Break Link Between Copied and Pasted Components

[Anonymous]

I have copied and pasted a component. When I make changes to one of the components it makes the same changes automatically to the other. In a previous thread I saw something about pasting new or making independent, but I cannot find those command in the Fusion 360 version that I am using (startup licience). Any other suggestions?

[Anonymous]

I have copied and pasted a component. When I make changes to one of the components it makes the same changes automatically to the other. In a previous thread I saw something about pasting new or making independent, but I cannot find those command in the Fusion 360 version that I am using (startup licience). Any other suggestions?

[geovolvoman]

So here's the thing that you don't know about me.
I'm a Software Architect.
I work for the global market leader in our marketplace, and I am the Global Architect for a system that they use that is built on the Global Leading platform for doing such things.
My working day is spent improving UI, QoL, and Automation designs for the software that runs our entire business. If my stakeholders had to wait 5 years for a UI issue this fundamental to be fixed, we'd be out of business.
I've been using design software since the 1980's when I originally trained as an Aerospace Engineer. I'm also fully qualified to draw and machine stuff by hand the old-fashioned way.

The Platform that I work with is considered 'Eyewateringly expensive' within our industry (Tech). but even my Admin license is less than 60% of the cost of an AutoCAD license, our user licenses are less still.

The platform I work with also has an entry-level system that is much cheaper and contains all the things that entry-level users need. The license cost for that is 1/12 the cost of Fusion 360. Like any entry-level software from a market leader, the user experience is based on that of the big brother. These things are designed to get you into the eco-system, and ease the transition to the full-fat package should you be successful enough to be able to afford the higher price tag.

Fusion 360 is over-priced and under-featured as an entry-level package, when the competition can provide the full-fat package for less. Autodesk have always been like this, AutoCAD has never actually justified its price tag. People think that the Adobe CC suite is pricey, but what you get for that is the market-leading software in half a dozen different workstreams and a consistent, mostly intuitive User experience. It's also a good comparison, professional designers that rely on Adobe products are about as numerous as physical designers that rely on a CAD system.

Physical design and manufacture is just a hobby for me these days, but so is graphic design. I'm happy to pay the Adobe CC monthly cost for what I get extra to the entry-level version. The Monthly cost for Fusion 360 just gets me the same bad software with an inverted zoom scroll-wheel and no absolute co-ordinate editing, or go back and edit capabilities. I just get to save more abandoned work to the library, and get a couple of extra badly designed features.

The point of vector design software is to create an instruction set in order to render the final object to whatever medium it needs rendering to (Screen, Print, Machining etc). Most of this software does this much as a Software code compiler does, At the END of the process. this allows the user to interact in a sand-box manner and change individual pieces, components as much as they want to, IN ANY ORDER. Unfortunately, Fusion 360, and I have to assume also AutoCAD, is nothing more than a visual interface that compiles the final code line by line as you design it, with minimal ability to go back and change a bug without re-writing the whole codebase after that. That issue was solved in software design in the 1940's on punch tape computers! (that's why we call it a 'Patch')

If you don't like dealing with feedback on design, you shouldn't be in the business of designing things.

[geovolvoman]

So here's the thing that you don't know about me.
I'm a Software Architect.
I work for the global market leader in our marketplace, and I am the Global Architect for a system that they use that is built on the Global Leading platform for doing such things.
My working day is spent improving UI, QoL, and Automation designs for the software that runs our entire business. If my stakeholders had to wait 5 years for a UI issue this fundamental to be fixed, we'd be out of business.
I've been using design software since the 1980's when I originally trained as an Aerospace Engineer. I'm also fully qualified to draw and machine stuff by hand the old-fashioned way.

The Platform that I work with is considered 'Eyewateringly expensive' within our industry (Tech). but even my Admin license is less than 60% of the cost of an AutoCAD license, our user licenses are less still.

The platform I work with also has an entry-level system that is much cheaper and contains all the things that entry-level users need. The license cost for that is 1/12 the cost of Fusion 360. Like any entry-level software from a market leader, the user experience is based on that of the big brother. These things are designed to get you into the eco-system, and ease the transition to the full-fat package should you be successful enough to be able to afford the higher price tag.

