All external component assemblies - timeline history and component folders?
@mrm1018 wrote:
When all external component assemblies (non-hybrid), is there a reason keep the timeline history active?
I would say No!
The only reason to have a timeline that records assembly joints is for position based modeling, which cannot be done with a design with only external componets.
@mrm1018 wrote:...
I have an assembly with 100's of fasteners...
Is it still possible to have an internal component in an assembly to behave as a folder for a bunch of components (fasteners) in the new intent-driven design workflow?
You would have to change the Assembly design to a Hybrid design and make sure to only create internal components for organizational purposes due to the lack of folders.
That should not be a problem and you can still work without a timeline (in the Assembly/Hybrid design) enjoying the collaboration features.
In general I would dissuade the Fusions team to implement folders as they are too one-dimensional. User definable tags and appropriate sort and filter functions would be much more appropriate to organize parts/componets.
I have used SW for work since 1998. We use Folders as well, and while it works, I still find it one-dimensional and sometimes limiting.
@mrm1018 wrote:
@TrippyLighting wrote:
I have used SW for work since 1998. We use Folders as well, and while it works, I still find it one-dimensional and sometimes limiting.
We've just never experienced that. Given the assemblies we create have no modifying features, like you might for a weldment, it's not limiting whatsoever. We keep the folders at the bottom of the model tree.
Well, in SW you can do that, but in Fusion we don't really have folders for that purpose, so you have to create a component group. But then you cannot keep that component group at the bottom of the browser where it is easy to find. The limitation in Fusion is the browser, which lists objects in the order they are created by the features in the timeline.
A folder would possibly be timeline independent, so that would be helpful.
@clinton_buttnor8VEQX wrote:
What do you mean by one dimensional? I use folders in SW all the time. I also use tons of fasteners etc. It cleans up the tree and makes it manageable.
You can put a part (or file) only in one folder. However, you can assign multiple tags to a file.
Not sure what you mean, I have the same part in root model tree, as well as in (2) different folders. What do you mean by tags?
I know how this is done in SW. However, that cannot currently be done in Fusion.
The concept of a tag in CAD is similar to the concept of a hash tag in social media and can/should work across folders. macOS has implemented that for files and in Notes.
It would make finding stuff in complex designs in the browser, or timeline much faster.
@mrm1018 wrote:
You lost me, dude.
In my day-job I have used Fusion for many years to develop concepts for manufacturing automation systems. In SW I frequently navigate designs with 10000 - 30000 parts.
Concepts usually don't need the level of detail of full production designs so I simplify e.g. remove screw, nuts, washers etc.
Still this is a component count of a current project in Fusion:
Trying to categorize and find stuff can be tedious and time consuming in such a design.
Tags would allow another level of managing complexity on top of, or parallel to folders.
@mrm1018 wrote:
If you're navigating designs with that many components, you should be using more subassemblies.
If you were working in such a larger assembly, you would quickly realize that a browser hierarchy (Fusion) or feature tree)SolidWorks) only gets you so far.
Of course, I use a hierarchical design structure with assemblies, sub-assemblies, sub-sub-assemblies, etc. I heavily use the Configurations feature set to manage "content".
Yet, still I need more functionality to manage complexity 😉
@mrm1018 wrote:
I think you're making some assumptions about the sizes of assemblies I work on with my team. When managing the number of components becomes difficult, it almost always points to an overly flat assembly structure.
Managing the number of components isn't the issue 😉
Managing complexity is the issue, and a hierarchical design is only one way to do so. Tags (and folders) provide a means to quickly extract information from a design that would otherwise require a user to tediously navigate through a tree-like data structure.
If I can come up with a good practical example, I will post it here. Unfortunately, all of my professional work that would serve as a good example is under an NDA, which makes it difficult to explain what I am looking for.
