Parameters management and parametric configuration management

[dkorchagin]

While F360 is lacking proper part configuration management and configuration/design tables, I found a way around to achieve similar results and avoid copying same file with different parameters.

I call it parametric configurations, or in-place configurations and it works pretty well, except it quickly becomes unmanageable.

First, what I do.

I create, say, a parametric part model. Taking rod as example, it has 3 parameters: length, diameter, and chamfer size. So I enter 3 user parameters in the Parameters window, like this:

Then I save this model with default parameters. Whenever I want this part to be used in another model I insert it in the design, break the link (it's necessary, otherwise it's not possible to change parameters), and adjust settings of the rod as I want. One of interesting features is that it's possible to replace, say, Length parameter with some other parameter, which already exists in the model, and which will become a driver for the Length of the Rod. For example, it can be offset value of a joint, so the Rod will adjust its length depending on how far joint components are from each other, like shown below:

With this setup the Rod length will be automatically adjusted depending on the joint offset you specify in the model, like shown below:

You can add as many rods as you like from that very same file and configure them individually and independently of each other:

It's all great and very powerful (you can design your part once and configure in many different ways in the same or many other designs), except for for a few things, and a number of limitations to be called a proper configuration management. The most limiting one is this:

As you can see, every Rod adds its set of parameters directly on the top level of user parameters. Even three components, three parameters each makes it pretty clashed. Imagine a dozen of parts driven by 7-12 parameters..Yet another problem I noticed, when you delete component you previously inserted and conlgured, its parmeters remain in the list of user parameters. As you can see it can quickly become a mess, especially that it's hard to tell, after a number of insertions and deletions, which parameter belongs to which exact part in your design.

I can think of a few things to improve parameters management (which can also be used in configuration management (coming soon as far as I understand)):

1. Have parameters not in the parameters pop-up window, but available and accessible from the browser or toolbar (similar to how you access other tools, like extrude, having extrusion parameters on a side window). That way you can easily configure any component right in place.
2. Do not restrict editing parameters if the component is linked. This means, after linking the component, its own parameters, stored in the original file, should become its default ones, and a copy should be created for the model it was inserted into, so it could be possible to edit parameters without the need to break the link. In case the original component is updated in its original file, after updating the model it was inserted into, the remaining parameters should retain their configured preoperties as in the model, and new parameters should take their default values from the original file.
3. Obviously, to develop it further into proper configuration management, the original part needs a way to store design variants, e.g. in one variant the Rod might have a hole, and in another it might have flat sides. Considering the way things are modelled in F360 I can think of a branched timeline feature. Currently it's flat from left to right. However, if you add a feature to create branches on the timeline you can easily enable configurations, naturally based upon native design paradigm of F360. In that case parameters can be also tied to the timeline and its branches, thus forming concrete sub-set of parameters for different variants of design, which can then be selected by the user while inserting that model into another design. Just by selecting ends of branches you therefore can quickly choose part configuration.

[dkorchagin]

Since I cannot edit the original text of the idea, here is some extended thoughts on point 3: "parameters tied to the the timeline/branch" can be realized similar to how positioning is captured on the timeline, that is adding parameters should create a node on the timeline or a branch and become part of the design variant.

[eng]

In an associated discussion I proposed an analog to the __weak qualifier from C to allow certain component parameters to be permitted to be modified while keeping the remainder linked to the original library component. An example would be varying the length of an extrusion while keeping  the profile locked to the original library model.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-ideastation-request-a/master-sketches-amp-global-parameter...

We each have a different view of the broader view of parameter implementation, I tend to try to keep the data flow top down. In the above example the master sketch would set both the distance between the plates and the rod length thus preventing the loop in the parameter data, this said the insertion of current sketch parameters back into the user parameters is an interesting twist.

A huge performance booster would be the creation of user parameters within the dimension dialog box.

[TrippyLighting]

Making parameters tied to the timeline would be a terrible idea and this is actually not an idea but a workflow suggestion for a workaround.

[dkorchagin]

@TrippyLighting, not sure why you think it would be terrible, sir. As I can see it, and if it's implemented that way, it should work like a charm and naturally for F360. Also I cannot understand why it's a workflow suggestion - F360 has nothing like this today so work what around?

[TrippyLighting]

I should have been more specific with my post.

1. I totally agree that Fusion 360 needs proper configuration management. This has been suggested many times here onto Idea Station. The oldest one I could find more than 3 years ago. All of the 3D CAD systems I've worked with had this and I heavily used it.

2. The text your idea does no actually describe how configuration management should work, but how you worked around the lack of this feature. That's more of a workflow suggestion than a new idea and would probably been better posted on the normal forum.

3. The very power of user parameters is that they are NOT timeline dependent. They are always valid. Making them timeline dependent would eliminate that power.

[dkorchagin]

@TrippyLighting, as for point 2 of yours: In my last three points I have actually described the idea. The beginning of the post was in fact describing what F360 lacks in parameters management - it's not very convenient even as parameters management, and then how it leads to the idea in the end.

My last three points were describing how parameters management can be developed into configuration management. Although I admit it might be not very clear to everyone, because different people might think of very different things when they hear the word "parameters". It might also be confusing between configuration management and parameters management. But in the nut shell a part configuration is essentially both a set of parameters, and a set of features (like extrusions or chapfers) combined, which can be present in one configuration and ommitted in another.

I think the most interesting part of my "idea" is in the point 3, where "branched timeline" is mentioned. Configuration variables tied to the timeline seem very naturally linked to design paradigm of F360. Having a "branched timeline" feature you could design variants that would contain different set of features. In Solidworks, for example, you could suspend certain features in different configurations. With a "branched timline" feature of F360 you would have those features not suspended but actually not present following the respective branch of the timeline.

In case for some reason you need those "user parameters" globally visible through all design variants, it would be possible to add them at any time - just by scrolling back to the root of the timeline and add those. From usability perspective there can be a possibility retained to add them similarly as current "user parameters" are added, so that they woud automatically be placed at the root of the timeline.. it's implementation details however. I was after trying to set the idea very briefly.

[t.houtermanWB9TQ]

Not real sure if I fully understand your idea in detail but i do know that I personally would much rather see Inventor's approach to parameter driven design to get implemented in F360. I find the combination of having the option toto be much more reliable than the "configuration" method used in solidworks that you're suggesting. I had too many solidworks configuration assy's flip out on me, often as a result of the subassembly configurations  up getting messed up.

I do agree that in it sucks that inserted parts can't be touched in the context of a  level assembly  any way other than opening the root file and saving edits over the original, which seems to me is almost never desireable because  then unintentionally  propagate down to all the parent assemblies that uses it...and s, or breaking the link which does enable full edit-ability from within the assembly but all instances of that component are unrelated orphans that exist only in the context of the parent assembly and  must be copied and  as bodies in a component so any actual modifications would strictly need to be completed BEFORE generating copies! 

Id say it be nicer to have browser overview and control over the suppression based "level of detail" functionality for assemblies, like in inventor. and "position" folder works well also