Fusion 360 is over-priced and under-featured as an entry-level package, when the competition can provide the full-fat package for less. Autodesk have always been like this, AutoCAD has never actually justified its price tag. People think that the Adobe CC suite is pricey, but what you get for that is the market-leading software in half a dozen different workstreams and a consistent, mostly intuitive User experience. It's also a good comparison, professional designers that rely on Adobe products are about as numerous as physical designers that rely on a CAD system.

Physical design and manufacture is just a hobby for me these days, but so is graphic design. I'm happy to pay the Adobe CC monthly cost for what I get extra to the entry-level version. The Monthly cost for Fusion 360 just gets me the same bad software with an inverted zoom scroll-wheel and no absolute co-ordinate editing, or go back and edit capabilities. I just get to save more abandoned work to the library, and get a couple of extra badly designed features.

The point of vector design software is to create an instruction set in order to render the final object to whatever medium it needs rendering to (Screen, Print, Machining etc). Most of this software does this much as a Software code compiler does, At the END of the process. this allows the user to interact in a sand-box manner and change individual pieces, components as much as they want to, IN ANY ORDER. Unfortunately, Fusion 360, and I have to assume also AutoCAD, is nothing more than a visual interface that compiles the final code line by line as you design it, with minimal ability to go back and change a bug without re-writing the whole codebase after that. That issue was solved in software design in the 1940's on punch tape computers! (that's why we call it a 'Patch')

If you don't like dealing with feedback on design, you shouldn't be in the business of designing things.

[geovolvoman]

Maybe quit being a 'Forum post volume snob'
What does it matter if this is my first or two thousand'th post?
I can see from the age of the issues in any forum regarding Fusion 360, that the Developer is not responsive to feedback, and does not consider the concept of reducing the learning cliff for new adopters to be a 'thing'.
Most people reach out to forums when they hit a roadblock in that learning cliff.

Finding a response of effectively 'Yeah, you need to delete everything you've done and start again, because that's how we designed it', coming from the software vendor 5 years ago, and the issue is still unchanged, has a tendency to annoy people who design software for a living, and just wasted 2 days of their hard-won personal time because their peers don't care about their future user base. It shows a superiority complex in the solution vendor that is not endearing to potential customers in the Tech Industry.

If fixing this kind of experience affecting design flaw took my Devs more than 5 weeks from receiving the feedback, I'd be sorely disappointed. Quite apart from the shame I'd feel for allowing such a thing to be incorporated into the solution architecture in the first place.

And as we're throwing timescales around, I've been an engineer for 40 years, and learned to code in Hexadecimal in 16 KB of RAM. I was there to pick apart the tech plot holes in Wargames when it was released at the Cinema, And saw Star Wars before anyone knew it was 'Episode IV'. Things that I've designed and re-iterated on, based on user feedback are still out there in use after over 35 years.

[geovolvoman]

Maybe quit being a 'Forum post volume snob'
What does it matter if this is my first or two thousand'th post?
I can see from the age of the issues in any forum regarding Fusion 360, that the Developer is not responsive to feedback, and does not consider the concept of reducing the learning cliff for new adopters to be a 'thing'.
Most people reach out to forums when they hit a roadblock in that learning cliff.

Finding a response of effectively 'Yeah, you need to delete everything you've done and start again, because that's how we designed it', coming from the software vendor 5 years ago, and the issue is still unchanged, has a tendency to annoy people who design software for a living, and just wasted 2 days of their hard-won personal time because their peers don't care about their future user base. It shows a superiority complex in the solution vendor that is not endearing to potential customers in the Tech Industry.

If fixing this kind of experience affecting design flaw took my Devs more than 5 weeks from receiving the feedback, I'd be sorely disappointed. Quite apart from the shame I'd feel for allowing such a thing to be incorporated into the solution architecture in the first place.

