2D drawing; dimensions to rounded corner

[jkelindberg]

I have a piece of metal sheet, corners are rounded (to avoid causing injuries).

• How do I make the magenta colored dimension, from the edge to the corner where the lines would meet (dashed lines)?
• How do I make the detail view (green circle)?
• How do I make the dashed lines (most visible in the green detail view)?

 

[TrippyLighting]

Good question! I have not found a way either. To be quite honest, the drawing generation of F360 is so rudimentary it is almost entirey useless for real engineering work.

I have 25 years of experience as a Mechatronics Engineer. I started working with CAD systems during my studies at the University and have worked with a range of Industry Standard CAD products incl. AutoCAD Solid Works and Geomagic Design.

F360 has a looooong way to go in this Area!

[Maowen_Zhang]

Thanks a lot for the good questions! We currently have some limitation on this area, the team are working on improvements. 

The current implementation includes adding dimension on selected points in the drawing view, such as line's end points, arc's end points and middle point as below.

Haven't supported adding dimension on line's intesection or adding the dash lines right now, will keep our product designers informed about this good questions.

But the detail view is already in our very recent development schedule, keep you informed. 

[jkelindberg]

Thanks for your reply Maowen, but these points to set the dimension are completely useless since they are on the arc tangent. How would you measure it out on a piece of material? The only way even remotely useful would be to take the dimension from the centre of the arc, but this is not preferred by the workshop. Also, in F360 it is not possible to add any centre cross for the arc.

I have to say I'm rather disappointed. One of the selling points of this software for me was the fact that there was work being done on the 2D drawing module, I seem to recall it written somewhere that updates could be expected in the November release of "Ultimate" and that 2D drawings would be available for the Mac OS X version. What did we get? Absolutely bupkis. When can I expect to be able to make production quality 2D drawings from F360?

[Anonymous]

Hello,

Would it be possible to add construction lines colinear with those two edges, then trim to intersection point, and dimension that way?

TrippyLighting may be able to agree/disagree but my understanding is it's normal for these types of dimensions to be done to arc center, even if it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of making the thing. (Process sheets are for making, drawings are for checking)

That all said, you are NOT the only one who is upset with drawings. Every time I mention that Ultimate users can't make drawings of a quality expected from a $150/month CAD program, Autodesk team likes to politely remind me that drawings are NOT an Ultimate offering.

[jkelindberg]

Thanks for your reply Luke.

It depends on the production method and quality control. If you produce the part with a NC machine then it doesn't matter so much how the dimension is placed. But if you need to do it in a more manual manner then you would, in the case with the sheet metal piece I have based this thread on, cut the piece with a sharp corner and then round it off.

The points for the dimension as suggested by previous poster are not possible to measure on the physical component, making conformity checks and QC difficult. Unless you have a gauge made of course.

Anyway, it seems F360 will be mostly useless for my needs for the foreseeable future... 

[Anonymous]

I understand. We were always taught to dimension to arc center but note cut widths on process sheets. I was always the one to (in the case you presented) leave the radius off the drawing and use an annotation for the radius! My professors hated that but I felt it made manufacturing from a drawing so much easier.

[Maowen_Zhang]

Thanks for the very details! I understand that requirement. Notified our product designers. We still keep improving 2D drawing areas, your feedbacks are valuable for us! 

[TimeraAutodesk]

Hi Guys, 

Thanks for the candid feedback and sparking this interesting discussion. We are aware that the Drawings workspace still has a long way to go, and we have a large team working on it full-time. @jkelindberg you're correct that we stated that Drawings would be available on Mac OSx late last year, and it currently is. We are still working on getting it to be available from the Mac App Store download, however it is currently available via our online download (www.fusion360.autodesk.com). If you're itching to give it a try, make sure your install is from that location and you'll be set. 

In the meantime, we appreciate your feedback and your patience as we work to bring the Drawings workspace up to par.

Best,
Timera

[TimeraAutodesk]

Hi All,

I also wanted to give you a high-level update on our current roadmap for Drawings. We can't guarantee a specific deliverable date, but here's a list of the big-ticket items we are currently working on for the next couple of releases:

- Mac AppStore support

- Parts List

- Balloons

- Editable Title Blocks

- Simple and Complex Section Views

- Shaded Views

We will also be dropping in "smaller" features where they fit in our development cycle as well (i.e. things like text formatting, etc.), but hopefully this gives you an idea of where our attention and efforts are right now concerning Drawings. Please chime in with questions and/or comments.

