Fusion
Community
You can try to zip the .step file and re-attach.
You can try to zip the .step file and re-attach.
Accepted solution
The culprit for the drastic performance penalty here is the move command.
In assemblies I almost never use the move command to move components or subassemblies.
- If the PCB is the first thing you are importing into another design and you want to develop the mechanics around it, then just ground the PCB right after import and develop the mechanics in top-down design fashion (design in-place) around it, or
- if you already have the main component(s) in the design. that you want to assemble the PCB to, then use a joint to assemble it into the right location.
Here's what I have recommended previously:
- After importing the PCB .step into the data panel, the first thing you should do is to rigid group all components into that new file. Right-click on the root of the browser and select "Rigid group". Make sure to keep "Include child components" enabled and select OK. Now every component is locked into place including the top level origin in the design.
This will ensure that all the PCB components and the PCB are "locked" together and the PCB assembly behaves predictably when inserted into another design. As the rigid group includes the top level origin this also allows yo to ground this PCB assembly when inserted into another design. - Sometimes 3D viewport performance can be a problem when a lot of geometry is present. Fusion 360 searches for selectable objects - vertices, edges, faces - in a cone volume protruding from the mouse cursor, so reducing the amount of selectable geometry will improve viewport performance.
You can reduce this by using the selection filters, however in the case of PCB's other then the PCB there usually are only peripheral components such as connectors, switches, heat sinks and the actual PCB might need to be selectable. None of the passives and small ICs and transistors etc. are usually of any concern for. developing he mechanical design.
So use the selection by size method and maybe some manual selection to select all those components that don't need too be selectable and then create a section set from al those components. Then use the section set and set it to unelectable or even hide these components.
There may be a set of components that right not want to select but be visible for reference, such as large caps. Crete a second selection set for those and just set them to unelectable. - One last piece of advice when working with imported geometry. Don't turn on the timeline in imported parts/assemblies unless you absolutely have to (not often the case) . This keeps file size low and in result loading times short.
Instead of selection sets you can also try to move all these component into another component and just hide that or make it un-selectable. This can come in very handy if you create a technical drawing Fusion 360's drawing environment where the PCB is visible. All these line elements that need to be drawn for all these components make viewport performance very slow, so reducing that by hiding components can really help.
The culprit for the drastic performance penalty here is the move command.
In assemblies I almost never use the move command to move components or subassemblies.
- If the PCB is the first thing you are importing into another design and you want to develop the mechanics around it, then just ground the PCB right after import and develop the mechanics in top-down design fashion (design in-place) around it, or
- if you already have the main component(s) in the design. that you want to assemble the PCB to, then use a joint to assemble it into the right location.
Here's what I have recommended previously:
- After importing the PCB .step into the data panel, the first thing you should do is to rigid group all components into that new file. Right-click on the root of the browser and select "Rigid group". Make sure to keep "Include child components" enabled and select OK. Now every component is locked into place including the top level origin in the design.
This will ensure that all the PCB components and the PCB are "locked" together and the PCB assembly behaves predictably when inserted into another design. As the rigid group includes the top level origin this also allows yo to ground this PCB assembly when inserted into another design. - Sometimes 3D viewport performance can be a problem when a lot of geometry is present. Fusion 360 searches for selectable objects - vertices, edges, faces - in a cone volume protruding from the mouse cursor, so reducing the amount of selectable geometry will improve viewport performance.
You can reduce this by using the selection filters, however in the case of PCB's other then the PCB there usually are only peripheral components such as connectors, switches, heat sinks and the actual PCB might need to be selectable. None of the passives and small ICs and transistors etc. are usually of any concern for. developing he mechanical design.
So use the selection by size method and maybe some manual selection to select all those components that don't need too be selectable and then create a section set from al those components. Then use the section set and set it to unelectable or even hide these components.
There may be a set of components that right not want to select but be visible for reference, such as large caps. Crete a second selection set for those and just set them to unelectable. - One last piece of advice when working with imported geometry. Don't turn on the timeline in imported parts/assemblies unless you absolutely have to (not often the case) . This keeps file size low and in result loading times short.
Instead of selection sets you can also try to move all these component into another component and just hide that or make it un-selectable. This can come in very handy if you create a technical drawing Fusion 360's drawing environment where the PCB is visible. All these line elements that need to be drawn for all these components make viewport performance very slow, so reducing that by hiding components can really help.
I forgot to mention that the 32MB step files never finished importing. I am assuming those included all the through holes and maybe traces ?
I forgot to mention that the 32MB step files never finished importing. I am assuming those included all the through holes and maybe traces ?