And as we're throwing timescales around, I've been an engineer for 40 years, and learned to code in Hexadecimal in 16 KB of RAM. I was there to pick apart the tech plot holes in Wargames when it was released at the Cinema, And saw Star Wars before anyone knew it was 'Episode IV'. Things that I've designed and re-iterated on, based on user feedback are still out there in use after over 35 years.

[TrippyLighting]

I am sure you are eyewateringly competent in your line of work!

Unfortunately and very clearly you are not so well acquainted with license cost for main stream CAD software.

Please, go and do some research on prices. I have and constantly do!

It matters not how inexpensive a license is in your line of work. I wish that would be the case with CAD and other Engineering software, but that simply isn't the reality.

At $495 for an annual subscription and for the features include Fusion 360 for many users is an absolute killer deal!

many companies and users don't  need and ever use the full feature set SolidWorks or Autodesk Inventor offer.

AutoCAD is not a competitive product to Fuiosn360 or any of the software packages I have named earlier.

While doing that research, please also try to figure out what an Autodesk Expert Elite is. I have included a link for your convenience. 

Another bit or research you can do is the following. Autodesk is a publicly traded company and has top provide annual reports and also does quarterly reports. Again, there's a link for your convenience. Pick one, say the 2023 Q3 presentation and turn to page 5.

I quote:

"Fusion 360 total subscriptions increased
to 211k and demand for extensions
continues to grow at an exceptional
pace "

Then do that same thing going back a few years. Clearly, Autodesk is listening to some customers and doing something correctly, because otherwise Fusion 360 would not be nearly as successful as it currently is.

If you need any other help with basic research or Fusion 360, let me know.  

[TrippyLighting]

I am sure you are eyewateringly competent in your line of work!

Unfortunately and very clearly you are not so well acquainted with license cost for main stream CAD software.

Please, go and do some research on prices. I have and constantly do!

It matters not how inexpensive a license is in your line of work. I wish that would be the case with CAD and other Engineering software, but that simply isn't the reality.

At $495 for an annual subscription and for the features include Fusion 360 for many users is an absolute killer deal!

many companies and users don't  need and ever use the full feature set SolidWorks or Autodesk Inventor offer.

AutoCAD is not a competitive product to Fuiosn360 or any of the software packages I have named earlier.

While doing that research, please also try to figure out what an Autodesk Expert Elite is. I have included a link for your convenience. 

Another bit or research you can do is the following. Autodesk is a publicly traded company and has top provide annual reports and also does quarterly reports. Again, there's a link for your convenience. Pick one, say the 2023 Q3 presentation and turn to page 5.

I quote:

"Fusion 360 total subscriptions increased
to 211k and demand for extensions
continues to grow at an exceptional
pace "

Then do that same thing going back a few years. Clearly, Autodesk is listening to some customers and doing something correctly, because otherwise Fusion 360 would not be nearly as successful as it currently is.

If you need any other help with basic research or Fusion 360, let me know.  

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@geovolvoman wrote:

.... when the time comes to Purchase 3D CAD software, Adobe will be receiving my money for a full fat enterprise level suite for less than the price of entry level in this pile.

And seriously, give people some options, or learn which way scroll wheels work.

---

Adobe is not a parametric history-based MCAD product.

@geovolvoman 

You should have started a new thread (and link to this thread as reference if relevant (but it isn't relevant)).

The mouse zoom direction works the same in all of the MCAD softwares that I use.

 But of course you can change it to suite your desired behavior.

@geovolvoman 

I recommend that you start a new thread.

Let's tackle one issue at at time.

And why are we using MCAD rather than mere words?

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words.

An actual CAD file might be said to be worth a thousand pictures (see how the logic works?).

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@geovolvoman wrote:

.... when the time comes to Purchase 3D CAD software, Adobe will be receiving my money for a full fat enterprise level suite for less than the price of entry level in this pile.

And seriously, give people some options, or learn which way scroll wheels work.

---

Adobe is not a parametric history-based MCAD product.

@geovolvoman 

You should have started a new thread (and link to this thread as reference if relevant (but it isn't relevant)).

The mouse zoom direction works the same in all of the MCAD softwares that I use.

 But of course you can change it to suite your desired behavior.

