@TrippyLighting wrote:
That might be true, but in SW you'll have to create more than one mate for each component.
I've not worked with SW for the last 5 years but I've worked with it the 14 years prior to that. On very rare occasions I miss the geometry mates but mostly the system in Fusion 360 works very nicely.
Warning: Personal opinions ahead! 
While I like the idea of reducing the number of relationships between parts, I find that the joint system is less intuitive and in this case it obscures design intent. Joining the corner bracket to the first 8020 piece is a perfect example. When you think about assembling the bracket to the extrusion, you don't think to yourself "This face of the corner bracket needs to be offset from the center line of the extrusion by half of the thickness of the extrusion." You think "This face of the corner brackets needs to be in contact with this face of the extrusion." It's a simple geometric relationship that should be as simple as possible to add. And it obscures design intent because it forces you to do some math where a simple geometric relationship is what you really want.
It also breaks parametricity (probably not a real word) in that if you change the dimensions of the extrusion, the joint won't follow. Yes you can update the offset if needed, but if it were a fully geometric relationship to start with you wouldn't have to.
Joints are also weird when you want to constrain a single part to more than one other part. For example, you have a carriage the moves along a rail where it's travel is limited by a stop. It's more intuitive to have separate relationships for carriage to rail and carriage to stop than to have a single joint that defines both. You can accomplish the same effect in Fusion but it feels very awkward to me.
C|