The 32MB files uploaded but he conversion took about 1.5 hours. They finally completed. The component/body count is much higher, but I really don's see a visual difference.
The 32MB files uploaded but he conversion took about 1.5 hours. They finally completed. The component/body count is much higher, but I really don's see a visual difference.
Hi Trippy,
Wanted to circle back and close this out. When I read your response, it seemed to elude to the idea that the getting the PCB in place and then building all of the other stuff around it would work better. Because the design had gotten a little bit sloppy, and I knew I'd need to tidy up a bit before making drawings for machinists, I went ahead and did that. I brought in the PCB, set it at the origin and then wrapped all of the mechanicals around it. That meant that I never had to move it but that it could maintain the level of detail I wanted.
I would like to try the joint idea as well, because not all projects lend themselves to "starting over", but as I need to get this one wrapped up, I decided it would be most efficient. I will try it as an alternative the next go 'round.
The timeline comment is interesting. I will confess I currently have mixed feelings about the timeline. It seems like it's very powerful, and I wish I could leverage it... or even fully understand it. BUT, alas, my affections are often rebuffed as I infallibly start a design with it in place, then get part way into it and find (perceive?) that the timeline is hindering my progress rather than helping it. So, I once again turn it off and consider it much like a pretty girl in school that I could never convince to dance with me. 
I did bring in the PCB, ground it, and besides deleting or copying some of the components and making them stand alone components that i could move and change without having to drag the entire PCB around, I pretty much just left it at the origin, grounded, and moved stuff around it.
Thanks again for your help. If you know of any good videos/trainings for the usefulness of the timeline and/or the "joint workflow" I would be interested in viewing them. Failing any specific encouragement, I'll probably spend some time digging around YouTube for people who know how to use it well.
Have a great week!
Hi Trippy,
Wanted to circle back and close this out. When I read your response, it seemed to elude to the idea that the getting the PCB in place and then building all of the other stuff around it would work better. Because the design had gotten a little bit sloppy, and I knew I'd need to tidy up a bit before making drawings for machinists, I went ahead and did that. I brought in the PCB, set it at the origin and then wrapped all of the mechanicals around it. That meant that I never had to move it but that it could maintain the level of detail I wanted.
I would like to try the joint idea as well, because not all projects lend themselves to "starting over", but as I need to get this one wrapped up, I decided it would be most efficient. I will try it as an alternative the next go 'round.
The timeline comment is interesting. I will confess I currently have mixed feelings about the timeline. It seems like it's very powerful, and I wish I could leverage it... or even fully understand it. BUT, alas, my affections are often rebuffed as I infallibly start a design with it in place, then get part way into it and find (perceive?) that the timeline is hindering my progress rather than helping it. So, I once again turn it off and consider it much like a pretty girl in school that I could never convince to dance with me.
I did bring in the PCB, ground it, and besides deleting or copying some of the components and making them stand alone components that i could move and change without having to drag the entire PCB around, I pretty much just left it at the origin, grounded, and moved stuff around it.
Thanks again for your help. If you know of any good videos/trainings for the usefulness of the timeline and/or the "joint workflow" I would be interested in viewing them. Failing any specific encouragement, I'll probably spend some time digging around YouTube for people who know how to use it well.
Have a great week!
Hi, @cody.,
I took a look at the exported boards you shared (thanks), and noticed some differences. I don't know Altium at all, but looking at the two larger files, I noticed that there was a huge difference between them, and the behavior and performance I get from them. One design has no components, and over 3100 surface bodies, which definitely affects graphics performance - there are individual surface bodies for the stripes on each resistor! The other uses Fusion components for each electrical component, and solid bodies only, which is a more efficient representation for the board. So, whatever settings in Altium you used to generate that version, I'd keep those. I did find a bad performance problem on the board that uses Fusion components - if I tried to create a rigid group for the whole design, it took several minutes to create that - we will do some profiling of that to try to improve it in Fusion.
Thanks for sharing the board data with us
screencast:
Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
Hi, @cody.,
I took a look at the exported boards you shared (thanks), and noticed some differences. I don't know Altium at all, but looking at the two larger files, I noticed that there was a huge difference between them, and the behavior and performance I get from them. One design has no components, and over 3100 surface bodies, which definitely affects graphics performance - there are individual surface bodies for the stripes on each resistor! The other uses Fusion components for each electrical component, and solid bodies only, which is a more efficient representation for the board. So, whatever settings in Altium you used to generate that version, I'd keep those. I did find a bad performance problem on the board that uses Fusion components - if I tried to create a rigid group for the whole design, it took several minutes to create that - we will do some profiling of that to try to improve it in Fusion.
Thanks for sharing the board data with us
screencast:
Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