@geovolvoman 

I recommend that you start a new thread.

Let's tackle one issue at at time.

And why are we using MCAD rather than mere words?

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words.

An actual CAD file might be said to be worth a thousand pictures (see how the logic works?).

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

[geovolvoman]

Maybe you didn't get what my 'Line of work' is, it's not your line of work, but it is Autodesk's line of work. I work for a Tech Company, In the Tech Industry, providing Tech products for other Tech companies.

As you want to throw around Market Cap research, the Platform I work with has been around less than 20 years, and the Vendor has a Market Cap of $95B. That platform is arguably far more 'Niche' than Autodesk's products are, because the year 1 implementation cost would put most SMB and Mid-Market businesses into administration. But they have a completely usable and well-featured product for Start-up, SMB & Mid Market users that can be easily transitioned to the full-fat product as they grow. There is even a Free for all without feature limitations Non-Commercial use availability of the full platform product, with a level of documentation and an active developer community. I even have an account rep that I can call, who will connect me with 'God Mode' developers who can change core code just for us, which co-incidentally turns up in the core code base as a new feature in the next major release.

Here's another example, a year ago, they released a partial dark mode for the front end UI. I jumped on the Community Forums, and said 'Great, but what we needed is a back end dark mode because it's us poor devs that get the most eyestrain form the white screen UI' Two likes from other community members in 24 hours. First response from the community engagement staff at the company. - 'Hey, thanks for the feedback, I've spoken to the UI team, and they'll look to build that in the next release' - Guess what? Yup, delivered 6 months later in the next major update. I don't even post in the community forums with an account linked to my employers, that was just everyday user feedback to them.

Yet Autodesk has been around since 1981, and only has a Market Cap of $49B, with Net & Operating Incomes falling by around half a billion in 2022.

[geovolvoman]

Maybe you didn't get what my 'Line of work' is, it's not your line of work, but it is Autodesk's line of work. I work for a Tech Company, In the Tech Industry, providing Tech products for other Tech companies.

As you want to throw around Market Cap research, the Platform I work with has been around less than 20 years, and the Vendor has a Market Cap of $95B. That platform is arguably far more 'Niche' than Autodesk's products are, because the year 1 implementation cost would put most SMB and Mid-Market businesses into administration. But they have a completely usable and well-featured product for Start-up, SMB & Mid Market users that can be easily transitioned to the full-fat product as they grow. There is even a Free for all without feature limitations Non-Commercial use availability of the full platform product, with a level of documentation and an active developer community. I even have an account rep that I can call, who will connect me with 'God Mode' developers who can change core code just for us, which co-incidentally turns up in the core code base as a new feature in the next major release.

Here's another example, a year ago, they released a partial dark mode for the front end UI. I jumped on the Community Forums, and said 'Great, but what we needed is a back end dark mode because it's us poor devs that get the most eyestrain form the white screen UI' Two likes from other community members in 24 hours. First response from the community engagement staff at the company. - 'Hey, thanks for the feedback, I've spoken to the UI team, and they'll look to build that in the next release' - Guess what? Yup, delivered 6 months later in the next major update. I don't even post in the community forums with an account linked to my employers, that was just everyday user feedback to them.

Yet Autodesk has been around since 1981, and only has a Market Cap of $49B, with Net & Operating Incomes falling by around half a billion in 2022.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@geovolvoman wrote:

Maybe you didn't get what my 'Line of work' is, it's not your line of work, but it is Autodesk's line of work. I work for a Tech Company, In the Tech Industry, providing Tech products for other Tech companies.

---

I perfectly got what you do, but that isn't relevant.

I also did not "throw around" market cap but asked you to do basic research.

In my experience when folks start getting personal they've run out of valid arguments to make their case. As such I'll rest mine!

There are many features I want to see in Fusion 360, and the feature discussed here is one of them.

I engage fairly frequently with the developers in video conferences. They appear to be  very intelligent, motivated and capable people. I've also experienced the they are very interested and open to feedback.

One of the reasons might just be that I use a different attitude then you and others exhibit in this thread!

In all your years of in your line of work apprantly that has gotten lost on you! 

