Again stuck with a simple sketch...

[jan_murberger]

Normally I will learn a cad software in a couple days. Have been struggling making basic sketches for over a year and Fusion is wasting my time every single time I use it. What is wrong with my latest sketch? Sometimes I just enter the same dimensions in a different way and it will turn black. I have locked it to projected geometry because I thought this was one of the advantages with Fusion. How do I find what is wrong? What ever I do- as usual the sketch is over constrained and it cannot be moved around.

[davebYYPCU]

There was a duplicate construction line under this projected one.  Delete it and make the mirror line vertical to fix it.

If it was mine, I would only need the top projected line, - and yes that would normally be an acceptable workflow.  Duplicate overlaid lines will cause this sorta thing.

Can't see a reason for that mirror (deleted), and it would also contribute to sketch calcs that go wrong.

Might help....

[Drewpan]

Hi,

I would strongly recommend that you do the embedded tutorials in the Fusion Documentation and also some of the

Self-Paced Learning to help you to learn fusion faster and better. They can be found here:

It is also much easier for the forum to help you if you attach your file AND a screenshot of what you want to achieve

and what the problem is. You can create a file to export like this:

Time spent on the tutorials and self paced learning will not be wasted. Also check out the three RULES that are pinned to the forum for further guidance.

Ok. Let's fix your sketches.

You will find that when you struggle with constraints that this Text Command will be very helpful. This one on

sketch 2 shows 6 unconstrained points and three unconstrained curves. The offending points and curves are

highlighted. A "curve" is any line in fusion (annoys the snot out of me too). Construction lines must be constrained

in a sketch the same as other curves. (Haven't worked out why a CONSTRUCTION line needs a constraint but it

does).

This one needed the midpoint of the centre construction line coincident with the origin and the two marked points

coincident with the edge lines.

Sketch 17 looks like this.

You defined the distance from the side but not the top edge. And you also didn't say how far apart the points were.

Ok sketch 21.

Here is that pesky construction line constraint again.

Sketch 22. There is a saying in the forum - Blue lines in sketches should keep you awake at night.

Sketch 22. If you have a blue line it is not constrained. Move it an drag it to see which direction it isn't constrained

and give yourself a hint. In this case you did not tell fusion the length of the top line.

These points were also not coincident with the projected line nor did fusion know what distance these points were

from other geometry.

Sketch 25

Your square was constrained to the centre of the circle but fusion didn't know where the centre of the circle was.

You have to tell the software the dimensions, it doesn't always guess.

Sketch 26 look for every blue line and open circle. Construction lines count.

Sketch 35 - Construction lines count.

Sketch 39 - Construction lines.

Construction line Sketch 43

You have done something very strange with sketch 60.

You have a sketch on an offset plane that is fully defined to the midpoint of a projected line that runs along another

offset plane (0.5mm offset is a very exact but strange value) that intersects with a 3d sketch at right angles on

another offset plane?

I am not surprises you cannot work out how to constrain it as I have a headache just trying to work out what you

have done.

Here is my version of your file up until the abomination in sketch 60.

Cheers

Andrew

[TrippyLighting]

Rather than diving into fixing sketches, my first observation would be that you are working with bodies and not components. Then, none of your multiple sketches are named, which would be much less of an issue if you would work with a proper component based workflow.

 I refer here to Fusion R.U.L.E #1 & #2

[jan_murberger]

Well, that is the thing with Fusion, that there are rules to follow, and if you don´t- everything looks fine. I have never seen the point with a component based workflow if I need only one body/ component. I have also watched loads of tutorials without ever understanding the reason for it, but just that is is the way I am supposed to work. Why would I name my sketches? They are named with numbers and I have no problem finding them.

Thanks everyone for the help. I will continue struggling for a couple more years with this revolutionary software.

[jan_murberger]

Well since Fusion is the stupidest software I have ever worked with I have to add construction planes, axles and all kind of things to do what I want to do. Just the thing that there are no quadrants on circles, eventual snap point icons hard to see because of a unclear visual interface and so forth. The mirror line I added, so that I have symmetry to the round shape. If not, Fusion will move it around every time I change a dimension.

[jan_murberger]

Ok. Now it works. I removed a ton of pink dots and features that Fusion had added for me and now it works. It is also wasting my time that I have to delete 30% of my sketches when Fusion adds stuff I never wanted. Thank you all for the help.

