A new Fusion 360 Tutorials & Philosophy

[Beyondforce]

Dear Forum Administrator,

Since I joined this forum, I have noticed many new Fusion 360 users who are struggling in the beginning with this amazing software (including myself).

There are many reasons to why it is happening, which is why I would like to suggest a new Fixed post above the "Survey - Simulation & Sustainability" and the name should be "Fusion 360 Tutorials & Philosophy".

Inside this Post, we can add links to all the Standard tutorials AND add all the new Tips & Tricks, not only from Fusion 360 guys but also from other experienced user. There are many real life Tips & Tricks posts out there, and it's a shame they are not in one place. 

Since the Forum is the first place people are turning to, when something goes wrong or can't figure out how to-do something. It's only logical to create a Tutorials page in here.

When people initially starting to use Fusion 360, they are assuming that the Mindset behind Fusion 360 it is the same as the other CAD programs, but we all know it has a different Mindset/Philosophy!

Fusion 360 tutorials are spread everywhere and for a new user is a bit overwhelming. We are all ending up in this forum anyway, then why not move/open the "Fusion 360 Tutorials & Philosophy" in here?

May The Force Be With You.

Ben.

[PhilProcarioJr]

@Beyondforce

I brought this exact same type of discussion up many many times before, but it seems the people at Autodesk feel its too much information for the newbie Fusion user. I of course disagreed and lost the battle in the end. I said new users should be told first and for most about components and bodies before anything. Simply because of all the trouble it causes when new people start using Fusion and know nothing about them, then develop bad habits, then in more advanced video they learn they have been doing it all wrong and have to break said bad habits.

Oh well I tried and I still tell new users about components and bodies before anything and have yet to come across one that is confused.....

[TrippyLighting]

@brianrepp I am willing 😉

I totally agree with @Beyondforce what is mising is a really good explanation of concepts.

[fritter63]

OK, if I understand you correctly , you are saying that if there is more than one model in a design file, they should ALL be in subcomponents. Ie, not one model in the main component, and then others in sub-models?

But if there are no sub-models, then you can just use the main component?

[kb9ydn]

---

@fritter63 wrote:

@Beyondforce

Are you saying there should always be a subcomponent in a file? By default, things in a file are in the main component. You're saying don't put anything in there? Not even sketches?

---

This is the more historical way of modelling organization, where every component has it's own design "file", which corresponds to an actual file in the file system.  Fusion sort of breaks this concept by having only one "file" for an entire design which is composed of multiple components and assemblies of components.  You can still use components from other "files" in a design by inserting them as linked components, but you should generally only do this in situations where you want the externally linked component to automatically update in all the places where it's used, when there are changes made to it.

EDIT:  Gah, I type too slow!  Phil beat me to this explanation.

C|

[kb9ydn]

---

@cekuhnen wrote:

@Beyondforce Hhmmm I don't do that 😉 I create components later when needed. But that is because I first use Fusion just to explore ideas and then later will structure the design or even rebuild a cleaner approach then with components.

---

@TrippyLighting might hate me for this but I'm going to propose a R.U.L.E #0

R.U.L.E. #0:  All rules except for R.U.L.E. #0 have at least one exception.

C|

[TrippyLighting]

@@PhilProcarioJr I think I am fairly successful with my Fusion 360 R.U.L.E #1 guerilla tactics.

I've got @Aaron.Magnin converted and he's posted 2 nice vids now on the Autodesk Fusion 360 YouTube channel.

Others will follow.

No all out fight we just tak'em out one by one. A silent revolution if you will 😉

@fritter63 @Beyondforce @cekuhnen

Fusion 360 R.U.L.E #1 is a workflow that aplies most to traditional mechanical design where you design discrete pieces one by one.

However, there are scenarios where you would have one or more sketches on hte top level.

For top down design where you start with a skeleton sketch that defines the geometry of several different components it makes sense for that sketch to be in the top level as it cannot be assigned to one single component. Take for example a bicycle frame. It is easy enough to visualize the main frame in a single sketch, perhaps two more for the seat and chain stays.

However each of these sketch is used to create the components for the individual tube pieces and as such no sketch belongs to one single component.

Another scenario is whan you create a single object, maybe a T-Spline and then dissect it into several bodies that then are converted into components. In that case the first thing you do is not make a component.

[Beyondforce]

Hi @TrippyLighting,

This is great stuff and I appreciate the Guerilla Tactics 😉
It will be great to have a video with Handsome person as yourself, explaining and demonstrating those workflows in various scenarios. This is The Heart of Fusion!

Ben.

[PhilProcarioJr]

@TrippyLighting

"@@PhilProcarioJr I think I am fairly successful with my Fusion 360 R.U.L.E #1 guerilla tactics.

I've got @Aaron.Magnin converted and he's posted 2 nice vids now on the Autodesk Fusion 360 YouTube channel.

Others will follow.

No all out fight we just tak'em out one by one. A silent revolution if you will ;-)"

Oh you are very successful with this, they listen to you...lol

"Another scenario is whan you create a single object, maybe a T-Spline and then dissect it into several bodies that then are converted into components. In that case the first thing you do is not make a component."

I'm going to make a R.U.L.E. #(insert whatever number we are at)

Please stop adding T-Spline creation in a part or assembly file.....this breaks soooooo much stuff....do your T-Spline work in it's own file and insert the final surface or solid into your part or assembly then break the link....