[TrippyLighting]

---

@geovolvoman wrote:

Maybe you didn't get what my 'Line of work' is, it's not your line of work, but it is Autodesk's line of work. I work for a Tech Company, In the Tech Industry, providing Tech products for other Tech companies.

---

I perfectly got what you do, but that isn't relevant.

I also did not "throw around" market cap but asked you to do basic research.

In my experience when folks start getting personal they've run out of valid arguments to make their case. As such I'll rest mine!

There are many features I want to see in Fusion 360, and the feature discussed here is one of them.

I engage fairly frequently with the developers in video conferences. They appear to be  very intelligent, motivated and capable people. I've also experienced the they are very interested and open to feedback.

One of the reasons might just be that I use a different attitude then you and others exhibit in this thread!

In all your years of in your line of work apprantly that has gotten lost on you! 

[scottH36AU]

Just found this thread whilst trying to work out why I can't apply different colours to two light-pipes in a design where one pipe was copied from the other (they are connected to different coloured LEDs on a PCB in the design and so show different colours). It's not possible to do this as they will both adopt the same colour. There is no way to break the link, or create a copy that is not linked. So the only option is to create a new component and make it again from scratch. This seems... silly...

[scottH36AU]

Just found this thread whilst trying to work out why I can't apply different colours to two light-pipes in a design where one pipe was copied from the other (they are connected to different coloured LEDs on a PCB in the design and so show different colours). It's not possible to do this as they will both adopt the same colour. There is no way to break the link, or create a copy that is not linked. So the only option is to create a new component and make it again from scratch. This seems... silly...

[TrippyLighting]

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

...This seems... silly...

---

That really depends on the use case. Would you really want to break the link, just to be able to apply a different material? The result would be that if you want to change the geometry, now you have to make that change in two components.

You could create a new, empty component and make sure it's activated (by default a new component is activated).

Then you use the boundary fill tool to "copy" the geometry from the original component into the new component. 

Now you can give that new component a new material.

However, if you change the geometry of the original component, the geometry of the new copy will also update.

That might address your particular case.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

...This seems... silly...

---

That really depends on the use case. Would you really want to break the link, just to be able to apply a different material? The result would be that if you want to change the geometry, now you have to make that change in two components.

You could create a new, empty component and make sure it's activated (by default a new component is activated).

Then you use the boundary fill tool to "copy" the geometry from the original component into the new component. 

Now you can give that new component a new material.

However, if you change the geometry of the original component, the geometry of the new copy will also update.

That might address your particular case.

[scottH36AU]

"That really depends on the use case. Would you really want to break the link, just to be able to apply a different material?" Well, if that's the only method currently then yes. However, it would obviously be far more logical to have a way of applying an appearance to copies separate from the original. Appearances do not change the geometry in any way, so this could be an attribute (much in the same way the copy has attributes for its position and orientation that are different from the original).  I'd propose a UI option - a simple checkbox to apply an appearance to all copies, or just apply to the current selection (the checkbox would only appear if the selected component is a copy or has copies).

[scottH36AU]

"That really depends on the use case. Would you really want to break the link, just to be able to apply a different material?" Well, if that's the only method currently then yes. However, it would obviously be far more logical to have a way of applying an appearance to copies separate from the original. Appearances do not change the geometry in any way, so this could be an attribute (much in the same way the copy has attributes for its position and orientation that are different from the original).  I'd propose a UI option - a simple checkbox to apply an appearance to all copies, or just apply to the current selection (the checkbox would only appear if the selected component is a copy or has copies).

[etfrench]

Apply the appearance to a face only.  You can also use split face command as well as offset face with 0 distance to make it easier to apply the appearance in a specific area.

[etfrench]

Apply the appearance to a face only.  You can also use split face command as well as offset face with 0 distance to make it easier to apply the appearance in a specific area.

[scottH36AU]

This does not help - applying an appearance to a face on either the original or copy will apply the same appearance to the same face on both components.

[scottH36AU]

This does not help - applying an appearance to a face on either the original or copy will apply the same appearance to the same face on both components.