Best,

Timera

[Anonymous]

How about tolerances and even radius/diameter centerpoints?

[TimeraAutodesk]

Yes, those are on the roadmap as well. The list I shared is the features we are working on in the immediate future (i.e. the next couple of releases). Items like hole & thread notes, centerlines and centermarks, GD&T, etc. are accounted for but will be tackled after the completion of these first items. 

I hope that makes sense, let me know if not.

-timera

[prabakarm]

Johan/Luke,  Any thoughts on the priority list Timera and team are working on for the next couple of releases (Jan, Feb and April).  Is it in the right for the next couple of updates?

I also have a general question...the industry has talked about paperless manufacturing for years with 3D annotations, PMI etc..and the direct feed into subtractive and now additive manufacturing.  That said 2D drawings is still the preferred mode of communication for manufacturing.  We internally have the debate (constantly) on the role of 2D drawings if 1) as integration of CAD and CAM tools becomes more tighter with 3D annotations etc.  2) additive manufacturing.  Curious to know your guy's thoughts on this topic.

[TrippyLighting]

I have 25 years of experience as a Mechatronics engineer and doubt that drawings will be obsolete any time soon. Of course that depends somewhat on the industry. Also, we are not necessarily talking about a paper drawing. I create PDFs for my parts and send these to the company that machines parts for me. In my case even that is not necessary anymore. They know what I need as they've done it a number of times.

However for professional work a drawing is a legally binding document and defines the reference that is to adhered to, regardless of what 3D data is to be adhered to. I'd also say that additive manufacturing e.g. 3D printing will certainly be complementing traditional manufacturing technologies, but for mass manufacturing of consumer goods, just to name one area, plastic injection molding will still be a lot cheaper and more precise with petter structural integrity than 3D printed parts.
Similarly to that being able to reduce the workflow from CAD to CAM is very nice but as soon as you send your 3D data off to another company for volume manufacturing you'd better have sent a drawing along with it. Obviously that is not very important for a small company wher the Designer , CAD operator and maninist Re the same person ;-),

[Anonymous]

TrippyLighting has mentioned the most important thing...

2D drawings are a legal document. Engineers and draftsmen craft these legal documents. Not being able to craft the legal document you were trained to make often hinders your ability to do serious work.

If you provide a drawing the manufacturer is bound to make exactly what was drawn. It's not about having blueprints for when you're in the woodworking shop, although that is nice!

Also, I see 3d printing as a neat tool that lets me hold a part before I decide to manufacture it. But it's honestly pretty useless and in our program it always gets used for toys and things like companion cubes. No one actually uses it to do real work. A part 3d printed in manufacturing is a part designed poorly, except in very unique circumstances.

Please note that TrippyLighting has a LOT more experience in industry than I do. My experience has been in school in a manufacturing oriented mechanical engineering program. I also have worked with manufacturers using drawings that I've made in other CAD programs. With the way Fusion is now, I wouldn't have been able to get my parts made without spending money to have them run tolerances on the parts for me.

It's also common to split up an assembly between different manufacturers overseas so they cannot steal your entire design. In this case, you really need drawings because the manufacturers' engineering departments aren't going to sit down for lunch and discuss how to run fits on your entire assembly. 🙂

[prabakarm]

Thanks guys.  Any thoughts on the priority list the team is working on.

Luke, why do you say a part 3D printed in manufacturing is poorly designed?

[Anonymous]

Because 3d printing is slow and expensive which means low/no profit. The only 3d printed manufactured product I'm aware of that is profitable is the MrSpeakers Alpha Dog https://mrspeakers.com/

3d printing is great for prototyping.

Drawings are necessary for manufacturing.

As far as the priority list goes:

Diameter/radius centermarks

Centerlines

Ability to adjust extension line lengths

Limit tolerances

GD&T

Section view

Detail view

That should get you most of the way there.

ASME/ANSI/ISO standards for drawings are available from each organization and must be adhered to. I think ANSI/ISO are used the most around the world but I'm not certain.