@jan_murberger - this post has been edited due to Community Rules & Etiquette violation.

[laughingcreek]

---

@jan_murberger wrote:

.... It is also wasting my time that I have to delete 30% of my sketches when Fusion adds stuff I never wanted. ...

---

most of us here suggest turning off these 2 preferences.  They're on by default when you install the program-

[Drewpan]

Hi,

When I first started learning fusion I came from an AutoCAD background. I was very comfortable drafting complex

designs and I too struggled with fusion and parametric modelling. Once I changed my mindset and stopped fighting

the software I started to learn rapidly.

This software has been under development for more than 10 years and is under constant improvement including

very active devs and a very active forum. Things are added to the software all of the time. Some things are added

because they are bug fixes, some because they requested by us the users. The user base ranges from individuals

to large corporations but we all get listened too.

I understand that you are struggling, we all started somewhere. When you watch tutorials that say do something this

way it is usually because that way either works around known issues that are being worked on or because that is

the best workflow to follow. There is also a very rich learning environment within the documentation with embedded

tutorials and the self paced learning. I suggested you look at it for the very reason I also stated that time spent

actually doing these tasks is NEVER wasted.

I spent quite some time rectifying many of your sketches because you failed to listen to one of the core suggestions

on this forum - constrain sketches as you go. You can find many, many posts to this forum where that advice is

constantly given to each and every person who posts "how do I constrain my sketch". I spent some time working out

sketches when I started and I learned from the forum and doing the tutorials and reading the documentation. The

answers are all in there. Many but not all answers to posts in the forum are also there. You will get out of this

software what you are willing to put into it.

You were told that your design of all bodies was the wrong workflow but instead of asking why and for help you have

posted that the software is stupid and it doesn't do what you want to do. I am pretty sure that if you watched some

of the tutorials on the Fusion YouTube channel they would have explained WHY we create components out of bodies.

Your design looks very complex and functional but in its present form it will simply not work because it is just a

bunch of bodies.

You say that your sketches are numbered and that you can easily find them. Ok - 60 sketches, right now, without

looking, which sketch number is for the main pipe or axle or whatever it is that sticks out to the side of the main

assembly? If your design had 600 or 6000 sketches like some complex designs that can be done with fusion actually

have could you remember each one? The advice to name you sketches was learnt the hard way by the many people

who have used fusion before you. You can ignore it or take it on board and learn. By the way, what body number is

that same part of your design - no looking. Is it the same as the sketch number? See what I mean?

If you want some help then there are many of us here to help. Stick with it. Do you teach a small child not to touch

the hot stove by giving them a lecture on thermodynamics or wait until they are old enough to understand why?

Get some experience. Learn from your mistakes. Move on with the next one.

Cheers

Andrew

[TrippyLighting]

---

---

@jan_murberger wrote:

Well since Fusion is the stupidest software I have ever worked with ...

---

Do you actually have any interest of learning how to work with Fusion properly and adapt your workflows accordingly?

[jan_murberger]

Yes, I would like to learn the software. Mostly and only because it is the best free software for me. But for example Fusion requires an axle to rotate a sketch geometry. This is just one example of Fusion being a software developed by people who has never used a cad software. Why require a 3D feature in a 2D sketch? totally worthless. I have also tried constraining all of my sketches, but apparently I missed this on some of them since I have to keep track of this myself.

[jan_murberger]

In which way will a solid model without function not function as a model without function if it is a solid body? It is meant to be casted in one piece. Why make multiple components on a casted body? Could someone explain this to me? I just don´t see the point. If it would be to casted in two castings would there not then be a point to make it in two components?

[jan_murberger]

I looked at the tutorial again and had missed out that black don´t mean fully defined. I will have this in mind in the future. Probably waisting even more time on finding out in which way to please Fusion. Thank you for the advice that the software displays something that is a complete waste of graphical interface for the user. More like a guesswork. Funny thing is that I have spent two years of my free time making another 2D design in another software without having to define anything. The cad software keeps track of my design anyways and it has been sent to production and came back just as I wanted it. If I would have drawn it in Fusion it would have taken me 10 years. I do like the Fusion modelling features, though. They mostly work.