[etfrench]

The offset face needs to be in another component which is jointed to the original.

[etfrench]

The offset face needs to be in another component which is jointed to the original.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

.., it would obviously be far more logical to have a way of applying an appearance to copies separate from the original. Appearances do not change the geometry in any way, ...

---

They don't change the geometry, but if a part has a different color and as such a different part number to be ordered, then it would make sense to have a separate component. Logic is not limited to your simpler used case just because you don't need it 😉

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

I'd propose a UI option - a simple checkbox to apply an appearance to all copies, or just apply to the current selection (the checkbox would only appear if the selected component is a copy or has copies).

---

Sure! The UI would be the easier part. Adding the ability to the underlying data model is more involved. Of course that can be done. Other software, e.g. Blender allow that granularity.

However, if you want to wait with your current project until that is implemented, you'll likely have to put it on ice for a rather long time 😉

[TrippyLighting]

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

.., it would obviously be far more logical to have a way of applying an appearance to copies separate from the original. Appearances do not change the geometry in any way, ...

---

They don't change the geometry, but if a part has a different color and as such a different part number to be ordered, then it would make sense to have a separate component. Logic is not limited to your simpler used case just because you don't need it 😉

---

@scottH36AU wrote:

I'd propose a UI option - a simple checkbox to apply an appearance to all copies, or just apply to the current selection (the checkbox would only appear if the selected component is a copy or has copies).

---

Sure! The UI would be the easier part. Adding the ability to the underlying data model is more involved. Of course that can be done. Other software, e.g. Blender allow that granularity.

However, if you want to wait with your current project until that is implemented, you'll likely have to put it on ice for a rather long time 😉

[scottH36AU]

There are lots of cases where you might want to colour the same part differently on a design. Off the top of my head, I might want one white LED illuminated, and another not - or even partially illuminated. Or I might want a grid of RGB LEDs lit in different colours for a render. Or maybe I want some windows tinted and some not in a design, 2 doors different colours etc. You may have simpler requirements, but the flexibility is good. 🙂

Yes, I'm assuming Fusion is simply instancing the same component with the copies having attributes for position and orientation, but sharing the geometry and other attributes with the original, so it would be a matter of changing this model to make the appearance another separate attribute. I'll make a feature request, but as you say, it's unlikely to be actioned any time soon.

In my case, I just made the light pipes all clear for the render and added text to describe their use and colouring when active. 🙂

[scottH36AU]

There are lots of cases where you might want to colour the same part differently on a design. Off the top of my head, I might want one white LED illuminated, and another not - or even partially illuminated. Or I might want a grid of RGB LEDs lit in different colours for a render. Or maybe I want some windows tinted and some not in a design, 2 doors different colours etc. You may have simpler requirements, but the flexibility is good. 🙂

Yes, I'm assuming Fusion is simply instancing the same component with the copies having attributes for position and orientation, but sharing the geometry and other attributes with the original, so it would be a matter of changing this model to make the appearance another separate attribute. I'll make a feature request, but as you say, it's unlikely to be actioned any time soon.

In my case, I just made the light pipes all clear for the render and added text to describe their use and colouring when active. 🙂

[scottH36AU]

I see what you mean now - that's a nice idea. In fact, adding a copy of this new component to both ends of the light pipe would mean they'd also share the same colour, which in this case would work out well. 😁

[scottH36AU]

I see what you mean now - that's a nice idea. In fact, adding a copy of this new component to both ends of the light pipe would mean they'd also share the same colour, which in this case would work out well. 😁

[yypres]

If anyone still has this problem in 2023,

here is a youtube link that shows a nice workaround:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6SX-n5wtUs

EDIT: This  behavior happens only if you use the move and copy function on a COMPONENT. If you choose move-> but on top choose "bodies" and then click the actual body, it selects that and not the component. Copy the body and the newly created object is a body that is independent of its original.

[yypres]

If anyone still has this problem in 2023,

here is a youtube link that shows a nice workaround:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6SX-n5wtUs

EDIT: This  behavior happens only if you use the move and copy function on a COMPONENT. If you choose move-> but on top choose "bodies" and then click the actual body, it selects that and not the component. Copy the body and the newly created object is a body that is independent of its original.

