Best practice for referencing a different component without having it in the final design

[noam_morgenstern]

Hello all,
I recently started using Fusion after quite a few years experience with Creo. 
A common design issue I am coming across is the following:
1. I need to make a new part which interfaces with an existing part. 
2. I do not want the final design file to include the interfaced part. 
3. I do want the final design to be parametrically driven by the interfaced part, such that it updates accordingly.

In Creo, the workflow was simple: using External Copy Geometry features, the relevant geometry could be inserted into the new design and used to construct the new body, but for instance mass properties didn't carry over.

In Fusion, the closest I've found to this workflow is "insert derive" or plain old "insert into current design" to copy the geometry of the referenced part (to then be used to construct the relevant geometry in the new part), but then I'm stuck with it in the file (mass, etc) - and the "remove" functionality breaks updating unless I manually roll back to before the removal each time. 
Making a new design, adding both in as components, and using "edit in place" is possible but extremely clunky and requires another step in the update process.

Suggestions welcome.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

please demonstrate your process in a screencast and explain what you want to achieve in the end

günther

[noam_morgenstern]

Component A has an interface, in this case a pin:

I want Component B to have in interface, in this case a hole:

 I want the interface in Component B to be driven by the size of the interface in Component A, without the end result involving having Component A be a sub-component present in component B or having Component B be a sub-component present in component A. 
I also do not want to put both in a unique assembly and use "edit in place" as that is quite clunky in terms of updating.

 

[TrippyLighting]

---

@noam_morgenstern wrote:

... and the "remove" functionality breaks updating unless I manually roll back to before the removal each time. 
...

---

I find this not not only frustrating, I completely don't understand the rationale behind that implementation!

[laughingcreek]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

---

@noam_morgenstern wrote:

... and the "remove" functionality breaks updating unless I manually roll back to before the removal each time. 
...

---

I find this not not only frustrating, I completely don't understand the rationale behind that implementation!

---

ditto

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

Translation: The remove function prevents user from updating/saving model, this leads to them having to back in the timeline to be able to be able to still have the model without losing it.

Just an idea...