and you're doing things differently.
Could be wrong but personally, I think it's the latter.
Even though others' answers may look indistinguishable to you, you very consistently do things like this where someone posts an idea, then you (I presume trying to be helpful) offer some work-around that they didn't ask for, or you otherwise 𝑐rap on their idea.
I'm sorry but it's not teaching when you give someone a link to a very long and boring video that contains a lot of redundant information that they probably already know (someone with a 7 here probably isn't a F360 novice).
Responding to a very polite request for help in navigating (again) an hour long video with «RULE 1» merits at least an «ffs». Again, I don't think you're trying to be an a-hole there.. but what you did is indistinguishable from what an a-hole might do.
All I'm asking is that when you post something you think first.
Anyway, congratulations, you've got your wish. I'm done interacting with you and won't again do anything that could be construed as swearing at you.
I'm sorry but it's not teaching when you give someone a link to a very long and boring video that contains a lot of redundant information that they probably already know (someone with a 7 here probably isn't a F360 novice).
this is the problem guessing, did you say to arron his vid is long and boring or are you just going to say it to me. don't answer
there is someone on here that is a 4 and he has been doing this longer than me. so with not taking that number into account it may or may not be something they know or won't to know, yes it may just piss them off, but it may fill half or what they wont what is good yes no.
there have been a couple idea's posted what are good I gave them links to stuff that did what they wonted is that helping. one just need a adjustment to the code what they could of just asked in the API section to be done and it would off been.
if FFS means what i think it means the 4 letter word for shagging that starts with F. for F sake
giving some one a way to do something some one wont's to do that is a work around to there idea is in, does help it give's them option's they can take it or leave it.
I don't have a problem at all with people getting grumpy with me, and trying to get me to improve what I put down that's why I asked if this was better and add the time in yer.
watch this vid it has RULE 1 in it at 14:28 what is a good idea to do as a lot of stuff works better if you do it this way at this time.
it is start from a component not convert to a component.
and if it is just playing and working out a idea it is not so important how you do it but if you wont to reuse a part from a model it is better to do the whole thing inside a component as it keeps the sketch, planes, and body together and you can move the component around inside a assembled part and everything to do with that part moves with it.
also there is some other good info in the vid I would suggest watching it from the start.
it's just I did not like the FFS. and you did say something to me about something I put down a couple of times and they where copy and paste from trippy.
I am a at times a very rude A hole. if you did not put FFS I would not have replied at all but at the same time I am asking you if something is better to have than what I did put down.
"I don't sit down with Word knowing even a rough outline of what I'm writing, never mind having every sentence and paragraph well planned out."
Although you don't have a plan for every word or sentence you do know to put a space between the words, creating components is not a lot different. If you want to make a new body make a new component first, try to keep all the sketches and features in the component and it will be reusable and easy to edit. You can work making all your components in the main component then converting into bodies if you want to make something quickly but sooner or later you'll end up painting yourself into a corner with no way out or back. I think the tutorials teach bad habits and bad practice just so noobies can get a model quick and feel like they've achieved something, trouble is after a few weeks and they've built a large assembly it all falls apart when they try to edit it. Then we have to tell them they've not follow Rule #1.
I don't know what AutoDesk should do about this apart from better tutorials, just having a component active when you start a design is not going to help much as people will just make all the bodies in that component rather than the main component if they still don't know about Rule #1.
I came to Fusion from Geomagic where you have a file for each part and an assembly file, it didn't take me long to figure out with Fusion the top component is the equivalent of the assembly file and the components are like the individual part or subassembly files. Working along these lines I've not any problems with editing my designs.
@HughesTooling I don't claim it'd entirely solve the problem, but the first thing F360 should do is absolutely autocreate and activate the first component whenever someone starts a new design. If that's really «rule # 1», why even let people activate the top-level ? Force them to put everything in a component.
That said, while I don't think the top-level assembly should necessarily be treated like a component, I strongly disagree that every body belongs in its own component, though. Components aren't words but more paragraphs or even chapters. Bodies are words. If components really are meant to be words, then F360 should kill bodies as a separate level and not even give people the option to make them (I'd have no objection to that and a major re-thinking of the entire assembly hierarchy if it's done well).
Something is very wrong when the most natural thing to do for someone new to a program isn't the «right» way to do it, per the program's developers or users. It smells terrible and it a sign that something deeper is fundamentally broken and needs to be fixed.
Nobody should have to work through a tutorial just to start using something - especially something as intuitive as F360. This should be a huge red flag for the team and they should spend a considerable amount of time rethinking what the best way to organise assemblies is.
Like a great API, a great program should make it extremely easy to do the right thing and extremely hard to do something wrong.
You and I must not think or work alike, though, because whether I'm writing, coding, or designing, I'll very often go in with a rough idea of what I want to do, start building something, and then refactor it. Some things that I initially think should be separate end up getting merged together. Others that seemed like they were monolithic make more sense decomposed into two or more subcomponents (and it's not uncommon to decide to split two parts and recombine their subcomponents into new ones)
Even when I go in with a plan, or I'm starting from scratch on a design for the tenth time, I'll still see better ways to do something and want to change things in ways that break badly (generally forcing me to start over from scratch for an eleventh time).
Just in writing this, I've moved paragraphs around, added and removed big chunks, and edited a lot (though doubtlessly not enough).
Boolean operations and the ability to split and merge things aren't bad and if the «right way» to use the program insists that they are then screams that something is wrong.
This is actually a fundamental problem with the timeline too. It pretty much forces you to work linearly or (at most) go back and make minor tweaks. Any sort of major reshuffling needlessly breaks things
Regardless of the above, though, this idea is a huge no-brainer. So long as bodies exist and it's possible to promote one to a component, why would you not want the program to do its best to give the component the name the body had ?