But I have to wonder why you're asking us this when you have the entire AutoCAD team at your disposal. Those guys know what is necessary. Can you just slurp the AutoCAD drawing feature like you slurped HSMWorks for CAM?

[TrippyLighting]

I think we need to realise that Autodesk is a billion dollar company, a large organizartion spread over continents. I have worked most of my carreer in small companies but now work for a lager organization with more than 100.000 employees worldwide and can easily see that some resources may simply be out of reach. While that can be frustrating, I does actually present an opportunity.

It's great that we are being asked these curious questions in the sense that it provides us with a chance to help them create the tool that we want. I have no problem repeating myself to hammer a message in but we need to be careful with what and how we communicate so they hava a chance to go about things differenty, go off the trodden path and give us a fresh approach.

The priorities that have been listed (also on other threads) look OK to me. It lacks surface finish. 2D Drwawings are a big and detailled area and past a certain base functionalities that has have been layed out a number of times already it's difficult to say what should come first as differnt individuals and industries have different requiremens.

I personally have no need for a low end FDM plastics 3D printer. Our land fills are full enough with plastic crap. But the area of 3D printing is developing fast and into differnt areas. Look at all the materials that companies such as Shapeways offer. I agree that mass products of consumer goods made from plastics will not be replaced by 3D printed versions any time soon but 3D printing opens interesting new areas and possibilities.

3D printing also comes wit it's own challenges and that includes design challenges! Once you leave the traditional area of rapid prototypig for mass produed plasics parts you'll find that 3D Printing has it's own design requirements.

[prabakarm]

Luke, looks like you edited your post while I was typing by response.  BTW, we are not offended:-) Constructive criticism and feedback is very welcome.  You were wondering if the Fusion team had experience with drawings.  Yes, we do.  For many of us this is the 3 or 4th drawing tech we are building after working on AutoCAD Mechanical, Inventor etc.  Many of us are also mechanical engineers with industry experience.  

As you guys pointed out drawings are a binding document but a production drawing varies depending on the product, customer, region.  Products like AutoCAD Mechanical, Inventor etc. are still working on their drawings tools even after being in the market for 15+ years because nuanced needs.  So the reason for the priority question is to find the right set so that you and users currently using Fusion can create a production drawing.  For example, the top five in your list is not in the list we have currently planned for in the next couple of updates.  The ones Timera listed out were based on feedback from other users.  So it is not that we don't know what to do but we want to prioritize the ones which will make you successful working with you and others in the community.

The Fusion drawing tech is actually AutoCAD underneath.  So yes, we are slurping AutoCAD.  I am sure you next question is why it is taking time to get all the nice tools in AutoCAD.  Couple of reasons...1) we have to build the associativity and view creation engine between the model and the drawing, 2) get it ready for MAC  3) get the user experience coherent with rest of Fusion.  Now that we have lot of that infrastructure we expect to go fast adjusting the priorities based on the needs of the users in the community.

Trippylighting to your point about Autodesk being a big company and certain resource might be out of reach, we are doing something different with Fusion.  Fusion is developed in a distributed model reusing core technology (graphics, modeling kernel etc.), services (data, viewing etc.) and more importantly teams.  For example, the drawing technology is being worked on by people from the AutoCAD team not just the Fusion team.  Same for CAM etc.  Other way to look at it is Fusion is being built by Autodesk not just a specific team within Autodesk.

BTW, I am curious to know what you guys do, who you work for if it can be shared.  If you have already shared it I apologize for asking the question again.  Trippylighting, I thought you do these really cool lighting designs.  Is that part of the larger organization you work for now?

Prabakar.

[Anonymous]

Hi there, I edited my post a few times because I'm trying to be more polite on here... 🙂 I get carried away... must be the Roman blood. 🙂

I got the sense that Fusion was a result of combining code from a variety of projects. It doesn't surprise me that Drawings are from AutoCAD. It makes me feel better about the future of Drawings.

I'm self employed. I try to keep printed archives of all of my parts because they are independent of any CAD program. I'd like a drawings package that gives me the tools to create a true drawing package for archival purposes. But I also need it for outsourced work, especially when purchasing small manufacturing runs. In fact, when trying to work with USA manufacturers, I've found that they ONLY want drawings. When working with Chinese manufacturers, they seem to ONLY want a 3d file. Strange, that.