OK end of Rant.... 

[Beyondforce]

@PhilProcarioJr,

The idea of this post, is to show that there is a different between the functional part of Fusion 360 and the Workflow/Processes.

Let me give you an example:

As a Certified Commercial Pilot, for me all the airplane are the same (Like all the CAD's programs). But, if I want to change an airplane, I must take a Familiarization course or a Type rating course,  and the reason for that, is because each Airplane is built with a different mindset/abilities and Workflow.

So, if someone worked with Inventor / SolidWork, he needs to learn/understand the Mindset and Workflow behind Fusion 360. 

In regards to the T-Spline, it sounds like a function issue and not a Workflow. But maybe I'm wrong!

Ben.

[PhilProcarioJr]

@Beyondforce

I completely agree with the need for Workflow/Processes tutorials.

Just like not using components correctly will mess up your assemblies not using T-Splines correctly will also mess up your assemblies. So based on your analogy in the beginning of this thread this should also be a Workflow/Process issue.

For instance you know how to fly planes but wouldn't you like to know what the unmarked toggle switch is for on this new plane? I mean what it's a kill engine switch without any markings? 

What I proposed about T-Splines is definitely a workflow suggestion. You don't have to follow it from a functionality standpoint but your plane will crash into the ground sooner or later if you don't. 

Just saying...

[Beyondforce]

Great, so now we are All agree about the need for a structured Workflow/Processes tutorials!

@brianrepp / @Aaron.Magnin, any feedback from your side?

Ben.

[cekuhnen]

Hhhhm - I am not to sold on this rule number one thing in a general case.

There are two different types of designs phases.

ideation and finalizing

the nice part of the time line is that you can explore designs and on the fly create your components.

sometimes you do not know what you will end up with

or

you have the design figured out and then only well build the parts and fine tune them - obviously with components from the start

[PhilProcarioJr]

@cekuhnen

Well I can tell you from working for a manufacturer that if I do an experimental incorrect model then do it again from scratch building it the right way my boss would fire me and so would most other bosses. People working for companies don't have your luxuries. Just wanted to point that out.

Plus a lot of the joint features don't work properly if components are not setup right and your timeline is a mess too. Also the longer your history the slower your designs are to update when you move through the timeline which kills my creativity.

Just my 2 cents.

[cekuhnen]

@PhilProcarioJr  Hmmm thoughts are always hard to express clearly in text.

I actually run my own design consultancy and work with clients (furniture design). There it is quite often common, actually nearly always the case to work on a loose model for ideation

and then when the design intent gets solidified to switch to making the actual CAD design. One of the common reasons for Rhino besides the costs is also how quickly you can hack

something together the engineer has to make right then for production.

We use a 3D modeling together with sketching - I am not one of those who thinks all ideas should and only can be explored with 2d sketching.

I actually consider 3D modeling nothing else then 3D sketching.

I hope this makes more sense now. There is no point in making bad models but there are many ways to explore ideas - sometimes being to precise is not the best idea.

Obviously this also is influenced with the timing you have in your work place.

Graduates who work at Ford or Rubber maid work in a similar way.

[Aaron.Magnin]

I think any and all would agree that these would be nice to have....but near-impossible to make.

Can I turn it back to you to ask what that would look like? What would you cover? How? And would the workflow you present work for everyone? 

I hope you can see that these are difficult to answer.  

[kb9ydn]

---

@PhilProcarioJr wrote:

@cekuhnen

Well I can tell you from working for a manufacturer that if I do an experimental incorrect model then do it again from scratch building it the right way my boss would fire me and so would most other bosses. People working for companies don't have your luxuries. Just wanted to point that out.

---

That seems rather short sighted to me, but it is very true that working in a business environment has additional time constraints that the academic environment doesn't have.  So many times compromises must be made.

C|

[cekuhnen]

@brianrepp

I think also "How stuff works" are good topics.

For example why does the G2 handle with splines work the way it works unlike how G2 systems work with CV curves.

This makes the splines in Fusion radically different then splines in AI which many know.

This seems still to be a mystery where this G2 handle can be useful in a design - while I technically understand what it does to the curve

and why it seems to be fine not to be able to draw a straight segment with a spline that has 3 fit point???!!!

Those videos can be 2 mins long and done - like perfect extra info bites.

[cekuhnen]

@Aaron.Magnin

I respect your opinion but fully disagree.

Anybody that has a good teaching structure and teaching experience can do those easily.

[Aaron.Magnin]

I'm totally willing to make these videos, if we can agree on what should be covered and how. THAT is what I see as the impossible part...not teaching the material. 

I've been teaching CAD in classrooms, online, at seminars, in webinars, and for a long time....and what I've learned is that everyone does something slightly different; this conversation is indicative of that.  

Tell me how and what should be covered, and I'll make the videos. 

[Beyondforce]

Hi @Aaron.Magnin,

The above mentioned workflows, are not that different from the Fusion 360 Workflow. Fusion 360 Workflow has it's own limitations, which is why some people need to be creative on how they are using Fusion 360. The basics are still the same, like R.U.L.E 1#.

In other words: we need to highlight the Workflow difference between Fusion 360 and the other CAD programs.

In X CAD program they do it like this... But in Fusion 360 we do it like that, because.....

Ben.