easily create multiple variants in the same file

[jamie.q.white]

It would be really nice to be able to have multiple copies of a body/sketch/component in the same file so I can look at them at the same time. And it would be nice to just change a variant/copy of an design (sketch/model/component by simply altering a dimension (or moving a line visually).

In practice, I'd simply be able to 

1. create a basic model/sketch/component/assembly

2. Select the base version and "copy"

3. Paste, paste, paste....

4. Tweak copy 1, tweak copy 2, tweak copy 3.

5. compare copy 1, with copy 2, etc

-jamie

[roambotics_scott]

Hopefully this is comming with the fork-and-merge functionality

[jamie.q.white]

I had a look at Jule's blog entry about fork-and-merge. It sounds nice, but what I am after is far simpler.  It seems like such a basic thing to be able to copy-paste-paste-paste-paste... within a file and then make changes to there.  

Simple, fast, & easy.  No version control, promoting different copies, different copies of files, etc.   Just a few different objects in the same file, all slightly different.

[roambotics_scott]

Minus version control, this sounds like the physical equiviliant of copy-paste coding. 

It's better to stay DRY ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_repeat_yourself ).

For a part of any complexity, what's guaranteed to happen with copy-paste is that you start with the original, make your copies, tweak them, eventually find something you want to do to the original that gets carried through everything.

In the best case scenario, you're stuck going through and doing a lot of busy work to update all of the copies.

In the worst case, you miss some (probably most) of the copies and end up with a bunch of nearly but not quite identical parts missing some of your big innovations.

Another danger here is that it could easily be abused to give (for example) a bunch of fasteners or brackets that are nearly but not quite the same which will make manufacturing and assembly much more complicated.

[jamie.q.white]

Well, the current solution of either keeping multiple different files, or promoting/de-moting different versions of the same file also seems pretty error-prone, and for me it is a cumbersome and inelegant way of doing things.

In my particular case, a quick copy-paste would do just fine. A simple solution does not preclude more sophisicated ways of looking at different design variants.  It should be up to the designer to decide what is most appropriate.

I use this approach in a lot of other settings: For example. I keep a master travel list and each trip I go on I make a copy (copy/paste) and alter it with details and items for each trip. Fast, simple, easy, clear.

How would you solve my problem (http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-and-documentation/simple-change-to-a-design/m-p/5643698#M24492)...  I want something fast, simple, and easy, clear.

Thanks,

-jamie

[roambotics_scott]

The current solution [different files] is horrible and shouldn't be used as a standard. Since it looks like you're recombining, can easily make your copies within one design [copy-paste components], work with those and put them together into your final assembly, but that is kludgy and badly violates DRY.

Honestly though the best way I know to do this (and what I'd do if I were doing it with code) is to make multiple branches. It's almost exactly what that's for - and even more so than I thought originally now that I see what you're trying to do. If branching is cheap and works well, it's perfect for you here.

1) Make a copy of the underlying sketch

2) Fork a branch
2) [in new branch] move the bottom line 2mm down in the sketch.
3) [in new branch] extrude right and left (larger) sides from the new, changed sketch.
4) [in new assembly] combine instances of the existing number bodies ("3", "0", and "4") with the new (larger) plate sides.

[assuming they do it right], you can build custom components, make assemblies out of some mixture of those.

The upshot is that if it were done that way, you could do this work once, and then later go into the original sketch, change the numbers, and have that propagated through all of the instances [if you want that and do a pull or update]

This does make me think of a new idea though: parametric text [assuming it's not there already]

[jamie.q.white]

Hmm...thanks for the info.  I must be missing something.  Does "fork" already exist?  How is what you're proposing different from:

1 Copy (you use copy)

2 Paste (not fork)

3 Alter copy 1: number 304

4 Alter copy 2: number 412 with 2mm bigger plate and hole moved 1mm back

Maybe I just don't understand the terms? How would "fork" be different than "paste".

Regardless of whatever the "best" workflow might be, I don't see why there can't be a simple copy/paste?  They are standard computer functions available in almost all pieces of software that F360 seems to lack, and I think they would be pretty useful in a broad number of situations.

Saying "we won't let you have normal copy/paste functions because you will use them for a workflow that we think is not optimal" is paternalistic.  It is not like I am asking for something all that unusual; just a simple copy/paste. 

What you might call kludgy is what I call clear, easy to understand, simple and fast.  No one needs to explain copy/paste to me, I can just do it and get on with design.

[roambotics_scott]

I think you are missing something because (a) my fork workflow was meant to show how it could / should work, not how it does and (b) I don't think anyone is saying you can't copy-paste (that's already there now).

The difference between copy/paste and branching is that the branching keeps history and lets you go back to the  past and update things. If it's implemented correctly then you'd not notice the difference (actually thinking about it now, the copy/paste thing should just be a branch behind the scenes).

Either way though - nothing paternalistic there. I'm saying copy-paste coding and design is like driving without your seatbelt - it's a bad idea, but personally I don't care if you do either.

[kb9ydn]

Straight copy and paste by default should just give you multiple instances of the same part.  Changing the part will affect all instances of that part in an assembly.  In some cases though you want to make a completely separate copy of a part that not linked to the first.  I do this sometimes when I want to make a new part that's sort of like an existing part but it's not so close that it would be considered a variant of the original.  I only want to start with something existing because it has some features that i think I might want to use.

What Jamie is talking about could maybe be done with branch/merge but that may be a little too *heavy* for the task.  And the way branch/merge is traditionally done I don't think will allow for different branch versions of a part to exist in a single assembly.  I could be wrong here since I've only used this kind of functionality in software and documentation work, not for mechanical design.

What I've done in cases like Jamie's is to use what (in Solidworks) is called a configuration.  Configurations apply to a part or assembly and let you create different variants of a part by suppressing certain features or assigning different values to dimensions based on which configuration is selected.  It's kind of like branch/merge except there is no time aspect to it.  There is only one time based "version" of that part/assembly file.  But when it's used inside of another assembly you just select which configuration of it that you want and that's what you get.  You can switch it to another configuration at any time and have multiple instances of any configuration you want at the same time.  The nice thing is that everything you do is contained in that one file so you can make global changes or changes to just one particular configuration.  And you can always delete or add configurations as you need to.  I guess you could think of this as sort of a lightweight branch/merge.

Where branch/merge makes more sense is when you have more than one person working on a part/assembly at the same time.  In order to not conflict they each need to have completely separate *local* copies that can be merged back together later if necessary.

C|

[roambotics_scott]

Yeah - they should really have a way to paste a new component that isn't linked to the one you're copying.

[promm]

Jamie,

Thank you for your idea - this is getting archived due to lack of votes and your purposed solution.  As Jules blog mentioned, we plan on having this functionality with our upcoming branching and merging.  You stated this is complex and you would like a simpler version.  Right now when you copy and paste a body it creates an instance.  We do not copy the design history when using copy / paste and do not have a way to compare.  This is why we need to handle this kind of workflow with branching and merging.   You can also try saving your component as a new file and then insert new ones into your model.  You could then break the link and make changes.


Cheers,

Mike Prom