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
It's beyond annoying and time consuming when you insert for example a bunch of screws/nuts for an assembly and they span your computer's entire screen from top to bottom on the tree without the ability to put them into a folder labeled "screws/nuts". There is certain CAD "hygiene" that needs to be kept to work professionally and efficiently. Can we please get the ability to have folders to organize parts in an assembly? I shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes scrolling up/down to select a part.
You can sort of get around this by creating a new component and inserting them into that component instead of the top level. Then you can label that component whatever you want and turn visibility on/off or collapse the whole set easily too.
I read about this method, but it doesn't work with McMaster-Carr inserted components (at least for me). I don't know why, as they are just regular components like any other ones.
The other issue with that process is you can only do it once. If you then insert more parts, you cannot merge it into a previously created "component folder". We need real folders. I don't understand why Fusion is displaying all components in "timeline" mode when there's already a timeline on the bottom of the screen. Seems redundant and counter productive.
Grouping components/assemblies together saves a lot of CAD time. I thought this was the main goal of Fusion? Seems like a missed industry standard opportunity.
I read about this method, but it doesn't work with McMaster-Carr inserted components (at least for me). I don't know why, as they are just regular components like any other ones.
The other issue with that process is you can only do it once. If you then insert more parts, you cannot merge it into a previously created "component folder". We need real folders. I don't understand why Fusion is displaying all components in "timeline" mode when there's already a timeline on the bottom of the screen. Seems redundant and counter productive.
I've had success with this "child component folder" method, but it's really only useful if you are using fasteners for a specific section of a model and only that section. Anything after that needs to be put into it's own "child component folder" and sometimes it gets convoluted with multiple components to house other components just to make the browser cleaner- which ends up not really making it cleaner if it's just for a single fastener.
This method has indeed cleaned up my timeline and my component browser quite a bit recently for certain projects that demand it (multiple patterned fasteners to hold certain parts), but I think some improvements to the browser can be made.
Voting and commenting for support, this is a much needed feature.
@Anonymous your solution is appreciated, however it is only suitable for the design environment and not a solution for producing drawings as documentation. The issue with this method is that the bill of materials will now list your "fasteners" component as its own thing and not include the actual fasteners in the BOM, as well as the BOM Balloons. There are awkward workarounds for this, but none that should need to be undertaken. I've seen Fusion360's official how to videos use this and was quite disappointed to see it.
Having a timeline/component tree folder is absolutely necessary for organizing large assemblies. Having a "Fasteners" folder is critical to my work flow while wearing my Solidworks hat. No reason why any assembly modeler wouldn't want to include this feature.