[Cobthecobbler2]

it's 2023. is there really no way to break this link? autodesk, what are you doing? all I want to do is put different designs on a modular part and keep the original blank inside the workspace. if you want me to do this paste new crap that doesn't even exist anymore, then don't have all of your tutorials say to use the move/copy tool to make duplicates. 

[Cobthecobbler2]

it's 2023. is there really no way to break this link? autodesk, what are you doing? all I want to do is put different designs on a modular part and keep the original blank inside the workspace. if you want me to do this paste new crap that doesn't even exist anymore, then don't have all of your tutorials say to use the move/copy tool to make duplicates. 

[patrik-web]

I just ran into this issue as well. I was making a mirror of a component, and then editing the original. This worked fine, the mirrored version was not affected. Then I realized that I actually didn't want a mirror but a 180-degree rotated version. I changed the mirror to a circular pattern, and was extremely confused when this changed the behavior such that the copy was now affected by the subsequent edits on the original.

Whatever the merits of copies of components being linked or not, it seems extremely confusing that the behavior isn't even internally consistent. Why is the mirror operation working differently than the patterns and pastes?

Personally, it seems weird to me that the copy should be linked. If you want operations to affect both the copy and the original, you can just put them before the copy is made in the timeline.

[patrik-web]

I just ran into this issue as well. I was making a mirror of a component, and then editing the original. This worked fine, the mirrored version was not affected. Then I realized that I actually didn't want a mirror but a 180-degree rotated version. I changed the mirror to a circular pattern, and was extremely confused when this changed the behavior such that the copy was now affected by the subsequent edits on the original.

Whatever the merits of copies of components being linked or not, it seems extremely confusing that the behavior isn't even internally consistent. Why is the mirror operation working differently than the patterns and pastes?

Personally, it seems weird to me that the copy should be linked. If you want operations to affect both the copy and the original, you can just put them before the copy is made in the timeline.

[etfrench]

A mirrored object is not the same as the original, while a patterned object is identical.  You can Copy/Paste New a patterned object, then Remove the original patterned object in order to create an independent object.

[etfrench]

A mirrored object is not the same as the original, while a patterned object is identical.  You can Copy/Paste New a patterned object, then Remove the original patterned object in order to create an independent object.

[geovolvoman]

You're missing the point, particularly with a parametric design.
I have one design where there are two patterns driven from a tube like single source object that varies in quantity and pitch according to parameters. Because the walls between two tubes overlap intentionally, I need to extrude the floor of the object up to cut the overlapped adjacent tube wall to obtain a smooth internal radius. Unfortunately because of this lack of ability to split a patterned object, if I do this, the outer objects show a cut in their outer walls where it is not wanted. To work around this, I have had to raise the floor of the tube so that I can later extrude that back up to finish the outer walls once the whole thing has been merged to a single object, and then push the inner floor back down to where it belongs. Only then can I introduce all the chamfers that I need, which means selecting every edge on every object instead of being able to do it in the first object.

To say this is a jankey way to achieve this is an understatement. All that is being asked for is the equivalent of the Break link feature that is available for external objects.

[geovolvoman]

You're missing the point, particularly with a parametric design.
I have one design where there are two patterns driven from a tube like single source object that varies in quantity and pitch according to parameters. Because the walls between two tubes overlap intentionally, I need to extrude the floor of the object up to cut the overlapped adjacent tube wall to obtain a smooth internal radius. Unfortunately because of this lack of ability to split a patterned object, if I do this, the outer objects show a cut in their outer walls where it is not wanted. To work around this, I have had to raise the floor of the tube so that I can later extrude that back up to finish the outer walls once the whole thing has been merged to a single object, and then push the inner floor back down to where it belongs. Only then can I introduce all the chamfers that I need, which means selecting every edge on every object instead of being able to do it in the first object.

To say this is a jankey way to achieve this is an understatement. All that is being asked for is the equivalent of the Break link feature that is available for external objects.