[Drewpan]

Hi,

I have said to you at least once that time spent on doing the embedded tutorials and the self paced learning is

NEVER wasted. The main reason I suggest that is because fusion, like every other software package out there, has

certain nuances and particulars that need to be know in order to make it work properly. Once you know these little

tricks the software becomes much more functional. The tutorial also teaches you the correct language to use when

you ask for help and it teaches you the correct workflows to be efficient and creative.

You ask about why we say there is a problem with the multiple bodies that you have. If you think that all those

bodies are a single piece that will be cast then you are very mistaken. Each one of those bodies is treated by fusion

as an individual piece because YOU told fusion to treat them that way. If what you wanted was a single piece then

as you created and crafted each of those pieces you should have combined them into a single body. One

body then one casting.

The idea of components and assemblies and sub assemblies is for lining up with standard engineering practices that

is what fusion is aimed at. Typically a component IS a single body that is created by extruding, joining and cutting,

and sculpting into a single body. You may also have a few surfaces but a surface is a special body - think of it like a

construction line in 3D. It is rare that an engineering design is a single piece or Part but it does happen. More likely

a design is multiple parts that will be fabricated separately and then combined together. Each part or Component

must be separate because typically it will be fabricated separately. You do not usually make parts separate bodies

and combine them, you combine Components with a Joint.

The idea behind assemblies and sub assemblies is to group components together to make it easier to keep them

tracked logically. If you want to you could make a car design just like all of your bodies - a heap of them all in the

same group. It would be very hard to locate the brake assembly in a design with thousands of individual

components in one place. So the design might be separated into major assemblies like the chasis, the engine, the

electrical system, and the brakes. You would run into similar problems with too many parts here also, so they would

usually be split into smaller sub-assemblies like the engine block, the pistons, the cam system and the cooling

system. This is standard engineering and is why fusion works this way.

The suggestion that you use components instead of bodies was because you did not tell the forum it was supposed

to be a single cast piece and we assumed that due to the complexity of the design it was made of separate

components.

In regards to sketches. Sketches are the fundamental drawing that is used to create parts. Dimensions and

constraints are used on sketches because any extrusion is made from a sketch. If the sketch is not properly

constrained then you leave fusion with a decision point where it does not know your intent and will guess at what

it might be. This might be fine in simple designs but in more complex designs this can and does lead to designs

breaking because the choice that fusion made was wrong and you didn't correct it.

If you are having difficulty in constraining your sketches then I used the Sketch.ShowUnderconstrained multiple

times in my first reply to this thread. Read the documentation on Text Commands and learn how to use it.

This software is great software and used by everyone from hobbyists to large corporations. There is plenty wrong

with the software and it is constantly under development to fix the issues and make the software better based on

what the users want. You cannot learn it over night, you have to put some time into it. Check out RULE #0, #1 and #2

that are pinned to the forum. These will help you and guide you. If you truly want to learn the software then that is

the way to go. Once again I tell you that the time you put into learning the software will NEVER be wasted.

Cheers

Andrew

[TrippyLighting]

If you really want to cast that entire model as one solid body, working with components makes no sense. However, organizing a design by other available means makes a lot of sense.

 

Also, please recognize that my experience with CAD is not limited to Fusion but dates back over 30 years of professional use as an Engineer and has involved several mainstream parametric CAD software packages. My experience with 3D CAD started in 1998 with Solis Works, which I still use today.

---

[TrippyLighting]

---

@jan_murberger wrote:

...This is just one example of Fusion being a software developed by people who has never used a cad software...

---

That could indeed not be further from the truth!

I have the privilege of participating in meetings with the Fusion team every few weeks. One of those was just yesterday, and there were 10+ participants. Most of the folks worked with a variety of CAD software professionally as engineers or industrial designers, before joining the team. Many of them have decades of CAD software use and development experience, including but not limited to Inventor, SolidWorks, CATIA, Rhino, etc.

[jan_murberger]

Well, as Autodesk decided to throw everything that was good with 2D drawings out the window it is still my opinion that it is a software developed by people that has never used a cad software. Just like finding a quadrant of a circle has been asked for since 2017 but the team is too proud to add useful features. I have also worked with car development and subcontractor manufacturing and just 20 years ago shiny things were banned in the drivers environment. Now most vehicles has to be taped because the visual experience is more important that the actual driving where one is getting blinded by the sun from interior reflections. Fusion is just as annoying. No intent what so ever to simplify design.

[TrippyLighting]

Well, good luck then. I've unsubscribed from this thread and will not receive or respond to any further posts!